By: Frank L. Hoffman
People want to look to their world leaders as role models for themselves. They want to do the same things that their leaders do. As a result, these leaders take upon themselves a very serious moral responsibility, for in a very real way they hold the souls of others in their hands. This is even more to the point with Queen Elizabeth, because she is also the "Keeper of the Faith".
On 19 November 2000, Reuters, the "Sunday Mirror", and the "Sunday People" all reported how Britain's 74 year old Queen Elizabeth wrung the neck of a wounded pheasant. Her spokesperson said that she did this as an act of mercy to put the injured bird out of its agony. But was it really an act of mercy? Let's look at some of the facts:<
- The hunt took place on a royal estate in Norfolk, eastern England.
- The hunt was sanctioned by the royal family.
- The royal family participated in the the hunt.
- Approximately 200 pheasants were raised solely for the purpose of being hunted on this estate.
- Queen Elizabeth wrung the neck of this pheasant with her bare hands while watching Prince Philip and guests shoot the helpless birds.
I personally can see no way that this act of premeditated killing, or any aspect of the event (the wringing of the pheasant's neck) could be classified as merciful. The hardness of Queen Elizabeth's heart is evidenced by the fact that she could sit or stand by while her husband and his friends brutally shot and killed these birds, and then be able to wring the neck of this particular pheasant with her own hands.
As a reigning monarch, she could have set an example of compassionate living, but she chose to do otherwise. She chose to support cruelty and violence in our world society. As the Keeper of the Faith, she is to present the message of peace offered by the Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, but she chose to do just the opposite.
In 1776 an Anglican priest, Dr. Humphrey Primatt, wrote, "A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and the Sin to Brute Animals." In it he said, "We may pretend to what religion we please, but cruelty is atheism. We may boast of Christianity; but cruelty is infidelity. We may trust in our orthodoxy; but cruelty is the worst of heresies." If I apply this Anglican priest's definition to the acts of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip, I come to the conclusion that they are atheistic, heretical infidels.
I heard one woman respond to this news report, "We must have a very cruel God to allow such things to take place." Her remark reminded me of what Nathan said to another "keeper of the faith", King David, in reference to his affair with Bathsheba, "...because of this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme..." (2 Samuel 12:14 NASV). In this case, Queen Elizabeth's action caused even a believer to doubt and question God's intent (a form of blaspheming). Or as Paul wrote to the Romans in 2:24, "The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." So much for Elizabeth being "the Keeper of the Faith".
It's time that we stop shooting ourselves in the foot. It's time we stop sanitizing violence in our society under the guise of "sport". It's time we call it what it really is, Legalized Premeditated Murder.