From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals
Subject: Re: Don't tell the Anti-Hunters
Date: 11 Oct 92 23:40:56 GMT
Organization: WP Group


In <BvxvCo.AoL@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
rl> In this country, you'd be judged by a jury of folks who may have 
rl> "gods" that are quite different from your own.  Some of them may 
rl> have no religious beliefs at all, and conclude that anyone who 
rl> kills in the name of a fictitious "god" is either an insincere 
rl> criminal or a dangerous lunatic.    

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.  

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?    

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.  

rl> Does your "god" truly own my body, to (mis)treat as he and his  
rl> followers see fit?  Or does my body belong to my mind, to deal 
rl> with as I see fit?  
rl> 
rl> Does your "god" truly own the body of a cow to (mis)treat as
rl> he and his followers see fit?  Or does the cow's body belong to
rl> the mind of the cow?

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.  

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.

I hope that Dan Sorenson will understand now, why and how the 
ancient idea of a "great chain of being" obstructed the 
development of the concept of rights.  Personally, I find the 
idea of a "cosmic" ladder to be offensive just in theory, but 
it's even more offensive in practice when people use this 
imaginary "ladder" as a rationale for using and abusing 
thinking/feeling individuals that are presumed to be sitting
on the inferior rungs.  

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?

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals