a whole pig or half a man
Philosophy is complex and often
challenging; at times
incomprehensible. Since I am just
but vaguely familiar with the
teachings of acclaimed
philosophers of ages past and present, I try, albeit in a
mediocre and rudimentary
manner, to partake of the
wisdom of the so-called great
thinkers. Philosophers agree that
hot times call for hot measures and so, in subtle obedience to
them, summer dresses are short
and light and summer shorts are
shorter and tight. A few days
ago, a friend of mine, or
perhaps me, is walking from class in the heat of the day,
drenched in sweat and hungry.
So this pretty young lady in a
short see-through dress passes
by and my friend, or me, out of
respect, looks at the pretty dame, and caught in the heat of
the moment, my friend, or
perhaps me, goes: “Is that dress see-through by nature or
it’ s the fact that I can see through it that makes it see-
through?” And my friend’ s, or my, aptitude for philosophy ends
at such low levels. Let us save
such perversion for another day.
Was my friend’ s idea right or wrong? Hapless and hopeless, we
could never find an inherently
right answer. In a society where being
politically correct is way more
important than being right or
moral, the thin line between
right and wrong has effectively
disappeared. Strict religious standards of morality have been
lowered to suit a society that is
in fact, cultivating more
problems for itself. The old age
philosophical question then crops
up, is something considered right because it is moral or moral
because it is right? Institutions
such as the courts, the church
and the school system have
been compromised to an extent
where the so called moral compasses of society have all
lost their needles. Worse, they
do not know where the North is
anymore. It is because of such
ambiguity in the voices of
reason in society that we are facing an imminent collapse. Politics, history and hypocrisy
have affected what was defined
as morality in the grandest way
possible. Every day fresh
controversy crops up in society.
The funny thing is that actions and behavior that were out-
lawed yesterday are the in-
thing in today’ s society. Acts and intentions that have been
long questioned and frowned
upon are so common today, it
affects no one. What do you
need to make people accept
your opposing views? The logical answer would be reason, right?
Wrong, the modern answer is
patience, and a loud voice. That
is the view that society has
taken, and since that is the
politically correct view, do not dare question. In its formative
stages, society could not speak
for homosexuality, now, it
cannot speak against it. Abortion
was not as controversial as it is
now. Euthanasia and infanticide, contraception and war, name it,
innumerable moral issues affect
the society and to its own
detriment. On the one hand, innately,
humans have a capacity for
right and wrong, but on the
other hand, they have the
instinctive bent for freedom of
choice, and will go to all heights achieve it. The pro-
homosexuality activists of the
late 20th century had to suffer
great and stinking depths for
their noble cause, and now, the
balls are in their courts and they are kind of enjoying the
fruit of their labor albeit in a
backward manner. Apart from
disrupting the antiquated
concept of family and
procreation, homosexuals do not in any way present a danger to
society. What irony? Strictly speaking, homosexuality
is in no way scary, until you
think of what happens in the
bed. But what is wrong with two
consenting adults, male or
female, practicing what they believe in? Isn’ t that a violation of privacy in its nature? This
whole privacy thing reminds me
of the American society which
agreed to bestow the right of
releasing grades and school
progress reports to the student, and now, the same
parents are up in arms since
they do not have access to
their kids’ progress reports. Talk of digging your own grave,
shooting yourself in the foot
and burying yourself alive, in
front of your kids! In this way,
homosexuality which was taboo
is now another necessary evil in society and of course, the whole
human rights, equality and
fairness shebang follow such
ideology. One book argues categorically:
“Christians cannot consistently support making a civil right of
that which the Scriptures teach
to be morally wrong. On Biblical
grounds, it would make as little
sense as to argue that society
should endorse basic “civil rights” to commit adultery, to operate houses of prostitution,
or to commit child abuse. A
moral wrong can never become
the basis of a civil right. True
civil rights, e.g., freedom of
speech and assembly, are based on the fundamental dignity of
the human person as created in
the image of God. Homosexuality,
however, does not represent
such a fundamental human good,
but rather a sinful disordering of human nature as originally
intended by God. ” “The moral wisdom of God’ s general revelation has been
confirmed in history by the
studies of Anthropologists. Based
on his extensive studies of both
ancient and modern civilizations,
the British anthropologist JD Unwin concluded that the whole
of human history does not
provide a single example of a
society that achieved and
consistently maintained a high
level of culture without adopting heterosexual monogamy as the
standard for marriage and family
life. Societies that adopted more
permissive sexual practices
entered into periods of decline
in art, science, religion, and military power. Don’ t ask and don’ t tell. The “track record of history” has revealed not only to believers, in Scripture, but to
all peoples, through general
revelation.” With such research against the current trends in
society, it is no doubt that we
are facing an imminent collapse. Why is it that, as a culture, we
are more comfortable seeing
two men holding guns than
holding hands? Is it wrong to
reject homosexuality? Absolutely
(not)! Whatever two adults do in their time and space is none of
our business. In a society as
dynamic as its people, it would
be indeed backward to ignore
the change and diversity.
However, whether we admit it or not, the change we believe in
is in fact going to twist the
fabric of family-as we knew it;
and when being gay becomes
widely accepted as home as it is
in some countries, then the twisted straight will come out of
the closet and we will be in one
hot mess. Perhaps you think it is
a disease, a mistake or a choice,
but next time you judge a gay
person and ask them the inevitable question, “When did you realize you were gay?”, I wish they summon the courage
and ask you their twisted
version of the same question,
“When did you realize you were straight?” Anyway, a developing society cannot escape the calls
for equality, mutual respect and
even divergence in opinion and
beliefs and tolerance. Tolerance-
whatever floats your boat
without sinking mine. Then comes abortion, when does
life begin? Who owns the life
within and is it murder if the
foetus is killed before it starts
breathing? Logic, morals and of
course modernity have altered what was once a fairly clear-cut
way out of abortion issues. With
the church having lost its once-
tight grip on society, so called
ethicists and lawyers and
doctors have been pushed into the abortion debate, further
complicating the situation. What
if a woman has been raped?
What if the mother develops
complications during pregnancy? Let’ s rationalize a little bit. Rape definitely, is emotionally
and physically traumatizing,
especially for the woman. But
studies show that rape related
cases are a rarity, between
zero and two percent of victims fall pregnant. Yet, such have
been the pro-choicers argument
for abortion. What if the
mother’ s life is at risk? The Bible, the most widely used, and
misused, yardstick for morals
says that life begins at
conception, so is the very
thought of removing a life, even
if one never actually sees hands and legs inherently wrong? If my
see-through friend upstairs, or
me, were married, would he
choose between the wife he
knows or take a chance and
risk the lives of both? “If we compare a severely defective human infant with a
non-human animal, a dog or a
pig, for example, we will often
find the non-human to have
superior capacities, both actual
and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication
and anything else that can
plausibly be considered morally
significant….Humans who bestow superior value on the lives of all
human beings, solely because
they are members of our own
species, are judging along the
lines strikingly similar to those
used by white racists who bestow superior value on the
lives of other whites, merely
because they are members of
their own race.” So argues one Peter Singer, a Monash
philosopher. What about that? Is
the life of a whole pig better
than that of a “half-human?” I do not know the answers to
such. If not for what humanity
has transformed into, answers
would have been easy, but not
when ethicists have developed a
branch of thinking and logic called “situation ethics”. Is it wrong to maim a man who has
violated the law of man and God
and broken into your house? Or
is the right thing to do, wait for
Utumishi Kwa Wote to sort your
problems? When do we give unto Caesar and when do we give
unto God? Usually, Caesar is first
at the door, but unto whom do
we give first? In conclusion, I think we all agree
that as a society we are,
unfortunately, wallowing in a
cesspool. I am reminded of a
story where the pilot came on
and said, “this is your captain speaking. We are flying at an
altitude of 35 000 feet and the
speed of 700 miles an hour. We
have some good news and some
bad news. The bad news is that
we are lost. The good news is that we are making excellent
time. ” That is the situation we often find ourselves in as a
society. Even with advancements
in tech and convenience, the
moral standards, ideologies and
codes that made our societies
successful are waning away. And with the ebb and flow of
convenient standards of
morality, we are all in the same
boat to nowhere. Back home, August is almost
here. So, instead of going
oranges and bananas again, a
few of us are now seeing red,
while others are hoping that the
grass is actually greener on the other side, and perhaps it is.
With so much media coverage on
all of the President’ s men, the no people are perhaps facing an
imminent loss and their red
letter day is coming. Led by the
ex-Bishop, ex-MP, ex-Kamangu
lady and the Corn-man, there is
no hope for such a team and it is indeed quite futile fighting the
system cogged, wheeled and
fueled by both the oil-men and
those who hate oil-men. So,
after a lifetime of impunity, loss
of lives and limbs…why not just take the chance and accept
change? Any change? After all, a
change is as good as a rest,
and the more things change the
more they stay the same. Eat
your orange, banana or melon and have a nice day! (Additional quotes from John
Jefferson Davies' book:
Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing
the Church Today, and the
Internet) There is a thin line between
truth and fiction. This is that
line.
challenging; at times
incomprehensible. Since I am just
but vaguely familiar with the
teachings of acclaimed
philosophers of ages past and present, I try, albeit in a
mediocre and rudimentary
manner, to partake of the
wisdom of the so-called great
thinkers. Philosophers agree that
hot times call for hot measures and so, in subtle obedience to
them, summer dresses are short
and light and summer shorts are
shorter and tight. A few days
ago, a friend of mine, or
perhaps me, is walking from class in the heat of the day,
drenched in sweat and hungry.
So this pretty young lady in a
short see-through dress passes
by and my friend, or me, out of
respect, looks at the pretty dame, and caught in the heat of
the moment, my friend, or
perhaps me, goes: “Is that dress see-through by nature or
it’ s the fact that I can see through it that makes it see-
through?” And my friend’ s, or my, aptitude for philosophy ends
at such low levels. Let us save
such perversion for another day.
Was my friend’ s idea right or wrong? Hapless and hopeless, we
could never find an inherently
right answer. In a society where being
politically correct is way more
important than being right or
moral, the thin line between
right and wrong has effectively
disappeared. Strict religious standards of morality have been
lowered to suit a society that is
in fact, cultivating more
problems for itself. The old age
philosophical question then crops
up, is something considered right because it is moral or moral
because it is right? Institutions
such as the courts, the church
and the school system have
been compromised to an extent
where the so called moral compasses of society have all
lost their needles. Worse, they
do not know where the North is
anymore. It is because of such
ambiguity in the voices of
reason in society that we are facing an imminent collapse. Politics, history and hypocrisy
have affected what was defined
as morality in the grandest way
possible. Every day fresh
controversy crops up in society.
The funny thing is that actions and behavior that were out-
lawed yesterday are the in-
thing in today’ s society. Acts and intentions that have been
long questioned and frowned
upon are so common today, it
affects no one. What do you
need to make people accept
your opposing views? The logical answer would be reason, right?
Wrong, the modern answer is
patience, and a loud voice. That
is the view that society has
taken, and since that is the
politically correct view, do not dare question. In its formative
stages, society could not speak
for homosexuality, now, it
cannot speak against it. Abortion
was not as controversial as it is
now. Euthanasia and infanticide, contraception and war, name it,
innumerable moral issues affect
the society and to its own
detriment. On the one hand, innately,
humans have a capacity for
right and wrong, but on the
other hand, they have the
instinctive bent for freedom of
choice, and will go to all heights achieve it. The pro-
homosexuality activists of the
late 20th century had to suffer
great and stinking depths for
their noble cause, and now, the
balls are in their courts and they are kind of enjoying the
fruit of their labor albeit in a
backward manner. Apart from
disrupting the antiquated
concept of family and
procreation, homosexuals do not in any way present a danger to
society. What irony? Strictly speaking, homosexuality
is in no way scary, until you
think of what happens in the
bed. But what is wrong with two
consenting adults, male or
female, practicing what they believe in? Isn’ t that a violation of privacy in its nature? This
whole privacy thing reminds me
of the American society which
agreed to bestow the right of
releasing grades and school
progress reports to the student, and now, the same
parents are up in arms since
they do not have access to
their kids’ progress reports. Talk of digging your own grave,
shooting yourself in the foot
and burying yourself alive, in
front of your kids! In this way,
homosexuality which was taboo
is now another necessary evil in society and of course, the whole
human rights, equality and
fairness shebang follow such
ideology. One book argues categorically:
“Christians cannot consistently support making a civil right of
that which the Scriptures teach
to be morally wrong. On Biblical
grounds, it would make as little
sense as to argue that society
should endorse basic “civil rights” to commit adultery, to operate houses of prostitution,
or to commit child abuse. A
moral wrong can never become
the basis of a civil right. True
civil rights, e.g., freedom of
speech and assembly, are based on the fundamental dignity of
the human person as created in
the image of God. Homosexuality,
however, does not represent
such a fundamental human good,
but rather a sinful disordering of human nature as originally
intended by God. ” “The moral wisdom of God’ s general revelation has been
confirmed in history by the
studies of Anthropologists. Based
on his extensive studies of both
ancient and modern civilizations,
the British anthropologist JD Unwin concluded that the whole
of human history does not
provide a single example of a
society that achieved and
consistently maintained a high
level of culture without adopting heterosexual monogamy as the
standard for marriage and family
life. Societies that adopted more
permissive sexual practices
entered into periods of decline
in art, science, religion, and military power. Don’ t ask and don’ t tell. The “track record of history” has revealed not only to believers, in Scripture, but to
all peoples, through general
revelation.” With such research against the current trends in
society, it is no doubt that we
are facing an imminent collapse. Why is it that, as a culture, we
are more comfortable seeing
two men holding guns than
holding hands? Is it wrong to
reject homosexuality? Absolutely
(not)! Whatever two adults do in their time and space is none of
our business. In a society as
dynamic as its people, it would
be indeed backward to ignore
the change and diversity.
However, whether we admit it or not, the change we believe in
is in fact going to twist the
fabric of family-as we knew it;
and when being gay becomes
widely accepted as home as it is
in some countries, then the twisted straight will come out of
the closet and we will be in one
hot mess. Perhaps you think it is
a disease, a mistake or a choice,
but next time you judge a gay
person and ask them the inevitable question, “When did you realize you were gay?”, I wish they summon the courage
and ask you their twisted
version of the same question,
“When did you realize you were straight?” Anyway, a developing society cannot escape the calls
for equality, mutual respect and
even divergence in opinion and
beliefs and tolerance. Tolerance-
whatever floats your boat
without sinking mine. Then comes abortion, when does
life begin? Who owns the life
within and is it murder if the
foetus is killed before it starts
breathing? Logic, morals and of
course modernity have altered what was once a fairly clear-cut
way out of abortion issues. With
the church having lost its once-
tight grip on society, so called
ethicists and lawyers and
doctors have been pushed into the abortion debate, further
complicating the situation. What
if a woman has been raped?
What if the mother develops
complications during pregnancy? Let’ s rationalize a little bit. Rape definitely, is emotionally
and physically traumatizing,
especially for the woman. But
studies show that rape related
cases are a rarity, between
zero and two percent of victims fall pregnant. Yet, such have
been the pro-choicers argument
for abortion. What if the
mother’ s life is at risk? The Bible, the most widely used, and
misused, yardstick for morals
says that life begins at
conception, so is the very
thought of removing a life, even
if one never actually sees hands and legs inherently wrong? If my
see-through friend upstairs, or
me, were married, would he
choose between the wife he
knows or take a chance and
risk the lives of both? “If we compare a severely defective human infant with a
non-human animal, a dog or a
pig, for example, we will often
find the non-human to have
superior capacities, both actual
and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication
and anything else that can
plausibly be considered morally
significant….Humans who bestow superior value on the lives of all
human beings, solely because
they are members of our own
species, are judging along the
lines strikingly similar to those
used by white racists who bestow superior value on the
lives of other whites, merely
because they are members of
their own race.” So argues one Peter Singer, a Monash
philosopher. What about that? Is
the life of a whole pig better
than that of a “half-human?” I do not know the answers to
such. If not for what humanity
has transformed into, answers
would have been easy, but not
when ethicists have developed a
branch of thinking and logic called “situation ethics”. Is it wrong to maim a man who has
violated the law of man and God
and broken into your house? Or
is the right thing to do, wait for
Utumishi Kwa Wote to sort your
problems? When do we give unto Caesar and when do we give
unto God? Usually, Caesar is first
at the door, but unto whom do
we give first? In conclusion, I think we all agree
that as a society we are,
unfortunately, wallowing in a
cesspool. I am reminded of a
story where the pilot came on
and said, “this is your captain speaking. We are flying at an
altitude of 35 000 feet and the
speed of 700 miles an hour. We
have some good news and some
bad news. The bad news is that
we are lost. The good news is that we are making excellent
time. ” That is the situation we often find ourselves in as a
society. Even with advancements
in tech and convenience, the
moral standards, ideologies and
codes that made our societies
successful are waning away. And with the ebb and flow of
convenient standards of
morality, we are all in the same
boat to nowhere. Back home, August is almost
here. So, instead of going
oranges and bananas again, a
few of us are now seeing red,
while others are hoping that the
grass is actually greener on the other side, and perhaps it is.
With so much media coverage on
all of the President’ s men, the no people are perhaps facing an
imminent loss and their red
letter day is coming. Led by the
ex-Bishop, ex-MP, ex-Kamangu
lady and the Corn-man, there is
no hope for such a team and it is indeed quite futile fighting the
system cogged, wheeled and
fueled by both the oil-men and
those who hate oil-men. So,
after a lifetime of impunity, loss
of lives and limbs…why not just take the chance and accept
change? Any change? After all, a
change is as good as a rest,
and the more things change the
more they stay the same. Eat
your orange, banana or melon and have a nice day! (Additional quotes from John
Jefferson Davies' book:
Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing
the Church Today, and the
Internet) There is a thin line between
truth and fiction. This is that
line.
Comments
Post a Comment