Clam Rights

Being responsible as human stewards of creation is our Christian duty.  Assigning rights to animals is foolish.  In my opinion liberals define “rights” as follows.

‘Rights’ =
‘do no harm’  (a good thing of course)
+ ‘I can’t believe in a God who made us so I have to be in charge’ (modernist secular humanism)

This is from the Catholic League:

Clam Rights

Peter Singer is a Princeton professor who believes it is okay for parents to kill their kids until their offspring are 28 days old. He also believes in bestiality: dogs, he says, can convey to their master whether they consent to intercourse. Now he is pushing clam rights.

In today’s New York Times, Nicholas Kristof writes that because Singer is uncertain about the capacity of shellfish to suffer, he tends to avoid eating them. Which means that Singer apparently believes that newborn kids who are knifed to death don’t suffer, but clams on the half shell might. Whether clams can consent to sex, Singer does not say.

A pure human construct can be still be good depending on how closely it matches God’s created world – the natural law.  Don’t be shocked.  Learn the audience.  Then teach the audience.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: