The opposite of hunting
Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG
It looks like, not surprisingly, I was not the only one to see the secretary of the bird-murder federation Lino Farrugia’s letter of the 2nd of January in The Times as nothing short of ridiculous.
Joe Aquilina-St John replies to Mr Farrugia’s letter in The Times in the following way:
“Here we go again, another bleating letter from Lino Farrugia, secretary of the FKNK (January 2) moaning about ‘brainwashing’ questionnaires.
He complained about the holy picture of St Francis, objecting to the accompanying words. ‘He never shot them (birds) or killed them in traps…’, he wrote, calling the statement ‘ridiculous’ and saying St Francis never had muesli for breakfast or brushed his teeth with toothpaste, and asked whether children should emulate him.
Now if there was a truly ridiculous case in point, it was hunter - or is it conservationist? - Mr Farrugia’s. One would presume that had there been muesli and toothpaste in St Francis’ time, he would have used them. But he most certainly never killed or trapped an animal, which is why he is their patron saint!
Then he made an even more ridiculous statement, claiming that ‘any sane person knows that hunting and conservation go together’.
Perhaps Mr Farrugia should study his English a bit better. If he simply picks up a copy of Roget’s Thesaurus - the bible of the English language - he will find that the antonym for the word hunting is conservation.
He and his co-fraternity should stop kidding themselves or trying to fool us, and drop the word conservation from their association’s title, and perhaps follow in St Francis’ footsteps - not by not brushing their teeth or not eating muesli for breakfast, but simply by loving and treating God’s creatures with respect”.
I have nothing to add to Mr Aquilina-St John’s letter and to my commentary of the 2nd January, except perhaps the following:
Mr Farrugia might retort that St Francis of Assisi may well have been anti-hunting, but St Hubertus, it should be remembered, was a hunter himself. However, unfortunately for all the hunters using St Hubertus to justify murdering birds (we even have a Maltese “St Hubertus Hunters” for that matter), anyone who cares to find out about the history or legend (depending on one’s beliefs) of St Hubertus, will find that he apparently stopped hunting and changed his life out of fear of going to hell.
According to Wikipedia, “Unfortunately, his wife died giving birth to their son, and Hubert retreated from the court, withdrew into the forested Ardennes, and gave himself up entirely to hunting. But a great spiritual revolution was imminent. On Good Friday morning, when the faithful were crowding the churches, Hubert sallied forth to the chase. As he was pursuing a magnificent stag or hart, the animal turned and, as the pious legend narrates, he was astounded at perceiving a crucifix standing between its antlers, while he heard a voice saying: ‘Hubert, unless thou turnest to the Lord, and leadest an holy life, thou shalt quickly go down into hell’. Hubert dismounted, prostrated himself and said, ‘Lord, what wouldst Thou have me do?’ He received the answer, ‘Go and seek Lambert, and he will instruct you’.”
There are two possible conclusions from this story, one for believers and one for unbelievers. The literalist Christian believer will see it as a direct “evidence” that God sees hunting as wrong (He ordered St Hubertus to stop hunting), and that it is at best farcical that hunters would use St Hubertus (or any saint, for that matter) as their patron saint. The unbeliever (in Christianity or in the literalist interpretation of Christian texts), on the other hand, will conclude that one cannot use the Christian God as a justification for the killing of sentient non-human animals since one will find contradicting claims in the religious texts, both in support of killing non-human animals and both against doing so.
But does this necessarily mean it is wrong for Nature Trust to use St Francis in their anti-hunting campaigns? Of course not (although I would not do it, for the reasons explained further down). St Francis himself would have approved of such a campaign. Should the “St Hubertus” Hunters use St Hubertus as their “patron saint”? Not unless they wish to look ridiculous.
But then again, Maltese hunters are experts in using oxymorons. Just as we have “St Hubertus” Hunters, we also have the Federation of Hunters and “Conservationists”. Oh well, and they say the Maltese lack a sense of humour!
Of course, I must say that I am generally against using religious arguments in support of rights, when, first of all, reason should suffice, and secondly, religious arguments depend on belief that can neither be proved nor disproved (otherwise, it would be science).
As the Right Reverend Richard Holloway, retired Bishop of Edinburgh and Professor of Divinity, says in his book “Godless Morality“, “…the use of God in a moral debate is so problematic as to be almost worthless. We can debate with one another as to whether this or that alleged claim genuinely emanated from God, but who can honestly adjudicate in such an Olympian dispute? That is why it is better to leave God out of the moral debate and find good human reasons for supporting the system or approach we advocate, without having recourse to divinely clinching arguments”.
I only resort to religious counter-arguments to counter the claims of literalist “religious” people who claim that their God supports the abuse and murder of sentient rights-holding individuals, be they human or non-human animals. However, it sure is a relief - for the sake of those who renounce reason, and in the absence of reason put their unquestioning faith in religious leaders or texts - to know that animal abusing hunters cannot even claim “their Christian God’s support” for their murderous “tradition” or “hobby”. Their own “patron saint”, after all, was specifically “ordered by God” to stop hunting, or else he would “end up in hell”.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
