From: chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie)
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 05:10:54 GMT

Although I did write an answer to this yesterday (Thanksgiving Monday) it
apparently hasn't shown up (mail editor screw-up?).  Anyways if you
received a direct reply to this Russel my apologies at repeating the
message.

In <BvzDs9.Hro@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>From article <1992Oct11.174405.22076@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, by chrstie@ccu.umanitoba.ca (William John M. Christie):
>wc> If I did kill a person without sufficient reason then I would 
>wc> have to suffer the consequences as dictated by human's law and 
>wc> ultimately God's law.  This is my belief however and does not 
>wc> mean that you must subscribe to it.  

>I understood from the beginning of the thread that I don't have 
>an obligation to subscribe to your beliefs, thanks to secular 
>(not religious) laws that protect my freedom.  What you don't 
>seem to understand is that your notions about the rights of "god" 
>still threaten my personal rights, even here in the United 
>States.  

Please outline the notions that my faith (not to be confused with
organized religion) has given me that threatens your personal rights. 
Does your American citizenship guarantee you rights that Christianity
tells me I should oppress?  Should I also mention that the United
States has declared it legal for U. S. agents to enter a foreign country
to retreive people that face charges in the U. S., regardless of the
foreign country's view?  (*disclaimer*  I am uncertain of the exact
wording of this, clarifications please?  Also, I intend no offence to the
general U. S. public)  What about their rights if you're so concerned
about that?

>rl> Several years ago a geologist working for a major oil company here 
>rl> in New Orleans was ordered by "god" to kill a woman and two kids.
>rl> He succeeded in killing the kids with a knife.  He critically 
>rl> injured the woman, but she survived and testified at his murder
>rl> trial.  He's now locked up in Angola prison, I believe, where he's
>rl> no doubt had quite a bit of time to rethink his belief that
>rl> all humans belong to "god".

>wc> Just because someone claims that they commited an act in so and 
>wc> so's name does not mean that that so and so ordered it or even 
>wc> condoned it.  I should note that you are ascribing the belief 
>wc> that all humans belong to God.  

>Do you agree with me that the man mentioned above violated the 
>rights of his victims?  If not, please explain further why it 
>would be acceptable to kill someone just because a "god", like 
>some great feudal lord or military emperor, commands it?    

Whether he violated their right to life can only truly be seen by God.  If
God had truly ordered him to kill those people then God would have a
reason for it.  However you still have yet to prove that it was indeed God
who ordered him to do so.  If you are still labouring under that
misapprehension then I suggest you re-read what I wrote above.  

>wc> Again however I fail to see what this has to do with the discussion 
>wc> at hand.  

>rl> It's clear that you won't be able to understand the concept of animal
>rl> rights if your religious notions prevent you from accepting the concept
>rl> of human rights.  

>wc> What exactly are my religious notions that prevent me from seeing the
>wc> concept of rights for humans or animals as you perceive them?  What
>wc> human rights do I not accept that you may have incorrectly assumed or 
>wc> interpreted from my previous posts?

>Forgive me if I'm misinterpreted your position, but when I asked 
>you if you would kill someone on the orders of "god" you said, "I 
>would have to act as the spirit moved me".  No offense, but I'm 
>not sure that I'd feel comfortable in your presence.  You seem to 
>think that my rights are subject to the whim of some "spirit" 
>that apparently resides within your head.  If your "spirit" 
>suddenly said, "Kill witches", or "Kill heretics", or "Kill men 
>with dark skin", my life might be in danger.  

Why, are you a witch?  :-)  You must be awfully uncomfortable then since I
think the majority of the U. S. population is Christian.
Seriously, you offered me a hypothetical extreme situation.  I answered in
as best a way as I thought.  I alone will choose to do what I must in a
situation like that, and it will not only be God but human society that
will judge me for it.  However your question is moot, since the time of
the New Testament God has not ordered us to kill anyone but in fact be more
tolerant to one another:

Galatians 6:10 "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all
men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith."

St. John 15:12-13 "'This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I
have loved you.
"'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends.'"

St. Luke 14:12-14 "Then said he also to him that bade him, 'When thou
makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren,
neither thy kinsman, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee
again, and a recompence be made thee. 
"'But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the
blind: 
"'And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee:  for thou
shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.'"

You did not answer my question:  what human rights do I not accept?

>wc> ...  For the cow's dilemma the cow is following one of nature's 
>wc> laws.  Namely that superior beings can (and will in this instance) 
>wc> do what they want with it.  I consider humans superior animals 
>wc> generally and therefore can override what the cow wants.  I wish 
>wc> to eat the cow because I'm hungry.  I will arrange some way to 
>wc> kill it and feast upon it...  

>You think that your "god" is superior to a relatively tiny, 
>insignificant individual like myself so it would be ok to kill me 
>if "god" commands it, without regard for my thoughts and 
>feelings.  By the same sort of logic, you say that I'm more 
>superior than a cow, so it'd be ok for me to kill a cow if it 
>suited my purpose, without regard for the cow's thoughts and 
>feelings.  

If God really wanted to kill you I doubt God would have to ask me.  To
understand Christianity you have to understand that God is superior. 
However God does regard our thoughts and feelings and gives us the freedom
of choice (I believe).  I did mention that in a previous post however if
you missed that.

As to the cow I used a different logic and illustrated that as well.  That
has been outlined though in the previous post.  Please re-read it.  To
re-state the answer:  yes.

>In other words, you think the rightness or wrongness of an action 
>ought to be measured by the alleged "superiority" [ie power] of 
>the perpetrator rather than the suffering of the victim.  This 
>sounds like the same kind of ancient, and later medieval, 
>rationale that some of our ancestors had to overcome when they 
>developed the modern concept of rights to prevent strong,
>"superior" humans from controlling, if not appropriating, the 
>bodies of weaker, "inferior" individuals.

[stuff relating to an unrelated topic with Dan Sorenson deleted]

I already outlined the rights I give animals as opposed to those that I
give humans.  It sounds like you are attempting to mix the rights I give
animals (strictly based upon superiority) with those I give humans (those
as I understand from the New Testament and the society that I live in). 
Please re-read my posts again or what you left in below so you do not have to
repeat the same question.  

How do you define the rightness or wrongness of an action?

>wc> ...  The rights I give animals are that should I need to kill one 
>wc> I attempt to give it as quick and painless a death as possible.  
>wc> Until game laws are modified (which are the only human 
>wc> implemented 'rights') those are the only rights I feel I am 
>wc> obliged to give other animals.  

>Were you under the impression that "god" wrote the Bill of Rights?

I think you left in the wrong part.  Regardless I do not know anything
about your country's Bill of Rights to comment on it.  However there are
some points to ponder; who wrote it?  Were they Christians?  Could their
faith have influenced what they thought were rights that were inherent to
humans in the United States?

Martin Luther King was an advocate of human rights was he not?  He was a
Christian too I believe, does this mean that human rights and Christianity
are compatible, if not self-complimenting?  Else how could he be a
conscienable Christian and do something that was against his faith?

Will Christie

-- 
==========================================================================
  Any opinions expressed above are usually made with some thought which   
  is my own and is not intended to represent the University in any way.
==========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals