I have taken an excerpt from our numerous e-mails to give you a little bit of an idea of what I am up against. The writings of my critic are in red. I hope it is apparent to all who read this that I am not creative enough to write this stuff on my own.
Of course, be sure to feel the love of this animal rights activists and his non-judgmental rhetoric.
Enjoy.
He Wrote: This was his first e-mail to me.
Dear Stephen, I had always thought that Christianity was supposed to be a religion of love; but your website is full of hatred. I didn’t realize that nazi-Christians had their own sites! What do you guys do, hang around and raise money for the KKK? I know that many KKK members justify their views on quotations from the Bible – I’m sure you know where to look to help them. The idea that Jesus would not have supported people who are trying to reduce suffering (both human and non-human) and protect the environment is so sick, I can only assume that you are a Jew or Moslem who is doing his best to discredit Christianity. Yours sincerely, Dr
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Vantassel [mailto:admin@wildlifedamagecontrol.com] Sent: 05 August 2000 22:09 To: Subject: RE: message to a nazi-Christian
Dr. Dr. Does this sort of foolish rhetoric work on other people? How can I be a nazi or a KKK when my savior is jewish? Please, you need to read a little bit more before spouting off your knee jerk opinions. Where did you get your Dr.? From a shoe box or mail order? Hmm, religion of love. Can you be more vague please? Jesus harshly criticized the pharisees, saducees and hypocrites in general. I criticize people who worship animals because their religion is patently anti christian. You would know that if you were in fact a biblical believer for more than a few years. If you took the time, and I am sure you won't, to read my articles against the animal rights movement, you would recognize how stupid your little e-mail is. In case my opinion about your lack of desire for the truth at least about what I believe is wrong, you can visit http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/politics.htm read my articles A christian minister explains Why he can morally trap God's little Creatures. And the Uneasy conscience of the Animal Rights movement. In the mean time, I want you to know that I still think that even you, are worth more than a billion animals.
--------Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2000 4:56 AM
To: Stephen Vantassel
Subject: RE: message to a nazi-Christian
Dear Stephen,
My Dr is a PhD from Cambridge, not a shoebox. My first degree was a degree in Medicine from Oxford.
I am sorry if I reacted a little strongly. However, any kind of suffering upsets me. It is particularly upsetting to see somebody who calls themselves Christian attempt to justify the suffering that they cause.
Jesus preached compassion and love. Do you really think that he would have condoned setting traps, in which some poor creature has his or her leg crushed and has to wait there, possibly for days, in agony? Having compassion for creatures who are in a weaker position than yourself is not “worshipping animals”, any more than having compassion for small children would be “worshipping children”. Both are simply a natural product of Christian kindness and love. Your reference to the Pharisees is bizarre. Are you arguing that, because Jesus didn’t love everybody, it is okay to be cruel to animals? I am a little confused by your logic. The reason why Jesus did not like the Pharisees is because they were sticking to the letter of the law, rather than understanding the spirit of it. This is precisely what you are doing.
I am also a little confused by your suggestion that you could not be both nazi and Jewish at the same time. Nazism is not inevitably anti-Jewish. In fact, many would regard the extreme right in Israel as a form of nazism. I labelled you as a nazi because you are extremely right wing, and condemn people who are doing their best to reduce suffering in the world, if you think that their beliefs are not compatible with your (supposedly Christian) philosophy. You didn’t say whether or not you support the KKK. However, I imagine that this would be consistent with your other views. I apologise if this is not the case.
The KKK, as you probably know, justifies its actions on a line in the Bible in which God apparently killed one million Egyptians:
"Zerah, the Ethiopian came up against them with an army of a million and three hundred chariots..." (II Chronicles 14:9)
"Then the LORD struck down the Ethiopians before Asa and Judah so that the Ethiopians fled." (II Chronicles 14:12)
The line in Genesis that you quote on your site has similarly been used to justify all manner of abuse towards non-humans. It is my experience that references from the Bible can be used to justify an enormous amount of evil.
However, apart from the reference in Genesis endorsing “dominion” over the animals, there is no evidence that God endorses abuse towards other species. Have a look, for example, at Ecclesiastes 3:18-20:
“18. I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”
See also Proverbs 12:10:
“10. A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.”
If we add to this Jesus’ philosophy of love and compassion, it is difficult to see any way in which a person who causes unnecessary suffering to either humans or non-humans can, with a clear conscience, believe that he is doing this in accordance with Christian teaching.
I have read your diatribes against animal rights, and have found nothing with any philosophical coherence. There are many good books on the philosophy of animal rights, many of which are accessible to the layperson. I would strongly recommend “Animal Liberation”, by Peter Singer. If you want to attack Animal Rights philosophy, you should try to find out what it is first (don’t just rely on articles in the popular press). I would suggest you read “Rattling the Cage”. This is a very comprehensive analysis of animal rights written by Steven Wise, who teaches Animal Rights Law at Harvard Law School.
Your position on vegetarianism is also more than a little biased. You realise that a meat-based diet uses vastly more land and water than a plant-based one. Clearly, as you say, there are other reasons why people are starving apart from an overall lack of food. However, I am sure that even you would concede that if the US and Western Europe increased the amount of food which they export, this would help to feed more people. Apart from extreme situations such as Ethiopia, where distribution was obviously a problem, the biggest challenge facing most hungry people in the Third World is that they cannot afford the food. There is only so much fertile land available, and only so much fresh water. If this is wasted producing feed for cattle, there will be less food overall. You, as a rich American, won’t suffer (this is presumably why you don’t care too much). But poorer people in Africa, India or Asia most certainly are suffering.
In any case, it is difficult to see how vegetarianism could be anti-Christian, when it is promoted in the Bible (Genesis 1:29):
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.”
Later, after the flood, God changes his mind and decides that men are allowed to eat animals. However, I have yet to find anywhere in the Bible where men are compelled to eat animals. Perhaps you have found this somewhere.
As for the AR movement - you really should do more research. For example, you claim that:
“The AR movement often preaches that caring for animals leads to caring for humans. I have serious doubts about the validity of that belief.”
Clearly, you have done no reading on this matter. If you want to have a look into this issue, I would recommend “Cruelty to Animals and Interpersonal Violence” edited by Randall Lockwood and Frank Ascione. You will find that there is a very strong link between people who care about animal rights and those who care for human rights. This is hardly surprising. Conversely, sadists turn out almost invariably to have caused deliberate pain to animals, often when they were children. The people you are defending are not the nicest people in the world.
You present two arguments in favour of abusing animals. The first is that humans are more powerful and more intelligent; in other words, “might is right’. This argument was used extensively to support slavery. Do you support slavery for the same reasons? If not, why not?
The second argument is actually the reverse of the first one. You say that other animals kill each other, apparently with little mercy; therefore humans can do the same. One minute, humans are not animals, but some kind of spiritual being; the next moment, they have no more moral awareness than a lion. You will have to make your mind up and stick to one position!
As for the reason why you believe that protection of the environment is anti-Christian, I can only speculate. If your main source of inspiration is Billy Graham, anything is possible. If you are a Christian, you might be better off sticking to Jesus’ philosophy of love, compassion and forgiveness. I doubt very much that if Jesus were alive today, he would be a right-wing extremist.
My overwhelming feeling is that you feel an enormous amount of guilt about what you are doing. Your extraordinary over-reaction (in producing such a huge website to try to justify what you are doing) is testament to that. It is interesting that you continually refer to the “uneasy conscience” of animal rights philosophers and activists. This is called “projection”: in other words, you are projecting your own emotions onto other people, because you can’t accept them in yourself.
Do you have any evidence to back up your claim? Personally, I have never met anyone who condemns animal suffering who had an uneasy conscience. Indeed, I can’t imagine any reason why they should. People who give freely of their time and energy to help other individuals tend to do so because they have a conviction that they are helping in the world. On the other hand, people who cause pain and suffering for selfish financial reasons tend to have very heavy consciences.
Dr
PS Do you have the courage to publish this on your web-site?
Editors Note, he replied by interspersing my words with his. So I have highlighted his words in red.
----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Vantassel [mailto:admin@wildlifedamagecontrol.com]
Sent: 06 August 2000 14:44
To:
Subject: RE: message to a nazi-Christian
Thank you for your more coherent and less knee jerk response.
First of all, like many europeans, you don't know the difference between animal use and animal abuse. Its not your fault. You folks have had a destroyed environment for so long you don't know any better.
Second, if you really did read my articles, or called diatribes by you, you would have known that I have read Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. I quote him in my article. He is certainly not a Christian. In his view, Jesus would have sinned by killing fish.
That is blasphemous.
Could you explain how?
Third, harvesting wildlife,
This is a euphemism. You are setting traps which cut into the legs of innocent creatures. You “harvest” wheat – you don’t harvest living animals.
of which we have in abundance in America, is heavily regulated. If you read my site you would know that I believe in using harvesting techniques that are economical, efficient and cause minimal pain and suffering to the animal. But why don't you be honest here. The pain and suffering of the animal is really irrelevant to you folks.
No, of course it’s not irrelevant. The reason why I particularly object to trapping is because it is especially cruel. It is cheap and convenient for you, at the expense of enormous distress for your victims. If you feel some irresistible urge to kill another living creature, the least you can do is to do so without causing unnecessary pain. But this would cost you more money and effort, of course.
If trappers could kill the animals with sweet dreams and tender kisses
Don’t make fun of the suffering of another individual. I think if you were stuck in a pit with a leg clamp cutting into your flesh, you would take the situation quite seriously.
and you animal activists would still be angry. So why don't you just admit that suffering is the smoke screen that it really is. You people are against killing animals no matter how it is done. That is true animal rights religion.
There is no “animal rights religion”. Just a bunch of people all over the planet who are trying to reduce suffering.
Jesus never taught that.
Jesus never taught a lot of things, like how to use a television. Is that sinful as well?
I always have to smile when I get lectured by so called educated people that I need to study more. It never seems to occur to them that they need to take some time on a trap line. But they never will. Why let ideology interefere with the facts.
Why indeed. You certainly don’t!
As for your pathetic attempt to quote scripture to me,
Why is it “pathetic” to quote scripture? I thought you believed that the Bible was a holy book? One of my strongest criticisms of Christians is that they don’t read the Bible; and when I present them with passages which are relevant to their lives, they ignore them.
you need an exegesis course. In case you don't know much about Biblical Theology, we can't go back to the pre-fall existence.
In the pre-fall existence, Genesis describes a paradise on earth in which man did not eat meat. Are you saying that Christians must avoid anything which smacks of paradise? This is weird. Maybe it is part of some Christian belief system – but it still seems a little irrational.
Jesus ate meat. So eating meat is not a sin.
I didn’t say it was.
You also stated things about me that I never said. I never said that vegetarianism is incompatible with Christianity. What I said was that to say that eating meat was sinful was incompatible with Christianity.
This is nonsense. Are you saying that because something is mentioned in the Bible, it is sinful to criticise it? For example, is it sinful to criticise the reference that I gave you (in which God apparently killed a million Egyptians)? How about the line in Deuteronomy in which God says that a women who is raped in a city and doesn’t cry out should be put to death? Do you agree with this? Is it therefore sinful to >not< put rape victims to death?
If you start to believe that you >have< to do everything that features in the Bible – and cannot condemn things, just because they >are< mentioned in the Bible, I suspect you will soon be locked up.
I would never want to be in the position to tell someone not strong enough in their faith to eat meat if they couldn't handle it.
I must say for a M.D. you don't read very carefully.
How do you have any idea how much or how carefully I read? Are you clairvoyant, as well?
No I believe Jesus did love everybody. But that doesn't mean they felt he loved them. Christ's rebuke was loving. Remember, you attacked me in a rather incoherent way over my less then loving comments. I am telling you that my comments are loving because I am deeply concerned about so called Christians being swept up in the animal rights religion.
As far as I can see, the only reason why you care so much is because it interferes with your business.
I have great compassion for wildlife.
So you kill it.
I am tired of the senseless habitat destruction we are experiencing in our country. I care because I believe in the responsible use
Other creatures are not there for you to “use”.
of wildlife. If you asphalt the planet, you don't have to worry about cruelty, for their won't be anymore animals. Remember your own country.
Have you actually been to the UK? In any case, I actually live in the Czech Republic.
You also didn't quote me right again. I didn't say I was a jew. I said I worship a jew.
You said neither of those. You said that if you were a Jew, you could not also be a Nazi. Editor's note, my citations up to this point in our correspondence are complete. You can see for yourself, how this european anti misquoted me.
As for Nazism not being inevitably anti jewish, i can only say that it has been historically anti jewish. Maybe it would help me understand you more if you could use a different slur against me.
As I said in my previous email, I think you are full of guilt about the pain that you are causing. Instead of dealing with this honestly, you have started a hate campaign against people who are doing there best to reduce animal suffering.
The truth is that you make money killing animals, and feel guilty about this. You don’t like animal rights protesters for the same reasons that tobacco companies don’t like anti-smoking campaigns: they interfere with business. Stop trying to dross this up as a religious issue. If you have studied the Bible, you will no that at no point does it say that eating meat is a sin; nor does it say that telling people not to eat meat is not Christian. It >does< say that you should be loving and compassionate (at least in the NT). I believe that the central message which Jesus brought was that being loving and compassionate overrides everything else – especially the “letter of the law”. This is why he condemned the Pharisees.
Despite your protestations, you are not loving.
I still think that you are worth more than a billion animals.
I will have to quote Ecclesiastes 3:18-20 again:
“18. I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.”
At a later date, I break in with this e-mail.
I am tired of your inaccurate recordings of my words. Scripture clearly states that humans are made in the image of God,
I am not interested in your article. I am interested in the biblical reference. This states in black and white that god created man in his image.
my article clearly states what that means. I am not a Mormon. God is a Spirit. Image refers to our dominion and rulership over the earth.
According to you, not according to the bible.
Again I don't believe you read my articles very carefully if at all.
The Church has claimed Christ was Sinless because The Bible claims it.
I didn’t say it didn’t. I asked if Jesus claimed it. If Jesus did not claim to be sinless, then how can you judge a person who simply suggests that an action which Jesus might or might not have done is, according to his own standards, unethical? a) you should not be judging Singer or anyone else in the first place – or else you should stop calling yourself a Christian; and b) nothing that Jesus said suggests that any such criticism would be blasphemous. You are the one who is blaspheming, by presuming to know what Jesus would have thought or said.
READ HEBREWS. I have already explained why Singer is a blasphemous person. He states that eating meat is wrong. Jesus ate meat, therefore Jesus sinned. That is blasphemous.
Singer never said that Jesus sinned.
It is for god to judge whether Singer’s remarks are blasphemous, not you.
Jesus's perfection, READ JOHN 17.
My bible doesn’t go beyond John 14. Perhaps you could check this reference.
I don’t say you are anti-Christian.
Yes, you did say I was anti-Christian. Your first e-mail to me said so. Did you change your mind?
I said that you are a hypocrite who pretends to follow Christian teaching, but who is full of hatred.
All I asked you was whether Jesus claimed to be perfect. Evidently he did not. Moreover, he specifically said that people who criticised him would be forgiven. So stop accusing Singer of blasphemy.
No I won't stop calling Singer a blasphemer because that is exactly what he is. You also don't understand the power of the concessive subjunctive. He would be forgiven if Singer repented. From the what I have read coming out of his writings at Princeton he has not repented.
It is for God to judge whether Singer’s remarks are blasphemous, not you. My feeling is that if Jesus were in front of both you and Singer, he would regard you as the sinner. Singer’s work is full of love, compassion and acceptance. Yours is full of hatred.
Are you equating Singer with Hitler? NO. But his attitudes to the unborn and disabled is certainly in the spirit of hitler.
Yeah, right.
Jesus clearly wouldn’t have regarded Singer’s remarks as blasphemous. Unlike you, he was a person of love and forgiveness. Yes, Jesus would have regarded the remarks as blasphemous,
Isn’t that a little presumptuous of you?
but they are forgivable when and If Singer repents. Remember, God gives people the freedom to reject him. I would gladly welcome Singer into the Faith when he repents of his error.
I think that Peter Singer has more sense than to join a sect like yours which preaches hatred.
AGain, you really haven't read much in the Bible have you.
No. But then I don’t claim to be a Christian. You do claim to be a Christian, but consistently refuse to explain why you feel free to ignore anything and everything in the bible which you don’t agree with. And then use a few choice verses of the bible to support your business interests.
No doubt you are a higher authority who is able to make that decision. No. I have accurately portrayed Scriptural teaching here. Like all Pharisees, no doubt you know the bible back to front. You just don’t bother to follow the teaching, unless you happen to agree with it.
I am not aware of any verse that says that non-humans are possessions.
Do you own a Bible? Obviously. Do you own a Concordance?No Did you read Luke 2:24? Yes. How do you sacrifice something you don't own?
Very easily. For centuries people sacrificed virgins. I presume you are not claiming that they owned them as well.
One of the main planks for your claim that God does not care about the welfare of non-humans is that he looks like a human himself. I am asking you what kind of human he looks like. This is not an unreasonable question.
Here is where you are again misquoting me. God does care how humans handle his property. I say that God has given animals to humans to utilize for our benefit.
I know you say that. This is because your business is killing animals, and your hobby is torturing them.
We must always remember that animals belong to God not to us.
And don’t you think he might like it if you treated them as such, and not as “resources”?
We always need to respect the resource. I have clearly stated that if there are better ways to trap animals etc. that are safe and economically feasible, let's do it.
But who cares how much pain we cause – we’re Christians!
You seem to be unable to see the distinction. AGain, I don't believe you have
read my
articles very carefully.
To be honest, the hatred on your articles is so offensive
that it makes me want to throw up. I have done my best to churn through all
the ranting, semi-coherent drivel, but I must admit I haven’t got the stomach
to read all of it. I can only assume that your mission in life is to spread
the word that Christianity is a religion of hatred.
Instead, you spend your time spreading hatred about people who have dedicated their lives to reduce suffering. Even if you believe that the suffering of other species is the will of your vengeful, vindictive god, as a professed Christian, you have a duty to follow the commandments of love and non-judgement.
You really don't know much about the Bible. Instead you have a psychologized version of what Scripture says. Have you read Mt. 7:6?
Is this your explanation of why you ignore the commandment that you should be loving and non-judgemental??? What has this got to do with anything?
Compare it with Mt. 7:1?
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
That doesn’t include you, by a long way.
Is there a contradiction there? I don't think so. Can you think of reasons why I don't think so? Have you read Galatians? Why was Paul so judgmental of Peter? Have you read the book of Jude. don't worry, it is only one chapter. What does it mean to say that we need to contend for the faith that was once and for all given to the saints.
Either Jesus commands you to be loving and non-judgmental or he doesn’t. No amount of bullshit, nitpicking or other games gets you away from that. It is totally irrelevant what Paul said. It is totally irrelevant what is in Galatians. It is totally irrelevant what Billy Graham told you on TV. According to you, Jesus was perfect, and you claim to worship him. Yet you refuse to follow the most basic tenet of his teaching. Stephen, you are the closest I have ever come to meeting a real living Pharisee!
Sir, you don't believe in the Biblical Christ. You believe in a milque toast version of Him. You had to judge me to know that I am allegedly hateful. YOu are judging me all the time. Sounds self referentially inconsistant.
I have never claimed to be a Christian. Although you are probably the worst example of a Christian hypocrite that I have ever come across, my experience has been that most Christians are hypocrites to some extent. I believe that Jesus existed, but that he was a person of love, not hate. The reason why I am not a Christian (although I once was) is precisely because of this hypocrisy.
You cannot claim to be a Christian, and, at the same time, spout so much hatred towards people who disagree with you. If you believe that your god condones cruelty towards animals, there is nothing I can do to penetrate the logic bubble that you have created around this idea. However, I can and do challenge you to take down your website, which is extremely judgemental, and full of hatred. Or else be honest and stop claiming to follow Jesus.
No amount of nitpicking gets you away from this.
Nevertheless, I still think you are worth more than a billion animals.
Stephen Vantassel
Wildlife Damage Control "supplying information and products for DIY'ers"
PMB 102 340 Cooley St.
Springfield, MA 01128
Phone: 413-796-9916
Fax:413-796-7819
admin@wildlifedamagecontrol.com
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com
Suite 101.com Living with Wildlife editor
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/living_wildlife
Stephen Vantassel owns Wildlife Damage Control and is a Certified
Wildlife Control Professional. He is a nationally known writer including
having been an assistant editor for Wildlife Control Technology magazine, author
of numerous ADC articles as well as The Wildlife Removal
Handbook rev.ed and the Wildlife Damage Inspection
Handbook rev. ed. Mr. Vantassel is also a vocal critic of the growing animal
rights movement. He has exposed the fallacies and deceptions of the animal
rights protest industry through debate, lecture and publication.
Disclaimer: WDC seeks to provide accurate, effective and responsible information on resolving human/wildlife conflicts. We welcome suggestions, criticisms to help us achieve this goal. The information provided is for informational purposes only and users of the information use it at their own risk. The reader must consult state/federal officials to determine the legality of any technique in the reader's locale. Some techniques are dangerous to the user and to others. WDC encourages readers to obtain appropriate training (see our informational literature at our Store ), possibly hire a professional (for help in finding one e-mail after visiting the previous link) and understand that proper animal damage control involves patience, understanding that not every technique/method works for every situation or even 100% of the time. Your use of this information is governed by this understanding. All information here is the copyright of Stephen Vantassel (Wildlife Damage Control). We welcome potential users of the information and photos to simply ask for permission via e-mail. Finally, WDC welcomes e-mail but understand that all e-mails become property of Wildlife Damage Control.