It's De Ja Vu all over again

[eisely]

Long time participants in this forum will recall that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) wrote a letter to BSA a few years back urging that BSA abolish the Fishing merit badge.

 

It looks like they used their word processor to send the same letter to a prominent former president...

__________________________

 

Jimmy Carter Urged to Give Fish a Chance

 

ATLANTA (Reuters) - A prominent U.S.-based animal rights group urged former President Jimmy Carter on Monday to give up fishing on the grounds that the activity was inconsistent the Nobel peace laureate's humanitarian efforts.

 

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals made its appeal in a letter faxed to Carter's non-profit Carter Center on Monday. The group said the letter was prompted by Carter's recent appearance on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno.

 

Carter, who served as president from 1977 to 1981 and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, told Leno of the pain he suffered when he accidentally hooked himself through the face on a fishing trip.

 

"We're asking President Carter to think this through and to grant fish peace by leaving them in the water where they belong," PETA President Ingrid Newkirk said in a press release.

 

A Carter Center spokesman said the center does not comment on Carter's private correspondence.

_______________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Carter is a fly fisherman and those are not covered under the ban. He is safe for awhile.

FB

[anarchist]

Isn't PETA 'people eating tasty animals'?

 

gotta go now, have to find where I put that dynamite so I can trot on down to the fishing hole...bye

 

 

(just a joke ATF/Homeland defense!)

[Trevorum]

If God didn't want us to eat fish, he wouldn't have made them so tasty...

[9muckraker7]

While I agree that some restrictions must be imposed so as to conserve the environment, it is my firm belief that if we just let all domesticated animals [and fish] be, then they'd overpopulate the earth...There are 8 billion chickens in this world, so that would yield 1.25 chickens PER PERSON (there's about 6 billion people on earth). Instead of trying to protect the animals' rights, we should try to find a way to redistribute such sources of food to try to solve the problem of world hunger.

If we were all to eat vegetables, and let cattle and pigs graze in the natural environment, the soil would be diminished of all its nutrients, plants would stop growing, and we would eventually have to resort to eating nothing but meat to survive. I think the world is fine as it is now, and as long as no one sees the animals in the slaughterhouse, no one should really care how what they're eating was killed. Of course i could go on for HOURS on this topic, but i think i'll just end it here. i've made my point.

[evmori]

When did animals get rights? Did we vote on that? Is it in the Bill of Rights?

 

That's lunch!

[Trevorum]

Animals do have rights, if you think about it. If they are in human custody, they have the right to be fed and cared for adequately. This is codified not in the Bill of Rights (not all rights are spelled out there by the way) but in numerous state and local laws. If you violate these rights, you can be charged with the crime of animal cruelty and, if found guilty, fined and sent to prison. (Of course, humans being mammalian supremicists, we only really care about furry animals ...)

[Rooster7]

If one believes the rhetoric in this forum, posted by various proponents of homosexual and atheist rights, then its only logical that some folks would step forward and resume the argument for animals. I say this because - by their reasoning, morality is not innate. These people deny the existence of morality as an absolute which one discovers. They assert that society evolves and defines morality. They argue - morality is determined by the collective maturity of humanity, or rather the cultures created by the same. They claim - we didnt know slavery was wrong until society evolved and decided it was so. They claim - the poor treatment of any group by any society is simply the result of a morally immature culture. This is how they derive their morals. After all, if morality is not a constant if its not a spiritual law given to us by God, then it must come from humanity itself. If not us, then who? So, why shouldnt we recognize other creatures as beings with emotions, beings that suffer like us, and thus deserve the same protections as humans? What gives any human the right to declare otherwise? What special powers do we have to climb into the mind and heart of another creature, and proclaim them as lesser beings? With that said, it makes absolute sense that an organization such as PITA exists. They are the logical extension of the arguments presented by atheists, homosexuals, and others who deny the existence of absolute right and wrong and more importantly the existence of God. Its the natural outcome from a society that embraces the thought that God is merely a product of blind faith and not a reality. Or just as a bad its the predictable conclusion for a culture that exhorts one to embrace religious faith to satisfy personal needs as opposed to seeking and finding true revelation. God is real. He created animals to serve our needs. The truth is that simple. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is just another example of a liberal organization that denies the existence of God. Their foolishness, while predictable, is plain to see.

[evmori]

Rooster,

Excellent post! I miss you participation in these forums.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum]

Wow. That is an amazing pattern of thinking. And I thought James Watt was scary ...

 

Remind me not to ask you watch my dogs or horses when I go on vacation.

[Rooster7]

Trevorum,

 

It comes as no surprise to me that you have an affiliation with the Unitarian Universalists. This is a faith which essentially espouses the philosophy - "all paths lead to the same god". In other words, in regards to God and his expectations for us, they do not care to seek and find a singular truth. They believe there are multiple truths. If my thinking is so convoluted, then put me to shame and explain the basis of morality embraced by Universalists? That would be interesting. If you do this and make sense, then I will hang my head low and apologize to liberals everywhere. Otherwise, your quip is simply a poor insult - and even a sorrier retort to my argument.

 

BTW, I dont find dogs or horses very palatable. Theyre a little on the gamey side. Perhaps if you had a cat or two. So go take that vacation and relax.

[Trevorum]

Rooster,

I'm sure you are a terrific fellow on a campout and we'd probably have a fine time watching a football game together, but I'll decline to argue religion with you. Your path is as right for you as mine is for me.

[Hunt]

Actually, animals don't have "rights," per se--even though there are laws that protect animals and prohibit certain acts of cruelty toward them.

 

While it is true that the Bible indicates that animals are under the dominion of man, it also makes it clear that cruelty to animals is wrong. "The just regardeth the lives of his beasts: but the bowels of the wicked are cruel" (Proverbs 12:10). Anybody who thinks cruelty to animals is OK is well outside the Jewish and Christian tradition.

 

So is fishing cruel? Certainly, fishing to catch fish that one eats is consistent with Biblical practices (Jesus ate fish, after all). But what about sport fishing with hooks, where the fish isn't eaten? I don't know--certainly, we probably wouldn't approve of somebody catching cats or dogs or even squirrels with hooks, would we? The point is, once you accept that there is some moral requirement to avoid cruelty to animals (which presumably even Rooster must accept, because the Bible says so), you have to think about what is and is not cruel.

[Rooster7]

We don't need to discuss religion. However, I will never understand your sentiment (which is also a mantra for the Unitarians) - "Your path is as right for you as mine is for me." You don't know my path (i.e. my beliefs, my doctrine, or my relationship with God). And "right for you" could mean I am ignorantly following a path to destruction. How can that be "right" for me or anyone else? Your response reflects one of two attitudes, or both:

 

1) Your ultimate destination is none of my concern.

2) Id rather not think about it.

 

If its the former, I would not be surprised. However, my God calls me to be concerned about others and to spread the news of salvation. If its the latter, again Im not surprised. Many folks avoid thinking about God as much as possible.

 

Its a popular sentiment, Lets not talk religion and remain friends. Im capable of doing both. A person can disagree with my faith and remain my friend. Unfortunately, it appears very often the inverse does not hold true. Many folks cannot receive the news of salvation as anything other than a personal affront. This reminds me of a story I heard in college by a lecturer, who was trying to explain a communications gap that we humans cause and endure. It went something like this:

 

A young man was doing his best to navigate his car up a narrow mountainous road with hairpin turns and huge cliffs. As he approached one particularly sharp and narrow turn, another car suddenly appeared around the corner. As the car passed, an older man stuck his head out the window and shouted PIG! The young man was quite upset and retorted with the same, whereas he completed his turn around the bend and struck a pig.

 

So, call me a pig if you want, but I have your interest at heart.

 

[anarchist]

And I thought this was gonna be a fun thread...

R7...BSA says all of us believing in a religious system have standing...if you want to argue semantics of morality...get a Sunday morning TV show and have at it...

 

'All who have faith, will come to the light' has a sort of nice moral ring to it.

If you insist on making morality a solely religious province, I would have to ask you to explain religious immorality, evolution of religious values and the biggie... to prove the existance of god....For me I don't need ( no stinkin')proof (that was a joke line, by the way)...

but then I also try not generalize the motives or morals of a society 'at large' that allows me to believe my way and more importantly lets you believe your way...most of my evangelical friends have trouble with that one...think about it...let's make nice and and get back to the fun in scouting!