You don’t see the torture of animals as immoral ?
You don’t see the torture of animals as immoral ?
If want to read a defense of the “morality” of bullfighting from a Catholic perspective, check out this Catholic Encyclopedia article (page down to the “Morality” section):
Pretty hilarious how it takes a swipe at theater in defense of bullfighting, which it describes as being consistent with natural law.
Which is positively weird in light of their article on cruelty to animals (which is itself a bit convoluted):
Curious, too, is that bullfighting was forbidden by Pope Pius V.
Keep in mind the newadvent encyclopedia is the 1917 version
I think the Church has evolved since then
As long as I can sit here in this, dark, smoke-filled room and make decisions which will effect the course of history over a glass of 38 year old scotch, I really have no problem with how things are running.
I would have thought so. That’s why I was sorta taken aback by the sight of the Monsignor and entourage thoroughly enjoying the “spectacle”.
The relevant section in the current CCC is also weirdly convoluted:
2415 The seventh commandment enjoins respect for the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present, and future humanity.195 Use of the mineral, vegetable, and animal resources of the universe cannot be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man’s dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the Creator is not absolute; it is limited by concern for the quality of life of his neighbor, including generations to come; it requires a religious respect for the integrity of creation.196
2416 Animals are God’s creatures. He surrounds them with his providential care. By their mere existence they bless him and give him glory.197 Thus men owe them kindness. We should recall the gentleness with which saints like St. Francis of Assisi or St. Philip Neri treated animals.
2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image.198 Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.
2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.
That was precisely the point of my post - and it wasn’t about us. That was the Saudis.
What you describe is exactly what I’ve seen in Saudi Arabia. Bahrain. South Korea. Germany. England. The UAE. Japan.
Decry the USA while wearing your Levi’s and Nikes and drinking a Coke, then drive off in your Ford listening to Aerosmith. Sure.
We had a protest outside of Osan Air Base while I was there (several, actually). It was nearly comical watching people call us imperialists while holding Starbucks cups - which told me they likely worked on the installation as the only Starbucks in the immediate area was inside the gate!
People are alike all over.
Oh, yes. Absolutely!
I’ve also said, by the way, that I wonder that people worry that our nation is going to be invaded in a military way. It could happen, I suppose, but why do that? The best way to take over the United States is to come in with big wads of money and buy the place up or become a “trend-setter.” We would fight to the last one of us if someone tried to take us by force, but we humans seem to surrender to what money and popularity have to say so easily. No, when it comes to fears of violent takeover, the people to fear the most are those who feel they have nothing to lose. They are by far the hardest to defend against. The most dangerous parts of the world are the parts with lots of young males who have little hope for the kind of future they think is acceptable.
Yep. Nothing to lose or martyrdom to gain.
I give you 9/11…
And China pretty much owns us, although calling in that debt would assuredly mean economic suicide for them.
As far as military force, there are reasons we have nuclear weapons and the bombers to carry them. The major reason is deterrence. Even Iran knows that. When I was in South Korea, I slept soundly, and didn’t worry about North Korea much for many reasons. Most of those reasons were either sitting on our flightline, waiting in battle groups and submarines just off our shore, or sitting on alert at Andersen AFB in Guam, just a supersonic flight away…
Anyone who thought they could bomb us and just come in and take over is nuts. The country has a firearm for every man, woman and child and people know how to load their own ammunition. Besides, the old ladies would all donate their pressure cookers, if there were a war effort. It is not that there are no governments stupid enough to do it, but it would really be extremely foolish.
Yes. And the nuclear deterrent is the largest one.
This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.