Monthly Archives: January 2010

Is Trapping Like Fishing? Part 2

One of the major arguments used against trapping relates to the number of non-target animals alleged to be harmed during the practice. The argument suggests that it is one thing to harm an animal that one wanted all along, but if the number of unwanted animals that are harmed is so high, then the means to capture the target animal may be too costly (in moral terms) to justify its continued use.

Read more »

Is Fishing Different from Trapping? Part 1

Animal rights protest industry activists know how to exploit the public’s ignorance and prejudices. One of the most successful ways they do is by using the political tactic of divide and conquer. By attacking trapping, animal rights protest industry activists can frequently gain support from sportsmen and sportswomen in opposing trapping. The irony is that these sportspeople think that hunting and fishing are somehow more humane than trapping and therefore immune from the animal rights activists ire.

Read more »

Does Poison Discriminate?

I continue to be fascinated by the arbitrary ways people make decisions. For example, people that would decry the use of traps a cruel and indiscriminate will never take two seconds to consider the effects of their use of toxicants. True, ignorance may play a part but not all instances of ignorance are morally innocent. Sometimes people are ignorant because they are willfully so.

Read more »

We’re called to be salt and light, what will you do?

The following petition has been set up on the downing street website:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Remove the current employment provisions set out in Schedule 9, Paragraph 2, subsection 8 of the Equality Bill (the occupational requirements relating to sex, marriage and sexual orientation for the purposes of organised religion). These restrict the rights of religious bodies to employ personnel who conform to their teachings only if their duties are confined to worship activities or the explanation of doctrine.

Click Here To Sign;

Deadline: April 25th 2010

A Question of Value

Apologies for my few months absence from the blog, the challenges of ministry have kept from leaping into print quite as much as I should.

Certainly the pressures on the Christian church and the assault on faith from various quarters hasn’t disappeared, as the likes of The Christian Institute and Christian Concern For Our Nation, thankfully keep telling us.

And I am very happy to “get back into the groove” and raise awareness of up and coming legislation or other threats, but it seemed to me that I should perhaps first ask whether there is any value in this? Perhaps maybe you receive regular updates elsewhere? So before I start the New Year with enthusiastic blogging, please could you let me know….

….is there real value here?

Mrs. Obama Why You Should Wear “Wild-harvested” Fur

I was saddened when I learned that the First Lady said she won’t wear fur. I didn’t hear this directly, but from the animal rights protest industry group, PETA that used her image in an ad. I wasn’t surprised to learn the Ms. Obama avoids fur. Being anti-fur is almost a requirement to be a leftist and anti-environmentalist. Yes, I assert that being anti-wild fur harvesting, makes you an anti-environmentalist.

Read more »