Skip to comments.
Christianity Harmful to Animals, Says Animal Rights Godfather
CNSNEWS.com ^
| 7/01/02
| Marc Morano
Posted on 07/01/2002 5:27:40 AM PDT by kattracks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-145 next last
1
posted on
07/01/2002 5:27:40 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Where do these people come from? The World of Oz?
2
posted on
07/01/2002 5:29:32 AM PDT
by
marvlus
To: kattracks
My post earlier goes along well with this - good timing on your part :) although mine was a personal rant.
I don't where these people come from - amazing what boredom leads to. If they had to work hard each day to survive they might have a little more common sense.
To: kattracks
It's a sad time when we value the "rights" of animals more than the rights of unborn babies.
4
posted on
07/01/2002 5:32:10 AM PDT
by
splach78
To: kattracks
I think Singer should spend thirty days sequestered with a hungry grizzly and her cubs and study the relationship between humans and animals.
5
posted on
07/01/2002 5:33:40 AM PDT
by
Movemout
To: kattracks
What a disgusting individual.
Problem is, these wacko theories get started in academia, then slowly make their way into the mainstream. 30 years ago, the concept of "Animal Rights" was absurd, now it's not. Who's to say if Singers beliefs won't be mainstream in another 30 years?
6
posted on
07/01/2002 5:35:52 AM PDT
by
Guillermo
To: kattracks
"I think that mainstream Christianity has been a problem for the animal movement," Singer told about 100 people...
Yeah, and we hope to continue to be a problem for animals like you, you jerk.
Notice that the brilliant Singer thinks that a spider is an insect. Of course, the clymers he was talking to in the workshop probably don't know any better either.
7
posted on
07/01/2002 5:37:09 AM PDT
by
Bigg Red
To: kattracks
Adolf Hitler was a big animal rights supporter, but had no respect at all for humans.
To: kattracks
Singer also reiterated one of his most controversial positions regarding the right to kill a newborn infant within 28 days of birth if the infant is deemed "severely disabled."
WHAT in the world is he talking about?????
9
posted on
07/01/2002 5:37:40 AM PDT
by
TxBec
To: kattracks
What was the final score when the lions faced the Christians back in the old days?
10
posted on
07/01/2002 5:39:48 AM PDT
by
Consort
To: kattracks
I suppose if your comparison is Buddhism or certain Hindu sects, then the fact that most of us enjoy eating meat might strike some as cruel.
But compassion toward all living things is more of a tenet of Christianity than of any of the other major world religions. At least we don't make a ceremony of slitting the throat of a goat during our major festivals as is standard practice in Islam.
These people have far too much time on their hands and far too little grey matter to figure out what to do with it.
11
posted on
07/01/2002 5:40:24 AM PDT
by
katana
"I think that mainstream Christianity has been a problem for the animal movement," Singer told about 100 people
100 people!!! Oh, what a MASSIVE turnout!!! This idiot's family showed up to hear the little talk and it's news?
Regarding Christianity being a problem for the animal movement: Yes, Christianity is a problem for many false god worshiping movements. The movements that want to worship toadstools, and volcanoes, and make them their gods hate Christianity too. Satan worshipers hate Christianity because Christians refuse to worship Satan and put Satan on a level higher than Jesus.
To: kattracks
Washington(AP)- Warning - Pointy-headed college professors using up valuable oxygen and replacing it with hot air.
13
posted on
07/01/2002 5:45:29 AM PDT
by
Bryan24
To: marvlus
No, it's a different kingdom they hail from.
To: kattracks
He explained that his mission is to challenge "this superiority of human beings," and he conceded that his ideas go very much against the grain of a country that mostly still believes in human superiority. When asked by CNSNews.com why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard.
Why can't these supposedly intelligent, academic types see Singers hypocracy! He blatantly contradicts himself in his presentation. On one hand, he doesn't believe humans are superior to anumals, yet humans must be held to a higher standard! This implies humans are superior to animals and his entire arguement is rendered moot.
15
posted on
07/01/2002 5:46:29 AM PDT
by
doc30
To: marvlus
Singer says these things specifically to elicit a reaction like yours. The general umbrella under which his philosophy lies is known as utilitarianism. Under that philosophy, one could argue that, since he brings the world more unhappiness than happiness, he must die.
But don't expect him to off himself anytime soon.
To: kattracks
criticized American Christianity for its fundamentalist strain that takes the Bible too "literally" and promotes "speciesism." He defined speciesism as the belief that being a member of a certain species "makes you superior to any other being that is not a member of that species.When asked by CNSNews.com why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard. "Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can.
I guess he doesn't see the obvious contradiction of these two statements.
To: kattracks
It's hard when the Gospel According to Man collides with Holy Writ, ain't it? Hmmmmm. A bunch of moonbeam-chasers challenging the supremacy of the institution that created Western Civilization ...
I know who MY money's on!
18
posted on
07/01/2002 5:48:15 AM PDT
by
IronJack
To: kattracks; dighton
"He defined speciesism as the belief that being a member of a certain species "makes you superior to any other being that is not a member of that species."AND ...
"...why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer acknowledged that humans have to be held to a different standard. "Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices..."
Okay, now, maybe someone much smarter .. or more able to decypher spin .. can explain to me how these two statements could both be true.
If we're not superior to animals, then how can we be expected to be held to a higher standard.
If we ARE superior to animals, that answers all of the questions raised by this nitwit, categorically.
To: kattracks
Today's news always seems to come down to this. It's always the fault of the Christians and/or Jews, eh? Gee, at some point society is going to have to "put them in their place." May even have to require them to "get with the program" if they expect to take part in any of our institutions or economy, eh? Why, look how much "cleaner" it is right here on FR, since "those folks" have been relegated to their own forum....
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-145 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson