In Germany, a computer expert recently recruited, ate and killed someone he had found on the Internet. Once dead, Mr. Meiwes then ate some more. Apparently the “victim” in this story participated in the process by eating part of his own body. Prior to his death, naturally, and of course he didn’t participate in any further self-consumption after that point.
I’m left wondering about this case, because I can’t seem to see the crime. Now please don’t get me wrong. I’m not particular interested in eating anyone, whether that person joins me or not. But if the “victim” in this case agreed, if they expressed their support by eating their own flesh, why is it that Mr. Meiwes would be guilty?
According to the article linked above, Mr. Meiwes will likely be tried under a “sexual satisfaction” law, as cannibalism isn’t technically illegal. Were he in the United States, I’d suspect Mr. Meiwes would be guilty of some form of assisted euthanasia, and I don’t understand why the government won’t allow that either.
What is a “sexual satisfaction” law, anyway? Are you not allowed to get satisfaction from sex while in Germany? Or is it only illegal if the satisfaction comes from consuming another person’s genitalia, so that if the two had dined on pinky fingers, it would have been okay? Perhaps it’s only a problem if this happens in the process of the sex act, in which case I wonder again why the government of any country thinks that they should be able to dictate normalcy within a relationship between two consenting adults.
Even if one of them isn’t around anymore because of the actions.
Comments
7 responses to “Freedom to Cannibalize”
Jayseae,
I agree that we are not to blindly accept the rulings and judgments of a government. There is a higher Law that is to be obeyed first: The Law of Christ. There are plenty of examples in the Scriptures of obedience to God above obedience to the government. God’s Law gets higher priority no matter who the ruling party may be.
As far as “consenting adults” goes, people are not as separate from each other as the western world likes to think. Every persons habits, thoughts, actions, feelings will in some way, at some time affect the group. Even if it’s only to a small extent, the actions of Mr. Meiwes have affected other people.
Governments are to maintain the life, stability, and peace of their society. That cannot be done by condoning actions that destroy life, create fear, and go against God’s law. If they condone it, the government will fail and eventually be destroyed. The Greeks, Romans, and Babylonians are good examples.
Hi Benjamin –
Surely even the most literal of interpretations wouldn’t suggest such a thing as subjecting yourself to the whims of a dictator such as Hitler, or more recently, Saddam Hussein. Here is an interesting discussion on the text in question.
In addition, the government in question is that of Germany. As a citizen of the United States, must I also subject myself to the authority or Germany? Or am I only to be a subject to the US?
As to the love one another part of the chapter, it seems clear to me that these two could have engaged in an act that to both was worth pursuing. I don’t happen to think I’d agree, but how is it my place to make that distinction?
In the end, the perpetrator of any crime will have to answer to their beliefs. Whether the government imposed a punishment or not is generally irrelevant. This isn’t to say the government shouldn’t do anything at any time – this is just to say that if the participants agree on the terms of their contract, I don’t see why anyone else should be concerned.
If the two are consenting adults, then it should be up to them to make decisions and live (or die) with the consequences. Punitive action on the part of the governement afterwards does no one any good.
I see your reasoning, jayseae.
It’s hard to tell from what you’ve written where you place your faith. The God of this world, the Creator, explained governments purpose best when He had these words penned in the Book of Romans chapter 13:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarreling and jealousy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires.
—
Jayseae, the Truth in that chapter changes everything. “Owe no one anything, except to Love each other.” The government’s of the world are appointed by the Sovereign God of the Universe. I know that may seem strange given things that have happened in History, but God had a purpose for even the Assyrians. You can read about His purpose in the Book of Isaiah.
God’s purpose with History surrounds this one sentence “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
Jayseae, I hope this has helped.
Benjamin, that is a heck of a link. Great read. Thanks for including it here. However, I’d disagree with you about government’s purpose.
Sure, there are some things that make sense: Making it so people are punished when they kill someone else might be one of those things, and most people would probably agree with that.
And while this may not seem to be a bad idea at first, it can certainly turn into that very quickly. For an example of this, I’ll include a link to an essay by Harry Browne. Even if you disagree with his position, I think you will find an interesting read.
This isn’t to say that I think killing people is a good thing. This is just to point out that as soon as we start enforcing our will on people who would make a different choice, aren’t we as guilty as they? If this is their choice, and they are happy with it, what gives us the right to question that choice? Will they have to face the ultimate truth at some point? Quite possibly (and I believe so). But is it really our point to make that judgment?
I can’t believe that if someone is arrested, incarcerated, punished or even put to death for their actions, that it will make a whit of difference to that ultimate authority. So if the people involved in those actions agree to the action, why shouldn’t they be allowed to perform them?
A government’s purpose should be to protect its people from outsiders, from each other, and even from themselves.
Granted, without believing in an absolute Truth, no government can completely justify its action (I can’t say that something is off center unless there is a stated center). There is absolute Truth, however, and so the governments responsibilty is to uphold that Truth. If it does not uphold and enforce that Truth, then it can be labeled as corrupt or evil.
More about absolute Truth from C.S. Lewis.
I’m not so sure I’d agree. I agree that he took someone’s life. I agree that if you just walk up to someone and do the same, you’re probably guilty of a crime of some sort. I even agree that there may be (and likely are) laws higher than those of the government which say such an act is wrong.
Where you lose me is that this person wanted to be killed. They wanted to participate in the dining extravaganza provided by their own body parts. So both parties wanted it. Why is it anyone else’s business?
Please note – I’m not speaking for God, Allah, Mohammad, Jesus, Buddah or any other divine being or religious leader who might lay such a claim on this being right or wrong. I’m just talking about the government. What business is it of theirs if two parties knowingly and willfully entered into a contract, even if that contract results in the death of one (or both) of the parties?
Those parties (apparently) wanted it. Why is anyone else involved?
The crime he committed was murder.