Women, Girls, and the So-Called Achievement of Killing
Published May 23, 2009 @ 12:25PM PT
Two months ago, I got angry--really angry--about something happening over at Feministing and wrote this post: "Killing 'Without Qualms' Does Not a Feminist Hero Make." It's an angry post, yes, but it's an angry post with a point that needed to be made.
And essentially everything I wrote there applies also to this infuriating, nauseating killing (and the article that seems to be glorifying it): "Woman hunter kills elephant with bow and arrow: Female hunter Teressa Groenewald-Hagerman has become the first woman in the world to shoot an elephant dead with a bow and arrow." It happened two years ago, so why two UK newspapers paid such attention to it a few weeks ago isn't entirely clear, but the articles and information are out there, so let's discuss, shall we?
When a man goes on safari to kill animals for the thrill of killing, it's disgusting. When a woman does it, it's equally disgusting. Congratulations to Teressa, for being in the company of the likes of Sarah Palin, women who champion the perverse and, frankly, idiotic idea that the ability to callously kill, the ability to viciously take a life and enjoy taking it, is something to aspire to.
Here are some jewels from a Telegraph (UK) article:
Groenewald-Hagerman, 39, she sneaked into the animals herd and killed the creature with one shot from just 12 yards.
The woman, from Kansas, was inspired to go on the safari after being challenged by a male friend who said women could never draw such a heavy bow. . . .
She describes leaving the animal overnight lying on its side before returning to check it was actually dead the next day. . . .
"He indicated only one or two women had completed the buffalo with a bow and no woman had ever taken an elephant with a bow. Of course, I couldn't turn down the challenge."
"Couldn't turn down the challenge"? Yes, she could have. She could have reached deep inside and found an ounce of compassion and spent all that energy and time (and gobs of money) doing something good in this world. She could have considered that maybe, just maybe, this elephant's life mattered more than her bloodlust, ego, and profit. She could have decided this in the case of all the animals she has proudly slaughtered as a "professional hunter."
A Daily Mail article took a tone and approach less full of tacit approval than the above-quoted Telegraph piece:
She shot the creature then left it to die overnight before plucking up the courage to approach the carcasse. . . .
The injured creature staggered 500 yards, leaving a bloody trail, before crashing to the ground.
The sick image of her so-called 'achievement' was posted on the internet, where Ms Groenewald-Hagerman boasted of her hunting exploits.
She said she had worked out for four hours a day for eight months in order to be able to fire the weapon with enough force to bring it down during the 2007 trip.
Want to know how the woman herself describes her violent endeavor? I found this in a post from her on an archery Web site (emphasis mine):
once we got in, my mind and body became completely focused. All I thought was shot placement. The elephant that finally worked with me stood behind some bushes. I had to kneel, draw back and wait until he gave me an opportunity. It was incredible. When the arrow went in, the elephant jumped, turned and looked at us and ran off. He only ran about 50 yards before he stopped. He stayed there moaning until we left. Dudley, the PH, decided to leave because it was getting dark and the other elephants were agitated.
The next day we found the elephant about 500 yards away. The tracking was a bit difficult because he kept going around in circles. There was blood every where and on both sides of the trail. He bled out in several different places.
I don't know how long it took for him to expire since we left.
This is all matter-of-fact. Or is she actually bragging about how much blood there was? Does it not bother her that he stumbled around in agony, dying slowly, so that she could have the bragging rights for killing him, so that she could be the first woman to cruelly kill an elephant with an arrow? And she writes as if the elephant was a willing participant in his own killing, as if he was giving his life over to her. What an absurd and self-serving lie.
As upsetting as her own remarks on the killing are the responses she received from her fellow forum members, some of whom wanted their young daughters to meet her, so that they could witness what they too could become and do someday if they trained (i.e., killed) hard and long enough. Teaching kids that needless violence is an art, that it is something to enjoy, is a practice I cannot wrap my mind around. (Some hunters argue that they teach their kids to "respect" the animals they kill, but that's a cop-out--unless they're also teaching their children to "respect" humans who are different from them by chasing them down and shooting them for no reason but the thrill of killing another living being.) And encouraging women and young girls to take up the traditionally male practices of pointless violence--and celebrating them when they excel at violence--is the last thing this world needs. The world and its children, female and male alike, need fewer, not more, Teressa Groenewald-Hagermans (and more, for example, Ruby Roths).
Following is what I wrote about the glorification of a female bullfighter; you can swap out the names, the animals killed, and how they were killed, and the same truths apply:
There are some male-dominated spaces in which I'm perfectly OK never seeing women make breakthroughs. Just as I wouldn't celebrate a "skilled" female rapist for breaking into that male-dominated area or celebrate a woman presiding over genocide or war, I also won't celebrate a woman's breakthrough into the vicious practice of killing bulls for fun and money. . . .
If she had walked into that ring and taken on the men killing animals for enjoyment--if she had stood up and said to the bullfighters and to the audience, "This is not right"--I would call that brave, absolutely, and I would celebrate her. I will not, however, romanticize her violent killing of provoked and terrified animals. I will not agree that every time a woman breaks into a "male-dominated space," it is an automatic victory for women. There are things that men do and have done over time that I do not wish to celebrate, that I do not wish to emulate. . . .
Compassion is not a sign of weakness, not in men and not in women, and compassion is not unique to either the urban or the rural; nor is true strength.
And compassion for animals--who are the greatest victims of the patriarchal system--should have a place in strong feminism.
---
Edit: I hope that those who eat animals and animal products but who are inclined to chastise--even attack--this particular woman will stop and consider that they are equal contributors to animal suffering and cruelty. Indeed, virtually all of the tens of billions of cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, goats, fish, and other animals killed and exploited each year for human "food"--for meat, dairy, and eggs--suffer just as much as (if not far more than, especially given that it's over time) this elephant did, also for humans' selfish desires. Paying other people and companies to torture and kill animals for your pleasure is no more acceptable than torturing and killing animals for pleasure directly.
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
EmailRelated Posts
Author
-
Stephanie Ernst is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull. In her advocacy, she works to challenge prevailing perceptions of animals, to show the connections between animal exploitation and other injustices, to help people see that animals are more like us than different, and to encourage compassionate, nonviolent living and eating.
I am absolutely disgusted at the bottom rung levels to which human beings have stooped to! To kill for sport, challenge, or any other reason other than food, which would not be a beautiful endangered elephant, is a clear view to the kind of sick human beings we are all sharing air-space with.
She should be forever ashamed and I pray someday get enlightened to her actions!
Posted by Julie Bakerville on 05/23/2009 @ 12:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am at a total loss as to how to understand people who take pleasure in killing. Words absolutely fail me!
Posted by Debby McCabe on 05/23/2009 @ 01:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
So long as we quietly tolerate eating animal flesh and other animal products as a "personal choice," people will continue to torture and murder nonhumans for entertainment.
Posted by W C on 05/23/2009 @ 02:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is so disgusting what these people do to our beautiful animals..SHAME!
Posted by Echo G. on 05/23/2009 @ 06:22PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
this is shameful, there is no sport in killing an animal and no reason to allow trophy hunters. To eat meat is not to value life. i eat meat, but i feel it should be killed in a good way and have had a good life, all of this has been bastardized with the present so called society
Posted by Kathleen Robertson on 05/23/2009 @ 09:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Except that there's no way to unnecessarily kill any animal "in a good way"--unnecessary killing is unnecessary killing, whether the victim is an elephant or a chicken. Those who think that any meaningful number of farmed animals have anything remotely akin to "a good life" are mistaken. It's just as shameful to torture and kill a cow or chicken as it is to torture and kill an elephant.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/25/2009 @ 11:43AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Do we have to kill everything we respect? I respect my teachers, my guides, my friends, my lovers. I haven't killed any of them - so does that mean I don't truly respect them?
Killing elephants, to me, feels more like murder than anything, given their family structure especially. This elephant's herd will mourn his (or more likely her) death for years. They won't forget.
Posted by Lisa Smolen on 05/24/2009 @ 07:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's all murder; sport hunting, farming "food" animals, vivisection; it's all needless killing.
The deeper problem is that we're so disconnected in this culture that it's almost easier to make a claim that what THIS woman did was deplorable, but most people will still sit down to plates full of dead animal flesh at every meal.
Posted by W C on 05/24/2009 @ 08:55AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This quote stuck with me:
"inspired to go on the safari after being challenged by a male friend who said women could never draw such a heavy bow"
because archery is NOT necessarily a hunting sport. My grandmother was an archer and she did NOT kill. She shot targets, not animals.
In order to prove the "male friend" wrong, Teressa needed only to show strength and skill, not a barbaric blood-lust.
Moreover, the comment that no woman had ever taken an elephant with a bow" is likely FALSE. If you know anything about history and sexism, you know that women's triumphs have not been accurately recorded. It's VERY LIKELY that women have killed elephants through bow-hunting in the past. What's unlikely is that men would willingly acknowledge it.
Feminism, in my opinion, should not be about finding women's niche in a male-centered world full of hyper-masculine values like death, destruction, and domination. Feminism is about ridding the world of sexism and misogyny, as task better done without shedding blood.
Posted by Elaine Vigneault on 05/24/2009 @ 10:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The more telling point is Stephanie's, in the original post: would we consider it a great leap forward for women if we achieved something closer to gender parity for rape or the serial killing of humans? Of course not.
Just because a given human activity has traditionally been male dominated in this culture doesn't mean it's some grand feminist victory if women do it, too.
Posted by W C on 05/24/2009 @ 08:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What the hell was she aspiring to in the first place? Elephants are a now a suffering species due to our destruction of their habitat! That makes her disgustingly ignorant as well.
Great. She showed that women can have no brains.
If I saw the paragraph she wrote about an elephant dying I would be sickened by that individual, no matter what context.
Proud to hide behind a bush from a peaceful species and left it to die slowly on its own? Where is the skill in that? She could have proven the strength of her draw on a straw target.
Posted by Kendra Kellogg on 05/25/2009 @ 01:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
How low can you go? What a disgusting air head person. If I knew her, I could let her know the best place for her bow. Guess. The sad part is she is off with her air head friend to shoot together. They probably think its a 'sport'. Makes you ill.
Posted by Jocelyn Koopmann on 05/25/2009 @ 04:57AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Where I'm from, we didn't kill anything that we were not going to eat. She is looking for glory, this is a sensless killing and holds no merit what so ever. I don't understand the glory in killing an elephant! I would be ashamed of myself, if even the mere thought of doing so crossed my mind. Shame on her and those that condone such things as this.
Posted by Jody Kavalauskas on 05/25/2009 @ 08:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Proving once again that women and members of traditionally oppressed ethnic minorities, given the right resources and motivation, can behave every bit as badly as any white non-minority male.
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/25/2009 @ 09:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If you're sitting on a computer, reading a blog and posting comments, you have access to a modern grocer; you don't need to kill animals "to eat." Period.
If your choice is to eat fish or starve, fine, eat fish, but the vast, overwhelming majority of humans are not in that situation, and will never, ever BE in anything remotely like that situation.
Eating what you kill doesn't make murdering animals acceptable.
Posted by W C on 05/25/2009 @ 09:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
One can only hope that the next time she tries to kill an elephant, she misses and the charging animal crushes her to death.
Posted by jack barr on 05/25/2009 @ 09:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I hope that those commenters and readers who eat animals and animal products but who are inclined to chastise--even attack--this particular woman will stop and consider that they are equal contributors to animal suffering and cruelty. Indeed, virtually all of the tens of billions of cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, goats, fish, and other animals killed and exploited each year for human "food"--for meat, dairy, and eggs--suffer just as much as (if not far more than, especially given that it's over more time) this elephant did, also for humans' selfish desires. Paying other people and companies to exploit, torture, and kill animals for your pleasure is no more acceptable than exploiting, torturing, and killing animals for pleasure directly.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/25/2009 @ 11:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry, you lost me. Humane slaughter causes less suffering than what this elephant went through, and there are many worse fates for a chicken than life in a chicken coop. Whether any slaughter of animals is acceptable (to me, it is) is a separate issue from whether it is acceptable to cause an animal to suffer for sport (to me, it isn't.)
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/25/2009 @ 01:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Humane slaughter" is in itself an oxymoron--but really, do some research into what really happens in slaughterhouses (i.e., not what industry tells you and shows you), and you'll realize that it doesn't fit even your definition of humane.
And how many chickens live happily in storybook coops and pastures? Virtually all chickens live in what can be described only as pure hell. And yes, if a chicken suffers tremendously, every day, for months or for years (depending on the purpose for which she's being used) before then also being killed in a horrific, terrifying, torturous way--which is what happens, like it or not--her life and death were just as full of suffering as this elephant's final moments. Maybe that's inconvenient for people who want to eat them to acknowledge, but it's the truth.
What you're arguing is that it's wrong for Person A to benefit from animal suffering for what she unnecessarily enjoys (so-called sport), but it's all right for Person B to benefit from animal suffering for what he unnecessarily enjoys (so-called food). And ultimately, killing for food is no more necessary than killing for sport--they're both about selfish human desires and the choice to kill, not the need. You can eat well without eating animals as easily as you can have sport without killing animals.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/25/2009 @ 02:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Even if slaughter WERE "humane" - it isn't, and it won't EVER be - it would still be wrong. Nobody sitting at their computers, posting comments in response to a blog post is a subsistence or necessity hunter. Every last one of you chooses to kill animals for ONE REASON ONLY: you enjoy the way they taste. That's completely OPTIONAL killing you choose to cause for NO reason at all beyond your own selfishness.
Posted by W C on 05/25/2009 @ 02:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
@Stephanie: Thank you! That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. Railing against "sport" hunting and sitting down to a plate full of dead flesh is LESS THAN MEANINGLESS. There are billions and billions of animals killed every year to land on your plates, necrovores.
Stop killing them.
Posted by W C on 05/25/2009 @ 12:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What a man.
Posted by EQUINE ESCAPE RESCUE LTD on 05/25/2009 @ 12:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If I was to use the word I want to use right now, I would probably be finding myself another sight to partake in
the political process. I hate her, she is such a big
woman now.. This shouldn't be tolerated by anyone,
it does go to show that woman can be just as cold hearted
as any man. She is filth just like the rest of em.
Posted by Joe Wilson on 05/25/2009 @ 01:08PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't understand how this could be an accomplishment...how can you get a joy out of killing...what an idiot....
Posted by Samantha L on 05/25/2009 @ 02:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with Jody!! 100% Killing an elephant is needless. However some places people hunt AND use all of what they get!!
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
Posted by J T on 05/25/2009 @ 02:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry, necrovores: I'm passing judgement on who you choose to kill, needlessly, to end up with rotting flesh on your plates. It's unnecessary.
None of you, sitting at your computers, defending your desire to torture and kill animals for your tastebuds are subsistence hunters. Not a single one of you. You have absolutely no justification for turning a blind eye to the suffering and death you ROUTINELY cause animals while decrying the actions of this woman as shameful.
What you're doing, here, is the absolute worst sort of hypocrisy. WAKE UP.
If you hate this woman's actions are deplorable, if you think that the senseless killing of this elephant was wrong, as I surely do, then make that objection MEAN SOMETHING. Stop killing animals YOURSELVES for your selfish pleasure.
Making necrovores feel good about themselves while they shovel the products of the animal torture industries down their throats is what got us INTO the mess we're in now. Pretending that that's all just okay is NOT going to happen.
Yes, this woman's actions are deplorable, but it's all part of the EXCACT SAME issue: if you devalue nonhuman life enough to turn a blind eye toward the senseless killing of animals for food, you will never - EVER - be part of the solution.
Posted by W C on 05/25/2009 @ 02:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think the necrovores are worse than this heartless woman.
At least she's an abomination -- and proud of it.
The corpse-munchers have the audacity to sit in judgment of her insidious behavior, yet they pay hitmen to murder billions of non-human individuals.
I wonder if they would be so smug if the picture showed the brutal murder that resulted in the corpse on their plates.
Posted by Camille Marino on 05/25/2009 @ 02:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Wow.. whats with the name calling. I had never heard that word before and I'll say I googled it and the only place I found it was on a death metal song and video game blogs. Unless you spelt it wrong, than you don't need to judge somobody of something you don't even know how to spell!!However I get what your saying. I agree 100% with you that the mass "production" on animals is in a very deplorable state. I do my part in making sure I don't support those. Judge as you will. I guess I'am a horrible horrible person!! Sorry to say it's not going anywhere. Cows, chickens, pigs and deer would over populate this place. Shoot just google the problems Ohio and such areas are having with over population of Deer. Try going outside the city limits and lets work on stopping the killing of Elephants, Tigers and polar bears and animals of the such that REALLY need our help. And I will continue not to support those kind of farms. We may not agree on everything but let's end this conversation now and go our own ways. We have our own causes!!
Posted by J T on 05/26/2009 @ 07:41AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You're defending the eating of rotting, dead animal flesh in the comments thread of an animal RIGHTS blog; we are not animal "welfare" advocates. We are animal RIGHTS advocates.
There's a significant difference.
Your quasi-religious language, swaddled in Biblical-sounding claptrap is irrelevant. Many, MANY people justify the torture and murder of animals by saying, "God says it's okay." God says lots of things are okay - up to and including stoning homosexuals until dead and treating women as property. What your God says is acceptable is not an especially useful guide to any moral behavior.
The "mass production" of animals is happening whether there's a "humane" or "organic" sticker on the dead flesh, or not. There IS NO DIFFERENCE between happy meat and any other flesh. None at all.
If you eat animal flesh or other animal products, while decrying the actions of this woman, you are a hypocrite. You are responsible for *at least* as much cruelty as the actions of this sport hunter; in reality, you're responsible for far, far more.
You just wish to pretend otherwise.
You may *do* so, but no one here is going to enable you in that fantasy.
Working with necrovores to end the killing of SOME animals while ignoring all of the OTHER killing you people are responsible for IS NOT going to happen. If you want to work with the animal welfare movement, it exists. If you want to be told that your choice to murder animals for your tastebuds is morally neutral, you'll find people who will feed you that message.
You just won't find it among animal RIGHTS advocates.
Posted by W C on 05/26/2009 @ 07:51AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi, Jenna. I'd just like to point out that you're using an argument that's used often--but that is easily refuted. Farmed animals would not overrun the earth if people stopped eating them. There are only so many of them now because humans breed them to be killed. And deer populations are often kept intentionally high for the sake of hunters.
If you were to hang around this blog long enough and read some of the other posts, you'd soon realize that the practices you support are anything but humane. Send me a message if you'd like, and I'll send you links to some specific posts when I get a chance.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/26/2009 @ 08:06AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jenna, I also meant to comment on this:
"Try going outside the city limits and lets work on stopping the killing of Elephants, Tigers and polar bears and animals of the such that REALLY need our help."
Remarks such as this are what tell me that you need to explore these issues further rather than blindly defend what you already believe. Animals killed for food are absolutely among the animals who "REALLY need our help." We're talking about 50+billion land animals (plus countless billions of marine animals) per year. Tens of millions per day. Suffering and death on scales we can't even imagine. Suffering and death that far exceed in scale what's happening to free-living wild animals. Please don't imply that helping them isn't intensely important.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/26/2009 @ 08:17AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sigh. People, please understand: the animal RIGHTS movement is not the animal WELFARE movement. AR is not saying that it's acceptable to use animals so long as we treat them nicely before we kill and eat them, wear them, or experiment upon them. We're saying that human exploitation of animals - ALL human exploitation of animals is wrong.
Every last bit of it is unethical, and it ALL needs to stop.
It's ridiculously EASY to decry this woman's actions as unethical; the vast majority of you have no stake in killing elephants for sport. You have no desire to do so, and you're highly unlikely to ever be in a circumstance where you might choose to do so.
But the moral schizophrenia of our culture with regard to animals comes into sharp focus when we're confronted with folks' everyday choices, and the absolute DEMAND that we must accept that the eating of animal flesh or other animal products, or the use of animals for experimentation, or the use of animals for entertainment are somehow rendered morally neutral, if we lie to ourselves and and engage in this comforting fantasy that the animals in question are "well treated."
No, they are not. Even if they were, that would NOT justify our use of these animals, for any purpose.
Posted by W C on 05/25/2009 @ 03:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I know that people feel passionately (and rightly so), but I'd like to ask that we tone down some of the rhetoric in this thread.
And I am opposed to telling people who aren't (yet) supporters of animal rights that they're not allowed to voice their perspectives. If they become abusive or repetitive, that's another matter. But when people are just stating what their perspective is right now, I think we're better off using that as an opportunity to talk with them, educate them, and open their minds than to attack them and tell them how awful they are.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/26/2009 @ 08:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm in no position to prevent anyone from speaking, naturally, and I'm not actually telling people that they can't.
I'm trying - perhaps futilely - to point out that asking animal rights supporters, on an animal rights blog to ignore the consumption of animal flesh among omnivores (fine, point taken, "necro-" makes flesh-eaters uncomfortable) to IGNORE the needless action of taking animal life for the consumption of flesh is silly.
We're not going to ignore meat eating, or pretend that it's any different than anything this sport hunter did. *To ignore it* would be ridiculous.
My aim is not to attack anybody, but to try - again, perhaps futilely - to get people to really think about what they're actually saying.
Posted by W C on 05/26/2009 @ 08:26AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jenna's comments, specifically, are what I'm driving at here: "let's all get together and work to end the killing of SOME animals, but don't judge me for killing these other animals over here. I like the way those animals taste.
Sure, killing elephants is just awful - but don't tell me not to eat steak or fish or pork. 'Food' animals are different."
No, they're not.
If you object to the actions of this sport hunter - as I surely do - make that objection mean something more than just empty words. The vast, overwhelming majority of us will never - ever - be in a situation where we might choose between killing an elephant for fun or letting her live.
But every single ONE of us is confronted with choices "on the ground" to reduce all of the OTHER needless suffering we're complicit in. If you think that killing this elephant was wrong - it was - the killing that lands on your plate is JUST AS WRONG.
Posted by W C on 05/26/2009 @ 08:31AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, I wrote a very long comment about how man created war, religion, marriage, hunting, etc., etc...all to his own benefit (not a woman's). And how it's amazing that 50% of the population has followed the rules dictated by the other 50% of the population for thousands of years. But, I have decided to keep it to myself, because I suspect no one will think it is pertinent to the conversation (though it really is).
I will just post the following snippets of what I wrote:
The "huntress" talked about in this blog is yet another example of a woman buying into man's world. And though she may be extolled (though objectified, which is not surprising) by her male counterparts in the hunting world, it is not always the case in every institution created by man ("male-dominated areas"): http://tinyurl.com/oyvvfu In many cases, a woman pays a severe price for stepping on man's turf and participating in his violence.
In the case of the huntress, the privileged oppressor dares and encourages the oppressed to oppress (hurt/kill) the even more oppressed. The entanglements and levels of oppression in this scenario are more complicated than can be discussed briefly here. On a safari or at home, holding a gun or holding a fork, women fail to recognize their complex associations with other oppressed animals. Instead of sympathizing, relating, and feeling empathy toward her fellow oppressed, women are convinced (brainwashed) to believe that institutions created by man are "natural" and "normal," as well as something to be celebrated and even, at times, emulated.
Women have been dictated by man's rules and "norms" for so long (since the beginning of civilization and perhaps longer) that they do not know themselves. They only know who they are as defined by man.
Had women been "able" to develop and flourish in their own ways and their own sets of rules and norms in all areas of THEIR lives, what would they really be like today? What would they think? What would they wear? What would they eat? How would they treat animals? How would they raise their children? What would they teach their children? What would they believe in? What would they be doing on Sunday morning? How would relationships be consummated? How would conflicts in everyday life be resolved? How would foreign conflicts be resolved? How would social issues be handled? How would companies be run? How would environmental issues be dealt with? What would the current socio-economic model be?
What would the world be like today?
Posted by jd hoofenhoffer on 05/26/2009 @ 05:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've read through some of these comments, and just want to say I wish the vegans would leave out the "hypocrisy" label. I hear what you're saying, when you compare the suffering of an elephant with the suffering of a food animal. And I agree that they all suffer miserably.
But vegans are a minority in this world, and need all the support and all the allies that we can get from the mainstream population. I'm concerned that expecting people to live up to a "purity code" will alienate allies that haven't "converted" to veganism.
If you want to grow the AR movement, be more welcoming/inclusive, and less unacccepting/dogmatic. It's possible to do without watering down your personal beliefs. (Who was it that compared veganism to religion? There are similarities.)
I am happy that readers here are outraged by this recreational killer, regardless of their diets. I am equally happy whenever non-vegans anywhere are outraged by things like the Canadian seal hunt, rodeo abuse, whaling, horse slaughter, puppy mills, laboratory animals, etc.
Posted by Sue G. on 05/26/2009 @ 07:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
And I am opposed to telling people who aren't (yet) supporters of animal rights that they're not allowed to voice their perspectives.
Stehanie..thanks. I was wondering the same exact thing from the very point I read his first response.
I'am really trying to understand ALL your points but I do have my own opinions and questions. I mean absolutly no disrespect. My first thought was, "wow what a way to draw someone in!!" Your a natural born teacher :)
Posted by J T on 05/26/2009 @ 09:24PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The problem is that you're here, Jenna, telling us to ignore the needless suffering of those animals that you kill for reasons that are JUST as senseless as the killing of this elephant. You're here saying, "don't judge me, I'm going to do what I want." Yes, you probably are, but just as you have the freedom to voice your opinion, SO DO I. If you're going to come here, to an *animal rights blog* and make the claim that eating meat is ethically permissible, at least SOME of us have to be willing to stand up and say, "no, it ISN'T."
No one has any power to force you to do anything, but it's not beyond the pale to point out hypocritical thinking. Killing elephants needlessly is wrong, but what, to your mind, makes killing ONE elephant for sport magically worse than killing the hundreds and hundreds of animals that will die as a result of your desire to eat flesh and dairy and eggs?
Why should we quietly tolerate that just because YOU don't want to be told things you dislike?
Posted by W C on 05/26/2009 @ 09:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
WHY??????
Posted by Wanda Perry on 05/26/2009 @ 09:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
@Sue: the problem is that folks who wish to have the animal rights movement IGNORE the choice to eat flesh ARE NOT our allies. It's pointless to spin our wheels talking uselessly about the killing of this one elephant while completely ignoring the billions of so-called food animals killed every year. If we have to ignore that to make such "alliances," those allies don't actually gain us anything.
Posted by W C on 05/26/2009 @ 09:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
OK, OK, since you've made pretty much the same point, I get it. There's no distinction between what this woman did and my eating eggs and stomping on cockroaches. I'm just evil, as you see it. I shouldn't even be on this site. Fine. I totally get it. And I totally disagree. You and the one or two percent of the US population who agree with you can have this site, this issue, and your version of morality entirely to yourselves. 'Bye!
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/27/2009 @ 09:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If you're asking the animal rights movement to ignore the ethics of eating meat while you're here decrying the killing of this elephant, well...
That's not actually going to happen.
Posted by W C on 05/27/2009 @ 09:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
...and, really, what are you claiming, here? You were all set to stop eating meat until some uppity vegan commenting on a blog post pissed you off enough that you had to dash out and get a cheeseburger out of spite? Just be honest: you have no intention of giving up animal products, you never, ever did, and nothing anyone ever says will ever change your mind. You know it. I know it. Just be honest about it.
Posted by W C on 05/27/2009 @ 09:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I do not intend to give up animal products and never implied anything different. What I was set to do was join in opposition to acts like what that elephant hunter did, and maybe to revisions of the current laws regarding slaughter, if someone like Stephanie had some reasonable action to propose. I notice there are more people signed up for this "cause" than for preventing genocide. By your reasoning, this might imply that the morality of this group values animals -- ALL animals, including insects, rats, mice -- germs, even? -- more than people. Good luck explaining that.
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/27/2009 @ 10:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Right, so the point is this: while you're here getting patted on the back for pointing out the "senseless" killing of this elephant - which action MEANS NOTHING AT ALL, since you weren't ever going to be in a position to kill elephants yourself, so getting six kinds of upset about it in the comments section of a blog post is more about your ego than anything else; while all of that is going on, we're just supposed to pretend all of the other senseless killing you're engaging in isn't happening. Good luck with THAT. The animals that died to land on your plate were every bit as unnecessarily killed, were caused to suffer just as senselessly as this elephant. You won't see the connection, and you never EVER will, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit down and shut up about it; it's not ultimately about YOU. It's about the lurkers reading this who will open their eyes and see.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 05:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Let me make some silly claim that animal rights activists care more about animals that humans in order to distract from the real issue: I'm selfish and I care more about my tastebuds than I do animal suffering. But killing elephants is BAD! That makes me one of you, right?"
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 05:15AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Doug, it actually does bother me that more people--not more people from Animal Rights specifically, but more people active on Change.org in general--aren't signed up as supporters of stopping genocide. But your remarks on what this supposedly means are ridiculous. First, a number of the people signed up as "animal rights" supporters here in reality aren't--they're supporters of animal welfare like you; they're dog and cat people; they're meat- and dairy-eaters. So hey, maybe a bunch of them aren't signed up with the genocide cause--maybe they don't care deeply about animals or about people! Or I guess your reasoning also means that because gay rights, global warming, education, and others have higher numbers than genocide, most people who added themselves to those causes for whatever reason must not care about human suffering either. Stopping genocide should be one of the top causes on Change.org, yes. But lay off the ridiculous, convenient remarks about what animal rights advocates do and don't support. It shows your ignorance. The people I know most dedicated to and concerned with human rights issues and nonviolence are also animal rights advocates.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/28/2009 @ 05:23AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Look, ultimately the fundamental issue is this (I keep circling back around to this because several of you keep sticking bananas in your ears chanting, "I"m not listening I'm not listening" over and over and over again). It's EASY to oppose what this woman did. It's easy -- meaninglessly easy. Sport hunting, any of it, is wrong and barbaric and it needs to end, but the simple fact is that the number of animals who will die this year because sport hunters are barbaric isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the more than 50b animals who will die (not even counting marine animals) because the rest of us are even MORE barbaric. We're just paying somebody else to do the killing, and telling ourselves that it was done "nicely."
No, it wasn't.
But, gee, we shouldn't point any of THAT out, since you're all here opposing elephant killing with us - all of you flesh eaters who want to get patted on the head and have your flesh-eating ignored, you're really our ALLIES. How convenient.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 05:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Doug and Ward, I'd like to respectfully ask that we lay this conversation to rest. It's just going in circles.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/28/2009 @ 05:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oh, and one last quick bit: using the phrase "by your reasoning" doesn't actually mean you're arguing something with MY line of reasoning, Doug. What you're doing here is a strawman: you're arguing a made-up claim that to your ears sounds vaguely related to what I'm saying, so you can pat yourself on the back for opposing your made-up claim.
My fundamental claim, in this, is and remains: so long as we, as a society, tolerate the senseless killing of animals for food, by the billions and billions, we, as a society, will continue to produce humans who kill for sport. Unless we fundamentally alter our thinking around so-called "food" animals, we can sign petitions against this one woman's actions until our fingers fall off. It won't accomplish anything.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 06:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry, Stephanie, I didn't see your reply before I posted that last reply.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 06:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Agreed, except for one point of clarification: to argue that the relative numbers signed up show that animal rights advocates don't care about genocide is, indeed, ridiculous. I was trying to say that that's the same kind of absurd logic Ward was using to claim that people like me and Jenna care so little about animals that we shouldn't even participate in this site: "If you're not in total agreement with all my views, you're unworthy to speak to me." I agree that conversations in which one person holds that position are pointless.
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/28/2009 @ 06:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"I agree, this is going in circles, but I'm not going to keep spewing ridiculous self-justifying crap because I'm uncomfortable with the truth."
If you're senselessly killing animals for food, you DO NOT care about animals. Period. You two can pat yourselves on the back for opposing the killing of this elephant until you both get bruises, from all the backpatting. It doesn't MEAN anything.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 06:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
...and, once again, you're making up claims that have nothing at all to do with anything I'm actually saying. I've not once told you, or Jenna, or anyone else that you can't post comments here. I'm not a moderator, and have no veto power over ANYBODY'S comments, at all.
You're trying to introduce silly, fluffy distractions.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 06:14AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There may be a religious aspect to all this. The 4th Commandmant states, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" Simple enough to understand. We quantify it, exicution, food, war all acceptable. If we are Christian we believe Jesus was killed by Roman law because he was violent in the temple. His violence was caused by his detesting the slaughter of animals. "The world would be a wonderfull place if not for a pox on it called man." That huntress caused many of us pain. Guess it's her right. Our rights and beliefs are considerd out of the mainstreem. GOOD. Who wants to be humanlike anyway.
Posted by EQUINE ESCAPE RESCUE LTD on 05/27/2009 @ 03:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As I understand it, properly translated, the Sixth (not Fourth) Commandment is "You shall not murder." Self-defense is permitted, and animals aren't included in the prohibition. And Jesus was executed for sedition: "He said he was King of the Jews" is the inscription the Romans wrote on the cross to explain the judgment. The nasty scene in the Temple seems to have had more to do with charging money for sacrificial animals, right in the Sanctuary, than with the sacrificial rituals themselves. Let's not even get into the "Jesus was the sacrificial lamb to cleanse mankind of sin" part of the theology -- we might upset a vegan or two.
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/27/2009 @ 11:07PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
...if we're vegan, we weren't planning on eating Jesus, either.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 05:17AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Oops I guess I'd better not tell you what Communion is supposed to symbolize, or mention the Miracle of Transsubstantiation.
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/28/2009 @ 05:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That Christians invented a cannibalism cult isn't news, Doug.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 06:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
But, really, if you want to keep eating pretend Jesus flesh, have at it. That's irrelevant. If you want to keep killing ACTUAL sentient beings because you're too selfish to stop, that's another matter. Pretending that we're going to get upset about the silly, fluffy non-issue is just an attempt to distract from the ACTUAL issue.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 06:10AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Once again, all I did was post a clarification directly responsive to someone else's comment, and here we go again. And, no, you didn't claim that those who disagree with you aren't allowed to post here, just that they -- we -- are not worthy to do so. Have fun talking (screaming?) to yourself. This post is, correctly (the one thing you got right) addressed primarily to others, like me, who wandered in not knowing what this group was about. It's called "bait-and-switch": "You feel bad about the elephant? Well, you're worse than the elephant hunter, you necrovores!" That argument and the attacks on non-vegans are BS, and those who commit such attacks deserve contempt.
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/28/2009 @ 07:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
No, you posted an insult; "we'd better not mention that Jesus is a 'sacrficial lamb' - the vegans might get bent out of shape."
I don't give a fig how often you choose to pretend you're eating the body of Christ. Trying to pretend that THAT is a relevant issue is your attempt at misdirection from the real issue: you cannot rationally claim to care about animal suffering in this one case while continuing to needlessly kill animals in a zillion other cases.
But, I have very little doubt that you'll keep trying to set up straw men so you can congratulate yourself for knocking them over.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 07:28AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've never once pretended YOU, Doug, are reachable. You're going to do whatever you're going to do. Like I've said at least a couple of times now, I'm not going to waste any time pretending YOU are ever going to change. The lurkers, a few of them, will wake up, watching you bend yourself into a pretzel trying to justify to yourself the torture you're complicit in, while you're patting yourself on the back for meaninglessly opposing the actions of this one hunter.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 07:32AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Anyhow...great site. God bless you all!!
Posted by J T on 05/27/2009 @ 10:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Equine Escape - loved your argument about the 4th commandment - "though shall not kill" - unfortunately people were still practicing sacrifices when Moses gave the commandments to the people - though this isn't a religious discussion I'll have to bring up that argument with my Christian friends...
Posted by Kristen Magno on 05/27/2009 @ 10:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, it's true. We are not all there yet. I feel sorry for a person who believes she has to kill a magnificent animal because it's there, and she feels she has to prove something. But what is she proving? I personally feel rather protective of animals, especially elephants, because they are intelligent, gentle giants, that form their own communities and will put themselves in harms way to protect their young. I believe animals do this anyway.
For thousands of years, man has hunted for food. Later, hunting also became a barbaric sport. Now, we know better, or should. We must act like we do. Killing is wrong, whether human or animal. We can no longer justify the taking of another life, not in good conscience. I would like to believe we are moving forward as intelligent beings, but I see so many ways in which we are not. I do believe that when we no longer kill other animals for whatever reason, we will have reached a point where we realize that war and bloodshed is not the way to resolve our differences.
Posted by Barbara McNamara on 05/27/2009 @ 01:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There's much wisdom in your comments, Barbara McNamara. COMPASSION and fellow-feeling is key, not organized religion, gender, or any other group label. Human beings have truly evolved when they realize that what most major religions espouse and what the Judeo-Christians refer to as "the golden rule" truly does apply in ALL instances. NEVER, in other words, do anything to anyone else, regardless of species, that you would not want done to yourself. If you really take that to the limit, not only does it include killing anyone, it also includes things like hurting others physically or emotionally, etc. and this definitely encompasses both the huntress' actions and those who, for whatever reasons, consume flesh of any kind, wear their skins or fur, use ingredients derived from them in any way, exploit them for entertainment or "education", etc. COMPASSION is what is lacking in every society, and it has always been in woefully short supply. Will you feel for me as I do for you? Will I be as valued by you as you value yourself? and would you help me as you would want me to help you?
Posted by Jamaka Petzak on 05/27/2009 @ 02:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I WONDER IF THE SO CALLED WOMAN IN THE PIC FEELS "JUST LIKE A SADISTIC MAN" NOW THAT CALL HUNTING/SLAUGHTER A "SPORT"! SICKENING! WONDER IF SHE ENJOYED WATCHING THE ELE DIEING A SLOW-PAINFUL DEATH WHILE HE BLED OUT? SICK MINDED PEOPLE ENJOY SICK MINDED DEATH/TORTURE. AHHH, BUT ONE THING SHE WILL HAVE TO DO ONE DAY--ANSWER AS TO WHY SHE KILLED ONE OF GOD'S CREATURES FOR PLEASURE.
Posted by Brenda H. on 05/27/2009 @ 09:58PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi Brenda. On the Internet typing in CAPS is considered shouting and veterans of the Internet consider this to be rude. Many of us refuse to read any posts typed in CAPS or that reason.
Of course there is the chance that your CAPS LOCK key is stuck and I'm sure that one call to Dell could fix that.
Cheers.
Posted by jack barr on 05/28/2009 @ 05:46AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If ALL people were of the belief that ALL life is precious we might have a better world. BUT when some people believe it's their right to kill it infringes on my beliefs, therefore my rights too are compromised. And if for some reason I or a love one, stranger or animal is killed or harmed it is because some people suck, are cowards, or just dumb humans.
Posted by EQUINE ESCAPE RESCUE LTD on 05/28/2009 @ 05:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Look, we can sit around talking about how awful this one killing was, we can sign a flurry of meaningless, do-nothing petitions in response, we can lobby for a few more meaningless animal welfare laws that won't materially change anything if they're enforced, and we all know that they won't be enforced most of the time, ANYWAY...
All of those things are the tried-and-true, utterly pointless, but ego-gratifying responses the animal welfare movement would have us spin our wheels on in response to something like this.
But we can't possibly connect the senseless killing of animals for sport to the equally senseless, equally OPTIONAL killing of animals for food. We shouldn't draw the blatantly obvious parallel that a society that kills needlessly for pleasure in one case (sport hunting) is going to keep right on doing it in every other case. Drawing those connections makes omnivores uncomfortable, and, naturally catering to the easily offended sensibilities of the average, deluded flesh-eater is the most important issue, here...
I'm sorry, it isn't. It just isn't.
If you're spurred into enough action to post a comment on a blog entry in response to that killing, that's not awful; it means you're at least awake enough to see that killing elephants for fun isn't a good thing.
But *make that opposition actually mean something*. It's EASY to oppose what this woman did. It's MEANINGLESSLY EASY. Make your opposition to senseless killing actually mean something where it actually COUNTS: not by signing a raft of petitions against hunting elephants, but where you have the power to make choices every single day. If you oppose animal cruelty, stop eating them.
It's easy to do. You just have to wake up and decide to do it.
Posted by W C on 05/28/2009 @ 06:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Is there an "animal welfare" cause on change.org ? I looked and couldn't find one. It sounds as if that's much more in line with my views, especially my belief that when (as usual) you can't have everything you wanted, something is better than nothing.
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/28/2009 @ 08:44AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Doug, ridiculous remarks such as these are why the thread is becoming neverending. This isn't about what you can or can't do or have--it's about what you choose to do and not do. If you don't like the blog and community I lead here, you're welcome to not participate. If you'd like to participate, you're welcome to do that too, but know that threads like these get really old really fast, and if you start them or perpetuate them on other posts too, the conversations won't last long; I'll start deleting and closing as I need to.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/28/2009 @ 09:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I've asked once, and I'll now ask a second and final time before I start deleting comments or before I just close the thread, which I'd rather not do:
I know everyone feels passionately, but those who are engaging in one-on-one, circular arguments, please take it off this thread. Continue in private messages if you'd like, but this is no longer the place for it.
Gracias.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/28/2009 @ 09:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You know what a true Femenist should have done in her situation (ideally). Lay down the the ace of spades.
Throw out a much tougher challenge that does not involve killing innocent animals and challenge him right back to accomplish that. Train twice as hard as she did, make him do so and derail the Safari as a hunters pride.
Now that is a Woman we would be cheering for around the world.
Posted by Kendra Kellogg on 05/28/2009 @ 05:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Over the days, I've deleted multiple comments from this thread where people have commented solely to call the woman featured in the post harsh names and/or even to wish physical violence on her. These are not appropriate here; no advocacy of violence is OK here, even if not truly meant. Future potential commenters, as angry as you may be, please hold any such comments back.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/29/2009 @ 08:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi Stephanie. Forgive me if my comment seemed like overly harsh name calling. I actually was trying to be constructive as to how a woman could redirect the focus of the challenge away from killing animals. It may be the flow of comments here with yours after mine, but my hope was to leave a comment to that effect.
Posted by Kendra Kellogg on 05/29/2009 @ 05:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Stephanie, this time I think you got it right. And, Kendra, for whatever my opinion is worth, I thought your comment was appropriate and amusing. She should have been able to answer the challenge of "how powerful a bow can you draw" without an elephant as the target. Just imagine what a better world we could have if answering challenges sensibly and creatively became the fashion....
Posted by Doug Samuelson on 05/29/2009 @ 10:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Kendra, no apologies necessary at all; I definitely wasn't referring to your comments.
Posted by Stephanie Ernst on 05/30/2009 @ 06:37AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
(Kendra as well) I am relieved. This is not an excuse for her at all, but I think this shows the neccessity of womens groups in typically male arenas to create rock solid solutions before ugly situations strike. If the women participating are rare then gathering online can work.
She is probably not the only female hunter asked to do a revolting challenge and others have said no- a much, much better choice. But there is possibly a way to prove strength that men would see as a better challenge.
Then its a win-win and the sport is changed.
Posted by E-Advocate Network on 05/30/2009 @ 01:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is so sad and appalling.
To take somebody's life and brag about it, to have pictures taken with the victim, whose trust she won and then shot and left to die. Why would anyone consider it impressive to kill a fellow Earthling, who did no harm to her or anybody else, who had his or her own life, family, who valued that life and every day of it?
Posted by Lidia Belknap on 05/31/2009 @ 09:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I, too, found Kendra's comment imaginative and inspiring, and perhaps someone will take her up on the challenge.
To all the confirmed meat-eaters who have posted or are lurking on this blog: I have a feeling that you mean well. It's just that you are where many of us were at mentally a few (or more than a few) years ago, when our eyes were first beginning to open and our hearts were first beginning to question the perverse custom of humans eating their nonhuman neighbors.
Please don't get upset at the posters if you feel marginalized here. Those defending the right of all animals to live unmolested by man aren't trying to make you feel bad. They're just able to see a few things that you haven't yet allowed yourself to see.
Please consider whether you are justifying your opinions simply because you are used to thinking and acting the way you do. In other words, please try to separate the length of time you've been eating flesh and the number of people you know who eat flesh from the logic of whether it is compassionate or necessary or rational to do so.
No one here likes to be lied to. So, if you omnivores start exploring this multi-faceted subject further, you'll find that the meat, dairy and egg industries are deceiving you right and left about all manner of things, from the definitions of "humane" and "free-range" and "cage-free" to the bald-faced lie that the animals are never conscious when they're being cut open. You will start thinking independently, unchained from your educated beliefs (we all have them, believe me!).
And if you decide to redirect your purchasing power from flesh to the incredibly savory and wonderfully textured "mock meats" in markets like Whole Foods, you'll discover a whole new world of "ethical yummy" (a term I just made up). Better yet, I promise you'll begin to feel really FREE. Free of repressed guilt, of unintentional hypocrisy, of slavish habits, of the dirty feeling (which is often unrecognizable until we're "clean") of being complicit in unintended cruelty.
If you have a heart, which I believe you do, then you will find it fun, exciting, and rewarding to leave behind behaviors that separate you from being able to honestly, unselfishly, self-sacrificially LOVE all the creatures who our mutual Maker loves.
I think the one quality that enables one to think through this issue objectively, and act on it independent of our peers or past beliefs, is MEEKNESS. It is this great quality that Christ Jesus was suffused with. It is this great quality that gave him true MIGHT.
Really now, who (except someone programmed to think that sacrificing baby animals could atone for their sins) imagines that the innocent man Jesus was NOT disgusted by the writhing and bleats of the thousands of harmless, helpless lambs killed during religious rituals? In that "whipping" scene Jesus would had to have been hard-hearted or sightless and deaf (he was clearly not) to have not been JUST as appalled by the violence and bloodshed as he was with the exhorbitant fees being levied on the public by the priests.
I could say lots more, but I think I've said enough.
God bless us all. Equally! None of us is exempt from needing His blessing!
Posted by Olivia White on 06/01/2009 @ 09:57PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.