If anyone had an question concerning the work before us as Christians in our evil generation, here's a story by CBS on the confirmation of cannibalism within the Jamestown Settlement during the terrible drought (worst in 800 years) of 1609-1610. Giving the details of the discovery of a 14-year old's body providing evidence she was cannibalized, CBS reported Smithsonian forensic anthropologist Douglas Owsley responded to the discovery with this idiocy:
"There was a cultural stigma against killing someone for food, Owsley said."
Had they been present at the time, one finds oneself wondering if R2K men would think this a matter upon which the Anglican priest ought to have held his peace?
I'm reminded of a review that appeared years ago in the New York Times Book Review in which a Harvard philosopher did a write-up on a Kentucky philosopher's book defending infanticide... The Harvard man wasn't comfortable with the arguments of the Kentucky man because he defended infanticide on the basis that a good dog was better than a defective child. (And no, Peter Singer was not the author. He's at Princeton and he's an Aussie.)
The part I remember is that the Harvard man wrote of his distaste at the proposition, but then showed angst over whether his distaste was simply "speciesism."
Reading, I thought "What has this world come to that a Harvard philosopher doesn't have any defense worth speaking of against choosing the imago dei over the imago canis?"
And now we find the Smithsonian and CBS speaking in a patronizing way of the cultural taboo against cannibalism among early American Anglicans.
If this is the Ascent of Man, I want off.
When Stalin set about massacring the peasants of the Ukraine, townspeople watched chimneys for smoke knowing it was a sure sign of cannibalism. Read Bloodlands by Timothy Snyder. It's outstanding.