King v. Divine

In class, as we talked about Antigonick, the question was posed numerous times and in numerous different ways, which law eventually supersedes the other, man's law or god's law? The answer, of course, lie's in one religion and resolve of faith. The more fervently that you believe in a higher power, and therefore in an afterlife in heaven or paradise or what have you, the more likely it will be that you will follow god’s law. A person who is religiously ardent will weigh the sacrifice of following man’s law when it specifically competes with god’s law, and could possibly conclude (as Antigone does), that the sacrifices they would make in this life are immaterial when compared to the gains received in eternity. An atheist, however, might only concern himself with the trials in this life if he believes that there is no eternity.
    The other question then becomes, if someone is religious but to a smaller extent, how much does their deity forgive? If, as in (from what I understand of) the Catholic religion, the sinner need only confess and ask forgiveness and it will be granted, the act of following man’s law is greatly trivialized in importance when you look at the broad picture of life vs. afterlife. This was not the case in Ancient Greece. If the gods were scorned, then the wrath was usually substantial. This calls to mind an issue that was introduced when I was listening to talk radio this week. The host was recalling a story where an individual was confronted by a “nut job with an NRA card” (as this was a conservative talk show, the relationship was not implied causation), and the aggressor demanded (a reason was not supplied) that the individual denounce his faith to god. He said that if the man did not do so, then he would be shot. The man did so, and was released to the powers that be. The talk show personality claimed that this act would obviously be forgiven as it carried no significance, that these were only words. He extended it to says that if someone demanded that he say that he hates his family in the same situation, that he could easily do it in the interest of self-preservation. I take issue with how easy it would actually be, though. Whether I would do it or not, I can’t say because I believe it’s one of those instances where you would never know until you are put in it, but I don’t believe it would be that easy. My two boys are my whole world, and while many would say that you would do whatever it takes to make sure that you get home to them, you would then have to look at them every day knowing that, even though it didn’t “mean anything”, you had said that you hated them. I would probably feel like a coward. I don’t know if this is a natural survival instinct in conflict with pride, but it would not be easy. I guess, if I were pressed when put in the situation, I would probably just…wow that’s a hard one. I think that I would just kick his ass, take his gun, sell it on eBay and buy them something with the spoils.
            The other point that I wanted to make is that, throughout the course of human history, when man’s laws have come in conflict directly with god’s laws, or people’s belief in god, the divine usually triumphs. Our own country was founded (not to be confused with discovered) by people whose personal beliefs were suppressed and so they left Europe in search of somewhere where they could practice their own beliefs freely. The flip side to that coin is that there is no single cause that is more deadly in war (including money) than a warrior or group of warriors fighting for their god. Everyone believes that their own version of god is “the right one”, and it is apparent that many are willing to kill others to prove it.