Cobra coverage?

When I saw this video, I was a bit taken aback.

It's easy to forget that (just as there are parents who'd strap a bomb on their baby) there are parents in the world who think it's cute to watch their baby play with a deadly snake.

As the YouTube caption explains, there is a reason for it:

It is beleived to be luck for a baby if he/she is touched by the snake on the head.
Whether that view is grounded in religion, I don't know. Here in America any parents who let their child do that could be arrested -- whether they were religious or not. Even snake-handling religious sects (mostly illegal, even for adults), do not allow children to handle the snakes.

Philosophically, is it politically "liberal" to stop them? Or is it "conservative"? Not that I'd let that influence my thinking; any more than I would be influenced by what doctrinaire libertarians might say; I think it's child abuse to let children play with deadly snakes, just as it would be to let them play Russian Roulette.

Adults, OTOH, should be allowed to play with deadly snakes (barring harm to others, of course).

Funny thing about this is that if you remove religion from the equation, the parents' behavior becomes somehow less forgiveable. It's as if they're given a "break" (at least considered less morally culpable by most people) if they watch their kid play with a cobra because they think some deity approves. By that standard, parents who strap bombs on children for "Allah" are less guilty than parents who might blow up their children for purely political reasons. And the latter, while more guilty than religious criminals, are nonetheless less culpable than parents who would blow up their children to collect on an insurance policy. Similarly, a mob hit man who has "nothing personal" against the guy he blows away is more guilty of the requisite malice than a guy who is consumed by hatred or jealousy. (No actual malice in the personal sense thus equals more malice in the legal sense.)

Which is a convoluted way of saying that the video of the baby handling the cobra reminded me of today's news story about the guy who apparently thought he was killing an abortion doctor for religious reasons.

Do his religious views make him more guilty or less guilty? Or are they irrelevant?

posted by Eric on 06.01.09 at 05:13 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/8325






Comments

If it makes you feel any better, I think they usually pull the snakes' fangs out.

Moro   ·  June 1, 2009 05:25 PM

I don't know whether the snake in the video is intact, (and for all I know, they might also sew the snake's mouth shut). That certainly would make a huge difference in terms of parental culpability, although the hypothetical purpose in my discussion is the same.

As to snake handlers, anyone who's familiar with snakes knows that the more they're handled, the tamer they become, and the less likely to bite. (Religion has nothing to do with that, but the idea of responsibility for what might happen is the same.)

Eric Scheie   ·  June 1, 2009 05:47 PM

The only way I can consider Tiller's murderer' religious view relevant is if they can be considered a symptom of his apparent insanity.

Not, perhaps, insanity in the legal sense, but in my personal view that one has to be at least a bit insane to commit murder.

Donna B.   ·  June 2, 2009 01:22 AM

Indeed, I've read that the snake's mouth is sewn shut. Looks right, because the snake strikes without even opening its mouth. This is apparently an old snake-charmer trick.

SteveBrooklineMA   ·  June 2, 2009 01:10 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)


June 2009
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits