NASCAR and TARGET are miserable. They and local politicians invoked imminent domain in order to take land from some local Kansas land owners in order to build their grand stand. They were able to show that their silly circus would bring taxes and jobs to the KCK area, and our politicians bought it. Shame on both of them. But this is the logical end of Manifest Destiny. So we should not be surprised….
Monthly Archive for September, 2006
PETA is an organization whose purported purpose it is to encourage kindness toward animals. The name is hard to argue against. Why would anyone be for the unethical treatment of animals? It seems silly to want to treat animals unethically. However, the desire of the folks at PETA is not borne by a simple affinity toward the animal kingdom, rather it is carried by a hatred for fellow humans and an inordinate view of animals.
The people at PETA think that there is no order but that which is ‘natural’. Ingrid Newkirk says we are all animals. Newkirk and her allies at PETA don’t understand the problem of their thinking. While we all exhibit animal-like qualities, we are not all animals. A calculator is not a word processor, just because they both have circuit boards. Her thinking is averse to God and His order. While it is a ‘natural’ order, it was divinely created and driven. As Romans 1 says, it bears witness against us, and many are punished for their abuse of that knowledge.
Her ideas are bound up in ideas that animals are cute, little, cuddly, fuzzy bundles of fur, not deserving of the wholesale slaughter that we meet out upon them with regularity in slaughterhouses across our cruel country. Consider if people are all animals as she says, there are no ethics. Whatever animals (which humans would be in this worldview) do is right, because they cannot help but abide by their impulses. That is essentially animalian. If a lion eats a poor, defenseless gazelle, no one would argue. If we are about the ethical treatment of animals, we should be lobbying against carnivorous animals, and bringing them into subjection to our laws and ethical construct. If, however, they can eat meat, why should other ‘animals’ be kept from it?
If her worldview were properly applied, either we are allowed to eat meat, because we are animals, and whatever we do is right (ethical), or we are not animals, and we admit that our position is distinct from animals, again allowing for the ‘ethical’ eating of meat.
It is noteworthy that there are not many opponents of the unethical treatment of plants. Does no one care about all of that defenseless corn in Western Kansas? What did an apple ever do to any of us? There are at least two possible reasons for this: even Newkirk realizes the absurdity of her foolishness taken to its logical end, and/or all those internally consistent atheists, who are so subversive and ardently opposed to admitting our God-ordered existence (whereby we may lawfully eat most anything) died while taking a stand against plant violence, since there is not much left to eat in that paradigm.
So then, eat meat, without scruples. Whatsoever you do, whether you eat meat or not, give thanks to God for it.
At the founding of our nation (1776, not 1620) there are some very important ideas that are relatively new to the world. Not minor among them is the idea of Natural Right. The old idea of Divine Right is the means by which a king would generally say that they were appointed to office by a vision from God, etc. Whereas Natural Right presumes certain rights are bestowed upon us all. Consider our Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
What is, then, the difference between Divine Right and Natural Right? Divine Right states that the King is reposed with rights and responsibilities by God, and Natural Right says that all are. The biggest single difference is that Divine Right is a special revelation, where Natural is not. But both are held to proceed from God. And in both cases, God is invoked as our common Creator as a means of bolstering their claims (however silly).
The point of the revolution is not a valiant interest in the freedom of all, for not all were freed by it. Rather, white, male, land-owning men were intended to have this freedom. So that they believed that all men are created equal did not intend women, poor, and slaves. This is not some amazing new concept in freedom, rather, a subversive power grab, and a recasting of the aristocracy. What now is the difference between the old king with his dukes, and lords, and the new president with his judges and senators? Admittedly there is a difference. There is now a balance of powers. This is a notable difference, indeed. But this in no way justifies the undermining of the authority of the King of England. It may be that all our founders really intended was to steal the power from the King, and when they did, they could not agree who would be king, so they worked out a deal, senators, representatives, judges, and presidents, whereby no one is king, but all share some of the weakened power.
The only reason why we count these men heroes is that they won. Had they lost the revolutionary war, they would be counted traitors, and George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson would have the same poor ring as Benedict Arnold or Judas Iscariot.
Aside: to be clear, I believe that we are all created in God’s image, and in that we are responsible to treat each other with dignity, and are owed respect, as humans. Though that is not to say that we are all equal and deserving of the same respect. I would not expect a king to bow to a subject, a captain to first render his salute to a sergeant, etc. I also believe that all authority on heaven and on earth is ordained by God, so while I don’t believe that English Kings received any visions from God telling them that it was their office to be king and defensor fidei, I do believe that they are ordained by God to fill that position, as is evidenced by their filling of it.
Recent Comments