Posted on 07/01/2002 5:27:40 AM PDT by kattracks
He no doubt is fast friends with Barbara Streisand, a like minded person.
Excellent point. The atheists couldn't bear to even see a reference to religion as they scrolled down FReeper Mainstreet, so they worked to have religion banned to a back alley where it wouldn't passively "assault" their eyes. That's the same foul spirit that was at work in 9th Circuit Pledge case.
But our liberty has begun to falter only in the past 70 years as atheism and humanism have aggressively pushed religion from the public fora of America and destructive pro-gay, pro-animal, anti-family, and anti-God forces have been let loose from the shadows and margins of society.
Speciesism is a terrible crime ya know!
Talk
Bulid Computers
Teach Schools
Drive Cars
Clean up their on sh**
Pay taxes
Fly Airplanes
Until this all happens, they are no better than animals.
And you my stupid as*hole can shut the fu** up.
Clausen is wrong. The animal "rights" movement poses a much bigger threat:
Finally, the projection of persona, spirit, or rights upon anything other than citizens is little more than a twisted democratic power play. It is a claim of an exclusive franchise to represent an artificial constituency. Maybe those plants do need protection; but who gets to decide by what means, and to what end? A biocentric perspective projects the spirituality of being into everything. To a deep ecologist, a rock would have a rock's spirit, a rock's consciousness, and thus deserves civil rights equivalent to human beings, which they alone purport to represent.Source.This is a debilitating thing to do to one's own mind, much less to a republic. To claim to represent the rights of rocks is to project a subjective human impression of a rock's preferences onto rocks. What if they were wrong? Perhaps the rocks might feel more appreciated by a mineral geologist who would want to make aluminum cans out of them? Did anybody ask the rocks? You guess.
When activists of any stripe demand rights for animals, rocks, or plants, what they are really doing is demanding disproportionate representation of their interests as the self-appointed advocates representing those constituents. Unfortunately, to enforce a right requires the police power of government, the only agent so capable. Government acquires this role because it is assumed a disinterested arbiter of competing claims.
History suggests quite the opposite, which is why limiting the number of enforceable rights is as important to liberty as is constituting them as such. When government gains the power to confer rights to any constituency, it acquires the means to confer power upon itself as an enforcing agent. There is then no limit to the power to dilute the rights of citizens. Civic respect for unalienable rights of citizens then exists not at all.
It is rather tragic that deep ecologists don't seem to understand their own motives, much less what preserves their freedom to express them. They understand even less of what preserves rights of citizens to protect their property from limitless democratic claims upon the use of ecosystem assets. Indeed, they exhibit direct antipathy to the principle of private property. If they don't understand the consequences of their actions or know where they're coming from, how could they know where they are going?
But that hypocrisy is minor compared to the main point: right and wrong can exist only if a G-d Who created all things exists to define them. Anyone who doesn't believe in this Creator, who believes the world is a random, meaningless coincidence, has no business having any system of values, beliefs, ideals, or goals (since they are, by definition, merely personal hang-ups).
Dr. Singer, like every other atheist, should practice what he preaches by going out in a field somewhere and acting like the lump of matter he believes he is.
PS: The non-existence of G-d doesn't give animals "equal rights." It merely deprives everything of all meaning whatsoever. But idiotic atheists can't see it that way. No wonder they're so obsessed with "ethics."
Who knows, Hell maybe?
Appauling, absolutely beyond the pail.
And why did He make em taste so good? After all, I have heard others say that PETA stands for people eating tasty animals.
Lets correct this and dub him as the godfather of idiots.
Before I say anything that might be construed as an "over-reaction," might I ask to whom that remark is directed?
And they all want "tolerance" for themselves and their animal mates, marrage benifits, and animal/man adoption rights.
(Where do these mutants come from, anyway?)
If ever there was a case of the title not representing the job being done, this is it.
How about "Shill For Satanism at Princeton Universtiy's Center for Nazi Ethics"?
Make no mistake, this is a dangerous man. And I'm guessing he's no atheist. That's a cover for something far worse. Princeton needs to get rid of this evil person. Pay him off if he has tenure. He is unfit to be teaching.
666
Ain't that the truth!!
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.