The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Choice of Scripture

By on 1.13.11 @ 11:04AM

Does it disturb anybody else that the VERY next line of the Psalm from which Obama quoted last night, from Psalm 46, is this one?:

6 Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall.

Sort of eerie……

View all comments (127) |

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 11:23AM

This is why quoting scripture is very dangerous. There aren't a whole lot of scriptures that stand alone without needing to look at the remainder of the passage for context.

Sadly, this isn't just a lefty fault. Go to practically any church on Sunday - particularly ones that preach topically (as opposed to expositionally) and you'll find it.

Rogue Elephant| 1.13.11 @ 11:43AM

One can conclude either that (a) it was accidental or (b) it was purposeful. The President speaks at a high profile event following an event of national consequence. What can you conclude? I would conclude that it was purposeful because of the scrutiny that would be given it.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 11:56AM

Accidental. The left isn't very good with using the Bible, and was probably just pulling nice-sounding quotes.

Rogue Elephant| 1.13.11 @ 12:43PM

Fair enough. I would conclude purposeful because Obama is a spiteful and malignant narcissist who delights in creating controversy and sowing division.

p| 1.14.11 @ 4:20AM

Rogue Elephant you are sooooo correct!

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 11:57AM

Ryan,
"This is why quoting Scripture is very dangerous".

That is a lie. No one who says what you just said has the authority to speak for God. Only a false Religion that makes themselves God would hold to that, liars whose consciences are dark. Who are you listening to?

God Himself says this: says the following:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work". 2 Tim. 3:16 & 17.

"But the Scripture consigned all things to Sin, that what was promised to faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." Gal.3:22.

"Till I come, attend to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching, to teaching." 1 Tim. 4:13

Try and twist His words all you want.. it cannot be done. Neither by you, Obama, or anyone.

God's words speak for themselves.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 12:09PM

I think that you misinterpreted what I was saying. I'm not denouncing the authority of scripture. I'm warning against it's misuse through selective quoting.

The danger in quoting scripture - particularly in singular verses - is that no verse stands alone. All have context both within their books and their time and place. Removing them from that can lead to serious error.

The worst example that we commonly see is Jeremiah 29:11: "For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future."

Often, Christians believe that the verse applies to Christians more or less universally. However, within context, God is SPECIFICALLY speaking to the Israelites in EXILE to Babylon. The promise is made specifically to bring them back home.

That's it. Anything outside of that - which is plain reading of Jer 29 - is conjecture at best.

Remember, chapter and verse numbers weren't put in there by the original writers - they were added - somewhat arbitrarily at times - after they were written (our current system in the NT was done in the 1500s).

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 12:17PM

Ryan,
It doesn't matter what YOU say.
When He says, "All Scripture", that is what He means.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 12:19PM

Okay, I'm at a loss here. I think that we're getting wires crossed.

Can you please state what you believe I am talking about?

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:09PM

Ryan,

My dear brother, you often go round in circles. Round and round.
I objected to your statement that it is dangerous to quote Scripture. That's what you said. I said that is untrue, which it is. You then went out to try and prove how it is dangerous to quote Scripture, adding another fallacy to it, that of that "no verse stands alone".
Ryan, we both know that the Devil himself quoted Scripture to Christ Himself and that anyone can quote it, but your argument was that quoting Scripture is dangerous and that no verse can stand alone.
If you would have begun by saying what you claim you really meant to say was what you said in the first place, there would be no problem.
And now we have come full circle!
God bless.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 1:55PM

I didn't think that I would be misinterpreted. I honestly believe you grasped onto one statement that I made and ignored the rest.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:34PM

Lie. And you know it.

Rich Fisher| 1.13.11 @ 2:21PM

Margie, I'm usually right in your court but you've missed it on this one. All scripture is profitable, but all scripture taken out of context can be very damaging. The Bible is an entire document and to just pick one sentence or one paragraph from it is not only dangerous but bad theology. Liberals are famous for quoting from the Bible to prove a point and leaving out 42 supporting scriptures that make it clear that their "point" is invalid. Take a step back and realize that no one is attacking scripture here, just the misuse of it.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:33PM

Rich,
Ryan knows what he's doing here, and always does this sort of thing.
If you cannot discern what he is doing, I am sorry, but I do.
AGAIN: the issue is NOT wrongly taking Scripture out of context. Read on.. he is claiming what he originally said and meant to say, and that is that to quote Scriptuure is dangerous, and that no single verse ought to be quoted.
This is a lie.
And just because Satan himself uses it on God''s children, or Obama uses it on us, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be quoted.
Ryan is using it to FALSLY teach that it ought not be quoted if it's only a single verse.
He is LYING.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 12:24PM

And by the way, Ryan. You claim I "misinterpreted what you said", yet you said clearly, "Quoting Scripture is dangerous".
Then you go on to try and prove why quoting it is dangerous.
I think you best get your head into that Scripture you are trying to say is dangerous to be quoting, as you are quoting it in order to justify your telling us it is dangerous to quote from!
Perhaps you are trying to prove your own point!

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 12:32PM

I think the term I should have used was "selectively quoting." If you read the rest of what I wrote, that's what I was getting at.

I'm talking about removing a singular verse from its context. It's usually done when we come to the Bible trying to "prove" a preconceived notion that we already have.

Booger| 1.13.11 @ 12:37PM

Dear Margie,

There are those who "wrest the scriptures to their own destruction". I believe that was the intended point. A scripture taken out of context and used by a dishonest person can be very destructive. If you read Matthew's account, even Satan quoted scripture when he tempted Christ.

Cordially,

Booger

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 12:49PM

Booger,

Uh, I just said what you said.

However, the Ryan's statement was, "It is dangerous to quote Scripture".

And then he went on to pontificate some more by stating "No verse stands alone".

That, my dear Booger, is also a lie.

"Catch us the foxes, the little foxes that spoil the vineyards". Sgs. 2:15.

Cordially,
Margie

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 1:22PM

Please re-read everything I wrote.

Such as: "There aren't a whole lot of scriptures that stand alone without needing to look at the remainder of the passage for context."

I did NOT say "no verse stands alone."

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:32PM

Really?
Now I KNOW you are being disingenuous.

"The danger in quoting scripture - particularly in singular verses - is that no verse stands alone."

Are you insane, too?

And you went on to say that Jer. 29:11 could only be used in the context of THAT TIME, which is yet another blatant lie.

I'm not sure what your problem is, but it ain't with me, it's with your Creator.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 1:44PM

I didn't completely re-read what I wrote. It doesn't disprove my point.

I think that if you read what I wrote there, it doesn't contradict anything that I said earlier, either.

We shouldn't selectively quote scripture. There's nothing Biblically wrong about that statement.

I think that you're trying to turn this into some argument about how I don't believe we should use scripture for some reasoning; or that I somehow don't believe that scripture is relevant in modern times.

That is NOT what I am saying.

I am simply stating that - like what President Obama did - selectively quoting scripture while ignoring its context is poor use of scripture.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:48PM

"We shouldn't selectively quote scripture. There's nothing Biblically wrong about that statement."

You sir, are a liar.

And once again, we have come full circle and you really DID mean to say what you originally said before seemingly correcting it.

And once again you are making yourself the authority.
And once again I take my stand on what the Scripture itself says:

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.." 2 Tim. 3:16.

When God says ALL, He means ALL.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 1:51PM

How does the argument made in 2 Tim 3:16 allow someone to quote a Biblical statement all by itself? Are we allowed to remove context?

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:54PM

Round and round Ryan goes, where he stops nobody knows.

rich fisher| 1.13.11 @ 2:27PM

Margie, you know, for a supposed Christian you have a real mean attitude. Just because someone makes a statement that you don't totally buy into doesn't make them a liar. You need to display some of the Christian character you so righteously claim to have. You're giving the rest of Christianity a bad name with your constant bitter attitude for anyone who doesn't toe the line with your doctrine. I consider myself a "literalist" when it comes to the Bible, but even I stop short of calling people liars who I disagree with over the meaning of a particular verse or even passage. You may just wind up in heaven finding out you didn't know half as much as you thought you did and also finding out that God didn't put you down here as the sole arbiter of what his Word means.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:37PM

Spare me, Rich.
I have clearly explained and exposed Ryan for what he is doing.. he is being utterly disingenuous here.
After several back and forths with him he continues to obfuscate.

And I am NOT a sole arbiter but I do know the Truth, and will continue to stand on the BIBLE and not allow liars to lie.

Humphry Dumfries| 1.13.11 @ 3:00PM

Tut-tut!

Vasu Murti | 1.13.11 @ 8:01PM

Margie says:

"And once again I take my stand on what the Scripture itself says:

" 'All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.' 2 Tim. 3:16.

"When God says ALL, He means ALL."

This suggests the Christians can accept the Bhagavad-gita?

Father Robert Stephens, a Catholic priest in Australia, considers Krishna "one of the many names of God."

He writes that he is "saddened at the narrowness and arrogance of many Christian fundamentalists," "those who claim a monopoly on all truth or goodness;" "those who desperately cling only to external forms under the pretense of faith in God," and "those who have turned their Sacred Scriptures into mere weaponry against those who differ from themselves."

According to Father Stephens, we who engage in interreligious discussion "have firm support from the Catholic Church, especially the Second Vatican Council, and from such official bodies as the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and the Dialogue Commission of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of India."

Father Stephens observes that "Because spiritual riches belong to all, dialogue and sharing are not an optional extra in a pluralistic society. We cannot live in a fortress of one-eyed people."

Father Gerald O’Collins S.J., similarly, is of the opinion that the Bible does not necessarily provide authoritative answers to new questions which arise in the life of the Church, and that the Bible is not that kind of "norm for every problem and every situation."

Father Bede Griffiths says of Bhagavad-gita, "For a Christian, this is a wonderful confirmation of God’s love contained in the Gospel."

Meister Eckhart wrote: "When we say God is ‘eternal,’ we mean God is eternally young." This is Krishna Consciousness. God is an eternal youth.

Matthew Fox’s statement that "God and God’s Son are ultimately attractive and alluring because of their beauty" is also consistent with Vaishnavaism: the worship of Lord Vishnu, or Krishna. The name "Krishna" means "the all attractive one."

World Religions: From Ancient History to the Present, edited by Geoffrey Parrinder, states that one conclusion of Bhagavad-gita is:

"...there is no rebirth when a man devotes his whole heart to the Lord. The wicked man who adores the Lord becomes holy; even women, vaishyas and shudras (are saved)."

The Vaishnava tradition is described as a warm, devotional religion, drawing women and members of the low castes to itself...first announced in the Gita...destined for a long and fruitful career through Indian history."

World Religions explains:

"The Vaishnava saints...wrote ecstatic poetry in praise of the Lord in the vernacular..."

A key Vaishnavaite doctrine is that of prapatti, or throwing oneself completely on God’s mercy; feeling oneself completely dependent upon the Lord.

One school of thought teaches that receiving salvation is comparable to the monkey, which carries its young clinging to its belly—the individual must properly use his free will for grace to assent.

Another school of thought uses the analogy of the cat which carries its kitten by the neck—God’s grace requires no human effort.

In Bhagavad-gita ("The Lord’s Song"), Lord Krishna reveals Himself as an incarnation of God to His disciple Arjuna.

According to the Gita (11:48), one cannot come to know God personally by study of the scriptures, nor by performing sacrifices, nor by charity, nor by good deeds, nor by penances.

The Gita (11:54-55) teaches that God can only be known through love and devotion.

The Brahma-Samhita (34) says the ascetics and deep thinkers who try to understand God through their own abilities merely touch the outskirts of His lotus feet, and do not know Him intimately.

The Gita (Ch. 12) explains one must lead a life of devotion to a personal God. Those completely devoted to God are not affected by worldly conflicts, concerns, and entanglements, and are very, very dear to Him.

The Lord’s devotees are lifted by the Lord into a state of spiritual grace; free from the entanglements of the world and the flesh, because—by His mercy—they are able to serve Him personally. (Gita 14:26-27)

One can understand God only by devotion. (Gita 18:55) Only through devotion can one enter into the kingdom of God. One must surrender oneself completely to God.

By His grace ("tat-prasadat", in the original Sanskrit) one receives everlasting peace and the spiritual Kingdom. (Gita 18:58-66)

The understanding of grace versus works in the Vaishnava tradition is slightly different compared to that of Christianity.

Dr. William Deadwyler (Ravindra Svarupa dasa), a contemporary Hindu spiritual master, noted the similarities and differences between the two theologies when giving an account of his own religious upbringing and his observations of the Christian devotional life:

"I was nominally a Methodist, but the Baptists had a strong influence on me. In my childhood I was rather heavily evangelized. But I never made a full commitment. And I think it was because well, I just never met anyone who sufficiently inspired me by his personal example to make that commitment...

"As I grew older, I still looked for something more, something deeper than that benign wholesomeness, that always-smiling friendliness and that relentless cheerfulness.

"It all seemed so superficial, and so many of them were, as my father put it, ‘on the quietus,’ doing in secret what the unsaved did in the open.

"Having spent many years in their spiritual milieu, I had formed my own judgement of them. I felt that their religious practice was severely crippled by a lack of disciplined, progressive cultivation under expert guidance.

"Spiritual advancement depends upon such cultivation, just as athletic success requires a rigorous program of training under an expert coach.

"But they had little sense of that. Their belief (correct enough) that salvation comes from God’s grace became transmogrified in practice into a curious sort of spiritual passivity. They depended upon sudden emotional outpourings and flashes of inspiration (whose impact seemed to dissipate swiftly).

"Thus their spirituality had a haphazard, hit-or-miss character; it suffered from a lack of direction. It was immature.

"As a result, they stagnated in a sort of bland, superficial wholesomeness. In the end, their religiosity simply gave a cachet to a kind of constrained, genteel materialism—to prayers in the locker room after football or golf, and to church barbecues where the girls from the choir managed to seem both sexy and pure at the same time.

"And even all this was mostly for appearance. Since niceness is not enough, deviance was rampant, if covert. Yet their belief in inherent sinfulness led to a passive acceptance of that, too.

"On the other hand, I knew (these Christians) would view me as espousing the error of Pelagius, the heresy that man can save himself by his own efforts.

"Enough evangelicals had approached me in the streets to announce, ‘I don’t have to work for my salvation,’ to let me know that the party line on us was out.

"This charge had two sources. First of all, they saw any sort of regimen as smacking of works. Second of all, they believed that every religion but Christianity, no matter what its particular practices, was Pelagian.

"To be more precise, all religions were Pelagian, but Christianity, strictly speaking, was not a religion.

"Religion they defined as the vain attempts of man to reach God on his own; all such attempts are tainted by man’s inherent sinfulness and so inevitably fail. Christianity, on the other hand, is God’s own reaching out to man. It is not, of course, tainted by sinfulness."

Some Christian theologians, nonetheless, have acknowledged the Vaishnava tradition as a religion of grace.

One of the most renowned thinkers of the early 20th century was a German scholar named Rudolf Otto (1869-1937), recognized for his book The Idea of the Holy.

Otto was especially concerned with the Vaishnava faith as a competitor to Christianity. A competitor, Otto explained, would make a claim to be equal or even superior to Christianity, and would have a well-founded basis on which to make that claim.

According to Otto, a religious competitor is "whatever may seek a place in our hearts or control over our lives that is not our faith but in rivalry with it."

Otto wrote of "India’s religion of grace," or "bhakti-religion," as the principal competitor to Christianity. He discussed this at length in his book India’s Religion of Grace and Christianity Compared and Contrasted.

He wrote: "In this Indian bhakti-religion there is presented, without doubt, a real, saving God, believed, received, and—can we doubt it?--experienced. And this is just why this religion appears to me to have been, and to be today, the most astonishing ‘competitor’ to be taken most seriously.

"Here we are dealing with a genuine religion and religion of experience," Otto explained. "Religion here is no mere fringe sentiment furnishing a border to the rest of our life, but is conceived as the true meaning of life itself." Otto devoted a good portion of this book to demonstrating and appreciating the numerous similarities between Vaishnavaism and Christianity.

According to Otto:

"The similarities present here are so important that it is tempting to consider this religion, viewed from the outside, as a sort of duplicate on Indian soil of that religion which emerged from Palestine and which we call Christianity."

In his book, The Living God: Basal Forms of Personal Religion, Nathan Soderblom similarly observed:

"Warren Hastings was right in writing that of all known religions this comes nearest to Christianity."

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.13.11 @ 1:12PM

Margie, I love you, but you are wrong here, and Ryan has the truth of it.
Satan himself can quote scripture...for obviously nefarious ends.
I was taught at Baylor U. (heh Jerusalem on the Brazos river), to read the synoptic Gospels together as a whole to reconstruct Jesus' words and thought.
I was also taught...and believe...the St. John Gospel was a theological overview of the synoptic Gospels.
I was also taught, and believe, the words of the premier Hebrew scholar in Christendom, (my professor, (Dr. Kyle Yates): "In the end, the Old Testament is the story of a people coming to know God over time."
Fallible human beings just like us, Margie.
God bless

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:25PM

"Satan himself can quote scripture...for obviously nefarious ends."

I guess you want to twist my words as well.
That is exactly what I said.
Read my above posts.
That wasn't what Ryan said, though, and he corrected himself.

I spoke to Ryan's specific claims, which were false.
He claimed that quoting Scripture was dangerous, and then went on to try and prove it by saying that no verse can stand alone.

Outright false and against what the Scripture itself says.

And I don't care what mighty theologian you want to quote.
Please quit putting something on me that is untrue~ when I spoke the truth, I really don't appreciate it.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 1:45PM

Where does scripture allow us to quote something out of context?

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:52PM

You are a disingenuous troll, and there are many like you here.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 1:58PM

So....what about the question?

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:00PM

Answered several times with the Scripture you object to, troll.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 2:09PM

Not really. You just threw 2 Tim 3:16 out there and, under your personal interpretation, that answers it.

It doesn't. There's no allowance by God that a Christian (or not) can use scripture infallibly, or to jump around pointing at items saying, "see, here's where I am right!"

If you do so, then you just agreed with President Obama, who used a verse out of context.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:14PM

Liar.
Keep it up, Ryan. You've now been unleashed by your pal, Ken so you feel empowered, however God's truth still stands.

HIS WORD SAYS THIS and I repeat:

"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.." 2 Tim. 3:16.

When God says ALL He means ALL.
Liars go to Hell.
Lotsa luck.

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 2:18PM

I'm glad you agree all scripture is inspired. So, what about the book of Sirach? That was in Timothy's Bible. Why do you reject that scripture?

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:23PM

Frisbee,
You are a Catholic, and the doctrines of Catholicsm do not agree with the Bible.
You will join with your Catholic friends here.
If you want to go on about this, fine.
But I will be cast as a despicable liar when I take my stand on the Bible, when the liars speak from their own accord.

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 2:29PM

Margie: I don't have Catholic friends here that I'm aware of. Being a Protestant or Catholic is excusable. Being uncharitable is not. Please repent.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:38PM

I have nothing to repent of here.
Now take your lying accusations and use them on yourself. please.

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 3:08PM

Margie said: "doctrines of Catholicsm do not agree with the Bible"

Actually, I'm not aware of any Catholic doctrine that is not in the Bible. Can you give me an example?

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 7:07PM

Margie doesn't like Catholics.

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 9:33PM

With "catholics" like Pelosi around, it's hard to blame her.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 11:44PM

That's very unfair and uncalled for. There are many holy Catholics in our country who are wonderful people doing God's work. It's bigoted and un-Christian of you to tar all of us with Pelosi's ugly brush.

Shame on you and Margie.

Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 7:02PM

Patriot: that ugly brush paints me too. The heresy and downright apostasy in the church is a scandal. In Pelosi's case, she has been publicly chastised.

Jesus said "scandal will come" so if Margie uses scandal as an excuse to stay out of the church, then she is letting it keep her away from Jesus. Still, Jesus said "woe to him by whom the scandal comes". He didn't say "woe to those who are scandalized". But he did also say "blessed are those who find no stumbling block in me". These scandals today are wounds in the Body of Christ, and a cross for all Christians. Blessed are those who do not reject this cross.

Patriot| 1.15.11 @ 3:10AM

It's wrong to demonize millions of good Catholics for the actions of a few. There are scandals in every organized religion and it's self-serving and dishonest to focus on Catholicism only.

Margie has a special distaste for Catholics and it's gotten old. Her constant judgment is anything but Christ-like. I will not encourage her.

rich fisher| 1.13.11 @ 2:33PM

Uh, Margie, which verse would you point to that says liars go to hell. If that were really the case, then not a single one of us would make it. Or, how many lies does it take? Can you find that number in the Bible for me? Is lying the unpardonable sin? I don't think that's what the Bible says. So, what lie sends you to hell? Seems like you have just proved Ryan's point, you have taken a verse out of context and made a doctrine out of it. You have totally misrepresented what the Bible has to say about those that won't be in heaven. You need to spend a little more time in your Bible and a lot less time on this blog calling people liars who don't agree with you. Don't presume to tell us what God thinks, you have no idea. To do so speaks volumes about your ignorance of God and his Word.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:42PM

Rich, are you really serious?
You do not know that liars go to Hell?
Then that would make perfect sense that you cannot also see what Ryan is doing.
Go here and type in the he word lie, liar, lies and falsehood.
BlueLetterBible.org.

Not only that, but I am allowed to speak in Scriptures, that is what the Bible tells us.
Rather, It speaks volumes about the characters of those who reject the Scriptures.

Vasu Murti | 1.14.11 @ 2:37AM

One widespread rationalization in Christian circles, often used to justify humanity's mistreatment of animals, is the erroneous belief that humans alone possess immortal souls, and only humans, therefore, are worthy of moral consideration.

The 19th century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, condemned such a philosophy in his On the Basis of Morality.

"Because Christian morality leaves animals out of account," wrote Schopenhauer, "they are at once outlawed in philosophical morals; they are mere 'things,' mere means to any ends whatsoever. They can therefore be used for vivisection, hunting, coursing, bullfights, and horse racing, and can be whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy carts of stone. Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun!"

***

According to the Bible, animals have souls. Texts such as Genesis 1:21,24 are often mistranslated to read "living creatures."

The exact Hebrew used in reference to animals throughout the Bible is "nephesh chayah," or "living soul."

This is how the phrase has been translated in Genesis 2:7 and in four hundred other places in the Old Testament.

God breathed the "breath of life" into man, and caused him to become a living soul. (Genesis 2:7)

Animals have the same "breath of life" as do humans. (Genesis 7:15, 22)

Numbers 16:22 refers to the Lord as "the God of spirits of all flesh."

In Numbers 31:28, God commands Moses to divide up among the people the cattle, sheep, asses and human prisoners captured in battle and to give to the Lord "one soul of five hundred" of both humans and animals alike.

Psalm 104 says God provides for animals and their ensoulment:

"O Lord, how innumerable are Thy works; in wisdom Thou hast made them all! The earth is full of Thy well-made creations. All these look to Thee to furnish their timely feed. When Thou providest for them, they gather it. Thou openest Thy hand, and they are satisfied with good things. When Thou hidest Thy face, they are struck with despair. When Thou cuttest off their breath, in death they return to their dust. Thou sendest Thy Spirit and more are created, and Thou dost replenish the surface of the earth."

Similarly, the apocryphal Book of Judith praises God, saying, "Let every creature serve You, for You spoke and they were made. You sent forth Your Spirit and they were created."

Job 12:10 teaches that in God's hand "is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."

Ecclesiastes 3:19-20 says humans have no advantage over animals:

"They all draw the same breath...all came from the dust, and to dust all return."

The verse that immediately follows asks:

"Who knows if the spirit of man goes upward, and the spirit of the beast goes down to the earth?"

The exact Hebrew word for "spirit," "ruach," is used in connection with animals as well as humans. Ecclesiastes 12:7 concludes that "the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."

This position was taken by Paul, who called himself an apostle to the gentiles.

Paul spoke of God as the "giver of life and breath and all things to everyone." (Acts 17:25)

In his epistle to the Romans 8:18-25, Paul wrote that the entire creation, and not just mankind, is awaiting redemption.

Revelations 16:3 also refers to the souls of animals:

"The second angel poured out his bowl upon the sea, so that it turned to blood as of a corpse, and every living soul that was in the sea died."

The exact Greek word for soul, "psyche," was used in the original texts.

***

Jesus repeatedly spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28).

Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32)

The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets (which Paul, and not Jesus, regarded as "so much garbage"), but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple.

(Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals!

When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years.

He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath.

"So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath.

"Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock.

"For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost. What do you think? Who among you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

"And when he has found it," Jesus continued, "he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbors saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

"I say to you, likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance.

"...there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner who repents." (Matthew 18:11-13; Luke 15:3-7,10)

***

"The compassionate, sensitive heart for animals is inseparable from the proclamation of the Christian gospel," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, in Love the Animals.

"We have lived so long with the gospel stories of Jesus that we frequently fail to see how his life and ministry identified with animals at almost every point.

"His birth, if tradition is to be believed, takes place in the home of sheep and oxen. His ministry begins, according to St. Mark, in the wilderness 'with the wild beasts' (1:13).

"His triumphal entry into Jerusalem involves riding on a 'humble' ass (Matthew 21).

"According to Jesus, it is lawful to 'do good' on the Sabbath, which includes the rescuing of an animal fallen into a pit (Matthew 12).

"Even the sparrows, literally sold for a few pennies in his day, are not 'forgotten before God.'

"God's providence extends to the entire created order, and the glory of Solomon and all his works cannot be compared to that of the lilies of the field (Luke 12:27).

"God so cares for His creation that even 'foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.' (Luke 9:58)

"It is 'the merciful' who are 'blessed' in God's sight and what we do to 'the least' of all we do to him. (Matthew 5:7, 25:45-46)

"Jesus literally overturns the already questionable practice of animal sacrifice. Those who sell pigeons have their tables overturned and are put out of the Temple (Mark 11:15-16).

"It is the scribe who sees the spiritual bankruptcy of animal sacrifice and the supremacy of sacrificial love that Jesus commends as being 'not far from the Kingdom of God.' (Mark 12:32-34)

"It is a loving heart which is required by God, and not the needless bloodletting of God's creatures," concludes Reverend Linzey.

"We can see the same prophetic and radical challenge to tradition in Jesus' remarks about the 'good shepherd' who, unlike many in his day, 'lays down his life for the sheep.' (John 10:11)"

***

English theologian Joseph Butler (1692-1752), a contemporary of John Wesley's, was born in a Presbyterian family, joined the Church of England, and eventually became a bishop and dean of St. Paul's.

In his 1736 work, The Analogy of Religion, Bishop Butler became one of the first clergymen to teach the immortality of animal souls.

"Neither can we find anything in the whole analogy of Nature to afford even the slightest presumption that animals ever lose their living powers, much less that they lose them by death," he wrote.

The Reverend John George Wood (1827-89) was an eloquent and prolific writer on the subject of animals.

A popular lecturer on the subject of natural history, he wrote several books as well, such as My Feathered Friends and Man and Beast--Here and Hereafter.

Wood believed most people were cruel to animals because they were unaware that the creatures possessed immortal souls and would enjoy eternal life.

One of the most scholarly studies on the issue of animal souls was undertaken by Elijah D. Buckner in his 1903 book The Immortality of Animals.

He concluded:

"...The Bible, without the shadow of a doubt, recognizes that animals have living souls the same as man. Most of the quotations given are represented as having been spoken by the Creator Himself, and he certainly knows whether or not He gave to man and lower animals alike a living soul, which of course means an immortal soul."

Influenced by Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, the Church of Rome maintained for centuries that animals lack souls or divinity, even though such a doctrine contradicts many biblical passages.

Previously, during the Synod of Macon (585 AD), the Church had debated whether or not *women* have souls!

Women in the Western world (in the East, the situation is worse!) are finally being recognized as persons in every sense of the word--social, political and spiritual.

Animals have yet to be given the same kind of moral consideration.

***

Jewish writer Mark Matthew Braunstein writes in his 1981 book, Radical Vegetarianism:

"Pope Innocent VIII of the Renaissance required that when witches were burned, their cats be burned with them; Pope Pius IX of the 19th century forbade the formation of an SPCA in Rome, declaring humans had no duty to animals; Pope Pius XII of World War II stated that when animals are killed in slaughterhouses or laboratories, '...their cries should not arouse unreasonable compassion any more than do red-hot metals undergoing the blows of the hammer;' and Pope Paul VI in 1972, by blessing a battalion of Spanish bullfighters, became the first Pope to bestow his benediction upon one cruelty even the Church had condemned."

In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, the Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, responds to the widespread Christian misconception that animals have no souls by taking the argument to its logical conclusion:

"But let us suppose for a moment that it could be shown that animals lack immortal souls, does it follow that their moral status is correspondingly weakened? It is difficult to see in what sense it could be.

"If animals are not to be recompensated with an eternal life, how much more difficult must it be to justify their temporal sufferings?

"If, for an animal, this life is all that he can have, the moral gravity of any premature termination is thereby increased rather than lessened...

"In short, if we invoke the traditional argument against animals based on soullessness, we are not exonerated from the need for proper moral justification.

"Indeed, if the traditional view is upheld, the question has to be: How far can any proposed aim justify to the animal concerned what would seem to be a greater deprivation or injury than if the same were inflicted on a human being?"

***

"Mark Twain remarked long ago that human beings have a lot to learn from the Higher Animals," writes Unitarian minister Gary Kowalski, in his 1991 book, The Souls of Animals.

"Just because they haven't invented static cling, ICBM's, or television evangelists doesn't mean they aren't spiritually evolved."

Kowalski's definition of "spiritually evolved" includes "the development of a moral sense, the appreciation of beauty, the capacity for creativity, and the awareness of one's self within a larger universe as well as a sense of mystery and wonder about it all. These are the most precious gifts we possess...

"I am a parish minister by vocation," Kowalski explains. "My work involves the intangible and perhaps undefinable realm of spirit. I pray with the dying and counsel the bereaved. I take part in the joy of parents christening their newborns and welcoming fresh life into the world.

"I occasionally help people think through moral quandaries and make ethical decisions, and I also share a responsibility for educating the young, helping them realize their inborn potential for reverence and compassion.

"Week after week I stand before my congregation and try to talk about the greatest riddles of human existence.

"In recent years, however, I have become aware that human beings are not the only animals on this planet that participate in affairs of the spirit."

Kowalski notes that animals are aware of death. They have a sense of their own mortality, and grieve at the loss of companions.

Animals possess language, musical abilities, a sense of the mysterious, creativity and playfulness. Animals possess a sense of right and wrong; they are capable of fidelity, altruism, and even self-sacrifice.

"Animals, like us, are microcosms," says Kowalski. "They too care and have feelings; they too dream and create; they too are adventuresome and curious about their world. They too reflect the glory of the whole.

"Can we open our hearts to the animals? Can we greet them as our soul mates, beings like ourselves who possess dignity and depth?

"To do so, we must learn to revere and respect the creatures, who, like us, are a part of God's beloved creation, and to cherish the amazing planet that sustains our mutual existence.

"Animals," Kowalski concludes, "are living souls. They are not things. They are not objects. Neither are they human. Yet they mourn. They love. They dance. They suffer. They know the peaks and chasms of being."

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 2:15PM

Margie: you need to calm down. Ryan has said nothing offensive against the Scriptures. "Take the beam out of your own eye."

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:25PM

Frisbee,
The beam in your own eye is blinding you from seeing God's truth.
Do you go by the traditions of men, too?
Or by what the Bible actually says?

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 2:38PM

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thess 2:15 KJV

Yes, I follow the traditions of the Apostles, and interpret the Bible in accord with those traditions. I also accept the men who succeeded the Apostles. Who hears them hears Him.

But being right or wrong on these points does not justify uncharitableness.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:45PM

Yes, The traditions of the Apostles, Frisbee.
Not the traditions of their followers.
They have no authority, and their teachings are not Scriptural nor were they in agreement with ANYTHING that the Apostles and Jesus taught.

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 3:14PM

Margie wrote: "Yes, The traditions of the Apostles, Frisbee. Not the traditions of their followers. They have no authority, and their teachings are not Scriptural nor were they in agreement with ANYTHING that the Apostles and Jesus taught."

Whoa!!! So Matthias, the successor of Judas, had no authority?

What about St Timothy, appointed by St Paul? He had no authority? What about Philemon?

What about Luke? If he had no authority, how do his gospel and acts have authority?

What about Mark and Barnabas? Did they have authority?

How can you separate the traditions from the followers? Who do you think it is that passes on the traditions?

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 3:28PM

Later down the post Margie quotes this verse in her defense "And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them." Mk. 6:11.

She thinks that this verse gives her authority, but does not give authority to the actual successors of the apostles.

Too Many Tims| 1.13.11 @ 2:04PM

Peace Marge.

Susan G.| 1.13.11 @ 1:20PM

What Bible is Hillyer quoting out of????? In my Bible, Psalm 46 says NOTHING about six nations are in an uproar, kingdoms fall . . . . Must be a typo.

ncatty| 1.13.11 @ 1:54PM

Thanks for the post. I thought it was just me.

skbnwinters| 1.13.11 @ 6:15PM

"The worst example of this (misinterpretation & out of context) is 'For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.' "....really??????????

So I can scrap all my hope that He has good plans for me? ME? Doesn't plan to harm me....scrap that, too?? Sheeeeeeeesh. Not the God I know, dude. Count me out! I don't like your god.

I'll take the God I know. My God DOES have good plans for me, He saved me from death as a small child, He's saved me more times than I can count, given me a future when I had none, good plans, hope, prosperity, everything I need and more....need I say more? :O)

Paul W.| 1.13.11 @ 2:16PM

Susan: "6" is the verse number. Hillyer was apparently copying & pasting from a website or other source. In the NIV (copyright 1984), it says: "Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall; he lifts his voice, the earth melts."

Quin| 1.13.11 @ 2:34PM

Not "6 nations." The 6 is the number of the verse.
Sorry for the confusion. I just copied and pasted...

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 3:16PM

Suusan G: try going up or down one psalm. Different bibles have different numberings for the psalms.

LarryK| 1.13.11 @ 11:23AM

No it does not bother me.
Anyone can quote scripture

Matt 4:5-7

But Wait, There's More| 1.13.11 @ 11:35AM

I'm not calling Obama a closet Muslim, but his curious relationship with Islam suggests a look at his scripture quote.

Obama quotes from Psalm 46. (http://www.scripturestudies.com/Vol8/H9/wis.html) This is Old Testament (and so falls within Judaism and Christianity). Does it fall within Islam? Of course it does.

Islam holds that the Psalms (Zabur) were revealed to David by God (Allah). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalms#cite_ref-2) The Twelver Shia believe that the Zabur is contained in the al-Jafr (a mystical Shia holy book). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zabur) The Twelvers believe that the Tweflth Imam (the Mahdi, heir to Muhammad) is alive and hidden until he returns justice to the world. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Twelve_Imams)

Following, the quoted scripture, Psalm 46 interestingly continues:

Nations are in uproar, kingdoms fall;
He lifts His voice, the earth melts.
7The Lord Almighty is with us;
the God of Jacob is our fortress. Selah
8Come and see the works of the Lord,
the desolations He has brought on the earth.
9He makes wars cease to the ends of the earth;
He breaks the bow and shatters the spear,
He burns the shields with fire.
10"Be still, and know that I am God;
I will be exalted among the nations,
I will be exalted in the earth."

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 12:13PM

I think that gives him a bit too much credit. I think that the error here is in the case of ignorance rather than malice or willful intent.

skbnwinters| 1.13.11 @ 5:57PM

I'm in!

In for the duration. Good debate.

And I'm with you, Margie.

However, I think what one writer above means about scripture being dangerous is more in line with Jesus' own saying, "Think not that I came to bring peace, I come to bring a sword" and He then goes on to flesh out how when we take a stand to side with Jesus-- all Hell is automatically lined up against us, father against son, daughter against mother, etc.

I also like what I just read that Ben Stein wrote....buzzwords being "not fearful, not complicated". So let's keep things simple, shall we?

Margie is right. Always remember what Daniel Webster wrote: "If religious literature is not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be; if God & His Word are not known & received, the devil & his works will gain the ascendancy; if the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt & licentious literature will; if the power of the gospel is not felt throughout the length & breadth of the land, anarchy & misrule, degradaton & misery, corruption & darkness, will reign without mitigation or end."

I see this happening in America today. A horrendous new show is about to air targeting teenagers called SKIN. WICKED! We have abortion continue to forever slaughter the innocent unborn, we have homosexuals shanghaiing the babies (fag hags were not enough cover or proclamation of "normal", now they must grab the babies, too?), we have every imaginable wickedness under the sun. Oprah posted a picture recently of a transgender nursing a baby for crying out loud. Drugs, pornography, decaying cities, children run amok, the ACLU continues to tear down every cross it can get its hands on....and on and on ad nauseum.

Better get God back in the classrooms and do what the enemy does ....start in Kindergarten!

PS....thank God for lil Jackie Evancho. I start every day with her singing Pie Jesu!!!

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 9:37PM

"Better get God back in the classroom". I agree, but I'm out of time as I already have kids. So instead, I never sent my kids to school. We homeschool.

Richard Baker| 1.13.11 @ 11:36AM

Yes, Scripture can be...er... misunderstood. I was at a church years ago when a visiting minister roared that "it wasn't wine that Jesus made at the wedding. It was GRAPE JUICE!!!" Even those with a Divinity Degree and Ordination can get it wrong.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 12:10PM

That's just plain misinterpretation. I think what is at use here is simply selectively quoting something that sounds nice.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 12:37PM

I've heard this too, and it actually could be true. But even if it isn't the Bible does tell Christians not to get drunk with wine.
"And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery". Eph. 5:18.

Of course this verse was spoken by the Apostle Paul. And it is one of the reasons lukewarm Christians seek to discredit the Apostle Paul from their repertoire, as he is a very inconvenient Apostle of God for them.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 1:23PM

True enough, but there is also no prohibition against drinking - just a prohibition against drunkenness, which quells the Fruit of the Spirit (ie Self-control).

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:27PM

I see.
Well then, each according to his own conscience then, hmm?

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 2:52PM

It's not a question of conscience, but of moderation. A little wine, not a lot of wine.

skbnwinters| 1.13.11 @ 6:23PM

I'm with you again, Margie, on this one. What is more important are 2 scriptures that pop into my mind: "Do not concern your mind with weighty matters" and "Do not argue" obstensibly over silly or stupid, divisive issues. Jesus will, hopefully, settle that matter when He gets here!

I hope He whips up a monster batch of the stuff just to prove that what I suspect is true-- it was neither. That what He made that day transcended anything this world has EVER known....a drink so awesome that it would make every wine snob & bartender on earth just bow down and confess "MASTER!!!"

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 9:41PM

So, the scriptures tell us not to get drunk, but it wasn't wine but rather grape juice?

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 12:13PM

I don't know what Obama is and yes, anyone can quote Scripture. That doesn't make the Scripture untrue nor does it mean that Scripture should not be quoted.

Satan quoted Scripture at Jesus!

I don't trust Obama a bit because his actions speak louder than his speeches. I heard part of the speech on the radio last night. It was very good but it doesn't mean anything unless he actually intends on practicing what he said in it.
Is HE going to quit with the vitriol himself toward Republicans and conservatives?
We'll see, but I doubt it.
And why didn't he come out and SAY specifically that the vitriol he was talking about was at our side, at Sarah and Rush and our side? Very deceitful because his followers probably took it to mean it was against them.
Sometimes wonderful words given in a speech can affect us in a deeply emotional way because the words themselves are wonderful.
But consider the source.
What has Obama actually been doing to this country so far?
A speech is one thing.
Behavior is what thinking people go by, and I am not fooled in the slightest.
I hope he truly repents of his Socialist ways.. till I see that, forget it.
Quote all the Scripture he wants.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 12:21PM

I'm with you here. He's made a lot of grassroots-centrist type of statements (particularly regarding bipartisanship and transparency), and has never done much other than head far to the left on his actions.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 12:29PM

You know that verse where it says Jesus looked at the people with compassion because they looked like sheep without a Shepherd?

I felt sad for those people who were cheering for him.. if they are looking to him as a messiah.. instead of the real Messiah. The Anti-Christ (according to the Bible), is going to do this type of thing, appeal to the emotions and vulnerability of the people and even perform PRETENDED miracles in order to lead them astray and cause them to give themselves over.

And NO I am NOT saying Obama is the Anti-Christ, we don't know who is, I am saying that this type of cheerleading and appealing to emotion is a very sad thing to see. I actually felt really sad for the people who are fooled by him.

skbnwinters| 1.13.11 @ 6:28PM

Agree. But look in the mirror. Let's be careful to not just be pounding on him the way they so hideously and inhumanely did to GWB day in & day out. What I am concerned with the most are those 4 VOTES of his....that will be the noose around his neck, much like Haman's noose.

God is watching.

Remember when he voted "Give no medical attention"??? Even Catholic Pelosi wanted to throw up. Only Obama was so far left he almost looped it. He voted that if an unborn baby survived a botched abortion and was struggling in a hospital medical slop bucket "give no medical attention" to hospital staff. WICKED!!!

So when he repents PUBLICALLY (sp--gotta migraine today. Can't THINK!)....then I will say OK....your in Square One, now rewrite your history. Because as of right now, it stinks.

Jimbobogie| 1.13.11 @ 1:06PM

For Christ's sake! Six people, including a lilttle girl are dead and this is all that you can talk about??? Do you even know her name?

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:12PM

Spare us the self righteous pap while you curse our Lord.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.13.11 @ 1:18PM

JUimbobogi
We also lost three soldiers in Afghanistan on the same day.
Do you know THEIR names you self righteous puke?
Margie,
see my take above.

Vasu Murti | 1.13.11 @ 1:32PM

Margie writes:

"...the Bible does tell Christians not to get drunk with wine.

" 'And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery'. Eph. 5:18.

"Of course this verse was spoken by the Apostle Paul. And it is one of the reasons lukewarm Christians seek to discredit the Apostle Paul from their repertoire, as he is a very inconvenient Apostle of God for them."

Like Scott Weiland and the Stone Temple Pilots say, "Read Between the Lines!"

Baptist theologian Dr. Richard Alan Young notes in his 1999 book, Is God A Vegetarian?, that many vegetarians and animal advocates speak of Paul with disdain. However...

There are many doctrines and moral positions within Christianity, including the pro-life position, which are not clearly spelled out in Scripture, either.

For example:

Although gambling is not explicitly forbidden in the Bible, it does prey upon the individual’s desire for worldly riches.

This desire for immediate wealth and self-aggrandizement is contrary to the spirit of New Testament teaching.

Jesus taught the multitudes to seek the eternal treasures in heaven rather than pursue temporary, earthly gain. He insisted upon the self-sacrifice and renunciation of earthly possessions and family ties and duties.

(Matthew 6:19-21, 6:24-34, 8:21-22, 10:34-39, 19:20-21,29; Luke 9:57-62, 12:51-53, 14:25-26,33; James 5:1-3)

Jesus had no interest in worldly disputes over income and property. (Luke 12:13-14) He taught that life is meant for more than the accumulation of material goods. He condemned those who lay up treasures for themselves, but are not rich towards God. (Luke 12:15-21)

In his parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, Jesus expressed concern for materialistic persons (Luke 16:19-31).

Jesus taught that it is hard for those attached to earthly riches to enter the kingdom of God. (Matthew 19:16-24; Mark 10:17-23; Luke 18:18-25)

His apostles lead lives of voluntary poverty; sharing their possessions with one another. Those among the brethren who did not do so were condemned. (Acts 2:44, 5:1-11)

"He who loves his life will lose it," taught Jesus, "and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life...For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?"

(Matthew 16:26; Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25; John 12:25)

In Paul’s words, "Piety with contentment is great gain indeed; for we brought nothing into the world and, obviously, we can carry nothing out. When we have food and clothing, we shall be content with these. Those who are eager to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into numerous thoughtless and hurtful cravings that plunge people into destruction and ruin.

"For the love of money is the root of all evil. In striving for it, some have wandered away from the faith...But you, O man of God, shun these things and go after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness." (I Timothy 6:6-11)

Although a representative of the Catholic church once said, "There is no eleventh commandment against gambling," conservative Protestants have traditionally taken a dim view.

"I find it impossible even in my weakest moments," wrote Richard Emrich in the Christian Century, "when the financial needs of the church are most pressing, to imagine St. John, St. Paul, or St. Peter running a bingo party or our Lord sending out his disciples to sell chances.

"And I shudder at the thought that some young person might say, "It's all right to gamble. We do it at church."

The Puritans of Massachusetts enacted America’s first law against gambling in 1638. In 1682, the Quakers in Pennsylvania passed their own law against gambling and "such like enticing, vain, and evil sports and games."

During the period from 1830 to 1860, lotteries were banned across America. By 1908, nearly every state in the nation had banned horse racing.

Condemnations of alcohol and drunkenness can be found throughout the Bible as well. It can be argued that abstinence from intoxication is God's ideal.

The ancient Hebrews regarded alcohol as both a blessing and a curse.

God was praised because "He causes the grass to grow for the cattle and fruits and vegetables for man to cultivate that he may bring forth food from the earth. Wine to gladden the heart of man..." (Psalm 104:14-15)

On the other hand, alcohol was also an instrument of God's displeasure: "Thou hast made Thy people suffer hard things; Thou hast given us wine to drink that made us reel." (Psalm 60:3)

Wine was permitted for medicinal purposes. (Proverbs 31:6-7; I Timothy 5:23).

At no place in the Bible is alcohol (or any other drug, such as marijuana) explicitly forbidden.

Drunkenness, or the excesses of alcohol (and presumably all other drugs) is condemned, but not the drug itself.

Complete abstinence from intoxication, however, was considered a sign of holiness.

God commanded His priests to be holy and pure before worship. "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor thy sons with thee, when you go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a perpetual statute forever throughout your generations." (Leviticus 10:9)

God also established the order of the Nazarites. The Nazarites distinguished themselves by never allowing a razor to touch their head, abstaining from alcohol, and by their piety before God.

"When either a man or woman shall separate themselves to vow a vow of a Nazarite....he shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes..." (Numbers 6:1-21)

Wine drinking was equated with sexual immorality and worshiping other gods:

"Go, ye, love...an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine." (Hosea 3:1)

"Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart." (Hosea 4:11)

It appears that wine was never intended for kings or political leaders, because of its intoxicating effects. (Proverbs 31:4-5)

Excesses of alcohol amongst religious leaders were also denounced in biblical times: "the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine, they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in giving judgment." (Isaiah 28:7)

According to Reverend Alvin Hart, an Episcopal priest in New York, the drinking of wine was frowned upon in biblical times.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." (Proverbs 20:1)

Intoxicating beverages were known to be habit-forming (Proverbs 23:35), resulting in violence (Proverbs 4:17) and distracting their imbibers from God (Amos 6:6).

The Bible says, "...wine is treacherous; the arrogant man shall not abide... woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink." (Habbakuk 2:5,15)

And:

"Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without course? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine, those who try mixed wine.

"Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. At the last it bites like a serpent, and stings like an adder."

(Proverbs 23:29-32)

John the Baptist never touched alcohol. Jesus himself told the multitudes: "John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine..." (Luke 7:33)

Jesus warned his disciples: "Be on your guard," he warned, "so that your hearts are not overloaded with carousing, drunkenness, and worldly cares...be vigilant and pray unceasingly." (Luke 21:34-36)

Referring to Proverbs 23:20, Jesus condemned one who "eats and drinks with the drunken." (Matthew 24:49; Luke 12:45)

Peter linked alcoholic excesses to the gentile practices of idolatry and sexual immorality.

"For we have spent enough of our past in doing the will of the gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties and abominable idolatries." (I Peter 4:3)

Paul did not forbid wine. Instead, he advocated moderation. Wine is to be taken sparingly, if at all.

"A bishop then, must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous." (I Timothy 3:2-3)

"Likewise, deacons must be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy for money." (I Timothy 3:2-3,8)

"For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled." (Titus 1:7-8)

"It was divinely proclaimed," insisted the early church father Tertullian, one of four early church fathers who wrote extensively on the subject of vegetarianism, "'Wine and strong liquor shall you not drink, you and your sons after you.'

"Now this prohibition of drink is essentially connected with the vegetable diet. Thus, where abstinence from wine is required by the Deity, or is vowed by man, there, too, may be understood suppression of gross feeding, for as is the eating, so is the drinking.

"It is not consistent with truth that a man should sacrifice half of his stomach only to God--that he should be sober in drinking, but intemperate in eating. Your belly is your God, your liver is your temple, your paunch is your altar, the cook is your priest, and the fat steam is your Holy Spirit; the seasonings and the sauces are your chrisms, and your belchings are your prophesizing..."

St. Basil (AD 320-79) taught:

"The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit. One can hardly have virtue if one enjoys meat meals and feasts...

"In the earthly paradise, there was no wine, no one sacrificed animals, and no one ate meat. Wine was only invented after the Deluge...

"With simple living, well being increases in the household, animals are in safety, there is no shedding of blood, nor putting animals to death.

"The knife of the cook is needless, for the table is spread only with the fruits that nature gives, and with them they are content."

St. Jerome (AD 340-420) wrote to a monk in Milan who had abandoned vegetarianism:

"As to the argument that in God's second blessing (Genesis 9:3) permission was given to eat flesh--a permission not given in the first blessing (Genesis 1:29)--let him know that just as permission to put away a wife was, according to the words of the Saviour, not given from the beginning, but was granted to the human race by Moses because of the hardness of our hearts (Matthew 19:1-12), so also in like manner the eating of flesh was unknown until the Flood, but after the Flood, just as quails were given to the people when they murmured in the desert, so have sinews and the offensiveness been given to our teeth.

"The Apostle, writing to the Ephesians, teaches us that God had purposed that in the fullness of time he would restore all things, and would draw to their beginning, even to Christ Jesus, all things that are in heaven or that are on earth.

"Whence also, the Saviour Himself in the Apocalypse of John says, 'I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.' From the beginning of human nature, we neither fed upon flesh nor did we put away our wives, nor were our foreskins taken away from us for a sign. We kept on this course until we arrived at the Flood.

"But after the Flood, together with the giving of the Law, which no man could fulfill, the eating of flesh was brought in, and the putting away of wives was conceded to hardness of heart...

"But now that Christ has come in the end of time, and has turned back Omega to Alpha...neither is it permitted to us to put away our wives, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh."

St. Jerome was responsible for the Vulgate, or Latin version of the Bible, still in use today. He felt a vegetarian diet was best for those devoted to the pursuit of wisdom.

He once wrote that he was not a follower of Pythagoras or Empodocles "who do not eat any living creature," but concluded:

"And so I too say to you: if you wish to be perfect, it is good not to drink wine and eat flesh."

"Thanks be to God!" wrote John Wesley, founder of Methodism, to the Bishop of London in 1747. "Since the time I gave up the use of flesh-meats and wine, I have been delivered from all physical ills."

Wesley was a vegetarian for spiritual reasons as well. He based his vegetarianism on the Biblical prophecies concerning the Kingdom of Peace, where "on the new earth, no creature will kill, or hurt, or give pain to any other." He further taught that animals "shall receive an ample amends for all their present sufferings."

Wesley's teachings placed an emphasis on inner religion and the effect of the Holy Spirit upon the consciousness of such followers.

Wesley taught that animals will attain heaven: in the "general deliverance" from the evils of this world, animals would be given "vigor, strength and swiftness...to a far higher degree than they ever enjoyed."

Wesley urged parents to educate their children about compassion towards animals.

He wrote:

"I am persuaded you are not insensible of the pain given to every Christian, every humane heart, by those savage diversions, bull-baiting, cock-fighting, horse-racing, and hunting."

The Bible Christian Church was a 19th century movement teaching vegetarianism, abstinence from wine, and compassion for animals.

The church began in England in 1800, requiring all its members to take vows of abstinence from meat and wine.

One of its first converts, William Metcalfe (1788-1862), immigrated to Philadelphia in 1817 with forty-one followers to establish a church in America.

Metcalfe cited numerous biblical references to support his thesis that humans were meant to follow a vegetarian diet for reasons of health and compassion for animals.

Oddly enough, the Bible supports abortion rights, too. The pro-life position is an implied idea, not clearly spelled out in Scripture.

Genesis 38:24. Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after conception, presumably because it was visible at the time. This was positive proof that she was sexually active.

Because she was a widow, without a husband, she was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law, Judah, ordered that she be burned alive for her crime.

If Tamar's fetuses had been considered to have any value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed until after their birth. There was no condemnation on Judah for deciding to take this action.

Exodus 21:22-24. If two men are fighting and one injures a pregnant woman and the fetus is killed, he shall repay her according to the degree of injury inflicted upon her, and not the fetus.

Author Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums up the passage as:

"Thus we can see that if the baby is lost, it does not require a death sentence-it is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost, it is considered murder and is punished by death."

Halacha (Jewish Law) does define when a fetus becomes a nephesh (person), a full-fledged human being, when the head emerges from the womb. Before then, the fetus is considered a "partial-life"; it gains full human status after birth only.

With the exception of some Orthodox authorities, Judaism supports abortion access for women. Each case must be decided individually by a rabbi well-versed in Jewish law.

The Babylonian Talmud (Yevamot 69b) states that: "the embryo is considered to be mere water until the fortieth day." Afterward, it is considered subhuman until it is born.

Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and the Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nephesh hu -- it is not a person.'

The Talmud contains the expression, "the thigh of its mother," i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body.

This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic Law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus. If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman is killed, the perpetrator is also killed.

This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person.

There are two additional passages in the Talmud which shed some light on abortion. They imply that the fetus is considered part of its mother:

One section states that if a man purchases a cow that is found to be pregnant, then he is owner of both the cow and the fetus. Another section states that if a pregnant woman converts to Judaism, that her conversion also applies to her fetus.

Some Jewish authorities have ruled in specific cases. one case involved a woman who becomes pregnant while nursing a child. Her milk supply would dry up. If the child is allergic to all other forms of nutrition except mother's milk, then it would starve. An abortion would be permitted in this case, a potential person, would be justified to save the life of the child, an actual person.

Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Judaism are formally opposed to government regulation of abortion. They feel that the decision should rest with the woman, her husband, her doctor and her clergyperson. Some Orthodox authorities agree with this stance.

Polls have found up to 90% of American Jews supporting abortion rights.

The New Testament is more permissive than the Old!

Paul claims Mosaic Law (which Jesus and his apostles repeatedly upheld - Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17; and chapters 10, 15, and 21 of the Book of Acts) has been abolished.

Paul claims further that the risen Jesus said to him three times, "my grace is sufficient for thee" (II Corinthians 12:8-9), and Christians misinterpret this verse to mean they're free to do as they please--ignoring Jesus' teachings and all of Paul's other moral instructions altogether.

The late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933-2007), raised Catholic but went on to become an evangelical minister, a vegan, and author of God's Covenant with Animals (it's available through PETA), told me they're quoting Paul out of context.

Paul, she observed, was very strict with himself:

"But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Corinthians 9:27)

Regina Hyland said this verse indicates it's possible for one to lose one's salvation (a serious point of contention among born agains!).

My friend Ruth Enero, a Catholic peace activist whom I very much respect, also says they're quoting Paul out of context. Paul, she says, had a "thorn" in his side, and asked the risen Jesus what to do about it.

Paul was given a direct response from the risen Jesus: "my grace is sufficient for thee."

This was a response to a specific issue, not a license to do as one pleases, or why else would Paul himself have given so many other moral instructions?

Reverend Frank Hoffman, raised Jewish, now a retired vegan Methodist minister, and owner of the www.all-creatures.org Christian vegetarian website says, "I agree with Ruth."

These Christians who focus only on II Corinthians 12:8-9 MUST be quoting Paul out of context, because otherwise it doesn't make any sense:

On the one hand, Paul is warning that drunkards, thieves, homosexuals, etc. will not inherit the kingdom of God, and on the other hand he's saying "three times"...you can do as you please?!

Then why did Paul give so many moral instructions in the first place?!

My problem really isn't with "Christians" unable to follow Jesus or Paul, but with the hypocrisy of saying "I believe," and ignoring the rest of what their religion dictates when it suits them; appealing to Scriptures they aren't even following.

Why not just part with your religion and be secular, like everyone else?

Secular arguments are religiously neutral and thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics.

The pro-life movement ALREADY HAS the support of organized religion. Instead of preaching to the choir, i.e., wasting time with religion, pro-lifers should focus on embryology and prenatal development, DNA, RNA, etc. to make their case to mainstream secular society.

And persons telling the rest of our secular society not to kill the unborn are hardly in a position to object when others tell them not to kill animals!

John2| 1.13.11 @ 2:15PM

Is this serious? It looks like a parody.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 4:16PM

Are you equating animals with the pre-born? If you are you are one sick monster.

So, if I become a vegan will you stop slaughtering 1 million babies a year?

Vasu Murti | 1.14.11 @ 2:06AM

Pro-lifers are willing to accommodate other pro-lifers opposed to contraception and/or capital punishment, but not pro-lifers morally opposed to killing animals for food, clothing, "sport", etc.?

The pro-life movement here in the United States desperately needs religious diversity.

Pro-lifers should welcome people of other faiths and those of no faith.

Not everyone in the United States is a Christian.

This country wasn't founded by Christians; many of America's founding fathers were Deists.

There are other faiths, besides the Abrahamic faiths.

There are other holy books out there besides the Bible or the Koran, like the Bhagavad-gita, which claim to be the word of God.

I really have a problem with pro-life Christians who adhere to a double-standard: i.e., they insist their stand against abortion be applied to everyone, including others outside of their faith, but then they embrace moral relativism when it suits them, e.g., "*Your* religion says it's wrong to kill animals for food, clothing or sport, etc.; mine doesn't."

There ARE Christian vegetarians and vegans, of whom I have the deepest respect. I don't take it seriously when meat-eaters say, "The Bible permits us to eat meat," because the Bible was also used to uphold human slavery. The Bible can also be used to justify abortion.

Back in 1992, my friend Tim Parks, a Protestant missionary whom I met through Life Chain, and who has spent a number of years preaching in China, spoke with pride about the number of different Christian denominations which were willing to put aside their differences and come together for the cause of defending innocent life.

Are Christians ready to do likewise for the animals?

(The International Network for Religion and Animals, or INRA, was founded in 1985 with this purpose in mind.)

A contemporary Hindu spiritual master, Srila Hridayananda dasa Goswami, comments on this shortcoming of the anti-abortion movement, in a 1982 Back to Goodhead article, "Is Something Wrong in the Right-to-Life Movement?":

"Insisting that human life begins at conception, the anti-abortion movement seeks to shock us into the awareness that abortion means killing--killing a human being rather than an animal, a bird, an insect, or a fish. Thus although the movement calls itself 'pro-life,' it is really 'pro-human-life.' Its fudging with the terms 'life' and 'human life' reveals a disturbing assumption: that nonhuman life is somehow not actually life at all, or, if it is, then it is somehow not as "sacred" as human life and therefore not worth protecting....

"If the pro-life movement can become part of a broader struggle to recognize the sacredness of all life...then undoubtedly it will attain great success."

Time magazine reported back in the late 1980s, that school prayer is next on the agenda for those on the right opposed to abortion, whereas for those on the Left, abolishing capital punishment is next.

Neither side appears to be thinking in terms of animal rights. In either case, if pro-lifers *really* want to end abortion, opposition is going to have to come from across the political spectrum, and not just from the far right!

The Seamless Garment Network (SGN) is a coalition of peace and justice organizations on the religious Left, which takes a stand against war, abortion, capital punishment, racism, euthanasia and the arms race.

I've distributed my book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion and numerous manuscripts to member organizations of the SGN, not because they're heavily Catholic, but rather, because they identify themselves as progressive Christians, and therefore (I presume) more open to animal rights.

At a Seamless Garment conference at the University of San Francisco in September 1997, Reverend Heng Sure, an American Buddhist monk, told the mostly Catholic audience that as long as people are eating meat (i.e., killing animals!), there will be abortions.

I believe abortion is the karmic reaction for killing animals. And therefore, pro-lifers should learn that it's in their best interest to include the animals in their ethics.

In the course of my articles, books and manuscripts, I've tried to make the case in secular, political language, because I'm not trying to "convert" them to another religion.

In contemporary American society, animal rights and vegetarianism are A SECULAR TREND which could use the inspiration, blessings and support of organized religion.

The record of organized religion with regards to animals is mixed: stronger in some religions than in others.

I'm not singling out pro-lifers for special criticism here, either. War, like abortion, is also the karmic reaction for killing animals. Many in the peace movement are unaware of this.

In the April 1995 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, Catholic civil rights activist Bernard Broussard concludes:

"...our definition of war is much too limited and narrow. Wars and conflicts in the human kingdom will never be abolished or diminished until, as a pure matter of logic, it includes the cessation of war between the human and animal kingdoms. For, if we be eaters of flesh, or wearers of fur, or participants in hunting animals, or in any way use our might against weakness, we are promoting, in no matter how seemingly insignificant a fashion, the spirit of war."

I read somewhere that one of the leaders of Operation Rescue came to oppose abortion in the 1970s, upon seeing a bumper sticker which read: "Abortion? Pick on someone your own size!"

Yes. That's precisely my point. The "might makes right" mentality that makes abortion possible begins with what we humans do to other animals.

Pythagoras warned: "Those who kill animals for food will be more prone than vegetarians to torture and kill their fellow men."

Domestication of other animals is artificial. Our relationship with other animals on this planet, wild and domesticated, is, therefore, partly an environmental ethics issue.

According to the editors of World Watch, July/August 2004:

"The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future--deforestization, topsoil erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease."

Brother David Steindl-Rast, a Benedictine monk, similarly says:

"...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging--to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."

The threat of "overpopulation" is frequently used to justify abortion as birth control.

On a vegan diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed 8.7 billion humans.

America's largest animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), over 1.6 million strong, is challenging those who think they can still be "meat-eating environmentalists" to go veg, if they really care about the planet.

My friend Dave Goggin from the San Francisco Vegetarian Society, who receives his news from conservative blogs, once commented that talk of global warming sounds like "a secular apocalypse."

Conservatives think the jury is still out on global warming, but if it could be shown that meat-eating leads to abortion and war, would this be enough to cause our friends in the pro-life and peace movements to go veg as well?

Becoming a vegetarian or a vegan is not merely helping the pro-life and peace movements, it is literally pro-life!

If Christians are unwilling to go veg for the sake of the animals, global hunger, the environment, global warming, etc...would they be willing to go veg for the sake of the unborn they claim to care for?

On the surface, going veg sounds like a roundabout way to protect the unborn. However, John Robbins, author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987) points out that the Rainforest Action Network did not start out as an animal rights group. But when they discovered that the real cause of destruction of rainforests in Central America was the American fast-food market, they called for a boycott of Burger King.

Once it becomes common knowledge that meat-eating (actually, animal-killing!) causes abortion and war, pro-lifers will have to stop blaming liberals, feminists, the secular news media, etc. for abortion...the root cause of abortion is on their dinner plates!

"When we turn to the protection of animals, we sometimes hear it said that we ought to protect men first and animals afterwards...By condoning cruelty to animals, we perpetuate the very spirit which condones cruelty to men."

---Henry Salt

The fate of the animals and the fate of man are interconnected. (Ecclesiastes 3:19)

Our spiritual master, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, whom we worship as a shaktya-avesha-avatar (or empowered representative of God), said in 1974:

"We simply request, 'Don't kill. Don't maintain slaughterhouses.' That is very sinful. It brings a very awkward karmic reaction upon society. Stop these slaughterhouses. We don't say, 'Stop eating meat.' You can eat meat, but don't take it from the slaughterhouse, by killing. Simply wait (until the animal dies of natural causes) and you'll get the carcasses.

"You are killing innocent cows and other animals--nature will take revenge. Just wait. As soon as the time is right, nature will gather all these rascals and slaughter them. Finished. They'll fight among themselves--Protestants and Catholics, Russia and America, this one and that one. It is going on. Why? This is nature's law. Tit for tat. 'You have killed. Now you kill yourselves.'

"They are sending animals to the slaughterhouse, and now they'll create their own slaughterhouse. You see? Just take Belfast. The Roman Catholics are killing the Protestants, and the Protestants are killing the Catholics. This is nature's law. It is not necessary that you be sent to the ordinary slaughterhouse. You'll make a slaughterhouse at home. You'll kill your own child--abortion. This is nature's law.

"Who are these children being killed? They are these meat-eaters. They enjoyed themselves when so many animals were killed and now they're being killed by their own mothers.

"People do not know how nature is working. If you kill you must be killed. If you kill the cow, who is your mother, then in some future lifetime your mother will kill you. Yes. The mother becomes the child, and the child becomes the mother.

"We don't want to stop trade, or the production of grains and vegetables and fruit. But we want to stop these killing houses. It is very, very sinful.

"That is why all over the world they have so many wars. Every ten or fifteen years there is a big war--a wholesale slaughterhouse for humankind. But these rascals--they do not see it, that by the law of karma, every action must have its reaction."

Similarly, in his purport to the Srimad Bhagavatam 6.10.9, Srila Prabhupada writes:

"One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a religious man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, 'Do not kill,' but hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses while posing as Christians. Such hypocrisy is condemned..."

And:

"If one kills many thousands of animals in a professional way so that other people can purchase the meat to eat, one must be ready to be killed in a similar way in his next life and in life after life.

"There are many rascals who violate their own religious principles. According to Judeo-Christian scriptures, it is clearly said, 'Thou shalt not kill.' Nonetheless, giving all kinds of excuses, even the heads of religions indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons.

"This mockery and hypocrisy in human society brings about unlimited calamities; therefore occasionally there are great wars. Masses of such people go out onto battlefields and kill themselves.

"Presently, they have discovered the atomic bomb, which is simply waiting to be used for wholesale destruction."

(Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya 24.251, purport)

Also:

"To be nonviolent to human beings and to be a killer or enemy of the poor animals is Satan's philosophy. In this age there is enmity towards poor animals, and therefore the poor creatures are always anxious. The reaction of the poor animals is being forced on human society, and therefore there is always the strain of cold or hot war between men, individually, collectively or nationally."

(Srimad Bhagavatam 1.10.6, purport)

Finally:

"In human society, if one kills a man he has to be hanged. That is the law of the state. Because of ignorance people do not perceive that there is a complete state controlled by the Supreme Lord. Every living creature is the son of the Supreme Lord, and He does not tolerate even an ant's being killed. One has to pay for it."

"Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles," writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, "there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement.

"Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to 'Get a Life!'

"Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence."

During 1986 - 1988, when I was on USENET, a nationwide computer network linking corporations, military bases, think tanks, universities, etc., I paid close attention to the abortion debate. The subject of animal rights always came up, albeit indirectly.

The mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but rather some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights.

When a pro-lifer discussed the potential humanity of the unborn, a pro-choicer replied, "MY CAT has more potential than that!"

One pro-choicer said sarcastically, "Maybe the kid (the fetus) should be raised as a vegetarian. After all, don't cows have the right to life?"

Another pro-choicer, Oleg Kiselev, upon hearing the pro-life argument that brain waves can be detected in the unborn as early as six weeks, pointed out that animals also have brain waves. He then added, "Excuse me, while I eat my veal stew."

In the spring of 1988, Stephen Carrier, a grad student in Mathematics at UC Berkeley, pointed out that chimpanzees share 99 percent of their DNA with humans, and so, to argue that species membership alone makes life worth protecting "is to fetishize DNA."

A pro-lifer responded: "If it'll please you, I will agree to protect anything that is 99 percent human."

To this, Stephen responded: "Okay. How about 50 percent? That would probably bring quite a few species into the net."

Stephen Carrier admitted, "I don't know what makes it acceptable to kill animals for meat. Some people think it's wrong, and I have no logical answer for them. But it's not murder, and I believe abortions are analogous. Yes, it's killing--but it's not murder."

Stephen admitted his argument was "not a mathematical proof, but there is no mathematical proof that will resolve the abortion debate."

In the fall of 1986, pro-life student John Morrow of Rutgers University compared abortion to slavery: Roe v. Wade denied rights to an entire class of humans merely on account of their age and developmental status, just as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 denied rights to an entire class of humans based on the color of their skin.

Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon responded:

"Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"

"Not even close" has become a popular slogan with pro-choicers. It even appeared on the headlines of most San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in November 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.

"Not even close" is not a new slogan.

Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation that when Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, "her views were widely regarded as absurd."

Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft by demonstrating that if women could be given liberation, then animals could be given liberation, too.

And since this is "absurd" it must be equally "absurd" to give women liberation.

Taylor called his parody, "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes."

"Not even close" is the "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" of the late 20th and early 21st century, because it takes for granted the millennia-old insurmountable prejudice that other animals couldn't possibly have rights.

It is this prejudice which we in the animal rights movement are struggling to overcome.

The pro-choice mentality hasn't changed since then. On AlterNet (a liberal headlines e-newsletter), on February 20, 2009, in an article entitled "why get freaked out?", pereztx writes on the subject of abortion:

"the thought of killing an innocent little life form and tossing them in an incenerator or trash might be the hang up other than that I cant think of why they might freaked out. This article writer probably then sheds tears during a PETA meeting about a chicken being killed"

Again, the mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights. This led me to conclude that if there's any constituency out there which ought to be sympathetic to animal rights, *it's pro-lifers*.

The issue of whether or not the unborn are persons being denied rights, executed, and even treated as tools for medical research, the way we once treated minorities, slaves, indigenous people, etc. and the way we currently treat other animals, is distinct from discussing the social factors (poverty, discrimination, etc.) which cause women to seek abortion in the first place.

For a discussion of the latter, which I've addressed before, I would refer you to pro-life feminist literature.

Personhood must be resolved before we can discuss whether abortion should be legal or illegal.

The abortion debate centers on the personhood or moral status of the unborn, and the extent of individual and/or marital privacy. Therefore...

This is an appropriate forum for discussion of animal issues!

In the cases of animal rights and abortion, we're discussing extending our circle of compassion to embrace an excluded class of beings: beings on the fringes of our moral community which are accorded only marginal personhood, often inconsistent at best.

The unborn, for example, are considered persons if they are "wanted," and are otherwise regarded as "tissue" to be discarded. Animals like pets, are considered part of the family, whereas other animals are considered "food" or tools for medical research.

If a pregnant teen goes to a crisis pregnancy center, the Christians there will not judge her for the sin of fornication, nor equate the sin of fornication with the sin of killing an unborn child. (Many of them are probably fornicating as well!)

Similarly: removing superficial, external religious trappings from the debate (fornication, food restrictions or preferences, "dietary laws", etiquette involving right-Vs-left-hand), at the heart of the matter in each case is the moral question of unnecessarily harming or taking another person's life!

Ingrid Newkirk, Executive Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said at the Festival for the Animals in San Francisco, CA on June 14, 1992, that in previous centuries, Native Americans were killed for "sport."

(Vegan labor leader Cesar Chavez spoke at that festival as well.)

Christian writer C.S. Lewis compared vivisection (animal experimentation) with Nazi physicians experimenting upon concentration camp prisoners.

Isaac Bashevis Singer has compared the killing of 50 billion animals every year to the Nazi Holocaust, saying for the animals, "it is an eternal Treblinka." This became the title of Charles Patterson's book comparing the holocaust of the animal kingdom with the Nazi's "final solution."

In The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery, author Marjorie Spiegel quotes former Alameda County supervisor John George pointing out that black Americans were the first laboratory animals in America.

In a 1979 interview with vegetarian historian Rynn Berry, civil rights leader Dick Gregory said he believes the plight of the poor will improve as humans cease to kill animals for food; saying the Europeans and others have treated their slaves and those they colonized as animals.

PETA employee Dan Matthews compares seeing a fish caught on a hook writhing in terror with his own cowering in fear at the hands of gay bashers in his autobiography, Committed.

Feminist writer Carol J. Adams compares the way humans oppress other animals with the way the patriarchy oppresses women (including domestic violence) in her 1991 book, The Sexual Politics of Meat.

Comparisons between humanity's treatment of other animals and the treatment of oppressed classes of humans are familiar, and I drew a comparsion between the killing of animals and the killing of unborn children in my 2006 book, The Liberal Case Against Abortion.

The issue isn't just vegetarianism out of kindness to animals or even ending global hunger or concern for the environment -- it goes deeper than that.

We're talking about the systematic oppression and subjugation of other animals.

John Stuart Mill wrote:

"The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the animals."

Henry Bergh, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), successfully prosecuted a woman for child abuse in 1873, at a time when children had no legal protection, under the then currently existing animal protection statutes. This case started the child-saving crusade around the world.

Cardinal John Heenan wrote in 1970:

"Animals...have very positive rights because they are God's creatures...Only the perverted are guilty of deliberate cruelty to animals or, indeed, to children."

UC Berkeley law professor John T. Noonan, Jr., a Catholic, compares the suffering of animals with the suffering of (born and unborn) children, and the humane response in each case:

"...if you will do this for an animal, why not for a child?...There are no laws which regulate the suffering of the aborted like those sparing pain to dying animals...Can human beings who understand what must be done for animals and what cannot be done for unborn humans want this inequality of treatment to continue?

"...we are bound to animals as fellow creatures, and as God loves them out of charity, so must we who are called to imitate God. It is a sign not of error or weakness but of Christlike compassion to love animals. Can those who feel for the harpooned whale not be touched by the situation of the salt-soaked baby?"

And the converse is equally true: Can those calling themselves "pro-life," claiming the "respect life" and believe in the "sanctity-of-life" respect the lives and rights of animals?

I heard Democrats For Life of America held a vote several years ago on whether or not to include animal rights on the agenda, but there weren't enough pro-animal votes at the time for animal rights to be included.

At least animal rights are being given serious discussion in DFLA, and maybe it'll pass when brought up for discussion again.

Democrats For Life of America, 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, South Building, Suite 900, Washington, DC 20004 (202)220-3066

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 2:58AM

You're seriously insane. But many of you on the Left are.

skbnwinters| 1.13.11 @ 6:37PM

Vasu.........how much time do you think we have??!

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:36PM

Who cares about what the mighty theologians say?

Oops, I guess you do!

"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths." 2 Tim. 4:3 & 4.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 1:49PM

Margie, if you declare some sort of theological position, I can point toward a "mighty theologian" who expounded on the idea, and saw it in scripture long before any of us did.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 1:58PM

I shall now always refer to you as the disingenuous troll that you are, Ryan.
You know better.

Little twerp.
I declare no "theological position", but stand on Scripture itself.

Ryan| 1.13.11 @ 2:04PM

Sola Scriptura. Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther didn't exactly come up with it, but many Reformers agreed on the principle.

Vasu Murti | 1.13.11 @ 3:40PM

Martin Luther proclaimed every man has a divine right to interpret Scripture.

So a mysterious political and/or religious figure (whom everyone refers to as "Who") shouldn't be telling 0thers,

"you don't have to..."

(fill in the blank)

abstain from meat
abstain from wine
abstain from divorce
abstain from gambling
abstain from birth control
abstain from using icons or images in worship
abtain from praying "in vain repetition" on the rosary, etc.

...with everyone blindly obeying without question. Fine.

But freedom of conscience means telling others:

"Read the Bible, and draw your own conclusions!"

i.e., you don't have to be an obstacle to (secular) social and moral progress, either.

skbnwinters| 1.13.11 @ 6:00PM

Excuse me but the Scriptures themselves say NO ONE HAS ANY RIGHT TO "INTERPRET SCRIPTURES"!!!

2 Peter 1:20 No one.

Administrator | 1.13.11 @ 2:05PM

Margie,
Please tone down the name-calling.

Can't we all just get along?

Thanks,
- Mgmt.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:11PM

Ok, "Administrator"~

As soon as you tell the numerous name callers here who call me the following to buck up, ok, pal?

White Trash.
Slut.
Bigot.
Whore.
Pig.

And there are so many that I can't remember them, and it goes on daily.
Aww, that's right. They share your Religious and political ideology so you don't care.

And of course, this only pertains to you if you are indeed "Management".

Administrator | 1.13.11 @ 2:24PM

An email has been sent to the address under which you post your comments. Thank you.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:53PM

Well then Mr. Administrator,

I see that you will apply to me the banishment ruling if I call someone a twerp?
So be it.
Of course this does not apply to the myriads of rantings and cursings that are applied toward me here on a daily basis.
It is clear what AmSpec prefers here, and it isn't the truth.
Of course those who have eyes to see can see that this isn't about the word "twerp", is it?
I will take my leave before you boot me again.

"And if any place will not receive you and they refuse to hear you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet for a testimony against them." Mk. 6:11.

Happy, Ken?
Happy Trolls?
Happy, Tim*?
You've got what you desire!

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 3:24PM

Dear Administrator: Please do not kick Margie out. She is a little abusive, but I think she is sincere.

Too Many Tims| 1.13.11 @ 3:54PM

I agree, she's a scold, but fun to have around. Maybe fun is the wrong word.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 4:22PM

Ken? He's one of your biggest supporters! I don't get it, Margie; why look for fights when they are none? I honestly hope you're okay.

We're supposed to be on the same side, girl.

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 3:01PM

Margie said "Who cares about what the mighty theologians say?"

I care what you say, and I care what they say.

Margie| 1.13.11 @ 2:20PM

Thanks, Ken, for unleashing the trolls against me here.
You have shown that you are just as disingenuous as they are.
Ryan is the one twisting the Scripture... and against me!
And you have joined him.
How VERY sad.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 3:19PM

Shame on you, Margie. Ken is a great guy and you have no right to attack him. No one here is out to get you. You're obviously disturbed and I will pray for you.

Take care, Margie.

skbnwinters| 1.13.11 @ 6:02PM

Yeah, well....this ain't my first rodeo as it's been said a lot lately. Usually whenever I see that condescending "I'll pray for you" stuff, I want to vomit. Come on now.

Then Patriot, I will "pray for YOU".

OK?

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 6:49PM

Is that you, Margie? And, yes, please pray for me, too. Like you, I'm human, and I need all of the Lord's help I can get.

You can go ahead and vomit now, but remember, I'm praying for you!

Too Many Tims| 1.13.11 @ 2:37PM

This can be a great resource for online scriptural research.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm 46&version=NIV

Rich Fisher| 1.13.11 @ 2:48PM

Margie, not to beg the point, but I have read this entire blog and have read many others and quite frankly have yet to find where you were called a pig, slut, whore or anything like that. I'm not saying it didn't happen I'm just saying I haven't seen it here today. You made a ridiculous attack on Ryan who made a very cogent statement, scripture taken out of context and used to make a point is dangerous and wrong. You, then, go on the attack and call Ryan a "liar" when in fact he is not, at least not in this case. Why do you feel it so necessary to call people liars who don't agree with you? That I have found in so many of your posts that I expect it to be your standard reply. The Bible doesn't need you to defend it, especially in your sharp tongued manner, and I think God can do without your counsel. You need to spend a little time studying Hermeneutics. For instance, how do you square "turn the other cheek" with God's instructions to Noah when he walked off the Ark that if man spills another man's blood, his blood must be spilled, too. You can justify all sorts of things by taking either of those out of context. The Bible has to be taken in its entirety and no single scripture stands by itself but is part of the whole. Ryan made that point and it appears that only you didn't get it. Your general lack of Christian Temperance is telling. You display none of the fruit of the spirit and certaily don't display any of I Cor chapter 13. No one on this blog is going to become a Christian with your harangues and some may be turned off forever if they perceive you as what a Christian is and acts like. Either tone it down or quit advertising yourself as something that your actions obviously don't prove.

David T| 1.13.11 @ 3:34PM

Reading these exchanges, I'm reminded of Hugo's self-righteous police Inspector Javert, hounding the reformed criminal Jean Valjean. We all know who found grace in the end. Note to Margie: Grace trumps the Law.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 4:18PM

So does LOVE.

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 5:02PM

Les Miserables is a great story. The only movie version I have found of it that I like is the one from the late 70's, where Anthony Perkins plays Javert. But you have to get the VHS version, because the DVD version was truncated and they removed way too much.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 5:22PM

I saw a Broadway stage production that was touring the country in the 90s--it was amazing. The music and the voices of the cast were incredible. It's still one of my faves.

skbnwinters| 1.13.11 @ 5:55PM

I'm in!

In for the duration. Good debate.

And I'm with you, Margie.

However, I think what one writer above means about scripture being dangerous is more in line with Jesus' own saying, "Think not that I came to bring peace, I come to bring a sword" and He then goes on to flesh out how when we take a stand to side with Jesus-- all Hell is automatically lined up against us, father against son, daughter against mother, etc.

I also like what I just read that Ben Stein wrote....buzzwords being "not fearful, not complicated". So let's keep things simple, shall we?

Margie is right. Always remember what Daniel Webster wrote: "If religious literature is not widely circulated among the masses in this country, I do not know what is going to become of us as a nation. If truth be not diffused, error will be; if God & His Word are not known & received, the devil & his works will gain the ascendancy; if the evangelical volume does not reach every hamlet, the pages of a corrupt & licentious literature will; if the power of the gospel is not felt throughout the length & breadth of the land, anarchy & misrule, degradaton & misery, corruption & darkness, will reign without mitigation or end."

I see this happening in America today. A horrendous new show is about to air targeting teenagers called SKIN. WICKED! We have abortion continue to forever slaughter the innocent unborn, we have homosexuals shanghaiing the babies (fag hags were not enough cover or proclamation of "normal", now they must grab the babies, too?), we have every imaginable wickedness under the sun. Oprah posted a picture recently of a transgender nursing a baby for crying out loud. Drugs, pornography, decaying cities, children run amok, the ACLU continues to tear down every cross it can get its hands on....and on and on ad nauseum.

Better get God back in the classrooms and do what the enemy does ....start in Kindergarten!

PS....thank God for lil Jackie Evancho. I start every day with her singing Pie Jesu!!!

skbnwinters| 1.13.11 @ 6:32PM

Administrator? Banishment? Margie gone? What the..............?

I hate places like that. Is this what happened here?

Shame. I'm out. Nice while it lasted. Let me know when any such foolishness has ended. I will not tolerate "censorship" that just masks hidden agendas.

I do not see where Margie has said or done anything to be "banished". Nor have I been on long enough to see any name calling. Oh please. Is this middle school? I thought this was a good discussion (?)

Let me know what you decide.

Patriot| 1.13.11 @ 6:42PM

It isn't really a discussion when someone constantly questions your integrity and demonizes you if you disagree with her. It's bullying.

Ryan was arguing in good faith and didn't deserve to be attacked and insulted.

Margie didn't leave because she was banned, she left because she was embarrassed.

Frisbee| 1.13.11 @ 9:49PM

skbnwinters: you came in here at 5:55pm, "in for the duration", agreed with Margie several times without specifying exactly what you were agreeing with, and ran off with a "shame, I'm out". Seems a little staged to me. Tell Margie we love her.

Administrator | 1.14.11 @ 9:32AM

For the record, Margie hasn't been banned. The messages above and an email to confirm my identity were the extent of our exchange.

Too Many Tims| 1.14.11 @ 4:32PM

Thank you, and let us pray for site administrators who have the most thankless job on the internet.

Jamie| 1.15.11 @ 3:01AM

Thank you, Administrator; your actions were appreciated.

Abigail| 1.13.11 @ 11:41PM

I just thought it was interesting that Obama quoted scripture directly related to Israel and the New Jerusalem after the fulfillment of end time prophecy. It makes me wonder how aware he is. Compare Psalm 46 and Ezekiel 47: 1-12

Phil S| 1.14.11 @ 2:41AM

I think 2 Timothy 3:15-17 is a great example of how Scripture can be twisted. Paul is writing to a bishop of the early Church and talking about the Old Testament (verse 15; the NT did not exist yet). Yet our Protestant brothers try to force this citation to prove sola scriptura. Yes the bible is profitable (i.e., useful), but nowhere does it state that it is a sole authority or the pillar of truth (oh wait, that's 1 Timothy 3:15: "the church is the pillar of truth"). And the mere fact that men of good will can interpret 2 Timothy 3:15-17 differently reveals much. I guess Peter was right when he wrote of those that "wrest the scriptures to their own destruction" ( 2 Peter 3:15-17 : Douay Rheims : http://www.veritasbible.com/dr.....er_3:15-17 )

Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 9:53PM

Excellent input Phil S, thanks. I would also add that the OT that Paul is referring to is the Greek Septuagint, which included the 7 books which Protestants reject.

Oldefarte| 1.14.11 @ 1:29PM

I did NOT watch his address [as I do concerning all of his speeches], since every word that he issues is IMO completely FALSE and [as which was shouted during his last SOU address] and a LIE. As to KINGDOMS FALLING, that is already happening in Europe with the financial collapse of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, etc; so the impending fiscal/monetary problems from this country's huge deficit/debt cannot be far behind same![unless, of course, taxpayer-voters wake up and continue to vote for Republicans before the Democrats are successful in drowning this nation in debt]!!!!!!!

Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 9:08PM

The Canon of Scripture was completed in the late 4th Century by Pope Damasus.

Then, in the 5th century, Vincent of Lerins wrote this:

"Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical... interpretation."

Frisbee| 1.14.11 @ 9:11PM

And I would add: ...Luther another, Calvin another, Zwingli another, Joseph Smith another, Ellen White another, Judge Rutherford another, Obama another,...

Tina B| 1.15.11 @ 7:00AM

God's Word goes out, and never returns without having completed its task. Margie quotes, God's word is put out there, and the indwelling Holy Spirit resonates with the Word in those in whom He dwells. It blesses or convicts. The Lord's will be done.
As for some of the readers, in whom His Spirit may not been invited to dwell, God will use His Word as He sees fit. Margie keep putting His Word out there (here).
If we were all sitting in a room together, Margie could use facial gestures, body language, tone, volume, modulation, expression, many different methods to show her reaction to statements made by others who are using the same symbols as we all chat.
But all we have here is the printed word. So Margie shows her feelings and reactions to this by using the printed word, and most of her comments are God's Word. I must say that she has already taught me a lot and I am reasonably well educated and reasonably intelligent, and almost 62 years of age. So thanks Margie, and hang in there, in His grace and for His glory.

Patriot| 1.15.11 @ 3:26PM

Yes, Margie is intelligent and knowledgeable--she doesn't need to bully others to get her point across.

More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/13/choice-of-scripture

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Elbert Guillory: ‘Why I Am a Republican’

Patrick Ryan | 10:13AM

The One Party State

F.H. Buckley | 9:47AM

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin|37 comments

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr|25 comments

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn|23 comments

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara|42 comments

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss|6 comments

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman|15 comments

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm|16 comments

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|102 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.