|
Tuesday, 27 June 2006 15:45 |
Video footage termed proof of animal abuse by circus
Thanks for covering our protest of the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus (June 7 edition of the Daily Planet).
There were almost 40 of us demonstrating and leafletting on Wednesday and about 60 on Saturday. While the number of protestors increased since Ringling last visited, the number of people attending the circus was significantly smaller. The times, they are a-changing.
I wish the article had included more factual information instead of the usual ?®he said, she said?∆ banter between Ringing and those of us seeking freedom for our fellow beings.
Voluminous
information, including many USDA inspection reports, clearly detail and
document Ringling??s abusive treatment of animals. For example, in 1998,
a Ringling veterinarian advised that Kenny, a baby elephant, was too
ill to take part in the show. This advice was ignored and Kenny was
forced to perform. One hour later, he died. Ringling was allowed to
settle the case out of court for $20,000.
Anyone
interested in learning more can visit www.circuses.com. Simply click
?®Ringling Bros. Factsheet?∆ to learn about all of the animals that have
suffered and died. Video footage of Ringling employees beating
elephants is also available on the website.
It??s the 21st century ?? and time we stop torturing animals for entertainment.
STEWART DAVID
Asheville
No need to vilify circus; turn focus to worthy causes
I was reading in your paper about what these animal activists are saying about the Barnum & Bailey Circus.
Those animals
are treated better than some humans. They are working animals. These
animals are loved, fed and go to the vets. They need to go after these
trophy hunters. This circus has been going on for years. And if they
were so cruel, they would close them down. They make adults and kids
laugh and happy.
They should go
after people that are starving their animals and leaving puppies on the
side of the roads. Now that is cruel. These animal rights activists are
miserable people and you know what they say: ?®Misery loves company.?∆
They should be worried about people coming to our country bringing
tuberculosis, mumps, diphtheria and other things that we have no meds
for.
And keep their nose out of the circus business.
Charlotte Roberts
Swannanoa
Columnist called off-base for his view on gays in Bible
In response to ?®Practice of hospitality challenges attitudes, custom?∆ by Marc Mullinax (May 24 edition of the Daily Planet):
So-called
?®killer passages?∆ that religious folks lift out to prove the Bible??s
anti-gay orientation is Genesis 19. ?®Religious folks sometimes get most
of their exercise leaping to unfounded opinions ....?∆
Unfounded opinions? Have you ever really read the Bible or do you just lift out verses to make your own unexamined opinion?
Genesis 19 is
not the only chapter in the Bible that plainly talks about
homosexuality. There is Romans chapter 1. Read verses 24-26-27. You can
start from verse 1, if that would make it more easily understood for
you.
You have the
audacity to say that a sodomite is one who refuses to practice
hospitality? Have you taken the time to look up the meaning of the word
in the dictionary? Do allow me to help you in this area. Sodomite ...
Sodomy ?? unnatural sexual intercourse ... forbidden by Mosaic Law ?? the
law given to Moses by God).
As you state:
Yes, there were two heavenly visitors that went into the city of Sodom
and Go-mor??rah. A man named Lot met the two visitors at the gate and
offered them a place to stay for the night. The (KJV) Bible states:
?®That he pressed upon them greatly to come into his home. After the
heavenly visitors had entered Lot??s home, the men of the city demanded
that Lot turn over the heavenly visitors.?∆
They say to Lot,
?®Bring them out to us that we may know them (sexually). Yes, Lot does
offer his daughters, but they tell Lot to stand back. The men of the
city were so determined to have the visitors (sexually), that they were
going to break down the door to enter. And for their unnatural lusts,
the heavenly visitors blinded those men.?∆
One of the words
that you use in your article is ignominy. You state: ?®He offers his
virgin daughters to the men of the city, rather than have his guest
suffer ignominy.?∆
Let us give the
definitions of this word ignominy: ?®shame and disgrace; dishonor.?∆ (And
then you state: The issue is hospitality. Sure a same-sex act was
contemplated.) The word that you chose completely sets the stage of the
true meaning of homosexuality: ?®shame and disgrace.?∆ Your words, not
mine.
Give me a break.
If you would take the time to read the Bible from beginning to the end,
it would make complete sense to you. Genesis 19 does talk about
homosexuality. The men of that city were going to force themselves on
the heavenly visitors ?? the heavenly visitors that God had sent unto
the city ?? and they did not need anyone to protect them. They were on a
mission to tell Lot to take his family out of Sodom before they
destroyed the city.
God had already
in the previous chapter decided to destroy the city: Chapter 18 verse
29: ?®And the Lord said, because the cry of Sodom and Go-mor??rah is
great, and because their sin is very grievous.?∆
In the ancient and modern Middle Eastern times, hospitality is taken very seriously.
You go on to
tell a story about the time that you and your friends had visited a
southern Turkish campground. A family from Istanbul was camping nearby.
They had invited you into their camp ?? and a stranger had entered the
site. Your Turkish friends who spoke little English got into a
confrontation with this person. He truly could have been attracted to
the young, blonde-haired woman, but did you ever think about another
reason your host was so upset?
It could have also been your dignity that was also being protected. Now that is hospitality.
Tammie Dobyne
Asheville
Planet spirituality columnist responds from South Korea
EDITOR??S NOTE:
The following is a response to Tammie Dobyne??s letter from Marc
Mullinax, who is teaching this summer in Seoul, South Korea:
Ms. Dobyne??s
passionate response to my recent column about hospitality demonstrates
the very need for more, and deeper Biblical reading.
One of her
repeated critiques is that I have not read the Bible. Let me assure her
that I have, many times, and often in its original languages of Greek
and Hebrew. I strongly believe that anyone who loves the Bible should
read it often, and as deeply, and in as many languages as possible. Her
charges thus do not hit the mark. That I don??t read the Bible as she
does is her real concern.
When we read the
Bible, we often assume that it speaks directly to our issues (the ?®it??s
all about me?∆ syndrome). Our issues are abortion, homosexuality, and
pornography ?± words which are not even in the Bible. Thus, to assume
these are directly spoken about as we understand them today is to take
liberties (i.e., be liberal) with the texts. The fact that the
letter-writer has taken a text on hospitality and assumed homosexuality
may demonstrate a liberal bias.
Ms. Dobyne??s
letter is a good example of ?®Bible-lite?∆ reading. To assume that the
texts she cites speak directly to 21st century issues is overconfidence
of the subtlest order. Instead, good, fair- and open-minded people will
include in their deliberations of old texts inquiries about:
1. Who wrote this text, and when?
2. Why was this text being written?
3. What were the writer??s real concerns here?
4. What was that culture??s assumptions about important issues?
Ms. Dobyne??s
letter shows no interest in these important questions. Can we really
import our own over-arching interests and baptize them as the
over-arching interests of the ancient world?
Sorry, such
projection is unfair to the writers and their work. Biblical
interpretation requires a lot of homework, and I don??t think the
letter-writer has done any except consult her own opinions. For
examples of balanced ways (left, right and center) to interpret the
Romans passage, see all three webpages cited at the bottom of
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc.htm.
I am a
conservative when it comes to biblical interpretation; I want to know
chiefly how the texts were read and heard in their original context.
THEN, and only then, I can start to apply them to my own. It is not
?®hospitable?∆ to assume that my list of ?®ignominies?∆ are identical with
the biblical writers??.
Three pro-gay ministers, ACLU termed outrageous
Regarding the article ?®Three Ministers recognized for commitment to gay rights (June 14 in the Daily Planet):?∆
First, my
dictionary explains the meaning of the word GAY as, ?®merriment,
delight, sportive, frolicsome, showy.?∆ Nowhere do I see or understand
it to mean homosexual or lesbians. Only in our twisted, spinful society
of today do we CAMOUFLAGE words and meanings to hide truths.
These ministers and the ACLU representative are truly representatives of DECEPTION.
Second, the
award presented deceptively was given for work to protect
constitutional freedoms. It is a monster of a twist to find that
homosexuality is one of the freedoms in our U.S. Constitution, like the
freedom to murder unborn human babies through abortion, was found
there. Yet, the ACLU claims it is defending the Constitution, like
defending it against prayer in our schools or the 10 Commandments.
Steve Runholt,
one of these wayward ministers, states falsely: ?®White male religious
types have done more than anyone to retard civil liberties in this
country.?∆
Runholt further
states, ?®The debate over the ordination of 'gay' ministers is causing a
fracturing of the church.?∆ And I say, rightly so.
Here comes
another monster spin: ?®We had the audacity to recognize the full
humanity of African-Americans.?∆ Wow! That is not coming close to what
these guys claim to represent in the Bible. How do they equate that
with homosexuality, as to God??s Holy word at LEVITICUS, CHAPTER 18,
VERSE 22?
Finally, these
five spin-washers ask, ?®Where is the next Martin Luther King (Jr.)?
Where is the messiah, to all of us here? You are the ones we??ve been
waiting for.?∆
Again, WOW! To
equate the Messiah with the creature, man, is also an abomination unto
the creator God, the messiah, who, they are not waiting for.
Jerome Peters
Marion
Mean language at rally? It seems so un-Christian
Your fine newspaper fills some obvious gaps in news coverage here and has become my favorite local news source.
For example,
your March 15 issue covered topics as diverse as a discussion on
progressive Muslims by a Duke professor of Islamic studies, a lecture
on India by a representative of the Embassy of India, as well as the
local rally regarding the Wolf Laurel issue.
There was little
coverage on the rally by other local media, but your paper included
significant details. I was quite surprised by the unusually
inflammatory and mean-spirited language reportedly used by some of the
speakers, including several preachers.
I cannot
understand how anyone could get so exorcised over a wedding
announcement. Also, I may be naive, but I thought Christianity was
supposed to be about love, understanding, compassion and acceptance.
Perhaps they need to become regular readers of your spirituality column.
Larry Peterson
Asheville
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
