Why the BodyWorlds exhibit is controversial

So, I started to wonder why people kept saying things like, "I don't see anything wrong with this, unlike those right-wing Christian lunatic types". (More or less.)

Here's the argument, from World Magazine - Weekly News | Christian Views:


"What is wrong with mutilating corpses and putting them on display? Virtually all civilizations and religions forbid such treatment of the dead. State laws forbid desecrating the dead. The Geneva conventions consider it a war crime.

"In Christianity, the body is 'a temple of the Holy Spirit' (1 Corinthians 6:19). A human being, who bears God's image, is not to be violated. The dead are to be buried, as was Christ, awaiting the resurrection of the body. In the Christian ethical tradition, burying the dead was one of the seven works of mercy (along with feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned, and visiting the sick).

"But today our culture is desensitizing us as we entertain ourselves with forensic autopsies on TV and real corpses in our museums.

"This is art in the culture of death."


With due respect to World magazine... and setting aside the character assassination (and possible actual assassination mentioned in the article, which is certainly a concern)... A corpse is nothing but an empty shell; Christians, of all people, should know that. Burying the dead is a work of mercy because the dead stink... if they haven't been filled with plastic. Donating your body to science (which then inevitably manipulates it in various ways) isn't "desecrating the dead". This kind of mentality logically extends to organ donation or medical intervention in general -- how much do we tamper with the temple of the Holy Spirit? -- and nobody today would want to rule out those practices.

So, I ask again, why is this exhibit "desecration" that should be condemned on religious grounds?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Passing on Panel Discussions?

In his latest podcast ( Blogarithms IT Conversations News: August 14, 2005 ), Doug Kaye mentioned an interesting anecdotal tidbit: People seem less interested in panel discussions at conferences than they do in single speakers. The panel discussions get lower ratings at ITConversations.com, and... there was some other reason he mentioned it, too. (Okay, so I don't remember. Sorry!) As I was listening to one of their panel discussions this morning, I had a thought: It was really hard to follow. It takes a lot of mental energy to keep up with who's-saying-what. And I don't even particular care about the who's-who; it would be even worse if I really need to know which person was making a particular point. Could that be what people are reacting to when they rate panel discussions lower than single-speaker talks?
Read more

Commercial comments (Blogging from Word!)

Ironically, I’ve got two commercial-related things going on in my mind right now. On the Ericast, I’ve been discussing how commercials are going to get more and more imbedded into content; I think we’re going to drift away from “spot radio” or “spot television”, and even drift away from traditional “product placement”, and move toward a picture-in-picture or screen crawl or other “embedded advertising”.  That way, you’ll be unable to avoid the advertisement… and you’ll want to see it, because skipping it would mean that you’d miss out on the content.  (Imagine, for example, a HGTV demo on sponge-painting that takes up the top 2/3rds of the screen, with the bottom 1/3rd showing things like “BEHR Paint on sale at Home Depot!  20% off!”.) I might hate living in a world filled with television that looks like that… but it probably would be effective. But, speaking of, I’ve found a program that removes commercials from MPG files!  And it really works!...
Read more
USATODAY.com - Schoolyard bullies get nastier online / Ick. Ick, ick, ick. Glad to know that technology is making parenting oh-so-much simpler, right?
Read more