Thursday, May 15, 2008

Sanity or Insanity?

If one person believes in an idea or creed that is totally different from or opposite to that of the entire society, is that person insane?


Many civilizations have asked the question of what defines sanity and insanity. Each has come up with their own definitions, but who is to say which right and wrong? I believe that sanity and insanity vary based on the standards of culture for each civilization.
First of all, in Nazi Germany, under the rule of Hitler, Jews were labeled with six-point stars and sent to concentration camps simply because of their ethnicity. To befriend and hide a Jew in an attempt to save them from the Gestapo was an act of suicide. Were, therefore, individuals such as the ten Booms or the family who hid the family of Anne Frank, insane? According to the societal standards of the time, they were indeed. However, to the remainder of the world they were, and have lived to be, heroes.
Another example may be seen in the ancient cultures of the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs, where infant and other blood sacrifices were rampant Supposing an individual attempted to change or thwart these practices because they considered them to be evil, they would be considered by their society to be insane. Despite the fact that in the outside world they would be considered completely sane, to these ancient cultures such customs were the "norm" and required to survive and please their gods.
Contrary to these former examples, there are times when the beliefs of a society are sane rather than ridiculously insane. For instance, if an individual believed that serial killing were righteous, Americans would correctly consider them insane. Or, should the president suddenly declare war on China without a cause, the American people would know him to be insane. However, even in American society today, the culture hold invalid and even atrociously wrong beliefs, and those who speak against them are harshly persecuted, even if it is merely in the form of being chastised for a lack of political correctness and tolerance. For example, abortion is considered to simply be a woman's right to choose when to carry a child to term rather than mass infanticide. Protestors have even at times been arrested and jailed. There is a growing movement in favor of "gay-rights" and "one man, one woman marriage" advocates are considered intolerant. In growing numbers, it is becoming "abnormal" or "weird" if young people have not had one or more partners before marrying, and divorce rates are increasing rapidly. While to some in the United States more conservative individuals in theses areas are "intolerant" (the politically correct way of saying that their beliefs are contrary to the majority of the society and/or they are not participating in condoned and accepted sins), they are indeed the one source of sanity in a society which is quickly becoming itself insane.
In conclusion, sanity and insanity must be determined by societal standards, but more importantly by God's standards. There are many more examples to make this point in the Revolutionary War, abolitionists in the Confederate South, biblical history, our own society, and much more. One must decide if one will choose sanity or insanity.





No comments: