Reformer: My Blood
Part the Second: Action
Image: "Savior" by NiD
On Monday, January 15, 2001, in a debate with one individual, I told them "It's this whole Bible thing.... It says to kill (blasphemers, heretics, unchaste women, unloyal children, adulterers, witches, and violators of the sabbath), but God is supposedly kind. It says in Malachi 3:6 'God does not change', but God becomes Jesus form supposedly. In one of the gospels, Jesus rose on the third day and in another after the third day. And who is the father of Joseph? One part says Heli and another says some other dude." Perhaps I had struck a chord of reason in this mess of myth and dogma, but nay, their response was typical: "Well, I really don't want to get into this. I know what I believe, and that's all that matters." It is on the plea that "I know what I believe" and "that's all that matters" that they attempt to throw out the inconsistencies of religion.
On Sunday, January 21, 2001, in a debate with another individual, the argumentation went something like this...
Christian: so why don't you believe in god
Punkerslut: Short answer: God is unreasonable.
Christian: um no
Punkerslut: Like I said, short answer.
Christian: So why do you think god is unreasonable
Punkerslut: Want the longer, explained reason?
Christian: it should be good
Christian: why do you feel god is unreasonable
Punkerslut: OK, I'm getting to that.
Christian: any day now you can give my your stupid reasoning
Punkerslut: All right.... God to me is just like Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. Your parents told you about them, they live far away, are non-demonstrable I do not believe in those things. They are unreasonable. They are used to CONTROL you! Your parents said, "Be good and Santa will give you presents and the Easter Bunny will give you eggs." Your priest said, "Be good and God will send you to heaven." Of course, "good" is compared to their standards and not actual good. They're just raping your mind and keeping you enslaved from find the real answers to life's real questions.
Punkerslut: It's all what your parents taught you. A Buddhist says, "I was brought up to worship Buddha and I still do." A Muslim says, "I was brought up to worship Allah and I still do." A Nazi says, "I was brought up to worship Hitler's ideas and I still do." You say, "I was brought up to worship Christ and I still do." As you can see, you get your ideas from the same place a Nazi does: your community.
Punkerslut: It's a flawed system. It's the cycle of depravity. The continuance of Slavethought. The death of a Freethinker.
Christian: satin leave this child
The last remark, "Satin [Satan], leave this child," was outrightly humorous. Of all the things I have heard religionists say, that is perhaps one of the most amusing of them. There are some good debates I have had. For example, on Monday, February 26, 2001...
Punkerslut: So, want some Atheist "preaching"?
Punkerslut: All right... Well, I consider God and Santa Claus to be the same thing. Check it out:
(1) Your parents told you about BOTH.
(2) They BOTH live far, far away.
(3) They BOTH are non-demonstrable
(4) BOTH have never been seen, felt, or touched.
(5) If you aren't good, you get no presents or go to hell. If you're good, you get presents or go to heaven.
Liberal: whoa thats true
Liberal: i never thought of that before
Punkerslut: Yeap yeap.
Punkerslut: Want to know about the Psychology of religion? It kind of makes you hate religion.
Punkerslut: Well, as far as Christianity goes.... Jesus said that if someone steals you coat, give him your cloak and if someone hits you on one cheek, turn the other so he can hit that one. He threatens you: "Believe in me, or perish. Accept things you cannot understand, and you will get heaven." He preaches against sex, because sex is a feeling of life. And Christianity wants followers that don't have life, but are DEAD. To be proud of what you have accomplished is a sin. To eat food is a sin. To have sex and such, to indulge is a sin. If you aren't proud of what you have and you don't try to accomplish anything, then you'll have a low self esteem. And it's no wonder! Only a man of low self esteem will enjoy this SLAVE-MASTER relationship a Christian has with Jesus.
Liberal: thats crazy but true
It is rather interesting to see the dialog between a Vegetarian and one who consumes flesh, to understand the discrepancies between the two invariably different philosophies. In one debate I had with someone, on Friday, May 11, 2001 (apparently the date I turned 17 years old)...
Punkerslut: Well, I'm a Vegan. That means that I don't eat meat or dairy, and I don't eat them for ethical/moral reasons.
Humanist: i knew what that was
Punkerslut: You a Vegetarian or Vegan?
Humanist: i love meat!!!!!! its the best
Punkerslut: Heh, I use to think the same.
Humanist: what changed ur mind?
Punkerslut: I thought about it.... want to know what thoughts crossed my mind?
Punkerslut: 200 yeas ago: an entire race of humans is imprisoned and enslaved after being taken from their home land. They are denied their rights to liberty and if their master wants, life as well. They are slaves because they are born with black skin instead of white skin.
Today: Most of the planet is enslaved, only born to be slaughtered. They are killed because they are born with paws and not hands. They are killed because they are born with wings and not arms. They are killed because they make moo noises and do not speak.
Punkerslut: To me, it is just another from of discrimination based on arbitrary physical characteristics.
Punkerslut: Can not an African human feel the same pains and joys as a Caucasian? I believe so. And can not a cow feel the same desires and sufferings of any human? I also believe so.
Humanist: cows are stupid
Humanist: they dont think
Punkerslut: They think all right. Or is it OK [t]o kill an infant because it cannot?
Humanist: there have been tests to prove so
Punkerslut: What???? There are NO tests to prove that hypothesis.
Punkerslut: Some chimps can communicate with humans via sign language.
Humanist: we descended from chimps
Humanist: u dont see us eating them
Punkerslut: So what. Cows are sentient beings and can feel as any human.
Punkerslut: That is all that matters.
Punkerslut: Whether they know how to solve algorithms is arbitrary. They do not think?
Punkerslut: They cannot suffer?
Punkerslut: When you hit a dog, does it not flee?
Humanist: all they do is eat and sleep
Humanist: dogs feel loyaly
Humanist: that has been proved
Punkerslut: Cows have brains.
Punkerslut: A brain produces sentience.
Humanist: it has also been proved that cats are exceptionally smart
Punkerslut: Their nervous system is near identical to ours.
Punkerslut: Intelligence does not matter.
Punkerslut: Can we kill and barbecue infants?
Humanist: their brains are used for reflexses!
Humanist: infants think
Punkerslut: They are not smart.
Humanist: thats been proven too
Humanist: they are
Punkerslut: I would like to see where you have that proof.
What can quite clearly be seen here is a total arrogance and foolishness of this person and their claims. They will often draw examples to creatures whom are not consumed, such as chimpanzees, cats, or dogs, claiming that the reason that we do not eat them is because they are "thoughtful" or "human-like." (Even if that is true, thousands of those creatures are experimented on yearly.) But this explains nothing, as this person still holds that such creatures are, regardlessly, inferior to humans -- it is the echo of the white slaver holders who called Africans inferior -- it is the echo of oppression, inhumanity, and injustice. Anything to defend their hypothesis. Rational or critical thought are not the allies of this American. They made the claim that infants are intelligent beings and the claim that cows are incapable of suffering. Needless to say, all of modern science that can be covered for over 100 years will confirm quite the opposite. In another debate that took place on Friday, August 10, 2001...
Punkerslut: Hiyas, friend.
Punkerslut: You believe all the Bible?
Idiot: sure do
Punkerslut: Believe this?
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.
Punkerslut: You believe in slavery?
Idiot: i do no thinkit was right at all...but
Idiot: listen do you believe anything the bible says??
Punkerslut: Not necessarily.
Punkerslut: So, you DISAGREE with slavery?
Idiot: no...b/c in the bible is say to obey your masters...
Punkerslut: So, you AGREE with slavery? Even the racial slavery in the US?
Idiot: i bielieve sometimes the people should pay
Punkerslut: But you agree with the racial slavery prior to the Civil War? Correct?
Idiot: not nesseceraly racial
Idiot: hang on
Idiot: look at this
Idiot: proverbs 19:5 a false witness shall not be unpunished,& he that speak liesshall not escape
Punkerslut: Does that have anything to do with slavery?
Idiot: some what
Idiot: they speak lies and get punished
Punkerslut: How does that have to do with SLAVERY?
Idiot: what does slavery have to do with any thing
Punkerslut: It is commanded in the Bible you so-witted one! And I am asking if you agree with the slavery from prior to the Civil War!
Punkerslut: You do? Good for you. You are disgusting and revolting. I believe that all men and animals deserve the right to life and liberty. Apparently, you do not.
Although I would change my wording on that last sentence to "your doctrine is disgusting and revolting," I nonetheless feel the same about this individual. It is quite clear that religion serves to lull our sense of humaneness to unending sleep. On September 11, 2001, I had a rather interesting conversation with an individual...
Nike Lover: In memory of all those who have perished this morning; the passengers and pilots on the USAir and AA flights, the workers in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and all the innocent bystanders. Our prayers go out to the friends and family of the deceased. Send this to 5 people to show your support
Punkerslut: Fuck prayer.
Nike Lover: y we need pray in our nation
Punkerslut: None of the founding fathers prayed.
Nike Lover: how do u know that
Nike Lover: u dont
Punkerslut: because they all confessed to being Deists. Pick up a history book, you clutz.
Nike Lover: well... i case u didnt notice the only thing thats going to get throught this mess is God if u like it or not
Punkerslut: Right... and god was so powerful, he ALMOST prevented it from happening, right?
Nike Lover: well ... there is a thing called the devil
Punkerslut: Oh, two gods, now?
Nike Lover: the devil isnt a god
Nike Lover: God
Nike Lover: he is evil
Nike Lover: believe me he is far from God
Punkerslut: Right, so the devil caused this and god is so weak he can't do anything? Great.
Nike Lover: well... the devil uses people
Punkerslut: And god is so weak he can't influence those people either.
Nike Lover: My God isnt weak!
Punkerslut: A merciful god exists? Bull shit. Try turning on your fucking television and watching the news. He obviously is weaker than a cartoon character since he can't even stop a plane from crashing into buildings. If your god is going to 'get us out of this mess,' then he's going to need a lot of help.
Punkerslut: Nike? You fucking buy Nike shoes? Like you even give a rat's ass about human life.
Nike Lover: and like u do?
Nike Lover: U talk like u dont even care all u care about is makeing ur point across
Punkerslut: I spend more of my time caring for sentient beings than you, I'm sure. Since you're so absolved with talking to your imaginary friend about today's affairs, little gets done in the actual world.
Nike Lover: u dont pray for the nation
Punkerslut: I don't pray, period.
Punkerslut: Atheists don't pray.
Nike Lover: well.... u might not think that prayer is so important but it is
Nike Lover: so maybe u will be the fist
Nike Lover: first*
Punkerslut: What the fuck are you talking about? Are you rambling on about what your imaginary friend does when you ask him to do something?
Nike Lover: i dont have imaginaray friends Jesus is not a imaginary friend he is the one and only froend
Nike Lover: friend*
Punkerslut: September 10: "Jesus, I know you're not real, but please, make the world peaceful."
September 11: "Jesus, I think you kinda let me down. Please make things better."
Punkerslut: Your 'imaginary friend' is your only friend? I truly pity you.
Punkerslut: Try asking your "friend" to deliver you some real friends.
Nike Lover: well... If God is my Only friend then thats all i need to get me through
Punkerslut: It doesn't take much, I'd assume.
Nike Lover: i have real friends
Punkerslut: I'm sure you do.
Nike Lover: i do dont u?
Punkerslut: I have what are called REAL FRIENDS, not imaginary religious people... Besides, do you even give a flying f--- about the lives of sentient beings, or are you just proselytizng your religion?
Punkerslut: You spend your affection and compassion on beings who are not real; I doubt you could afford what little affection and compassion afterwards on your fellow beings.
Nike Lover: oh i care about people and i care about if ther going to heaven and hell
Nike Lover: i care about there souls
Punkerslut: Heaven or hell? Bwhahahaha... God couldn't even stop a plane from crashing into a building and he's gonna send me to hell? Pu-leeeeeaze! I'm more afraid of being beaten up by Stephen Hawking!
Nike Lover: God lets everything happen for a reason
Punkerslut: Oh, and those people died for a reason. Perhaps the news channels needed a boost in their ratings. Oh, what a benevolent god you have.
Nike Lover: ya these people might have died for a reason God has a reason for everthing
Nike Lover: i dont know what his reason is but if u want to find out why dont u try praying
Punkerslut: I've prayed before, just like I've written letters to Santa Claus. When you grow up, you're supposed to give up such childish things. Stop acting so fucking immature.
Nike Lover: well then maybe ur prayers shouldnt be like letters to santa claus they should have meaning
Nike Lover: God loves u he wants to talk to u
Punkerslut: Oh? What's his number? I'll just call him on his beeper that he bought with church donations.
The assumption in society is that religion and morality walk hand in hand. As history has well confirmed, and as I have written at length on, it can be safe to say that religion and brutality walk hand in hand. Rarely are those without belief given much of any respect, either in the hearts of believers, in the history books of schools, or in our American society. As Carl Sagan once wrote, society does not try to remember those who denied the gods. The Ionian culture, for example, was a completely rational and scientific society that developed before the ancient Greeks. However, we are more likely to hear of Plato or Aristotle, and rarely of the Ionians. When Robert Sherman interviewed George HW Bush and said, "What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?" Bush responded, "I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in God is important to me." Sherman replied, "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?" To this, Bush responded, "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." [This information can be found easily anywhere, especially from the American Atheists website.] It is quite clear that Bush spoke with bigotry and hatred. When asked for an apology, he refused to give one. Instead, he attended a rally for Civil Rights of African Americans. What utter hypocrisy and arrogance can be seen than by this: supporting the Civil Rights of a few for more votes but denying the Civil Rights to others because it is common bigotry to do so! As Henry Stephens Salt once wrote, we are living among savages: myth is called religion, sex is called sin, and murder is called dinner.
It also can be quite clearly seen that in the previous debate I had cursed an exceptional amount. Although I rarely curse during a debate, I can honestly say that I find nothing in the slightest offensive about it. It is only a series of short noises to produce a single word that can be associated with particular actions -- to claim that there is something wrong with using curses is tantamount to saying that usage of our body without directly offending others is immoral. Some time ago, I wrote a critique of Jack Chick's essay, "Big Daddy?" In fact, he did not even write an essay. He wrote a cartoon book, commonly known as a "tract." The original critique was written in January of 2001, along with a criticism of at least 9 other of his tracts. It was published in The Dogma and I had much to say of his tracts. In some, he looked upon beating children as a necessity in society, claimed that Catholics were not Christian, claimed that Homosexuals will bring the ruin of the world, wrote of Jews in a manner to claim that they were narrow minded and heartless, among other things. The topic of "Big Daddy?" was Evolution, which he unreservedly used poor and pathetic logic, among other things, to prove his case. He defined Evolution incorrectly, insisting that it was at least 5 more things than it actually was. (He claimed that "Cosmological Evolution" was written of by Darwin, among "Chemical" and "Atomic" Evolution.) When offered the argument of humans having a tail bone, his response is that the human tail bone has muscles on it, therefore is not vestigial (or rudimentary). Needless to say, it is quite clear that Chick is not a thinking man. It has yet to occur to him that such muscles themselves are vestigial, as they support a vestigial tissue. he even goes as far as to quote authors from the 1800's as being infallible, when one such author claimed that human infants do not have gill slits while in the womb. One of the cartoons in the tract remarked, "Wow! A lie that has been our books for over 125 years!" When I eventually rewrote the critique at least a year later (when my writing skills were more up to par), I considered using the word "fuck" instead of intercourse, simply to make the point of the useless vilification of cursing. However, I eventually decided not to -- such was not my style. Not breaking boundaries, but writing in a way that did not come natural to me.
Debates are probably important to anyone who thinks critically about life and its aspects. From debating, you learn new objections to old arguments. I remember debating a Christian from the BBS (Bulletin Board System -- a place of debate) of the Christian band Bleach. Exchanging simply a few words with this person allowed me to see exactly how kept in the dark the Christian population has been; she said, "I have a question: Do you believe there is no God, or do you just hate God? I am confused." From every pulpit, nonbelievers have been generally depicted dually as men without heart and men without joy: Grinch-like characters who gets no joy, save from the displeasure of others. It is no wonder that such a hatred for non-believers has been fostered. In a debate with this person on Sunday, March 17, 2002....
Punkerslut: Well, if someone eats meat but thinks that it is cruel to be Racist, it seems to be a dichotomy. A Racist judges one on skin color, stating that they do not deserve rights for such a petty squabbling as physical appearances. The one who eats meat, yet says that men deserve rights, are only prejudiced on a different level: because someone is born without a human body -- yet all the emotions that every human is capable of -- they are denied the right to life. And that is what I find to be brutal and unfeeling.
Conservative: I am beginning to think that you IMed me, looking for a fight.
Punkerslut: It's not a fight as much as it is a plea for humanity.
Conservative: I am not going to say anything.
Punkerslut: Everyone at the Bleach BB was so quick to label me as a fighter, one without caprice or humaneness -- how typical of a collection of stupid people who cannot grasp anything that was not shoved down their throat from an early age.
Conservative: Mr. Humanitarian....
Conservative: dude, sorry about that.
Punkerslut: Like I said, it's typical.
Punkerslut: Okay, then... So, will you at least meet my arguments concerning Vegetarianism?
Conservative: I kept my mouth shut because I knew an atheist in times past, and would always say things to get me to argue with him.
Conservative: do you want my opinion?
Punkerslut: Aye, but I want a justification for it.
Conservative: God made man in His image, and gave man dominion over the earth. That doesn't mean that it's right for us to just kill or do anything we want, we still have to take of earth. But God gave us animals, and therefore we can eat them. Jewish law stated that only certain kinds of animals could be consumed (bull, goat, sheep, etc.), but after Christ, those laws were lifted.
Conservative: that doesn't mean that we "torture" animals either, or that it's right to do so.
Punkerslut: Hhhhmmmmmm.... In Hinduism, if a husband dies, they burn the wife alive with him. Do you agree with this?
Conservative: I do not, but I'm not going to go to India and condemn them for it.
Punkerslut: Do you think it is inhumane?
Conservative: I think it is inhumane, to do destroy a human when that person hasn't done anything wrong.
Conservative: Humanity, with sin, is weak, divided, and fickle. I do not trust humanity, but I trust God.
Punkerslut: It is inhumane, with or without the will of god. It is inhumane for a Hindu to burn a woman alive when her husband dies, just like it is inhumane for a Christian to kill an animal to consume it. All that has been proven is that if one desires to have an uncorrupt morality, they must be an Atheist. As I said, it is cruel to kill an animal, even if god allows it, just as it is cruel to burn someone, even if god allows it. I will not accept the brutality of any religion because their god allows it.
Conservative: what Bible verse says I can't eat meat?
Punkerslut: I don't think any say that.
Conservative: Punker, you don't have to prove anything to me. I know you're a vegetarian, and I respect that.
Punkerslut: If a person rapes a woman, on account that they are told by religious scripture that it is acceptable, and on account that they believe it, it is no less brutal, heartless, and unkind. Similarly, if you partake in the mass slaughter of animals, because your god says so, it is no less inhumane.
Conservative: The New Testament is riddled with commandments on avoiding sexual immorality. It is wrong to rape someone.
Punkerslut: I did not say that Christianity allowed rape. I said that there may be certain religions that allow it.
Punkerslut: Religious scripture is not defined to Christianity.
Conservative: you're probably laughing at me right now.
Punkerslut: Not really.
Conservative: if it is not right for a Christian to rape someone, like the Bible suggests, then why bring up that case in the first place?
Conservative: this is off-subject, but whatever.
Punkerslut: Because, this man believes rape is acceptable, because god tells him so. Similarly, you believe that eating meat is acceptable, because god tells you so. Both of you, a rapist and a Christian, get their morality from the same place.
Conservative: I see..... a valid point.
However, not all Christians are to be open-minded enough to make such a statement towards non-Christian thinking, "a valid point." I had shown earlier an example where I was told, "Satan, leave this child." As a reformer, I want to change the world and I take proper steps to do so. There are, however, hypocrites and fools abound. In a debate with someone in my high school on Sunday, May 19, 2002...
Punkerslut: So, you said you use to be a Vegetarian?
Punkerslut: Why the change now, if I may ask?
Hedonist: i couldn't deal without meat, not to mention i would beable to survive, i'm already skinny enough as it is
Punkerslut: Ah, I see, I see...
Hedonist: i want to try it again, but i don't know
Punkerslut: I think you should. What was the reason that made you be a Vegetarian before?
Hedonist: meat is disgusting, i really dont' like how i feel after i eat it, and it just sorta disgusts me
Punkerslut: Ah, I see.... I'm a Vegetarian because I consider the rights of non-human animals.
Hedonist: i guess
Hedonist: i dont' really beleive that, but i can see where your coming from
Punkerslut: Well, I mean.... Racism is wrong because it judges on their race. There is no moral difference between a white man and a black man -- they both deserve equality and justice. Similarly, it is also wrong to judge someone on their species. If someone is born with a different skin color, it does not mean that they are inferior. If someone is born with a different quantity of legs or with wings or with a beak, does that mean that they are inferior, or that they don't deserve rights? Certainly not.
Hedonist: yes, but animals are hear for us to eat, and if they choose to eat us then they can go right ahead
Punkerslut: Because, it all comes down to this single fact: when comparing all creatures on this planet, despite skin color, gender, sexuality, race, or SPECIES, all animals are conscious. That is to say, they are all equally capable of feeling pain, suffering, joy, desire, and happiness.
Punkerslut: Well, animals are not here for us to eat. I don't understand why you would believe that.
Hedonist: they eat eachother, why can't we eat them
Punkerslut: Well, some animals steal from each other or cannibalize their own species. Since animals are irrational, does that mean we should be irrational? If animals lack compassion or mercy or humaneness, does that mean we should have no compassion or mercy or humaneness? Simply put: imitation is no grounds for morality. No matter what another animal does, it does not mean that we have the right to deprive other animals of their rights.
Hedonist: but it's not wrong, it's just life, it's what we need to do to survive,they do what they need to and we do what we need to
Punkerslut: Yes, but we do not need to kill 10 billion animals every year to feed ourselves. On this wonderful planet, we are given so many non-animal sources of food. Vegetables, fruits, and grains are simply plants. Unlike animals, they cannot feel. When humans make the choice to selectively kill and eat animals, just because of taste, they are making a choice to selectively kill an organism that can feel pain. Now that is wrong.
[A little over four minutes of a pause.]
Hedonist: i dont really care actually, sry, but i don't
Punkerslut: Hhhhmmmm, I thought you said you opposed injustice?
Hedonist: i'm a very big hypocrit'
What a most wondrous reply to the heart of a reformer, "I don't really care actually." Yet, hypocrisy and foolishness is not restricted to this one person. I remember this one individual becoming upset when I asked of what they thought their purpose in life was, because it appeared they cared for no reform. They used utterly idiotic methods to defend themselves and their ideology. They made the statement, for example, that it was permissible to kill humans as long as they were consumed. When I told them that it would be unnecessary to kill humans or animals when we had plant life, plant life that was incapable of suffering, he nodded away to another argument. He said that the only reason he eats meat in the school cafeteria was because he didn't like the other food there. But this is exactly the root of the problem. He treats animals as his conveniences and not his cousins! As Henry Stephens Salt once wrote...
Of all death-bed sayings perhaps the wisest was Thoreau's: "One world at a time." When we have grasped the great central fact about animals, that they are in the full sense our fellow-beings, all else will follow for them; and we shall know, and act upon the knowledge, that in the words of Howard Moore, author of that memorable book The Universal Kinship: "They are not conveniences but cousins." [From, "The Story of My Cousins."]
Mr. Howard Moore was a Humanitarian like Henry Salt. In one book, The Universal Kinship, he wrote, "What on earth would we Unusuals do, in this lonely dream of life, if it were not for the sympathy and friendship of the Few?" He described the purpose of his movement as, "to put science and humanitarianism in place of tradition and savagery." [Quoted from The Savour of Salt, a Henry Salt Anthology, edited by George Hendrick and Willene Hendrick, pages 54-55.] In his works were also a touch of pessimism. He was a cynic and perhaps that is the age-old mark of a Humanitarian reformer; a sort of bitterness that entrenches an individual from so many dealings with so many individuals. But it is this bitterness that makes Mr. Moor so attractive as a Humanitarian. It was the "scar of battle" against brutality and injustice. An unshakable proof. Mr. Moore would come to kill himself before Salt was very old. Salt lamented that it was justified. However, it is quite sad to see such a reformer and brilliant man of passion go. It can almost be assured that his suicide may have been in the blight nightmare of loneliness or depression -- from whatever had caused him to go down that bleak, dreary road. The clergy, unfeeling and brutal in their assertions, will tout that Moore was a menace to society and that his suicide, and now his hell-bound home, were just. It is from this that the sentiment may come that it is an Atheist versus clergy world, that Humanitarians are battling with Brutalitarians. Although this may apply metaphorically, it does not fit literally. Humanitarians battle the very concept of war, among other brutalities. The clergy will continue to infect the minds of the populations, and the populations will respond by remembering the names of the clergy. Although the important figures of Christianity (save their martyrs)* may be remembered, but certainly the clergy does not do anything to change or reform the way the world works. They only tighten the leash around the neck of liberty. It is the reform movement by the Humanitarians that have actually reformed the minds of men to a more humane understanding.
[* In fact, there is a very amusing story about this. A friend of mine, editor of the Uncouth.net magazine, names all of his servers after Christian martyrs. When asked why, he responded that it was because Christians had already forgotten who had died for them, that someone may as well try to access a file off of Server Perpetua.]
Perhaps of all beliefs, religion is the most unreasonable. It will defend itself with the stick of faith. In one debate with a Muslim, I defended Atheism. Their response was rather typical of any religionist whose mind is cluttered with religious drivel. When I asked for them to define god, they responded by claiming that god is "like one, the beginning." When I asked why god needed no created, it went back to this definition. When I asked why this definition could not be applied to the earth, he said it was because the earth was not this definition. I asked him for a less vague definition of god, instead of simply comparing god to a number. Again, the response was typical of a fool: "A creation cannot define its creator. A thread cannot define man." Of course, I quickly pointed out that the reason thread or cloth cannot define humans has little to do with the fact that humans created it and everything to do with the fact that thread and cloth is without consciousness. I asked him about children and how they can define parents. He said that parents are not our absolute creators, and then I told him then that the thread analogy was useless, as a human is not a thread's absolute creator. After he stated that humans cannot define their creator, the debate ended when I said, "So, Islam can be defined as 'faith in that by which we do not know we have faith in,' correct?" It would not suffice his zealous nature. He was not logically minded in the slightest. When I offered a refutation to one of his arguments, he brought out five more, ignoring the refutation. He was more bent on using ill-logic to prove his case than using logic at all.
There was another Muslim I debated who lived in Indonesia. He was born a Christian with then name of Robert and had his name changed to Muhammad-something. I had never seen such ignorance from a person in my entire life. He continued to make assertions that hell existed and that was purely the reason he believed. It was not that he was brought up Muslim, or that he found Islamic theology appealing -- instead, he was afraid of a place that does not exist. When I told him that the hells of any religion could be true, or that one could make up any hell and it has a possibility of being true, his reasoning fell through, and he refused to have further conversations with me. However, some of my fondest debating opponents have been Muslims. I remember having a wonderful debate with an Afghanistan Muslim that lasted six hours straight. Although he may have pointed to irrelevant facts, the debate was structured and he seemed highly reasonable. Thursday, December 14, 2000...
Punkerslut (3:07:02 PM): So, how's Islam?
Muslim (3:07:12 PM): going great
Muslim (3:07:22 PM): how're your studies?
Punkerslut (3:08:08 PM): They're going well. I've arranged Atheist and Vegetarian arguments better.
Muslim (3:08:45 PM): you were good at them already
Punkerslut (3:09:13 PM): Yeap..... I think we only argued about Freethought, though.
Muslim (3:09:37 PM): yes
Punkerslut (3:11:25 PM): Hhmm...... I gave you Freethought arguments. Did you hear the explicitly Atheist arguments? Or do you want to hear them?
Muslim (3:11:54 PM): yes
Punkerslut (3:14:10 PM): All right.... I consider God to be no different than Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or other mythical creatures. Your parents told you about these mythical creatures and God. These mythical creatures and God are non-demonstrable. They cannot be demonstrated. They live far away. And who created God? Some people say that this world is so magnificent and intelligent it needs a creator, but the creator, who is more magnificent and intelligent, needs no creator.
Muslim (3:16:05 PM): we dont believe that God lives far away, for us he is as close to us as our own soul
Punkerslut (3:16:34 PM): Yes, but as far as demonstrating God, he is far away. I cannot see God, nor may many others.
Muslim (3:17:21 PM): we cant see Him but we can feel his presence..just as we cant see the wind
Punkerslut (3:20:02 PM): Yes, but the wind is caused by molecules of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide that powered with kinetic energy. Things can be explained materialistically. Well, what do you feel when you feel God?
Muslim (3:23:42 PM): how did they prove the exixtance of X-rays or radioactivity...by the effects they caused...so we also feel His presence by how He helps us in time of need, whispers in our heart & guides us when we are indecisive
Punkerslut (3:25:21 PM): Yes, but as far as X-rays and radioactivity, those things may be measured. God cannot be measured. A person amy as well say, "The rain is the working of my magical elves." Let's say a person prays at 5:00 for an hour that it would become 6:00. At the end of their prayer it becomes 6:00. Does that mean their prayer caused time to pass?
Muslim (3:30:39 PM): but before radio waves or x-rays were discovered, did people have instruments to measure them...similarly we may be able to invent instruments to measure thought waves, ESPs, telepathic waves, dreams..and ultimately some presence of God?
Punkerslut (3:31:44 PM): Yes, but we may also be able to invent an instrument to measure magical elves.... Or at least someone could claim as such. It doesn't prove the existence of magical elves.
Muslim (3:34:29 PM): yes but if such instruments can be independantly duplicable by others...why do you insist that instruments to measure the unseen can never be invented?
Punkerslut (3:35:50 PM): Well, it's not the instruments.... It's the unseen. There are some things that are unseen, hypothetically, that could exist. I admit that. However, I am an Atheist; I lack belief in these things. I don't go as far as to say they cannot exist. I simply lack belief in these things. However, as far as God goes, I say that God cannot exist and my reasons are justified.
Punkerslut (3:38:26 PM): For something to be reasonable, it must not be self-contradictory, it cannot be contradictory to previously accepted truths, and it must be supported by evidence. The Bible and Qur'an are contradictory to themselves. The Bible says that the father of Joseph is Jacob in one part and in another part it is Heli. I'm not too well versed in the Qur'an but I provided a link to contradictions. One part of the Qur'an says Allah created the Earth first and then the heavens, while another part says Allah created the heavens first and then the Earth.
Punkerslut (3:39:30 PM): That's self contradiction. The second part is not being contradictory to previously accepted truths. For example, God is considered loving and wonderful, yet we have this world with murder, rape, war, plague, disease. A loving God would not let this happen. The man who killed me does not exist. Why? Because I am alive. The God who loves us so much as to make a wonderful paradise does not exist. Why? Because this world is horrible.
Muslim (3:40:00 PM): if by existance you mean like all created things exist...I agree that God does not exist in the same way; His existance is timeless and dimensionless, in fact, to say that he exists, means he might not have existed previously, which is not true for god
Muslim (3:41:51 PM): Quran just says that He created heavens and the earth in six days...does not go into the order or other details
Punkerslut (3:43:09 PM): Check that Qur'an Contradictions link: http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/
Muslim (3:45:06 PM): as far as all the rape & murder, its part of the test of humanity...its for us to rid the earth of such things for we have the power & means to do it...before us, th animal kingdom behaved very rationally, killing only when hungry, why cant men be rational? its not God's fault
Punkerslut (3:45:41 PM): You follow the Torah and Qur'an, right? Not the New Testament?
Muslim (3:47:12 PM): we believe that Injeel (our word for Bible) was a word of God but it was heavily modified by men...if a true copy of what Jesus narrated could be found, we would believe it
Muslim (3:48:39 PM): some things might appear contradictory in Quran if not taken in reference to context, at places it gives a simplistic view just to explain a point, at other places, its more scientific & precise
Punkerslut (3:49:12 PM): OK..... Is God omnipotent?
Muslim (3:51:18 PM): yes
Punkerslut (3:51:54 PM): OK.... So, God knows what every man will do?
Muslim (3:54:32 PM): yes
Punkerslut (3:55:08 PM): So, he is responsible for all the pain, then?
Muslim (3:57:44 PM): no we are responsible for our own miseries, if we chose not to be materialistic, selfish, not respecting the rights of others, we cant blame God...there are places on earth where people live in great hormony, live very long lives....they chose to be that way, so could the rest of the world
Punkerslut (3:58:32 PM): They didn't chose that. God did. If someone hits a domino of a domino line, they're responsible for the last domino.
[Having started at 3:07:02 PM, the debate ended at 8:48:03 PM..]
I remember debating him quite well and I remember the day the debate took place. It started shortly after I had a drum lesson. For him, it was the religious month of Ramadan, which meant he was not allowed to eat food as long as the sun was up. I also remembering talking to him later and in only a few brief exchanges of words, I was able to convert him to the practice of Vegetarianism. What six hours of religious debating would not turn this Muslim over, an appeal to humaneness was enough to change his dietetic habits.
As far as the few excerpted debates, although they may seem long, it is only a small portion. I've debated over 350 individuals (at least recorded debates). That is not including the amount of times I've debated each individual person, either. The debates are also long and arduous. If all of them were bound together in one volume, they would be 13 times the size of Harriet Beacher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin.
Some time ago, I had written an essay entitled "Child Abuse And Damage." In this essay, I condemned the brutality of beating children for the sake of discipline. I wrote...
Child Abuse has never been an acceptable practice in the heart of any humane person. It prepares the next generation for brutality and barbaric behavior -- what is called by its advocates as "discipline." Striking the flesh of an undeveloped child for the sake of achieving an objective is the most unsophisticated method of achieving that objective. It teaches cruelty and it inflicts scars on both the body and the mind. To think of the nights every abused child spends huddled in their room, pondering their worthlessness, the dark nights, the sting of a paddle -- to think of the tears and the blood torn from zestful youth for the sake of "discipline." Of all the cruelties committed, nothing can be so devastating as to bring a child into the world, only to teach it that it has no value, to beat it, to strike it, to make it know every abominable brutality ever known to man. Think of the trembling, small hands, afraid of their parents and always confused, always failing to understand why mother and father are quicker to deliver a painful touch than an affectionate touch. Of what viciousness it is needed to deal such blows, to deliver insurmountable pain, it is unspeakable to even think of the actions. By destroying the youth, riddling their lives with fear and distress, we accomplish nothing but the sorrows that will keep them up questioning the virtues of living. [Friday, February 29, 2002.]
To certain degrees, the essay attracted some attention. There was a particular group of Christians who opposed Child Abuse whom I had the time to write to. However, as I soon discovered, they disliked my essay, as my essay was rather about condemning the beating of children. When this group of Christians spoke of Child Abuse, they spoke of children being molested or raped, not being beaten malicious. In fact, to quote their letter....
Regardless of what the world, public or what a Citizen says is the correct way to raise a child, Almighty God's way is always best. The Child should be raised with a lot of the Love of Christ, with gentleness and affection that is decent, clean before God, pure, honest and righteous with the admonition of the Lord.
However, as you see the Lord declares that we as parents are to chastise our Children, however, we are not to beat them or punish them unrighteously or unworthily, but rather with the admonition of the Lord!
Needless to say, I found their words to be absolutely revolting and their sentiments to be the embodiment of savagery. To this, I responded....
If a person beats their child to a pulp in the name of Christ or in the name of unavailing brutality, the difference is quite small. When a person acts with Christ to beat their child, they are both heartless and ignorant. When a person acts without Christ to beat their child, they are simply heartless. To Christianity, as I have stated, it has a long history of heartlessness, but also of brutalities and cruelties. To beat a child, though, is but one of the most deplorable things imaginable. Who can take a small child, its body nimble and fragile, and continually strike them, until their eyes are drowning in tears, until their body swells with redness? With what kind of ignorance can a person fill a new body with suffering, fill a new mind with torment? That is to say, how can person detest affection and love unfeeling viciousness? You have answered quite clearly: with Christ. [Thursday, April 18, 2002.]
When I read such letters, I realize that such individuals lack humaneness what they make up for in piety. However, when I read the books by the reformer Henry Stephens Salt, I find similar situations resembling my own. For, it is quite clear that the vast number of adversaries who write me tend to be uneducated or inhumane, I find a sort of smirk on my face as I read some of their writings. Perhaps a correspondence will make a reference to a poorly written book by Augustine or Aquinas, or even a modern theologian like C.S. Lewis. Perhaps, though, they will make a completed incoherent remark. "Hitler did he believe in a god no of course not he started the Reich church,which he set himself up as god." In fact, to quote Henry Stephens Salt when he wrote to Admirals in the Navy about flogging....
In this long controversy the League was brought into conflict with all sorts of opponents, among them several Admirals, of whom the "breeziest" were the Hon. V. A. Montagu and Sir William Kennedy. With the latter especially we had great fun, as we found in him an antagonist of the utmost heartiness and good humour. "Of what use is it," he wrote to me," sending me all this rubbish, except to fill the waste-paper basket? I don't care a damn for Admiral ----'s opinion." On another occasion he sent me a formal challenge to meet him "at any time and place, when pistols and coffee will be provided." At a later date we had his support, equally emphatic, in our protest against the practice of feeding snakes on live prey at the "Zoo." [Quoted from The Savour of Salt, a Henry Salt Anthology, edited by George Hendrick and Willene Hendrick, page 77.]
There was the incident involving Doctor Younis Shakh. Shakh was a doctor sitting on Death Row in Pakistan for the crime of blasphemy. To some of the United States representatives and senators, I wrote the following...
To this end, I come to you with a concern. The United States involvement in Asia now has brought to light pre-existing concerns. The Taliban and other Islamic terrorists have an iron grasp on the people and their rights. They do not grant rights of freedom of conscience and freedom of expression there. Children grow up force-fed that they are sheep and nothing more; they are told that they are incapable of questioning their authorities, that their lives are too insignificant and their minds too undeveloped. The brightness of inquisitive thought is destroyed under the regime of infamy and cruelty. There is one particular case which has moved me undeniably. Dr. Younas Shaikh has been sitting on Death Row in a Pakistan since October of 2001. His crime was blasphemy. The evidence used to gain his conviction was not obtained through reason, nor was it obtained through a fair-court. It was obtained by radical, Islamic Fundamentalists who urged the court to suppress the opinion of Shaikh. These clerics of ancient error are vicious men. They wish to destroy the flower of reason, blockade light from it, and destroy any natural inclinations towards anything non-Islamic. Shaikh is a Humanist, a lover of the life that surrounds him in this world, a supporter of freedom and equality, and one always in admiration of anyone who can improve themselves. For this, the Islamic clerics said he was unruly, and unfit to live in society. They bandaged shackles around his body, but his mind remained forever free. Shaikh deserves the adoration of every free man, for what he has put up with and for what he has endured, for the sake of freedom.
Being a reformer means taking every step necessary to advance your reform and it means not letting the opposition rest. I remember that a group of Islamic Fundamentalists had reworked an essay of a book by McCabe, The Moorish Civilisation in Spain. The essay posted by the Islamic Fundamentalists read as follows: "Islam put a marvelous energy into the Arabs, and they set out to free the world. Within a very short time they overran the old civilisations of Persia and Egypt and rejuvenated the regions. They did not take long to implement a brilliant Islamic civilisation." The Islamic Fundamentalists claimed that McCabe had written this, but when I checked back to the copy of McCabe's essay, I found what it really had read: "This religion was not a civilizing force -- no religion is or ever has been -- but it put a marvelous energy into the Arabs, and they set out to conquer and convert the world." Another example. The Islamic version: "Before Islam the Arabs were as rude and uncultivated as the Teutons, but then Islam gave them the discipline, conduct and the thrust to gain knowledge. Accompanied by its unique social, economic, judicial and political systems and its importance on justice, Islam allowed them to surpass the rest of the world within decades." The real version: "The Arabs were as rude and uncultivated as the Teutons, but, when they overran an older civilization, they became fully civilized within a century. And Scott, although he does not see the force of the point, gives ample evidence of the reason. The faith in Islam rapidly decayed. Damascus, the new capital, was saturated with skepticism and resounded with blasphemy. The religion did not inspire civilization, but the neglect of its precepts permitted human nature to civilize itself." What was so awful about this was that McCabe was a reformer and a skeptic. Yet, these Islamic religionists, felt it was acceptable to profane his name by saying he claimed things he did not. I sent him the following...
McCabe did not state what your edited version said at all. In fact, it is simply your vain attempt to rewrite history to the end of your dogmatic, heartless religion -- your actions just another confirming action of it. For thousands of years, theologians have been rewriting history, only to serve their own purposes. After Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake, the Pope called him a coward. A coward for what, though? For defending his beliefs and for not giving them an inch of ground. From your edited version of McCabe's article, I still see the barbaric intent of religionists, their ethics having no conformity with humaneness, and their complete brutal nature. Lies, lies, and more lies: this is the definition of your religion and your zealotry. I have never been so appalled than when your read the article you posted by McCabe. It was by Joseph McCabe's words that he detested all religions, held them in contempt. And yet you believe you can rewrite history on the slightest whim of superstition? Perhaps Allah would be proud of you -- imaginary gods who promote violence and vice would be proud. What makes it disgusting is the fact that this was a HISTORY ARTICLE -- not a philosophical, social, or theological one, but one CONCERNING HISTORY. I am disgusted by the fact that you promote such lies and that you do so by the flower lying on the grave of one of the world's greatest Freethinkers. [Friday, April 5, 2002.]
My letters are not restricted specifically to those I disagree with entirely. In regards to the modern Rights movement, there are numerous groups. There are the Vegetarians, the Vegans, and the Fruitarians. Vegetarians abstain from flesh, Vegans from meat and dairy, and Fruitarians from vegetables, meat, dairy, and wheat (eating only fruit). Their reasoning is that we can consume fruit without killing a life form, whereas eating vegetables does kill a life. To a Fruitarian organization, I wrote the following letter....
Perhaps, though, you may argue that it is not because a plant is conscious, but because it is alive that it deserves rights. Although I would highly disagree -- as I think that consciousness is a requirement for being a moral agent -- there are still flaws in such a theory. Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that being alive means that someone deserve moral treatment, and that is all that is needed. Therefore plants would fall under the category of deserving moral treatment. But what exactly does that mean? How would we act towards plants? To act morally towards a man, we would do as he pleased -- we would not cause suffering or pain, we would do as much as we could to make him feel comfortable. What can we do to a plant, though? A plant will be just as happy if you burn it compared to giving it water. You can cut a tree down or caress its pine -- either way, it will not feel pleasure or suffering. What is moral treatment to animals can be defined as not doing anything that causes them suffering, anything they don't like. But as far as plants go, there is nothing that "they don't like," since they do not have a brain and are incapable of likes and dislikes. So, even if a plant was a moral agent, it would be irrelevant, because no matter how you treated a plant, it would be unimportant, as it cannot and does not prefer any type of treatment. [Sunday, April 7, 2002, 12:13 A.M.]
Since I have delved into Marxist and other Socialist thinker material, I have found that I am quite at odds with other Socialists. The main difference between Socialism and Communism is that Communism means everything is equally owned, whereas Socialism means government regulation of economy. However, there are strict Socialists and light Socialists. Strict Socialists, for example, want all the capital (factories, farms, stores, etc.) to be owned and operated by the government, whereas a light Socialist would want high minimum wages and safe working conditions in factories, as well as ecological protection. I have had difficulty finding other similar light Socialists. Even the International Socialist Organization is a strict Socialist group that works for government control of capital. In some of their publications, they glorified Vladimir Lenin. To them, I wrote the following...
Just so you understand, I am a Socialist, but no Communist. Although it may be true that there are some likable qualities in Vladimir Lenin, I do not think that a blanket statement of him being a good leader would be truthful. Consider, for example, how he did not hold free elections. The people did not choose him as their leader. Lenin was elected by gun and bayonet. This is something that cannot be excused. Even if he were to write a million verses of poetry expressing his sentiments about the plight of the worker, he still refused to give people to choose the leader who governs them. Since he was elected by his own military and not by his own population, it is quite reflective on the fact that he was not at all concerned about the rights of the people. Perhaps, though, Lenin cared for the rights of people in other respects, but this would be just another lie. The pogroms that led to the massive amounts of losses in life show that Lenin was neither humane nor compassionate. Those who opposed Lenin were dealt with in the most tyrannical, heartless fashion; and it is only the rule when one's leader is not chosen by the people and works against the interests of the people. The Kronstadt rebellion fought for free Soviets. Those who worked for a free government were imprisoned by Lenin and his infamous regime. [Tuesday, May 28, 2002.]
Communists would agree with me on my assessment of Lenin. Alexander Berkman, a Communist who lived in Russia for some time during Lenin's rise, wrote...
The people now confidently looked forward to the mitigation of the severe Bolshevik regime. It was expected that with the end of civil war the Communists would lighten the burdens, abolish war-time restrictions, introduce some fundamental liberties, and begin the organisation of a more normal life. Though far from being popular the Bolshevik Government had the support of the workers in its oft announced plan of taking up the economic reconstruction of the country as soon as military operations should cease. The people were eager to cooperate, to put their initiative and creative efforts to the of the ruined land.
Most unfortunately, these expectations were doomed to disappointment. The Communist State showed no intention of loosening the yoke. The same policies continued, with labor militarisation still further enslaving the people, embittering them with added oppression and tyranny, and in consequence paralising every possibility of industrial revival. The last hope of the proletariat was perishing: the conviction grew that the Communist Party was more interested in retaining political power than in saving the Revolution. [The Kronstadt Rebellion, by Alexander Berkman.]
The Center for Consumer Rights is a small, basely pathetic organization whose sole and primary purpose it is to degrade the Animal Rights movement. The term "Consumer Rights" was chosen by them declaring that consumers have the right to purchase flesh and consume it. I wrote them one letter....
So do we have a bias? You bet we do! We believe that only you know "what's best for you" -- and when activists try to force you to live according to their rules, we don't take it lying down.
Does that mean that you would be the first to uphold a human slave trade? After all, if an individual has the right to do whatever they want with their money for their enjoyment, is it not permissible then that they can purchase human slaves? Clearly, it is so if we follow your ideology. You may argue that the entire scenario has been changed to include different aspects. "A human can suffer," you may argue, but so can any animal. A dog can feel pains and suffering, just like a cow or a duck can. If you condemn human slavery because it causes suffering, then to be logical, you must also condemn the slavery of non-human animals. If you condemn the slaughtering of humans, then you should also condemn the slaughtering of non-human animals.
You may deny that animals can think and feel like any human, but scientists would disagree with you. To quote Charles Darwin...
Charles Darwin - "Nevertheless the difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind. We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation, reason, &c., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower animals." ["The Descent of Man," by Charles Darwin, part 1, chapter 4.]
What is the actual difference between a human and a non-human animal? They are born with different genes, for a first difference. Ducks are born with wings, cows with four legs, fish with gills, and humans with a hairless body -- but what is in common? All animals are conscious beings, they can all think and feel, and they are all equal in this one aspect: capability of suffering. You cannot separate the sufferings of a human and a non-human animal any more than you can separate the sufferings of a white person and a black person. Despite skin color, all humans can feel the same desires and the same pains -- similarly, despite quantity of legs, all animals can feel the same desires and the same pains. The reason that you so flagrantly trample over their rights is on the claim of freedom. You have stated that you wish all people to have the liberty to choose their own meals. (I wonder, would you promote the meal of human flesh, since we all deserve such a liberty?) What your ideology is can be reduced to is this: you want people to have the right and the authority to do away with the consideration of the lower animals. By stating that animals are to be restricted to food products and other tools for human use, you are stating that humans attain "freedom." When you say that animals do not deserve the right to existence, that their sufferings fall on your deaf ears -- that their suffering is less real, their pains more tolerable, their purpose meaningless, their unhappiness irrelevant -- by saying this, you are confirming cruelty, holding hands with heartlessness, and you are upholding unleveled brutality. [Sunday, April 7, 2002, 1:10 A.M..]
That e-mail had no reply to it. And that's typical for an organization whose arguments remain ignorant of reason. When I had no reply to that letter, I wrote another one....
I had composed a letter to you Sunday, April 7, and received no reply. It has been over two weeks, and I thought it would be appropriate to send another letter.
My last letter consisted of arguing for the rights of non-human animals. I offered the argument that animals are capable of suffering, just as humans are, and therefore deserve the right to life and liberty, just like humans. One would not be justifiable in denying rights to any particular race of humans. If this is true, then why is it justifiable in denying rights to any particular species of animalia on this planet? The reason is simple: these groups are conscious beings, and they can all equally suffer, and therefore deserve rights. Plants are not conscious and do not deserve rights. In one of your articles, you showed Animal Rights activists protesting a Wendy's and had the caption, "Anti-meat zealots, trying to keep the world safe from cheeseburgers." This just shows how ignorant you are of the Humanitarian and Vegetarian movement that works for the rights of non-human animals. Also, the fact that you obviously did not reply to my last letter is appalling and perhaps I will soon advertise the fact that you are a collective of intellectual cowards. (Certain media groups will be informed that may be concerned with this.) You cannot meet arguments, nor can you respond to intellectual inquiry. This obviously is your current state of affairs: without reason and without heart. If you can argue your case that consumers deserve the rights to kill and consume animals, then please, plead your case, because from what I see, your failure to respond to critics speaks volumes of your cowardice. [Sunday, April 28, 2002.]
It is not entirely shocking or alarming that anti-Animal Rights movements who find themselves to be righteous have arisen. I am only surprised that religion has not allied itself more with the anti-Animal Rights movement -- although the Catholic Church has been the greatest offender in this manner. Another organization, the National Animal Interest Alliance, is rather hypocritical. It calls itself working for humane treatment of animals and fair business usage of animals, but it is a base of fraud.
"The National Animal Interest Alliance is an association of business, agricultural, scientific, and recreational interest formed to protect and promote humane practices and relationships between people and animals."
However, shortly afterward, you stated...
"In a society that enjoys and depends on the use of animals -- for food, for clothing, for medical advances, for companionship, and for recreation and entertainment -- factual information about the nature of animal use is essential to our social well-being."
When you admit that animals only serve the purpose of food, clothing, experimentation, as well as other recreation, you are admitting that they have no moral purpose -- that they exist solely for the purpose of humans to exploit and abuse them. When you consign an animal's few remaining hours to vindictive, relentless torture of medical experimentation, you certainly are not giving the lower animals any sympathy, nor do you afford them any humane treatment. Or when you restrict an animal's meaning to the taste of its flesh, the shade of its fur, you are intrinsically saying they are worthless, save for their bodies. Their sufferings and agonies mean nothing to you -- they are but are cries in the wind, unheard.
"As people directly involved with animals and concerned about animal welfare issues, NAIA members recognize the animal rights movement as a threat to American society, its economy, the civil liberties and well-being of its citizens, and to the welfare of the very animals it professes to serve."
And so the slavers in the 1800's believed that Abolitionists would ruin the economy, and so the Chauvinists in the same era believed that Women Suffragists would do the same -- their arguments were founded on social and economical issues. "If women worked," they argued, "then the economy would fall apart!" Or, "If black men were freed, then plantation owners would go bankrupt!" Back and forth, the arguments and debate piled up. Not once did they take into consideration the interests of the lower animals -- what they believed African humans were. It was not for the sake of philosophical or moral justification, nor was it for the sake of being what they believed to be good. Their arguments for slavery were based on ignorance and brutality, the very things that make up vice and heartlessness. And so, I see, your arguments are the same. Slavers denied African humans the right to freedom and liberty because of skin color. You deny lower animals the right to freedom and liberty -- and even LIFE -- because of their quantity of legs. Is there any real difference between men and animals? They both can feel, they both can desire, and they both can suffer -- by what abominable justification can you propose to justify your actions? [Sunday, April 7, 2002.]
The previous letter went to the president of the organization. Just as the Center for Consumer Rights, they offered me no reply. Again, the utter hypocrisy and inability to answer arguments of the anti-Animal Rights movement. It should be expected, though, when a group of people hold that their fellow creatures are undeserving of rights that they would not hold much regard for their fellow humans. The suffering of humans and animals is identical. When an individual says that the suffering of an animal holds no weight, why should it be any surprise in the slightest that they believe that the suffering of a human holds little weight, also? Hence, there is no need for an excuse as to why they cannot meet my arguments or even offer a reply.
What I have previously shown in this section is just a small collection of letters I have offered to those I disagree with. I have written to Capitalists and religionists, as well as those who advocate the killing of their fellow creatures. Thus ends Part the Second.