This is a subject likely to stimulate, and it comes at a good time; a comment to a recent post asked about George Soros’ role in a “One World Government” and euthanasia. These subjects lead naturally to society and politics.

Sidebar – many comments have expressed thanks and the substitute teacher often responds. The replies are overloading the comments area. All words are appreciated, kind and critical. Please do not infer indifference, the substitute teacher will limit replies to questions or interesting comments.

Back on topic; euthanasia and Soros I’d heard of, but not much else.

Mr. Soros was born in Budapest in 1930, moved to London at age 17, earned a degree at the London School of Economics and moved to New York at 27, working as an arbitrage trader. He became an investment manager, investor and speculator in currencies, becoming one of the 10 or 15 richest people in the world. His personal worth is estimated at US$ 20 billion; he has given away at least $8 billion. He has given significant monies to progressive liberal causes and political campaigns and donated vast sums to charity. He vigorously opposed US President George W. Bush. He has suggested a strong central international government to correct for the excesses of self-interest.

Euthanasia is described as allowing to die or the painless killing of a medical patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or irreversible coma. It is illegal in most countries.

ST = Your humble substitute teacher    E = Erik            C = The Committee

ST:       Esteemed Committee, what can you tell us about Mr. Soros’ idea for a one world government?

C:         Mr. Soros’ purpose has been to draw attention to his idea and this he has achieved. It would not function if attempted.

ST:       Why not? 

C:         Humans will not surrender so easily what has been worked for, their nation.

ST:       His idea is that it would work to curb excess self interest.

C:         Who would decide this? Who would define the limits of this excess? Pursuit of self interest is involved in all things; uninvolved control would not be accepted. Acceptance of ideas is voluntary and this works in all places of the universe.

E:         Look at Communism. Next! Forcing people was resisted and it’s what caused its collapse everywhere. Next!

ST:       Sounds like you want to move on, Erik.

E:         There’s not much to say about a one world government. It’ll never happen.

ST:       OK, What about euthanasia?

C:       The allowance of this practice is viewed as approval of murder. The definition here, similar to Mr. Soros’ idea to control excess of self interest, would be set by whom?

ST:       In cases of a terminal coma, is it not acceptable?

C:        How is it known the coma is terminal? There are instances where comatose patients have regained consciousness after long periods in such state.

ST:       Are there instances when euthanasia is acceptable or recommended?

C:         Yes, as the patient and doctors might agree, yes.  Many serious turning points in your lives on Earth serve dual or multiple purposes; pain, relief, gratitude and compassion are all felt and expressed by those involved. In some cases of coma, yes the body lies empty however, not all. We in Heaven are able to return a soul to a body and restore its function, as many of you know. This is never done without the permission of the soul, and is done because the soul requests this return. The manipulation of bodily functions is not so strange an idea off Earth. Those who oppose euthanasia correctly point out the risk of expansion of murder, however this is not so serious. Humans end lives, their own and others, independently of medical conditions; euthanasia is but a part of human control over life.

ST:       OK, so what about politics and society organization?

C:         Politics today are what they have always been. The volume and speed of communication around the world has given it a look very few in humanity had the chance to observe not so long ago. In its essence, however, politics are the same.

ST:       How does it affect society?

C:         We would say reflect.

ST:       So what about society’s organization today might be unique historically?

C:         Little but for the ability to peer into another political issue where one is not involved.

ST:       Like observing a US election from China or a Russian election from Brazil.

C:         Yes.

ST:    We hear many complaints that this political figure is “divisive” for example, that some leaders are “ideologues” and there is need for “compromise”.

C:         These are attempts to gain favor or the upper hand for one’s position.

ST:       How will society’s organization change? What will be different, if anything about politics?

C:         Political change will be decided as events develop, yet to be done. Soon you will all see and understand why. Society will become more localized; there will be much less attention given to events far away. Politics will naturally follow. There will be no development or growth in business of government. This aspect of human society will shrink. Little attention need be paid, even now.

ST:       What aspects of human society should receive attention instead?

C:         Love those around you, in this you will find comfort and joy. Until again, all fare well.