Death in politics

As we in the United States gear up for another Presidential election, albeit still a year out, we know we’ll be bombarded with political advertising, debates, and a hyper-active punditry. But one topic of discussion likely to be ignored in political campaigns will be the nature of death and its impact on public policy.

Despite overwhelming anecdotal evidence suggesting that death is transformation, not termination, governments have been much more keen on researching how to punish people through “death” than on what actually happens to people when they die. Polls continue to indicate that the majority of humans believe in some form of afterlife—some views are secular and some are religious—yet business as usual still supports scientific materialism.

Governments have rallied around the observable presumed reality that killing a body means killing the mind, too. Does government study whether material science has this premise right?

Some government practices involving death may start to look insane if it ever comes to light in some scientifically validated way that an individual’s consciousness in fact survives. Currently, however, government institutions are likely to consider it insane to believe in life after bodily death, so there you go.

Nevertheless, here are some issues that could come up for exploration in political conversations if researchers show that death is not what mainstream culture from science to media and education have taught people for centuries.

War. How practical would conventional warfare be if it became known through scientific protocol that only people’s bodies die? How would it change the psychology of soldiering and “killing the enemy?” How would it change the public perception of using tax dollars to fund wars? Would politicians continue to drum up popular support for waging wars, especially considering how much money goes to the military-industrial complex? How would negotiations between potential enemies go if “dead” soldiers could share their experiences and observations, possibly contradicting many current justifications for war? Would the public demand that politicians work harder with “enemies” to move towards world peace as we discover more about universal love in the afterlife?

Capital punishment. While no longer practiced in much of the world, capital punishment still exists in many US states in a country where more people are imprisoned than anywhere else. Since executions involve government-condoned killing at public expense, it makes sense to study what actually happens to people who are executed. Are we passing the buck sending capital criminals to another dimension where possibly they might join forces with other tortured souls—and seek revenge? Or does capital punishment ironically reward convicts by shortening their prison time and perhaps sending them to their freedom? Is the whole premise of execution poorly conceived?

Religion. While discussions about the afterlife often involve religious concepts, survival of consciousness after bodily death would be a natural phenomenon, not a religious one. Look no further than what happens to atheists during profound near-death experiences when they radically shift their views of the cosmos. In the US, separation of church and state is a cherished pillar in governance, and the afterlife is considered faith-based. If science confirms (which the SoulPhone™ could do) that life does not end with bodily death, political conversations and legislative activity would need to consider policy previously deemed religious that had become secular.

Suicide. The Netflix original science fiction movie The Discovery already postulates that when science proves that an afterlife exists, suicide rates will soar. People might think that they could escape their troubles here and find love and support in a next-life paradise. Government would likely feel compelled to respond to this as a crisis while luminaries in “spirit” would reinforce why suicide is not a good idea.

Health Care. As politicians wrestle with health care legislation and rising costs, it’s worth wondering if our assumptions about death are correct. How much would the grand picture change if we could talk to “dead people?” Would our health care policies and practices change once life-and-death situations were seen more as life-and-next-life? If people were fully confident that life was not a one-off quirk of chance but a continuum of existences, how would end-of-life care change? Further, how much disease is primarily caused by pessimism and hopelessness, much of which ultimately stems from a depressing, materialistic world view? Paradigm shifts about what we call death could radically change the scope of health care, particularly expensive procedures at the end of life that may ultimately serve little purpose.

Social Health. Beyond illnesses, some of our unhealthy coping mechanisms could be powered by the materialist view of the universe—that you just get one shot at life. While we often think of alcohol and drug addictions as personal problems, they impact society when they impose heavy burdens on government resources. Changing how we perceive the universe and the future of humanity would likely influence social problems. When science (not religion) demonstrates that life is eternal, many people will likely feel more optimistic about building a more inclusive, egalitarian society here. Governments could find themselves working with luminaries in other dimensions to make this a better world. Also likely in the mix would be the realization that some challenges originate at the soul level and were planned before life on earth began.

Media. While government interference in mass media is often considered an affront to freedom of speech, the corporate profiteering mentality has bombarded us with junk food for the mind. Quite simply, looking at offerings on cable TV and the movies, it’s challenging to find media that is helpful, inspiring, and positive. If profiteering is filling consciousness with massive amounts of toxicity, including in the political arena, perhaps it is time for intervention through alternative media or national policy. we should encourage healthy mind food.

Climate change. For those not alarmed by climate change, it could become a motivating factor to awaken to the idea that we could reincarnate into the mess left behind. Right now people talk about not leaving subsequent generations with a planet that we are currently destroying. What if we discover that we become those generations? Meanwhile, science may eventually determine that life on this planet is not an accident—that we have a purpose here. The discussion about climate change would enter a whole new realm if we learn that death is no escape from our responsibility to our environment.

Current popular thought and policy-making in government have it that death is the ultimate end, a given like gravity. They use the threat of “death” to force their will on “enemies” and criminals. Conversations and legislation would likely change greatly if that premise were disproven. Despite all the personal experiences many people have had through near-death, out-of-body, and spiritually transformative experiences, political conversations stay stuck in old consciousness. Imagine debates of the future when politicians need to consider changing paradigms like dying and not dying.

To receive Soul Phone Views free by email, click on the Menu icon at the top left corner of the page and fill out the brief form to follow.