The difference between cannibals and non-cannibals

Here is a little pop quiz for my readers. What is the difference between cannibals and non- cannibals. Uh....Isn't that obvious Aaron? One eats people and one doesn't. Well, I guess that is a little obvious. But the real question is, why are some people cannibals and others aren't? The cannibal and the non-cannibal both have human teeth. Both are homo sapiens. What makes one person a cannibal and another person a non-cannibal?

The answer is actually very simple according to a behavioral scientist that called into Bill O'Reilly's radio program yesterday. The answer is-one person believes it's okay to eat people and the other person doesn't. Yes, it really is that simple. Think about most of the Pacific Island countries like Fiji and Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. Just over a century ago cannibalism was about as common as dear hunting is in America today. Why? Because the people believed it was okay. Their religion taught them that to eat a man is to ingest his soul. If the man is a good warrior, I can see how that would be desirable in a society where tribal and clan warfare is a normal part of life.

Why are the people in these countries not cannibals anymore? Yep. You guessed it, they don't believe it is right anymore. I wonder where they got this strange idea that eating people is wrong? Could it be the Christian missionaries that came to them and taught them the Bible? No. That would be too simple of a solution for those who believe that religion is humanity's opium.

My point-beliefs matter! This is why the Secular Progressive movement is so dangerous because it refuses to make personal moral judgments. Our nation is successful because of the Judeo-Christian ethic that provided a moral foundation in the lives of its people. When those foundations are destroyed-watch out!