Comments on: Law of the jungle now has its own Bill of Rights http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/ A forum for discussion of news that arises at the intersection of Christianity and culture. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:34:21 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: NJLawyer http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-317571 NJLawyer Sun, 06 Jul 2008 17:03:38 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-317571 KyleA is absolutely right. And let's remember that the Spaniards are the same people who are presently planning to let bulls run loose through the streets. KyleA is absolutely right.

And let’s remember that the Spaniards are the same people who are presently planning to let bulls run loose through the streets.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Kyle A http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-316861 Kyle A Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:29:59 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-316861 We should protect animals from cruelty, because we are human and have a built-in sense of compassion that animals generally do not have toward other species. (I've never heard of a lion who fought for the rights of antelopes and zebras.) If we reduce ourselves to the status of "evolved animals," then why should we care anything about the rights of other species? The law of the jungle is simply to survive at all costs. It is precisely our position as the stewards of the earth that gives us the right, the responsibility, and the ability to defend lower species. We should protect animals from cruelty, because we are human and have a built-in sense of compassion that animals generally do not have toward other species. (I’ve never heard of a lion who fought for the rights of antelopes and zebras.)

If we reduce ourselves to the status of “evolved animals,” then why should we care anything about the rights of other species? The law of the jungle is simply to survive at all costs. It is precisely our position as the stewards of the earth that gives us the right, the responsibility, and the ability to defend lower species.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Xion http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-316859 Xion Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:03:39 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-316859 Liberals never know when to quit. They must always fight for the rights of something to give life meaning. If there is nothing left to fight for, they will make up stuff. Rights for animals and plants and rocks? Who cares? Meaning in life is found in the protest itself. Liberals never know when to quit.

They must always fight for the rights of something to give life meaning. If there is nothing left to fight for, they will make up stuff. Rights for animals and plants and rocks? Who cares? Meaning in life is found in the protest itself.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Erasmus http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-316829 Erasmus Thu, 03 Jul 2008 01:47:43 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-316829 19 except of course the children of babylon, blessed are they who bash the heads of those little ones against the stones. 19

except of course the children of babylon, blessed are they who bash the heads of those little ones against the stones.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Make it Man http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-316806 Make it Man Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:20:16 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-316806 <i>"But it would be nice if you could find some biblical backup for your claim.</i> Even if I was a biblical scholar, I doubt very much whether you would heed the biblical justification for my stance. You've already made up your mind that the Bible isn't true anyway, so even if I explained it to your satisfaction, you'd still discount it as untrue. <i>"There are virtually no references to fetuses and those that do don’t help your cause much."</i> It's only because you've got a closed mind that this is true for you. (I'll give you at least one example if you still insist.) Even if this were true, the argument that "The bible doesn't talk about that issue" is not one that holds water. There's lots of things the Bible doesn't specifically mention, but it can easily be demonstrated that these are things God prohibits. One example given the other day was internet porn. <i>"And, for that matter the bible isn’t even especially respectful of children. They are at best less than fully human and at worst, chattel."</i> I would think by now that, you'd realize that the covenant made in the New Testament was significantly ennobling for both women and children, and changed things a great deal both at the time and in ensuing history. Western Civilization has changed dramatically because of Christianity and the dignity it gave mankind - and this includes children. “But it would be nice if you could find some biblical backup for your claim.

Even if I was a biblical scholar, I doubt very much whether you would heed the biblical justification for my stance. You’ve already made up your mind that the Bible isn’t true anyway, so even if I explained it to your satisfaction, you’d still discount it as untrue.

“There are virtually no references to fetuses and those that do don’t help your cause much.”

It’s only because you’ve got a closed mind that this is true for you. (I’ll give you at least one example if you still insist.) Even if this were true, the argument that “The bible doesn’t talk about that issue” is not one that holds water. There’s lots of things the Bible doesn’t specifically mention, but it can easily be demonstrated that these are things God prohibits. One example given the other day was internet porn.

“And, for that matter the bible isn’t even especially respectful of children. They are at best less than fully human and at worst, chattel.”

I would think by now that, you’d realize that the covenant made in the New Testament was significantly ennobling for both women and children, and changed things a great deal both at the time and in ensuing history. Western Civilization has changed dramatically because of Christianity and the dignity it gave mankind – and this includes children.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: momof5 http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-316804 momof5 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:08:09 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-316804 Why would the Bible mention fetus?? It does refer to the fruit of the womb and being knit together in the womb, both references positive ones. Children of any age are considered a blessing in Scripture. The assumption is that NOT having children is something to be mourned. Why would the Bible mention fetus?? It does refer to the fruit of the womb and being knit together in the womb, both references positive ones. Children of any age are considered a blessing in Scripture. The assumption is that NOT having children is something to be mourned.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Make it Man http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-316801 Make it Man Thu, 03 Jul 2008 00:04:15 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-316801 <i>"Is now when I exercise my newfound right to bear arms and whip out my handgun??"</i> Sure. If you want to prove what a criminal you are. Most conservatives see the right to bear arms as a way to <i>protect</i> themselves from such elements rather than <i>being</i> one of those elements... “Is now when I exercise my newfound right to bear arms and whip out my handgun??”

Sure. If you want to prove what a criminal you are. Most conservatives see the right to bear arms as a way to protect themselves from such elements rather than being one of those elements…

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: Mickel http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-316789 Mickel Wed, 02 Jul 2008 23:39:50 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-316789 re #14 ..."And, for that matter the bible isn’t even especially respectful of children. They are at best less than fully human and at worst, chattel."... Matthew 19:13-14 The scriptures may speak for themselves. The Bible doesn't mention "fetus". Hmmm - could it be because God doesn't equate an unborn human with a word that allows for the stripping of their very humanity so they may, without pity or guilt, be murdered? I don't think that would be a stretch. re #14 …”And, for that matter the bible isn’t even especially respectful of children. They are at best less than fully human and at worst, chattel.”…

Matthew 19:13-14 The scriptures may speak for themselves.

The Bible doesn’t mention “fetus”. Hmmm – could it be because God doesn’t equate an unborn human with a word that allows for the stripping of their very humanity so they may, without pity or guilt, be murdered?

I don’t think that would be a stretch.

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: NJLawyer http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-316764 NJLawyer Wed, 02 Jul 2008 22:37:32 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-316764 Arcadia, even wild animals are more akin to property, as you well know, and you also know that per law school, animals are property -- not people. (I can't believe you threw out your Dukeminier!) If you have an overwhelming need to become "Spanish" and give apes "human rights" (in Spain only I might add), I can't stop you. If you google Spain, it was in the news last week that Spain wants to become more "relevant" and less a non-entity. So, I guess this is how they plan to do that. Jump on their bandwagon all you want, but you know there is a difference between a statute that preserves a habitat and giving an ape the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The individual right to gun ownership is NOT a "new found" right. Every American knew what the Second Amendment meant when it was ratified, and only people who don't know history and/or wanted to make that history say something it doesn't say wanted the opinion to go the other way. It is only "new" to someone who wants to lie and subvert the Constitution. Whatever happened to DCL? Arcadia, even wild animals are more akin to property, as you well know, and you also know that per law school, animals are property — not people. (I can’t believe you threw out your Dukeminier!) If you have an overwhelming need to become “Spanish” and give apes “human rights” (in Spain only I might add), I can’t stop you. If you google Spain, it was in the news last week that Spain wants to become more “relevant” and less a non-entity. So, I guess this is how they plan to do that. Jump on their bandwagon all you want, but you know there is a difference between a statute that preserves a habitat and giving an ape the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The individual right to gun ownership is NOT a “new found” right. Every American knew what the Second Amendment meant when it was ratified, and only people who don’t know history and/or wanted to make that history say something it doesn’t say wanted the opinion to go the other way. It is only “new” to someone who wants to lie and subvert the Constitution.

Whatever happened to DCL?

Report comment to moderator

]]> By: arcadia http://online.worldmag.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-316756 arcadia Wed, 02 Jul 2008 21:59:05 +0000 http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/07/02/law-of-the-jungle-now-has-its-own-bill-of-rights/#comment-316756 NJL <i>Animals are property</i>. Hmm, who owns a member of a protected species in the wild? No man is allowed to harm or capture them, nor even interfere with their habitat. That sounds pretty much like a set of rights somewhat better than those ever found in our constitution. NJL Animals are property.

Hmm, who owns a member of a protected species in the wild? No man is allowed to harm or capture them, nor even interfere with their habitat. That sounds pretty much like a set of rights somewhat better than those ever found in our constitution.

Report comment to moderator

]]>