History is Repeating Itself!
Thomas Paine, wrote in The Age of Reason (1794), "The most detestable
wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have
afflicted the human race have their origin in this thing called revelation,
or revealed religion…
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more
derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to
itself, than this thing called Christianity...My mind is my own church."
In a 1989 interview with the now-defunct Animals' Agenda, Reverend Andrew
Linzey, an Anglican priest and the foremost theologian in the field of
animal-human relations, drew a parallel between animal and human slavery,
saying that history is repeating itself with regard to animals:
"Now, just think of the difficulties that those early Christian
abolitionists had to face. Scripture defended slavery. For instance, in
Leviticus 25, you're commanded to take the child of a stranger as a
slave...St. Paul simply said that those who were Christian slaves should be
better Christians.
"Almost unanimously, apart from St. Gregory, the church fathers defended
slavery, and for almost 1800 years, Christians defended and supported
slavery."
On the other hand, in a 1991 essay, "The Bible and Killing for Food,"
Reverend Linzey writes:
"...it often comes as a surprise for Christians to realize that the modern
vegetarian movement was strongly biblical in origin. Inspired by the
original command in Genesis 1, an Anglican priest, William Cowherd, founded
the Bible Christian Church in 1809 and made vegetarianism compulsory among
its members.
"The founding of this Church in the United Kingdom and its sister Church in
the United States by William Metcalfe, effectively heralded the beginning of
the modern vegetarian movement.")
The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil.
The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern
states, actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.
Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a
moral relation," "God’s institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right."
The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane
principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."
New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of
slaves (Titus 2:9-10, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-25, I Peter 2:18-25)
and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2, Ephesians 6:5-9) were often
cited in order to justify human slavery. Some of Jesus’ parables refer to
human slaves. Paul’s epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned
to his master.
The Quakers were one of the earliest Christian denominations to condemn
(human) slavery.
"Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment
to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word
of God," wrote Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik in his 1986 book,
The Vegetarianism of Jesus Christ: the Pacifism, Communalism, and
Vegetarianism of Primitive Christianity.
"Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to
substantiate their right to hold slaves.
"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-biblical sources
to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not
turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become
the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle
Paul.
"Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his
effort to free the slaves. ‘You shall not surrender to his master a slave
who has taken refuge with you.’ (Deuteronomy 23-15) What a pittance of
material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of
God."
In 1852 Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks
were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867,
"the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast ... the
negro."
Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah’s family, he must
have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro
must be a beast, and "consequently he has no soul to be saved."
Journalist Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State
writes about Gary North and the Christian Reconstructionists in his 2003
book, Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State:
"Reconstructionists trace their ides to John Calvin, the French
theologian... Calvin's Geneva was a harsh theocracy that suppressed
religious liberty. Nonetheless, Geneva under Calvin remains the
Reconstructionists' model society.
"Virginia-based Reconstructionist Byron Snapp was even harsher in his
analysis of the dangers of religious toleration and pluralism:
"'The Christian must realize that pluralism is a myth. God and His law must
rule all nations... At no point in Scripture do we read that God teaches,
supports or condones pluralism. To support pluralism is to recognize all
religions as equal.'
"Reconstructionists advocate the death penalty for a variety of offenses...
go beyond advocating criminal acts such as murder and rape... striking or
cursing a parent, adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, 'unchastity,'
witchcraft, juvenile delinquency, blasphemy, propagation of 'false
doctrines,' and sacrificing to 'false gods.'
"R.J. Rushdoony wrote, 'Thus, when New England passed laws requiring the
death penalty for incorrigible delinquents and for children who struck their
parents, no executions were necessary: the law kept the children in line.'
(The Puritans also opposed gambling, a fact which seems to have escaped many
Christians!)
"Like Rushdoony, North also has little use for democracy and once wrote,
'The modern world has been threatened by the rise of mass democracy, the
politics of one man, one vote.'
"And when it comes to implementing the death penalty for various religious
'crimes,' North outdoes Rushdoony. To North, stoning has a nice biblical
ring to it. North has researched the issue extensively and once listed five
reasons why stoning is the method of choice for executing today's idolater:
"Stones are plentiful and available at no cost; No single blow can be traced
to a single person, thus reducing feelings of guilt; Stoning displays the
collective responsibility for crime prevention; Executions should be public
events; And stoning is symbolic of God's crushing the head of Satan as
prophesied in Genesis 3:5
"Christians who believe in a 'spirit-filled' theology often marked by
speaking in tongues, faith healing, and loud, spontaneous worship
services... under a Reconstructionist government, such forms of worship
would be considered unlawful and might warrant the death penalty.
"Rushdoony himself blasted charismatics in a 1982 book titled Law and
Society. Wrote Rushdoony, 'The mindless, meaningless babble of such worship
is common to paganism, ancient and modern, where it is often associated with
spiritual possession. It is in any form alien to the biblical faith...
(Since the thousands of Christian denominations hold widely differing views
on the divinity of Jesus, the afterlife, the Trinity, grace Vs works,
drinking, gambling, speaking in tongues, faith healing, nuclear weapons,
divorce, same-sex relations, capital punishment, abortion, animal rights,
etc... there's no reason they can't be accepting, or at least tolerant of
Eastern religions similarly professing a belief in the saving grace of a
personal God, welcoming them into the American mainstream.)
"The Reconstructionists have tried on a few occasions to launch a political
arm. Their first effort was called the Coalition On Revival (COR)... called
for abolishing public education, forming countrywide 'militias,' and
dismantling the Federal Reserve... Dr. Theodore Baehr, a COR steering
committee member... has called for implementation of a restrictive film code
that would ban, among other things, 'lustful kissing' and 'dances that
suggest or represent sexual actions' in movies."
The early American feminist and vegetarian Elizabeth Cady Stanton observed
that "the Bible…does not exalt and dignify women."Husbands are to rule over
wives (Genesis 3:16), young girls are to be stoned (and not with marijuana,
either!) for losing their virginity (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), women are
subordinate to men (Ephesians 5:22-24), women must remain silent in the
churches (I Corinthians 14:34-35), women are not allowed to teach or hold
authority over men (I Timothy 2:11-14).
St. Augustine said, "Any woman who acts in such a way that she cannot give
birth to as many children as she is capable of, makes herself guilty of that
many murders."
Martin Luther wrote: "God created Adam lord of all living creatures, but Eve
spoiled it all. Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house and bear
children. And if a woman grows weary and, at last, dies from childbearing,
it matters not. Let her die from bearing; she is there to do it."
Even Pope John Paul II instructed women to go back to their traditional
roles as "obedient and serving companions to their husbands," and refused to
have an audience with anyone advocating the ordination of women in the
Catholic Church.
The Catholic Encyclopedia still declares that women are inferior to the male
sex, "both as regards body and soul."
I commented in 2010 that Carrie Prejean represents all that’s wrong with
Christianity today. You remember Carrie Prejean, right? She's the beauty
queen who posed for topless photos (after a boob job?), later claiming the
wind accidentally blew her top off?
I write this not out of envy or spite… she’s probably out of my league
anyway!
Fornication is acceptable to today’s Christians, same-sex relations are not.
Wine is acceptable to today’s Christians (and anyone who says otherwise is a
“Muslim,” of the “devil,” or both!), marijuana is not.
Secular arguments to protect the unborn (e.g. John Morrow, Dr. J.C. Willke,
protecting fertilized bald eagle eggs, the "I don't think so" argument,
etc.) are good politics, because secular arguments are religion-neutral, and
thus applicable to everyone, including atheists and agnostics. Secular
arguments to protect animals are met with the cry, “MOVE”!
Protecting the unborn is a Christian duty, whereas protecting animals is
dismissed as “good work.”
I’m surprised pro-choice Christians aren’t dismissing protecting the unborn
as “good work,” citing “three times…” to justify their right to an abortion;
dismissing whatever meager concern for the unborn is given in the Law as
“garbage,” etc. in response to pro-lifers!
I pointed out to the late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland (1933 - 2007) in 2003
that Reverend Frank Hoffman had said that conservative Christians are
deliberately lying about church-state separation, trying to make Thomas
Jefferson look like a Christian, he thundered, "This is an abomination!"
When I told Regina, that Frank sounded like a fundamentalist himself in his
response to the Christian theocrats, Regina said, "Hey, you gotta fight fire
with fire!"
Regina graciously received a copy of Rob Boston's 2003 book, Why the
Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church and State which I sent
her. But she said she didn't think the religious right posed a serious
threat to our secular democracy. And Regina Hyland was living in Florida, a
Southern state at the time, and this was during the George W. Bush
administration!
On another occasion, Regina said the Southern Baptists split from the
mainline Baptists over the issue of slavery! Animal activists must not let
the abortion issue divide the animal rights movement.
And after being educated on the long history of animal advocacy and concern
for animals within Christianity, including current trends in animal
liberation theology (I’ve written extensively on the subject, and although
one major problem with the theological approach is that arguments can be
made on both sides of the coin, that’s true of abortion, too!), Christians
aren't saying “Like civil rights and/or protection of unborn children,
animal rights is a Christian cause. This is a cause we Christians must
support!”
No, they still cry, “MOVE”! As if we were discussing some lifeless, soulless
thing, devoid of religious inspiration. (Kinda like the past five hundred
years of *secular* social progress and technology, which even conservative
Christians have embraced, huh?!)
Go on to: Hitler was a Meat-Eater!
Return to: Articles
