Infanticide isn't really that bad?

Apparently in Canada it isn't.  This little gem of a story has made its rounds, as one can expect.  Now, that a mother can go crazy and slaughter her children is all but an accepted part of modern life.  How common it was in the not-too-old days is hard to say.  But after so many cases, we've come to realize the sympathies, while reserved in some parts for the young victims, tend to lie heavily with the mothers in question.  So it's no shock to see the judge say this:

"This is a classic infanticide case — killing a newborn after a hidden pregnancy by a mother who was alone and unsupported."

This little bit of clinical observation coming in the story after this paragraph:

Court of Queen's Bench Justice Joanne Veit said the public naturally grieves for the dead baby boy.
"But Canadians also grieve for the mother," she said.

You see, there is some grieving for the dead baby boy, but hey, let's not forget Mom!  I give you one of the tragic byproducts of radical feminism.  Not that there isn't a place for the mentally insane who would do such things, and even a place for forgiveness.  But the idea that the grief for the mother deserves to be within a million miles of the grief for the innocent baby, is part and parcel of feminism's mantra of 'equality always whenever convinient', and the second mantra no less important than the first: 'women matter, everything else?  Eh.'

But even that isn't what has sent people over the edge.  That comes from another part of the decision regarding the case:

“The fact that Canada has no abortion laws reflects that ‘while many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childrbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,’ she writes.
The judge noted that infanticide laws and sentencing guidelines were not altered when the government made many changes to the Criminal Code in 2005, which she says shows that Canadians view the law as a ‘fair compromise of all the interests involved.’

It's that comparison to abortion that has many on edge.  Now some have tried to put a positive spin on this, suggesting that the comparison at least admits what abortion is: the slaughter of an unborn child.  But me?  I'm not so sure.  I think it is the logical consequence of our post-Christian narrative.

You see, the post-Christian, post-modern, progressive narrative goes something like this:

Once upon the time cavemen created God because they couldn't figure out why the sun rose and set.  Meanwhile, humans being nothing more than glorified animals, lived in harmony with nature, relishing equality, women's rights, gay rights, and the wonders of socialized medicine while making love in the green grass behind the stadium without nary a consequence. 

Of course, then came the dark days, the age of the Christian Faith.  From here the world was taught intolerance, sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and a hatred of science, learning, intelligence, and socialized medicine.  Over the next two thousand years, it was 'a never ending symphony of villainy and infamy'*, until, finally, the Renaissance happened, enlightened men stopped believing in God, invented science and learning, brought back tolerance, equality, diversity, free and inconsequential sex, and of course, socialized medicine.  As soon as we've swept away the last relics of that ancient force of stupidity and evil, the world will right itself and we'll truly enter into that Utopian paradise of sex, drugs, bathroom humor, government censorship for the glorious tolerance, and socialized medicine.

Well, that's fine as far as it goes.  But there is, and historically had been, a different view.  That view is that despite its flaws and failings, the ideas of the dignity of the human person, equality of the human person, and fundamental rights to be enjoyed by the human person came as a result of, not despite, the Christian contributions to Western Civilization. 

Outside of this tradition was a world of barbarism, slaughter, rape, incest, human sacrifice, ritual torture (some of which found its way into European civilization), infanticide, matricide, patricide, and every other -cide you can think of.  The strong dominated and consumed the weak, and that's how it was because that's how animals do it.  But it was the Christian faith as much as anything - so the old stories went - that put an end to many of these terrors.

For decades we've denied that, suggesting that such tales were fanciful propaganda by the Church (you know, THAT Church), in order to justify its corruption and lust for wealth, power, and world conquest.  While most enlightened thinkers knew that our only hope for a world of peaceful chanting of John Lennon songs was to uncover the veil of deception, and release humanity to our pre-Christian enlightenment.

But there are a few problems with this little tale of Christian horrors.  One, archaeological evidence continues to show us that some of those old tales of human sacrifice and brutal, barbaric living might have something to them after all.  Second, the progressive mantra that 'White European and American heterosexual men are the manifestation of sadistic evil and the singular cause of all human suffering in the world' might be a bit of a stretch, especially as we notice other cultures doing bad things, or controversial things, no matter how much we try to blame the aforementioned.

Finally, there is this story.  For all the decades and even centuries of promising us that to rid ourselves of religion would bring peace, love, and harmony...has it?  The 20th century was the least religiously driven century in history.  A time of peace?  Anyone?  Bueller?

Is our culture thriving?  Are we growing in tolerance, joy, happiness, and togetherness?  Or are things like this - a mother slaughtering a baby and society saying no problem - proof that when we toss out the Christian, we don't get Utopia, we get what was there before: a barbaric, kill or be killed, eat or be eaten rape, pillage and murder world?  Not because its values call for better though its adherents fail, but because that is exactly what the values end up promoting, just as they did before the light of enlightenment came, not in the guise of science and secular philosophies, but came through the stubble and straw surrounding a baby in a manger so many ages ago.   Food for thought, at least IMHO.

*From the lyrics of one absolutely cool and enjoyable song from the movie 'Scrooge'.