Mississippi Fat Burning

Written by Selwyn Duke

Monday, 04 February 2008 20:01

Believe it or not, three Mississippi legislators, Bobby Shows, W.T. Mayhall, Jr. and John Read, have proposed a law that would prohibit restaurants from serving those with "friendly fronts." Imagine that, denying a business its best customers.

All joking aside, I wouldn’t be surprised if such a measure came out of Britain (which has been on the cutting edge of politically-correct inanity), but one expects a bit more common sense from The Magnolia State.

The bill won’t pass, but the fact that we have officeholders who would even propose such a thing speaks volumes. First, it’s interesting that while we love to posture about the evils of discrimination, we haven’t really eliminated it; we now just target different groups.

This also isn’t to say that all discrimination is bad, for it simply means "choosing some from among many." The truth is that we have to discriminate, between the good and bad, qualified and unqualified, criminally-inclined and law-abiding, sane legislators and the not so (it’s lamentable that we so often choose the latter) and in many other ways, all the time. Do we allow the visually-impaired to become airline pilots?

But, of course, we’re talking here about what the legally literate like to call "invidious" discrimination, meaning, that which is likely to create ill will. This certainly falls into that category. Why, one can just envision signs in restaurant windows stating, "No dogs or fat people allowed." Or, perhaps, as taken as we are with euphemisms, the term will be "horizontally challenged."

This proposed law dovetails with the article I recently wrote about the rise of the health nazis. All over the West we see governments enacting laws designed to save us from ourselves, as if we’re children and need parents to stop us from sticking our hands in the cookie jar before dinner.

This obsession with health has a spiritual foundation, and it’s a very interesting subject to ponder. You may note that, in general, the more godless people are, the more concerned — or maybe I should say paranoid — about health they become. For instance, Adolf Hitler was quite the health nut; he didn’t imbibe and even was a vegetarian — and you didn’t find many of those in the 1940s.

This is just one example, of course, and one that won’t carry much weight with some. Yet an understanding of the psychology behind the phenomenon makes one realize it’s quite apropos.

When people don’t believe there is anything beyond this material fold — when they think it’s simply ashes to ashes, dust to dust — then staying in this world as long as possible can become an obsession. They then often will fixate on health issues to an inordinate degree in an effort to preserve their bodies and extend what they believe is the one and only life they have. Mind you, I’m not saying this motivation is necessarily conscious, but I do believe it exists, is born of a deep-seated fear and often causes irrational behavior.

This also isn’t to say fear of death is absent among those of faith or that I think we should play fast and loose with our health. Our bodies are the temples of our souls and we’ve been enjoined to treat them with dignity. But it’s one thing to tend to our physical health; it’s quite another to be paranoid about it due to poor spiritual health.

Godlessness at least partially explains why many people now adhere to health regimens so, well . . . religiously. It is why we now subordinate sins against the spirit to those against the flesh. Whereas the devout Christian might worry about sins that would jeopardize the greatest life he knows of, the eternal one, the "devout" atheist worries about sins that jeopardize the only life he knows of, this one. Thus does the latter care more about fats than fornication, health clubs than houses of worship, vitamins than virtue. It is why he will force private establishments to both eliminate trans-fats and hire trans-sexuals. It is why he worries more about smoking in this world than in the next. It is the cult of the body.

The great philosopher G.K. Chesterton — a man of generous proportions himself — predicted this stage of social devolution, saying there would come a time when men would find smoking a cigar to be more offensive than abortion. (And it certainly does seem that the one body the health cultists care not a whit about is that which lies within another.)

As for me, I’m neither health nut nor sensualist, and I do eat my vegetables. Yet I don't fear those who are gluttons for food.

I fear those who are gluttons for laws and their consumption of liberty.

Oh, along with the 300-pound Chesterton, I will mention one more indulgent man of whom I’m very fond. Hitler’s great adversary, Winston Churchill, drank like a fish, smoked like a chimney and ate rich foods. Yet he lived to be 90. He also knew something about freedom.

Perhaps a prerequisite for holding office should be an affinity for cigars, scotch and sarcasm.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry