am sure we can all agree that women are sentient beings and should be regarded as equals in every way to men. The early feminist movement was essential in bringing to light the intolerable circumstances that women had to suffer under in a society that generally regarded them as inferior to men, and the world is a better place because of it. The world has changed much since then and women can now do things that they could have never done in the past, such as become politicians, the heads of corporations and college professors. Yet there are those who believe that women are still regarded as inferior to men by society, despite these great changes towards gender equality.

          One of the greatest evidences of this, some say, is our English language itself. In English, we refer to any human person whose gender we do not yet know as he.[1] We refer to humans as mankind, and indeed, the word man is even in the word human. The word woman has man in it as well, and the word female is simply an adaptation of the word male. These are pointed to as evidences that we are still a chauvinistic society.

          I would argue that this is not necessarily the case. It is common these days to think of the word man along gender lines, but was it always considered as such? When mankind is used by formal writers, there are very few of them who are referring exclusively to the male gender of humanity. It is usually a term reserved to refer to all creatures that are human, and human is used to refer to both the males and females of our species. In addition, writers will often speak about mankind in the third person by referring to them as men or a man and yet does not mean the male gender but rather all of humankind.[2]

          Though some people in our society are indeed still chauvinistic, I believe that the majority are not or do not mean to be. The usage of man is hardly evidence of wide-spread chauvinism for the word is often used in an egalitarian manner. In using mankind to refer to humans, one brings women onto the same level that supposedly chauvinistic men place themselves, and makes them equal. Thus I firmly believe that this common and grammatically correct usage of the masculine to refer to all humans is the furthest thing from chauvinism, but rather equates the genders.

          Despite this, there are still many people that get offended by the fact that the word man is in woman and human. Their offense is certainly regrettable, but what should be done? Some would say that we English-speakers should adapt and change our language to become politically correct so that we do not offend those who find our way of speaking offensive. But as I have outlined above, I do not believe that there is anything intrinsically chauvinistic about English, and therefore the offense originates in the offended and not in the offender. Should people be compelled to change their language because certain others find it offensive? I think a much more reasonable position would be for a person to choose not to be offended in the first place. We should, of course, be sensitive to those around us, and when in the company of people who are offended by certain aspects of our speech we should do our best to not offend them, only because it is the decent thing to do. And yet I believe it is wrong for some people to go so far as to desire to change the language itself or impose their will onto others simply because they happen to find the usage of man offensive.

          Some accuse conservatives of being scared of change, and yet these are the same people that say that people shouldn’t have to change. For instance, it is my belief that homosexuality is not a permanent physical aspect of a person, but rather a behavior. I believe it is wholly possible for a person to choose not to be a homosexual, and I utterly refuse the idea that once a person is attracted to his own gender, he is always attracted to his own gender. It firmly assert that homosexual desires can completely leave a person if that person so wishes, and yet some members of our society find the very idea of a homosexual changing to be offensive. Some say it is impossible for them to change or that they shouldn’t change, and yet some of these very same people want English-speakers to change their language so that it is more politically correct. This is hypocritical.

          I am not opposed to change at all for I believe that every person has the ability to change nearly any aspect of his being, and I believe that a society must change at certain moments in its history in order to adapt and survive. But I do not believe in change for the simple sake of it, nor do I believe that change should be imposed on an entire society in order to appease a small offended minority. When languages are considered, change should occur naturally as the language evolves and should not be imposed upon it by a very determined group of people. In order for English speakers to cease using the masculine to refer to humanity as a whole, a great deal about the way we speak would have to be artificially manipulated. This would lead to stilted speech and awkward sentence construction. For instance, let us use the following sentence for illustration: “A man will do what he can to get his own way.” Even though it is my belief that this sentence does not necessarily refer exclusively to men as a gender but to all people regardless of sex, let us suppose for the sake of argument that it is chauvinistic and we must therefore find a more gender-neural way of expressing the same thought. “A person will do what a he or she can to get his or her own way.” This sentence is awkward and hard to wield, and it would be preferable to render it in a less-stilted manner. So then, we could try the following: “One will do what one can to get ones own way.” Again, it sounds top-heavy and does not flow very easily. The words one and ones, when used to refer to persons, are best used to replace the second-person or you in formal writing. It is not well suited to replace the common personal pronouns he, she, his or her. While these two examples certainly refrain from using any reference to gender, they are unnatural and gaudy and therefore less pleasing to hear spoken or to read.

          “Well then,” one could say, “why must we use he and his? I think that to use the masculine is chauvinistic, and so I say we should just assume the feminine and use she and her.” I can understand the reasoning behind this argument, but there is a slight problem with it.  You see, some people now write professionally and speak casually using the feminine whenever referring to an ambiguous gender, out of rebellion to what they think is chauvinism. But in so doing they are betraying themselves. If someone really believes that we should neuter all gender references when speaking about humanity but then goes ahead and uses the feminine to do exactly that, he is being hypocritical. The only honest way to hold such a stance would be to not use any gender designations at all and simply refer to humans as persons, people or beings. In addition, to purposefully go out of ones way to indicate the feminine stresses it. It is traditional in English to refer to humanity as mankind, and most people do not think of gender when they hear the word. And yet if someone were to say womankind when not referring specifically to women, it would stand out because the word would have been used incorrectly. It would likewise stress gender for someone to refer to an unknown person as she since this is uncommon and grammatically incorrect. This would be sexist since the speaker is purposefully exalting femininity above masculinity and works against his own argument that both sexes should be considered equal, making him a hypocrite.

          How can I possibly accuse those who use the feminine when referring to humanity as being sexist and not those who use the masculine? Because it isn’t about the words one uses, it is about the intent of the person who uses those words. If a man were to refer to humanity in the masculine simply because he gets a rise out of thinking men are superior to women, he would be sexist. Likewise, if a man were to refer to humanity in the feminine out of rebellion, out of pride or because it gives him a rise, he also is being sexist. The usage of the feminine to refer to humanity is not a natural part of our language and so any usage of it is a conscious choice by the speaker to designate gender, thus being sexist. While this certainly can and does occur from the other side, there are still those who are simply using English correctly and are not chauvinist in any way.

          I mentioned earlier that it would be wiser for a man to choose not to find this part of our language offensive. He can do so by not tying it in with chauvinism and make a distinction between language and sexism. One can certainly use language to express sexism, but language about gender is not always sexist. I think it would behoove people to realize that most who use English properly do not mean to offend and are not sexist. Once a person comes to this understanding, his reason for outrage fades away. I believe that a person can train himself to simply not be offended anymore; this is merely part of the process of the evolution of a person’s character, for I believe that a person does have much control over what kind of person he will be.  Will he be a person who finds offense at things not meant to be offensive, or a person that knows toleration and humility? It is up to each of us to decide.

© 2005, Brandon M. Dennis

ello Mr. Larson, my name is Brandon and I am a student at the University of Washington. I listen to you on the weekends while I work. They don’t play you until 11:00 pm or so, but that is fine for me since it gives me something good to listen to during my graveyard shift.

I was very distressed to hear about the threats you received concerning the cross you wished to display in lieu of Christmas, and I was incredibly disappointed at your response.[1] I only caught snippets of your show last night (it was a busy night taking guests to the airport) but from what I gather you received a number of threats that people would be hurt and damage caused if you displayed a cross. Your explanation tonight on why you decided to cave was that the only reason you wanted to display the cross was to remind people about the true meaning of Christmas, and since any violence that occurred due to your cross would disrupt that meaning anyway, it seemed counter productive. Please let me know if I am mistaken in any of this.

Allow me to tell you why I think this thinking is fallacious. First and foremost, any catering to terrorist demands only emboldens them, as I am sure you well know. If a man were to idly threaten you with violence in order to keep a cross off your wall, it would encourage him and embolden him for you to heed that warning. Now that he knows that threats work, he is much more likely to use them again in the future in order to get his own way. I might also suggest that whatever threats you received were idle ones, but if a would-be terrorist is in the habit of having his threats heeded, he may be that much more volatile if the occasion arises when his will is not catered to. It is my firm belief that to refrain from posting your cross not only encourages whoever it was who threatened you, but invites more threats and consequentially more harm to yourself, your family, and those within your proximity.

Despite all of this, I believe that it is morally wrong to allow oneself to be commanded by antichrists. Allow me to offer an analogy. Just recently millions of Iraqi’s (what was it, 70f the population or so?) went to the polls in Iraq and voted, despite threats from terrorists of violence and death if they did. They felt that it was more important to vote for their nation and ignore the terrorist’s threats, and this from a people who have good reason to heed such threats, for they are usually backed up with action. I believe it is just as important for you to attest your own faith as it is for them to vote. One may argue that voting in a new nation that is just struggling from the grasp of tyranny is more important than posting a religious symbol on a wall—but is it? As a Christian, my faith in Jesus Christ takes priority in my life to my love and loyalty to this great nation. If I had to choose between voting and Christ, I would choose Christ. Therefore I believe it is more important to be free to express your own religious faith than it is to express a political idea. It may be just a cross on a wall, Mr. Larson, but that cross holds more significance and meaning than the millions of votes that were just recently cast and even our own flag.

Jesus says in the Matthew 10:33, “…but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.” While I do not suggest that to not post a cross on a wall is a denial of Christ, I wish to allude to this scripture merely to emphasize how important it is to be an outspoken Christian in a secular, evil world. I live on a campus filled with communists, hippies, liberals, violent activists and antichrists, and while I am hardly a bastion of Christian belief, I feel oppressed and persecuted from all sides on a daily basis just for believing what I do. I have never been an overt, fanatical, Bible-thumping chastiser who gets in ones face and says “You’re going to hell!” but I have never shied away from topics on Christianity (or conservatism either) and have often had long arguments with fanatics on campus from the opposite bend. And yet after hearing your story it almost brought me to tears to think that, in this country, a man is being coerced into relinquishing his right to express his religion simply because he has a well-known name and a loud voice. Because of this, I am going to put a cross made of Christmas lights in my ground-floor apartment window, deep in the woods of liberalism, despite the consequences, because damn it Lars, I have the right to, and shame on any who would reach out their hands to choke my freedom! I don’t care if they throw rocks through my window, spray-paint my wall, cut foul words into my door or wait for me to arrive home from class; I will never shy away from standing proud as an ambassador of Christ and saying, “Yes, I am a Christian, a proud Christian, and I love God with all my heart. Hate me if it pleases you, but they killed Jesus for being who he was, so who am I to shy away from persecution? Throw rocks through my window and deface my property; it will only strengthen me.”

You’ll have to forgive me for getting emotional, but the fact that I even sat down to write you should attest how strongly I feel on this topic. And so I urge you Lars, as iron sharpens iron, to not let these wretches snuff out your candle.

© 2005, Brandon M. Dennis

ear Professor.

I am a student in your United States History class and take tremendous exception to your claim that “All the world’s religions have accepted the idea of slavery,” as you said in class today. I take even grater exception to your claims that Christians found no qualms with enslaving non-Christians, and that it was acceptable to enslave Africans because of some notion that the blackness of their skin is equitable to a sinful nature, and that all heathens and non-Christians are fair game to being taken up as slaves. I find these very claims that you spoke in class today offensive and completely unverifiable. Throughout this quarter but particularly in today’s class you have patronized Christians and Christianity and blamed them for many of the ridiculous and horrible things that have occurred in the history of the United States.

          I find your anti-Christian prejudice unacceptable. You have also demonstrated your ignorance of Christianity in many of the things that you have said, such as things you said about Calvinism at the beginning of this quarter. Even the text book you are using in this class, American Promise, drips with anti-Christian sentiment and an ignorance of Christianity. I was not surprised, therefore, to see your name under the list of authors of the textbook.

          Although I was livid during class today and prepared at any moment to stand up and object to your blatant bigotry, I restrained myself and instead have decided to write you this letter. I have cooled down since then so if I sound too docile in this letter you will have to forgive me; know that I identify very closely with this issue and am incensed with your insensitivity. I will also give you the benefit of the doubt, and choose to believe that you are ignorant of the beliefs of Christianity, rather than you being a persecutor of Christians and an enemy of Christianity. Thus, there are a few things you must know if you are going to continue to teach on the subject you are currently employed in teaching.

          No where in the Bible is slavery condoned. You mentioned in class that the Bible spoke of slavery and even inferred in the text book that those Christians who opposed slavery were acting contrary to the commands of the Bible, which is an assertion that is simply untrue. It is true, however, that slavery is mentioned in the Bible, but not once is it ever condoned. I do not think I should have to explain this, but I will in case you fail to recognize this fact. The Bible may indeed mention slavery in a few places—certainly not in the greater majority of the Bible—but this is no reason to assume that slavery is thus condoned by the Bible or Christianity. The Bible also mentions the existence rape, homosexuality and incest, but one does not assume that the Bible is thus condoning rape, homosexuality or incest. The Bible even mentions heresy, but obviously it would be absurd to claim that the Bible promotes heresy. I might add that it would be equally absurd for a man to accuse you and the other writers of American Promise of condoning slavery, simply because you happen to mention the subject often in the book. As I hope you can see, the mere mention of slavery in the Bible gives no man license to promote or condone slavery.

          It may be, however, that you are thinking, “Well this snide little upstart may claim that the Bible does not condone slavery, but I can hardly believe him!” Fair enough. Truly, how can you trust me? The only way to know for sure whether the Bible promotes slavery or not is to read the Bible; something I am sure you have never done nor ever will do. Thus, in order to continue this argument and solidify my position, I will show you a few verses where slavery is mentioned. The following are verses that, I believe, give a Christian a good foundation for considering slavery a sin:

RSV Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

RSV Colossians 3:11 “Here there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free man, but Christ is all, and in all.”

Can we not conclude through these verses that Christianity is for all humans, not a “white elite,” a phrase you so fondly love to say in your class and textbook? Can we not conclude that Christianity, itself, is egalitarian?

RSV Ephesians 6:8 “…knowing that whatever good any one does, he will receive the same again from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.”

Do we not see here that God does not discriminate by whether one is a slave of a freeman, but blesses and rewards based on merit alone?

          There are numerous verses in the Old Testament that refer to slavery. The vast majority if them hearken back to the time that Israel herself was a nation of slaves, burdened by Egyptians and bound under their whip. The Israelites were themselves slaves, and were freed from this involuntary servitude by God, according to the Bible. How could one possibly use these verses to promote slavery if God himself brought an entire people out from under it?

          There are verses, I will add, that speak directly to slaves. Here are a few:

RSV Ephesians 6:5 “Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ;…”

RSV Colossians 3:22 “Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord.”

RSV 1 Timothy 6:1 “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.”

RSV 1 Peter 2:18 “Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to the kind and gentle but also to the overbearing.”

Also, there are verses especially for slave masters:

RSV Ephesians 6:9 “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.”

RSV Colossians 4:1 “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.”

None of these verses condone slavery. Rather, they give directions on how to be a better master and a better slave. There is no reasonable way that one can turn these verses into pro-slavery verses. Without them, masters would still own slaves, and slaves would suffer more for it. But with them, masters are encouraged to treat their slaves “justly and fairly” even as they would treat themselves, for they are all servants of God. These scriptures are humanitarian if anything at all.

Why is it strange that we find verses that console slaves and urge them to obey their masters? After all, what is the purpose of a scripture that gives advice if not to improve—and even save—lives? Why, then, should slaves be exempt from such verses? As you yourself know and have mentioned a number of times in class, slaves in the South did rebel against their masters and murdered them on some occasions. You mentioned the occasion of Nat Turner who led a well-organized slave rebellion and murdered a fair number of whites, presumably slave-owners. How, then, did this little episode end up? Nat and all those who followed him, two thousand slaves, if I remember from the textbook correctly, were executed for their rebellion and the murder of the whites.

          How was this rebellion helpful? How were any of the rebellions by slaves ever helpful? Is it not true that every slave rebellion only led to death, most of the time the death of the very slaves themselves? It is perfectly reasonable, then, for the Bible to discourage slave rebellions in order to save the lives of those very slaves. One might argue that if the slaves never rebelled they would have never been freed from bondage; but is this true? Can anyone name a single rebellion by slaves that ended in their freedom, of all things? Actually, it was the intervention of the whites that freed the slaves. It took the free, white populace to condemn slavery and seek its abolition before the spotlight was ever focused on slavery. I might remind you that it was the Methodists and other Christian groups that were so abhorred by slavery that they lead abolitionist parties and printed abolitionist newspapers, saying that it was a sin to enslave other fellow men. Blassingame, in his book The Slave Community, recounts time after time when Christians stood up against the slaveholders in the South. I will propose that those who promoted slavery did not do so out of religious obligation but rather financial obligation, whereas Christians opposed it solely because of their Christian conviction.

          I have also been irritated by how you and your textbook repeatedly call into question the intentions of the Christians who opposed slavery. You mentioned sarcastically that the result of many Christians opposing slavery was that many slaves became Christians, as if that was the sole purpose of their desire to free the slaves, and that it wasn’t out of a desire to free humans from bondage but a desire to bring more people into the pews that drove this abolitionist movement. I think such a claim is callous and immature. Who are you to assume the intentions of Christians? Is it not entirely possible—if not completely probable—that Christians opposed slavery because they thought slavery was wrong? And even so, does it not proclaim the great egalitarianism of Christianity that Christians would desire and urge Africans to join their churches? Surely if Christianity was merely a religion for the “rich, white elite” they would chafe under the thought of blacks being allowed into their churches; but on the contrary, they encouraged it.

          I will end this argument by recognizing that there were indeed Christians who promoted slavery, especially in the South. Just like there were planters that promoted slavery. And atheists. And agnostics. And southerners, and northerners, and the wealthy as well as the poor, and the black as well as the white. It is a matter of fact that there will always be humans that propagate the worst deeds of humanity, and it just so happens that some of these people will be Christians. Does one really think that Christianity will be immune from abuse? Does one really think that the insincere or the bigoted or the prejudice won’t try and further their evil aims under the cloak of Christianity? This is true with many people in all walks of life and in all religions and beliefs. Even scientists tried to argue pro-slavery under the mask of Darwinism, using the “survival of the fittest” mantra as their justification for it. Does this mean that all scientists or even Darwinists were pro-slavery? Of course not. Only some were. It is a terrible injustice to label an entire religion for the sins of a few people. If you or any other historian were to be honest with the issue, he would judge a religion by what the religion says and not by what a few of its people do. Thus, one should go to the Bible, the foundation of all Christianity and a book that all Christians regardless of denomination use to live their lives by. Doing so, one will discover that Christianity is hardly a pro-slavery religion but is in fact one of the most humanitarian religions that has ever existed and was the driving force behind the abolitionist movement in the United States. One might say that if it were not for Christianity and Christians, slavery would still exist in the United States, if not the whole of the civilized world.

          To conclude this long-winded but impassioned argument, I will say that despite your blatant prejudiced views towards Christians and their religion, I have thus far enjoyed your class, for I find the topic interesting. You know your topic well and your lectures have been enjoyable. I humbly request, however, that you divorce from yourself, your book and your lectures this bias against Christianity that you can scarcely hide, and if at all possible, tomorrow emphasize the fact that slavery was not a result of Christianity, nor was it ever condoned by Christianity, though some Christians might have wavered from their faith in this respect. I would urge you to state the truth that slavery was the result of human greed and pride gone amok, two things that the Bible explicitly condemns, and in fact urges Christians to be more liberal in their wealth and humble in their pride. I hope you received this letter well and were not too insulted by my language, for I would hate to have to make a big deal of this issue, bringing it up with the school, or worse yet, bring the issue to some “right-wing talk show,” which I am sure would love nothing more than to sink their thirsty teeth into another unabashed Christian-hating professor. Not that you are, of course.

The history professor in question then responded to my email defending his statements and his stance on Christianity. The following is my response to his email.

efore I start, I want to make it known that I will be very honest and blunt in what I say. I do not think that you will like what I have to say, and I know that you wont agree with it. But when someone asks Brandon what he thinks about something, the asker had better be ready for lots of feedback, both negative and positive. So with this paper, I will address all the things that have bothered me and I have been itching to talk about since the beginning of the quarter. My goal is to explain without offending, but I fear I will offend no matter what.

          Before I took this class, I had a vague idea of the way anthropologists thought and worked, and this idea I had was a displeasing one. After taking this course, all my previous notions have been confirmed and fortified, and I am even more displeased with the way anthropology is presented. I have decided that anthropology is a hypocritical code of morals. Let me explain.

          Anthropologists are very quick to be “open minded” and “tolerant” when it comes to other cultures and their practices; however, they are just as quick to condemn certain people and beliefs as “ethnocentric”. We are urged by anthropologists to dump our cultural baggage and examine a new culture or a belief without judging it. Anyone who acts contrary to this is ethnocentric, and this is shunned by anthropologists. However I think anthropologists fail to realize that they shun those that judge or condemn others by judging and condemning them. If a man were to say, “homosexuality is wrong”, he would be scorned and people would get angry with him and call him “closed-minded”, “shallow” and, the anthropologist’s equivalent, ethnocentric. So these anthropologists would say that the man is wrong. However they are doing exactly the same thing he is doing. They are judging him based on their own concepts of right and wrong, just as he is judging the homosexual based on his concepts of right and wrong. The two are no different.

          Anthropologists also have declared that certain things are “maladaptive” such as the female circumcision that has been thoroughly discussed this quarter. But it is not just actions, the physical act of sewing up a woman’s vagina for instance, that anthropologists say are maladaptive. Beliefs and rituals could be deemed maladaptive based on the anthropologist’s notion of right or wrong. For instance, we all know how women are treated in some places in the Middle East. They cannot have an opinion of their own and they cannot uncover their face. They cannot go to school and they cannot own a business. Anthropologists would say this is maladaptive (and I obviously agree) but what exactly are they saying behind the shroud of the “big word”? They are saying that it is wrong to hold women back and to treat them inferior to men. They are saying that it is wrong to mutilate a woman’s vagina, especially without consent.

Anthropology is just another moral code. Anthropologists have discussed things with each other and made observations. They have realized that some things that were said to be wrong in our culture in the past, such as dancing for instance, are not really wrong and were only wrong because our culture said they was, and so we have no right to hold another culture to this moral. And that is all very well and good. However they take this one step too far and say that everything is right and nothing is wrong (unless it is maladaptive, of course). This, I think, is fool-talk. It is my opinion that there is a universal morality that all cultures must adhere to. If there wasn’t, how could anthropologists say that treating women inferior is maladaptive? In saying this, they are saying that women should be treated as equals, and if anything should be, that means that it was always meant to be. Is it not possible that other things that anthropologists have chalked up to ethnocentricity might just as well should be?

Murder is wrong because it is maladaptive. It hurts the society. Thus in any culture, murder is deemed as wrong. Rape is wrong because it also is maladaptive. Thus in any culture, regardless of that cultures beliefs, rape is still viewed as wrong (although definitions for both rape and murder might be quite different). How then can we say that other things are right? What is it that we use to distinguish right from wrong? It seems to me that anthropologists have discarded all morality and have purely based their decisions about maladaptiveness on what is obviously wrong and what isn’t. Of course some would say that not all cultures view certain things as “obviously” wrong, but they are anyways. Is not murder obviously wrong? Who in our culture would say that rape is right? Not even rapists think that they are being right; they know that rape is wrong. I would say that there are other things that are wrong, for many reasons, because they hurt oneself or hurt society, but they are not obviously wrong. However just because something isn’t obviously wrong doesn’t mean that is right. Let us take divorce for example. Divorce is not obviously wrong, and indeed, many would say that it is a right thing to do in many circumstances. However if we look at actual cases, we find that there is definitely something wrong going on. How many divorced couples look back ten years later and say, “My, am I glad I got rid of him! My, am I glad I found a new woman!” Some I am sure, but most, no. From the experiences of many people I have known and talked to, divorce is not merely the end of a partnership, it is the division of flesh. Divorce is just as easy as cutting your hand off at the wrist, and not merely because of financial reasons. There is something that happens when people get married, a soul-tie if you will, but this is not an obvious thing and so anthropologists do not recognize it. In reality, divorced people are in agony and children are cheated out of their parents because divorce was never meant to happen (and biblically speaking, Moses did provide a way for divorce, but in the New Testament, Jesus refuted this and said it was only due to the “hardness of the Israelites hearts” that Moses made such a provision, thus, it was never meant to be[1]). If such a thing was never meant to be, how could it still be right? This must mean that it is wrong regardless of whether a society (or anthropologists) says it is right and, since it is not obvious, it must be one of many things that are wrong but are not obviously wrong.

This, however, raises a dilemma. How is one to find out what is right and wrong? Is it not easier to just say, “Everything is permissible”? Of course it is easier and this is why anthropologists say so (to an extent of course). But we cannot prove what is right or wrong. This is why many things are shown to us as being right or wrong through the Bible, but of course this means nothing to those who do not believe in the Bible. However from my perspective, the Bible is true, and Christianity is the only Truth. This brings up another interesting thing and that is religion. Anthropologists see the many religions in the world, lump them under the category “religion” and then judge them all as un-true, giving them a purpose as if all religions were invented by men to control or explain, which is not true in all cases I would say. This is rather funny when you think about it. Can you imagine a conversation between anthropologists and, say, a Hindu, where the anthropologist is explaining to the Hindu why Hinduism is false? For indeed, Hinduism states that the world is flat and held up on the back of elephants, and earthquakes are caused when elephants stomp their feet. Who are we to tell them that it is not true? We can prove it, but that doesn’t make it less true to them. In order to tell them this we must first say that their religion is wrong. For being as accepting as they say, anthropologists have certainly made enough judgments. To be fair, no one can say that any other religion is wrong and another is right, but likewise, no one can say that no religion is right, as is the anthropological thought (not to mention scientific and Darwinistic thought). Why is it any better to view all religions as false than it is for someone to view them all false and one right? This, in my opinion, is another example of anthropologists clinging to their own moral code and viewing any other wrong. It is no different for a man to say, “Buddhism is right and all others are wrong,” than it is for an anthropologist to say, “All are incorrect.”

I believe in many of the obvious things that anthropologists wave about as banners. Skin color means absolutely nothing. There is no better or worse language. No culture is superior to another (in terms of cultural aspects, although certain ways of farming or achieving some other end might be more productive in one culture than another). The words one speaks are just words; they are no basis to condemn or judge a person. Everyone should have the right to believe in whatever they want (again, the omnipresent “should”). But this code of tolerance does not mean that I have to accept everything that is presented to me. Yes, a man may choose to be a homosexual. That is his choice; it is not mine. However I do not have to like it, nor do I have to say that I think it is right. I can tolerate something and still think it is wrong. I have no right to pressure someone with my beliefs, but neither does anyone else. This means that no one has the right to inform me that homosexuality is now right, regardless of my beliefs. People get angry with Christians for judging and condemning and going door to door, and they have a very good reason for being annoyed, for they feel put upon. However it is just as wrong for the media and science and our schools to do the exact same thing concerning Darwinism, evolution, homosexuality, and even anthropology. These are all belief systems, just like Christianity, and they may think that they are right all they want to, just as Christians think they are right, but how then can they complain about missionaries and witnesses and then press their own beliefs? Hypocrisy it is, and it is prevalent in everything. For all of our tolerance and acceptance, we can’t even accept what has been sitting in our back yard for centuries.

If I am to be labeled as being ethnocentric for believing that something is wrong, then so be it. But I don’t want anyone who has ever said the world “maladaptive” to think that they are not. Thus I can say that homosexuality is wrong and be as gloriously ethnocentric as I can, and anyone who says that mistreating women is wrong is just as ethnocentric as I. This is the main thing I have realized due to this course, and I will be forever grateful because of it. Now no one can accuse me of anything without me turning around and accusing him or her of the same thing. All humans love to judge and condemn; anthropologists are no exception. We have all been fooled! Oh, the accepting and tolerant scientists! Ah, our savior Darwin! I would laugh if it wasn’t all so sad. How is it that a man can get sued for using the word “nigger” or “chink”, but a certain professor in this very school can call me a “mutt” on my first day of class because of my ethnicity? Ah, our wonderful diversity! No, anthropologists make no judgments on other beliefs, ha-ha! In our very own book I remember reading a bit that went something like this: “Why, it was not long ago when we used to think that humans were not animals! How blind we were!” Were we? Are we not more blind now? Are we so caught up in our evolutionist fad that we have missed the very things that have made us human? How can a professional college textbook make such an assumption? Can anyone prove that humans are animals? How? What is it that makes an animal an animal and how do we fit into that category? Have people forgotten about the spirit? There is so much about humans that science can’t even begin to explain, yet they feel that they can categorize us under animals and proclaim that any arguments against this are incorrect, childish and silly. You said in class one day something that went like this: “Remember, it was not long ago when having sex before marriage was frowned upon.” What thing to say! It says many things in this one sentence, that a) most people nowadays have sex before they are married, thus making it right and b) we have advanced from our closed-minded past of rules and restrictions to something greater, better and “more right” and anyone who believes otherwise is still stuck in this past. Well I think you will be surprised to know that there are many people today who still believe that it is wrong to have sex before marriage, and I am one of them. Of course I cannot prove that it is wrong; we can’t prove anything. I could make you believe that grass is blue if I really wanted to. People nowadays want to say that sex before marriage is fine and acceptable because they want to. Nothing has changed between “then” and “now” except for people’s conception of right and wrong. If it was wrong then it is wrong now. So it must have either never been wrong or it must have always been wrong. If we were to view premarital sex as maladaptive or not, I am sure that any anthropologist would view it as maladaptive. It spreads disease. It leads to more children born without families. It causes heartache between the partners. How are these beneficial? Are they not detrimental? How then can premarital sex not be maladaptive? Because our societal morals have changed and people don’t want it to be wrong. And this is the only reason why people scoff at those who still adhere to the moral.

In the end, I am glad I took this course. At times the class was fun, and every now and then I read something interesting. The main reason I am glad I took the class is so that I could improve my arsenal. It is always good to know both sides of the coin, and I was definitely submerged into one side this quarter. It helped me consolidate my own beliefs and it gave me ammunition for debates. Also I am very grateful that I have a teacher who is open minded and able to hear contradictions without having an ego trip. I know many teachers who would probably fail me if I voiced my thoughts about their class. Anyways, there is my reflection, and you can take what you wish from it.

© 2005, Brandon M. Dennis

[1] Matt 19:6-8

apitol punishment has been around for as long as man has. From the Old Testament “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” [1] to modern executions, men have always defined some crimes as punishable by death. Usually these crimes are incredibly heinous, for instance, wrongly taking the lives of others, rape, brutality and so forth, and in our society the death penalty is usually reserved for those who have taken multiple lives.

          Conservatives have often defended the death penalty as necessary for a functioning society, and I have long agreed with them. But, after much reflecting and pondering of the topic, I have at length decided that I think the death penalty is morally wrong. Now, now, hold a minute! Don’t get all in a fuss just yet. I am breaking the ranks on this issue only because I think I have to in order to remain credible. After all, if I profess something that I genuinely do not believe in, what would that make me? My only course is to take this one, and explain why I think it is wrong.

          Men do evil things. They always have, and they always will. There is no excuse for many of these things, and people who cause intolerable acts against society must be punished. And yet, these very same men can change themselves over time. The concept of “once a murderer, always a murderer” is fallacious, for people can and do change. In addition, sometimes people are unjustly convicted, and accused of crimes they did not commit. How often have we heard about people convicted of murder, executed, and then acquitted years later because of DNA evidence? If this has happened even once, it is once too much. If we banned capital punishment altogether, this would never happen.

Now the stark reality of things is that most people do not change, and a convicted serial murderer, once released from prison, will more than likely take up his old habits. But that is not to say that some do not change, and I believe that it would be foolish and quite a shame to waste those lives in order to squelch the others.

          I will not sit here and argue that rapists and child molesters should be set free after spending some time in prison, even if they seem reformed. If I had things my way, rapists, child molesters and murderers would never, ever, under any circumstances unless acquitted, be released back into the public. People should never be placed in risk of these kinds of people, no matter how nice the person may now be. But that does not mean we should kill them either. I do understand that to put up such folk in prisons can strain the tax dollar, but, for the sake of doing what is right, I believe we must.

          But who says that these kinds of people should live the high life in prison?  I certainly don’t. Why can’t we set these people in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives to think about what they’ve done? Some may call this torture. I guess that means I am promoting the torture of rapists, child molesters and murderers. Sue me; it is the least they deserve. Who says they have to eat three square meals a day? Why must they have a varied and interesting diet? Why must they be allowed desert and holidays and presents on Christmas?

          I suppose my biggest reasons for deciding that the death penalty is wrong are religious reasons. God gave all men life, even murderers. Murderers try to play God by taking away the lives of others. We try to play God by punishing these people with death. You see, we deem murder to be more evil than most other evils because its consequences are so horrible. But sin is sin; murder is a sin, theft is a sin, lying is a sin; all have different consequences, but all are equally sin. All of us—Christian or not, Jewish or Hindu—are sinners. We are all evil in Gods eyes, even though some of us are also righteous in his eyes, but only because we were bought by Him. Yes a murderer is evil and yes he should be taken out of society and punished in order to make society safer. But to kill a murderer is to intentionally snuff out the life of a person that God made. Who are we to take it away? Who are we to decide that a person has finished his run and does not deserve to live the rest of it? In reality none of us deserve to, but we do anyway by the grace of God. We all deserve death[2] but God keeps us alive by his grace, and this grace is bestowed upon all humans, regardless of the deeds they do. The “eye for an eye” way of life ended with Jesus[3] and we mustn’t resurrect it. A person will die in God’s time, not in our own, and though I completely understand and empathize with the desire to kill those who kill, it is wrong.

          In the end, it comes down to revenge. People do evil and we want revenge for it. If a rapist rapes a girl, the thing we want most of all is to beat the rapist with a bat until he is nothing more than a puddle. But it is not up to use to enact revenge. The Bible says that revenge is for God and not man.[4] If we punish someone for doing evil, we do so in order to protect society, not to get revenge. We can protect society without killing a criminal; what then is capital punishment if not revenge? We must leave revenge to God and not take it into our own hands, for vengeance never heals the hurt and bleeding.

          Death must not be a punishment reserved for the worst kinds of humanity. I completely understand that the fear of death often keeps people from committing horrible acts like these. So I propose we make them fear a fate worse than death. We are a creative people. Surely we can think of some way for a convict to spend his life that is worse than death. After all, half the nation spends their time watching reality television already.

© 2005, Brandon M. Dennis

[1] Exodus 21:24, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21

hen tackling the subject of abortion, I believe one of the most important steps is to not demonize the other side. It is crucial to remember that people from both points of view—pro-life and pro-choice—only believe the way they do because they think it is right, and consequentially believe their opponents to be not only wrong but often immoral, unethical and, even, evil. I will refrain from using such classifications of individuals as much as possible, and prefer instead to tackle the logic of abortion.

          I am pro-life because I believe abortion is murder, and that it is wrong to murder. In order for abortion to be murder, a human fetus must be wholly human, and this I hold to be true. It is, in my opinion, the only reasonable stance to take, for in order for a person to define at which stage of pregnancy a fetus becomes a human baby, he must first point out the moment when life enters that fetus. Most people—pro-choice and pro-life alike—will agree that it is wrong to kill a child after a certain amount development, even if that child is in the womb. It is confusing to hear someone who is pro-choice say such things, for their entire goal is to maintain a woman’s choice. But wouldn’t it be against a woman’s choice to forbid her to kill her child at any stage in his development, as long as he is still attached to the body?

          At which point during the growth of a fetus does human life enter? Is it when the fetus begins to look like a baby? When he grows arms and legs and one is able to tell his gender? Or is it earlier, when the brain begins to show activity, or when the heart starts beating? Regardless of the answer to these questions, my response would be to ask how a person can tell. How can one tell when life enters a fetus? What clues does a person look for, and where is this official record of life-entering recorded, so that we have a base to work from? I believe that it is impossible to tell when life enters a fetus at any point during the pregnancy; rather, the pregnancy is, in itself, life. The completely unique, dramatic and crucial event in the growth of a human fetus is the fetus’ conception. Without conception there would be no heart, no brain, no arms and no legs. I believe that it is most reasonable to state that it is conception—the very moment that the unique entity known as Child is formed—where life begins.

          On the pro-choice side, the most important thing is the individual choice of the woman. This is incredibly important, for a woman should be allowed to do whatever she wants with her own body, as long as she does not endanger the lives of others. This social rule exists outside of this debate, for a woman has every right to shoot a gun, as long as that gun is not pointed at a person; to wield a knife, as long as that knife is not aimed at a person; to drive a car, as long as that car is not heading towards a person; to ball her hand into a fist and strike at the air, as long as a person is not standing in her way. We can all agree on these things, and as one that is pro-life, I can most readily assert that a woman has the right to cut off any sack of tissue she wants—as long as that sack of tissue is not a person.

          On the pro-life side, the most important thing is human life. It is our belief that human life is unique and more precious than any other form of life. It is our belief that the preservation of human life is the reason why we have laws. We have rights and privileges in this country to live our lives as free as we can, because every human life is unique, exceptional and valuable. Women are free to live their lives their way because we believe that their lives are priceless, and their ability to live their lives is just as priceless. It isn’t because they can work or create or entertain; it isn’t because they can produce or enrich our society. It is simply because they are alive, and being alive should remain alive for life is precious. It is this reason we believe children are just as valuable, not because they are cute or entertaining, but because they are alive and therefore priceless.

          Just as we disallow adult people from harming each other and taking certain human lives, so should it be wrong to take all human lives, regardless of the age, size, shape, or look of that life. Therefore the abortion issue is not an issue of choice at all, for even pro-choice people believe that people should not be allowed to choose to harm others. The real issue is a matter of life, and thus we come back to the beginning of this argument.

          Whether a human fetus is alive or not and at what stage in his development are the most crucial aspects of this debate. If it could be proven that a human fetus is not alive, then I would whole-heartedly side with the pro-choice crowd, for the argument has gone from one about life to one about choice. But since it involves life, and since our society deems that human life is more important that a human’s ability to choose, I therefore must side with those who value a child’s life more than a person’s choice.

          Even though it is more reasonable to believe that conception is the moment life begins, it is still impossible to scientifically prove when life enters a fetus. Therefore, people who are pro-choice and who say that it is wrong to abort a child after, oh, let’s say, the third trimester, are merely picking a time out of a hat. And yet people who are pro-life are also picking an arbitrary time, choosing conception. The reasoning that conception is the unique qualifier of life may not be acceptable to some people, and so they can very well disregard it and opt for a timeframe that makes more sense to them. This timeframe is generally picked based on the physical maturity of the fetus, on how much like a child the fetus looks. And yet this is reckless, for the choice is a gamble and human life is at stake.

          It is possible that the third trimester is when life enters a fetus. But it is just as possible that life enters at conception. It is possible that life enters at any point during a fetus’ development, and so the most responsible thing to do in order to save a child’s life is to make it illegal to kill a fetus at any time after he is conceived. To chose any other moment in a fetus’ development is to gamble with that life, and life should never be gambled with.

          When arguing with people from the pro-choice mentality, the issue of rape is often brought up. Is it all right to abort a child conceived from rape? Rape is an absolutely devastating thing, and if I had things my way, I would make punishment for rapists far more severe, having them “cut-off” from any other opportunity to rape again. A woman should never be shamed for being raped and she should never become an outcast because of it. She should be embraced, loved and cared for during such a horrible and trying moment of her life. But when it comes to abortion, the issue is whether a human fetus is alive or not. It would be hypocritical to say that abortion is wrong unless the mother had been raped, for the method of conception has no bearing on the life of the child. A child brought forth from rape is just as wholly human as a child brought forth from a whole, healthy nuclear family. No child should be killed based on the method by which he was conceived.

          Once the topic of rape has been addressed, the next one to pop up is usually incest. Should we abort children that have been conceived from incest? Incest is so horrible because it confuses the ties of the family. The unique relationship between a father and a daughter is wholly different from that between a wife and her husband, and the two should never, ever be confused. The same is true with sibling relationships, and it is a tragedy that sexual perversion can creep so deep into society as to bring forth this unhealthy behavior. The resulting child that is conceived from such unnatural sexual encounters can often be handicapped, both physically and mentally, and this is a physical manifestation of the wrong of incest. And yet it is no crime to be handicapped, and the handicapped are no less human—and no less alive—than healthy humans. Even if a child is conceived through incest, the child is still alive at conception and it is wrong to kill him, even if he will grow up to be handicapped. Some of the best loved children on the face of this earth are children with physical or mental diseases.

          What about when the birth of a child jeopardizes the life of the mother? I pity any family that finds themselves in this position. It should be up to the mother to decide whether or not to abort a child to save her own life. There is no good choice—they are both horrible to have to make—but the choice must be made anyhow and it should be the mother’s. If the mother is unable to chose—due to being drugged, passed out or simply unable to decide—it should be the husband’s.

          I am comfortable with many different methods of contraception. Sex was designed to conceive children, but it was also designed for intimacy between a husband and his wife, and there is nothing wrong with desiring that intimacy but not necessarily the resulting child. Condoms are great tools to achieve this end, as are many other forms of contraception, but when such things seek out and destroy the conceived fetus within the woman’s body, a line must be drawn. As far as I know, contraception pills such as the so-called “morning after” pill and chemical abortion drugs work by preventing the conceived fetus from growing normally or poisoning the conceived fetus and killing him.[1] These methods are tantamount to abortion and kill human lives.

          I do realize that to outlaw abortion would make sex much less recreational. Yet there are many deterrents already from having unprotected sex, such as sexually transmitted diseases, and any responsible person will use protection in order to stave off such diseases and keep from becoming pregnant. Even then, sometimes a little soldier will slip through and an undesired pregnancy will occur. The simple truth is that to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases one-hundred percent of the time, one must abstain from all sexual intercourse. Some claim that to promote abstinence is unhealthy and makes children ignorant about sex. Not at all. Children can be educated about sex and abstinence at the same time; they are not competing ideas. And it is hardly dangerous to promote abstinence as opposed to “free-sex”. Can one seriously argue that it is safer to have sex on a regular basis than to not have any at all? The safest way to avoid diseases and unwanted pregnancies is to abstain from all sex until you get married, and this should be taught as the safest and most accepted form of sexual intercourse.

          Despite the best efforts of those who promote abstinence, unwanted children will be conceived for they have always been conceived. The first instinct of a new mother-to-be, however, should not be to kill her unwanted child, for there are other avenues open to her. She can place her child up for adoption, for it is better for a human to grow up in an orphanage than to be killed in his mother’s womb. Sex should not be carefree, for every person engaging in sex should consciously recognize that a child may be conceived, and that person must be ready to accept the responsibilities of being a parent. Orphanages are never a good choice; merely a better choice than death. But sometimes children are conceived by rape or to parents who do not have the means to care for them, and so orphanages are the better alternative to murder. Some ancient peoples used to leave their unwanted children (usually girls) out in the wild to die from exposure. Abortion is just the more modern, efficient way of doing the same thing.

          Emotions run high and voices are raised when people gather to debate the abortion issue, and it seems that much of the political strife between parties in America resides over the fault-line of abortion. But when one takes emotion and rage out of the equation and steps back to look at the issue honestly and reasonably, the conclusions outlined here seem to me to be the best ones. Many genuine people will argue the issue from both sides, and their honesty can be equally sincere. But an honest person can be honestly wrong. Instead of shrugging off another’s argument, assuming the evil of the opposite person and demonizing him, it would be best for people to assume the best intentions within each other and tackle the issue, not as enemies, but as those who seek truth. It is then that progress will be made.

© 2005, Brandon M. Dennis

[1] Wikipedia.org. Emergency Contraception [online, accessed 18 December 2005]. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_after_pill). Such pills can prevent the “…implantation of a fertilized egg” into the lining of the uterus, which is necessary for the fetus to grow. Other procedures use chemicals to burn or poison a conceived fetus, killing him. Both are recommended by professionals to be used in emergencies only.

t is very entertaining to walk from class to class on the University of Washington campus and see the many different booths of propaganda that people—who often do not go to the school—erect to spread their beliefs amongst the students. Among my favorites are the animal rights activists who come onto the campus and tell the students that they are immoral murderers. I find that their pamphlets are often the most colorful and entertaining of all propaganda that is pushed at me. I find myself laughing aloud while reading their literature, which often prompts confusion from those who peddled the materials. If any of you find yourselves reading this little article, I would like to apologize. I meant no offense with my laughter, and cannot help but laugh when I see a caricature of Colonel Sanders wearing blood-stained clothing, strangling a chicken.

          I cannot be too patronizing because many of these animal rights activists are honest in what they do, truly believe that to kill or use an animal for man’s benefit is wrong, and are genuine in their desire to end suffering in the world. I thus choose to approach the topic as if I am speaking with an equally informed, equally sincere and equally honest human being, and hope that those who disagree with my own point of view will acknowledge that I am genuine in my beliefs.

          I suppose the thing that bothers me most about animal rights activists is the moral judgment they make, that to kill an animal is equivalent to murder. I have always made a distinction between the words “kill” and “murder,” and yet fail to see this distinction in animal rights literature. And so I will define the two words, as I see them. To kill is to end the life of any living thing. To murder is to intentionally and unjustifiably take the life of a human being. Webster tends to agree with me, but adds to murder, “especially with malice aforethought” and “with premeditated malice.”[1] To kill it adds “to slaughter for food” and “to convert a food animal into a kind of meat by slaughtering.”[2]

          It seems as if the distinction I drew between the two words was fairly accurate, and I will now note two important aspects of them.  With murder one finds a reference to humans exclusively. Nowhere in any definition of the word murder can one find animals associated. With kill one finds a reference to inflicting death for the purposes of food. One does not find a reference to food by means of death paired with the word murder, and so this tells me that the two words are unique from each other and distinct.

          Thus the quandary with animal rights activists. They often refer to the killing of animals for any purpose—including the purpose of human nourishment—as murder, but as we have thus seen, this is an incorrect conception. And yet even some of the most professional organizations promoting animal rights cannot make the distinction. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is one of the most well-known of such organizations, and yet even on their own website we can see this distinction disregarded. They have claimed that fast food restaurants murder animals, and have even played with the name of a popular fast food giant, Burger King, by calling it “Murder King.”[3] Witty, no doubt, but it confuses two distinct words. They sell stencils that read “Meat = Murder”,[4] and even go so far as to suggest scraping road kill off the streets and eating it to avoid murdering animals.[5]

          I suppose one could argue that the word murder should include animals in its definition. This is a moral argument and I will get into the nature of moral arguments later, but what word would we then use to replace murder? The exclusive and wrongful killing of human beings is a concept distinct from that of general killing, and there must be a word to express this concept. If not murder, then what? My suggestion to animal rights activists is to not confuse murder with kill, even if that means that their argument holds less force and impact. It is simply the honest thing to do.

          When talking about animal rights, the word should often creeps into the conversation. Animals should be free from pain; animals should not be eaten, and so forth. But to make such a moral argument, one is appealing to a universal law of ethics. To say that it is always wrong to kill animals, that it is always wrong to eat animals and that it is always wrong to use their skin and fur for clothing is to make a moral claim that is not bound by human law and that is universal. The only way this could ever be is if such moral laws were written by a moral-law-maker that supersedes any and all human laws. Who could be a universal moral-law-maker but God?

          In this age, people like to make social arguments based on law and the theory of evolution. Humans are just animals, they say, and there is nothing special about us. We do not have spirits, our souls are no different from animal souls, and so it is ridiculous to find animal-like behavior in humans wrong. In this way, people can dismiss moral arguments by Christians and God-fearing people. Sexual promiscuity isn’t wrong; rather it is normal for all animals to fulfill desires, and as animals we humans should act no different. And yet to kill and eat animals is wrong even though many other animals kill and eat other animals.

          In saying this, one is conceding that there is something different and special about being human. Out of all the creatures on this earth, we are to act differently than our instincts and desires dictate. We are not to eat an animal when we are hungry because that is wrong. We are not to torture or kill an animal, even if we desire to, because it is cruel and wrong. Humans, therefore, are held to different standards than other animals. I would argue that this is because we are not animals at all, but a completely unique and distinct creature from any and all animals. One cannot make a universal moral assertion in describing wrongness unless he admits that there is a God or “higher power” that defines right from wrong. One cannot disregard morals as merely existing out of a human’s necessity for survival, for humans needed, at one point in time, meat to survive, and yet it is still considered wrong. Right and wrong cannot be defined by culture, for until just recently every culture that has ever existed on this planet, as far as I know, has found no qualms with killing animals for their own personal use, and yet people still say it is wrong.

          It is possible to sidestep this whole issue by merely saying that it is not God or society or culture that defines the killing of animals as wrong, but that there are certain people on this earth who think it is cruel and will it to be wrong. But alas, this argument is just as easily swiped aside. Why should meat-eaters care if small minorities of people think that eating meat is wrong? Why should their will have precedence over the will of the majority? If it is merely a moral argument and morals are subject to individuals, then this moral argument has no power over others. This leaves violence as the only course of action for animal rights activists to impose their will upon the public, but we need not ever worry about that for such activists (for the most part) are opposed to violence.[6]

          Therefore, killing animals can only be wrong if the moral-law-giver says it is wrong. I will point out the fact that since nearly every culture that has ever existed has eaten meat, there must be few to no religions that have called such activities wrong. But perhaps these cultures were mistaken, and it really has been wrong, all these many years, to kill and eat animals. I will use the Bible as a reference of illustration, mainly because PETA has already used it in defense of its stance on animal rights. PETA claims on their webpage that, although the Bible does indeed say that humans have dominion over the earth and all that is within it, this should not imply that we can do what we want with them, even going so far as to say, “There is nothing in the Bible that would justify our modern-day practices, which desecrate the environment, destroy entire species of wildlife, and inflict torment and death on billions of animals every year.”[7] Indeed, they are correct to some extent. We are given dominion over the earth[8] but we are also to be good stewards of the earth, being wise in how we manage it. And yet anyone who is vaguely familiar with the Bible will know that the killing of animals is widespread throughout the text, for sacrificial purposes and for nourishment. God was the first being to ever kill an animal, and then not even to eat; he used the skins of the animal solely to make clothes for Adam and Eve.[9] There are many references to eating meat, including God promising meat to the Israelites,[10] and Jesus himself eating and feeding fish to crowds of people.[11]

          Animal rights activists cannot, therefore, appeal to morality when making a claim against the killing of animals, but they do anyway and this I am obliged to respect. I have nothing against a person who believes it is wrong to eat meat, kill animals or use any product that has been made with animals. But when these very activists condemn others for eating meat, it is then that I have a problem. PETA openly admits that they exist to tell other people what to do, and believe that people are not free to act in opposition to the will of PETA.[12] One of the arguments they use in their claim that killing animals is wrong is that animals feel pain and fear (thus making it acceptable to eat plants, since they do not feel pain). But this argument cannot stand against reason, for there are many things that humans do that cause pain and fear in animals—and even other humans—that should not be abolished. For instance, parents discipline their children causing their children pain, since it is through the fear of pain that people learn; should we then no longer discipline children to avoid causing them pain? We take ourselves to the dentist to get our teeth drilled because it is good for us, but it is often a painful experience; should we then no longer go to the dentist because it causes pain? Sometimes exercise can be very painful for a person, especially if he is out of shape, but does this mean that we should not exercise because it is painful? Not in the least. All creatures learn from pain, and while it is surely humane to kill animals as painlessly as possible, no beings on earth—not even humans—have the unalienable right to be free from pain.

          When animal rights activists encroach on the property rights of other humans in order to impose their ideology, their actions leave the realm of peaceful belief and enter the realms of vandalism and even arson. The proper way to go about keeping animals from harm is by means of the law, not to take matters into ones own hands. And yet PETA openly defends damaging other people’s property and violating their rights in order to get their own way, saying, “Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law to fight injustice.”[13] But this injustice is not unjust in any shape or form; it is these activists who think it is unjust and so take the step to force their perceived notion of justice.

          I can agree with animal rights activists on many things. It is wrong to be cruel to animals, for God wants us to respect his creation and be good stewards of the earth and all creatures within it. It is wrong to delight in the pain and suffering of animals, and it is wrong to torture animals simply for the entertainment value of humans. This is one reason I have such a problem with some aspects of rodeos, for cattle can and often are hurt, paralyzed or killed during the rodeo. I make these moral decisions based on the Bible, for I believe that God is the moral-law-maker, and that is why some things are wrong and others are not. And yet no one should go above the law to get his own way; neither should a man condemn nor ridicule another man simply because he does not share ones unsubstantiated personal moral beliefs. Believe what you want, but never point the finger of hypocrisy at another human being.

[1] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Query “murder” [online, cited 13 December 2005]. Available from the World Wide Web: (http://www.m-w.com/)

© 2005, Brandon M. Dennis