Go ahead, read this. I’ll wait.
So, if I’m reading this gentleman’s post correctly, the American Family Association is all down with a) stoning a whale, and b) the manager of SeaWorld alongside him.
My only takeaway from this is that I hope that the crew who continually quotes Leviticus to keep the rest of us from eating shrimp realizes where the trajectory of their logic takes them, and us, if we’re not diligent in our exposure and ridicule of them.
3 thoughts on “Just wow.”
Perhaps I’m overparsing here, but as someone that elects to embrace part of the Levitical tradition, I’d hope you wouldn’t ridicule (though I suspect you will expose) me.
The primary problem of this dude’s (and many others like him) argument is that he continues to expect EVERYONE to follow the religious guidelines he has chosen for himself.
I suppose he is right in that, had he “stoned” (or gotten stoned) the animal after its first kill, it most certainly would not have killed again. I suspect the “owners” of Tilly deduced this, and elected to go with the assumed risk of playing with a largish and potentially dangerous cetacean.
However, he’s obviously wrong (from MY Christian viewpoint) in his interpretation of this scripture. First, his “ox” didn’t gore a neighbor. It gored, in effect, the “owner”. Surely no one was more aware of Tilly’s danger factor than the trainer. This speaks to one belief as to the purpose of the Levitical law: to provide a structure for interpersonal relationships. If a park put a visitor in the position for Tilly to grab their ponytail, then stoning (metaphorically or otherwise) of the park management might be a bit more in order.
The laws put forth within Leviticus were arguably provided for a variety of reasons. Another of these reasons is to “set apart” the Hebrews from the groups around them. It would have been silly for the Hebrews to get their panties in a wad if the Amonites had failed to obey Levitical law. It was never meant for them. This is the most common failure of the folks like the one writing this article. It would be like my Hindu friend expecting me to abstain from beef. Ok, I do, but not because his beliefs tell me to.
All of this to say, I agree with your indignation, but I think you are throwing out baby and bathwater. I occasionally eat shrimp, even though my diet is mostly Levitical. I’ve read (and written about) that particular chapter of the Bible and find great value in it. I don’t pretend even other Christians will find the same meaning in it than I do. I don’t need them to. Just don’t throw me in the loonie pile just because someone else uses it as a weapon in their misguided “holy war”.
I think leviticus has a lot of nuts in it. I’m not surprised.
You make a fine distinction, Turff, and one that I should probably make in the post. Yes, it’s the Leviticans who insist on the categorical imperative who need to be pilloried. And I’m beginning to mean that literally.