Free Republic

Letting meat eaters drown is ethical because of the suffering they cause to animals, an Oxford University academic has controversially argued.

We live in a culture where, increasingly, any sense of the sacred is being lost. The thought that something could be sacred, special, holy, or somehow “off-limits” is bewildering to many. Indeed many secularists consider those who do see some things as sacred, to be stuffy and somehow arrogant. There are many in our culture who defend the rights of others to burn the flag, ridicule religious symbols (e.g. the cross submerged in urine some years back in a noted “art” museum), and even applaud when, a couple years back, homosexual activists desecrated the Body of Christ by stomping on...

EDITORS NOTE: THERE IS LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE COLUMN THAT MAY BE OFFENSIVE TO SOME READERS. THANK YOU. On CNN recently, Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin ("The Social Network," "West Wing") called Sarah Palin an "idiot."Let's see to whom that label applies.Last week in the Huffington Post, Sorkin wrote a column attacking the ex-governor of Alaska and her TLC mini-series reality TV show, "Sarah Palin's Alaska." Sorkin opened with a quote from Palin on the hypocrisy of meat-eaters who condemn hunting for food. He then proceeded with this response: "You're right, Sarah, we'll all just go f--- ourselves now."That non sequitur was the...

ARLINGTON, Virginia, August 24, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, Chairman of the bishops’ Committee for Pro-Life Activities, identified the worship of a “a modern-day false idol,” as the greatest modern threat to the unborn. Rigali spoke at the annual conference of directors of diocesan pro-life offices in Arlington, Virginia, on August 2. Reflecting the work of pro-life writers warning against the infiltration of utilitarian “Bioethics” in the medical field, Rigali identified an “idolatrous gospel of total autonomy, sheer utility and false mercy,” as the philosophy pushing new attacks on human life. “Those who have blind faith in...

November 30, 2006, 0:00 a.m. The Animal House Falls ApartPeter Singer shocks with monkeys. By Wesley J. Smith Is the animal-rights movement beginning to fracture? The evidence definitely points in that direction. Liberationists have been engaged recently in some nasty infighting over basic issues of ideology and the propriety of violent and intimidating protest tactics. Indeed, the antipathy among the various factions seems to have grown so intense that the animal-rights movement could soon segregate into antagonistic camps. A shattering blow accelerating this potential disintegration may have just been struck — ironically, by Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer, who is...

During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct. In retrospect, 2005 may be seen as the year in which that position became untenable. American conservatives have for several years been in the awkward position of defending a federal funding ban on creating new embryos for research that prevents U.S. scientists from leading an area of biomedical...

A new “stealth” worldview has become popular among Secularists in the United States. It is referred to as Neoconservatism[1] and has been gaining influence for over 25 years in the wake of the discord and unrest associated with the 1960’s-1970’s and the Viet Nam War.[2] The original features of neoconservatism are found below: __________ Table 1. 6 Propositions of Neoconservatism (First Generation)* 1. Theory of History- Evil exists and one must not shrink from one's duty. 2. Power- No substitute for it, especially military might. Power is Salvation. 3. America must be a Global leader- Creating a peaceful World requires...

Why are there different views of the morality of war in Iraq? Some people support it; some don't. Those who support it don't do so (as a rule) because they think war is good in itself. They support it because it averts a greater evil or produces a greater good (or both). Most of those who oppose the war don't do so because they're extreme pacifists, opposed to violence at all costs. They oppose it because they think the cost is too high. Other means (they say) could have realized the same end(s). War should be a last resort. Diagnosing...