|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
Essays on the Religious Nature of the
Environmental and Animal Rights Movement
VII: Interfaith Dialogue
It is a recurring phenomenon throughout history that
the belief in the
"value" or "need" for dialogue between groups in
conflict over matters of
faith waxes and wanes for some clear and some not so clear reasons.
Often
dialogue is seen to as a solution to violent confrontations.
Sometimes
dialogue is viewed as an alternative to pending government changes
intended to disadvantage one group for the benefit of another. In
other situations,
dialogue is a hoped-for alternative to challenges to parental
authority over
the young and indoctrination of the young in alien and hostile (to the
core
beliefs of the family) doctrines. Dialogue is often understood
to be either
the final non-violent alternative to radical change or as the final
non-violent step in either converting or acquiescing to religious
tenets or
societal changes with which you disagree.
Six earlier Essays in this series have attempted to describe the
Environmental and Animal Rights Movement as religious in both nature
and form. This series of Essays is being undertaken to allow the
reader to consider this Movement in these terms as I have come to see
it after more than a decade of involvement as a Federal bureaucrat and
writer. This seventh Essay will look at how dialogue between
Environmental and Animal
Rights Movement believers and those they are harming or intend to harm
has
occurred and can be anticipated to occur in the future.
Just as I have described Movement believers in Essay V (High Priests
and
Acolytes) there is now a need to describe "the other side"
if the subject is
dialoguing. It is necessary to establish "who" is or
should be dialoguing
before we can discuss the manner or subjects of such dialogue.
It seems
reasonable to think of this "other side" as made up of two
groups. First,
there are those harmed to date by the imposition of Movement doctrines
and
second those to be harmed by planned or future Movement activities.
1. Those harmed to date would include, but are not be limited to:
Americans
that hunt, or fish, or trap, or own property (from real estate to dogs
and
horses), or utilize trees, or live in rural areas, or want affordable
and
plentiful energy, or ranch, or farm, or have children, or depend on
rural
economies, or value individual rights, or support state and local
Constitutional authorities, or oppose increasing UN powers, or look
for
medicines tested first on animals, or wear fur, or want to pursue
traditional lifestyles, or seek reasonable costs for needed roads, or
value
"introduced species", or fear increased Federal powers, or
hope to one day
have descendants own certain property or pursue family traditions.
There are many more such groupings but we must keep in mind how
partial
cooperation both within and between these various groups really is.
For
instance, the rich horse owner is indifferent to and may even support
the
denial of the right of poorer horse owners to sell their horses for
slaughter. Fancy dog breeders may believe they can perpetually
exempt
themselves from laws eroding dog ownership or mandating numbers of
animals or veterinary practices that mainly importune the poor and old
dog owners.
Wilderness and wolves and road closures will merely benefit them and the
value of their holdings while clearing the rural countryside and destroying
rural communities by destroying other property owners. Big game hunters
feel little kinship to trappers being legislated out of existence in states
like Massachusetts and New Jersey. Property rights advocates seldom
consider their stake in laws prohibiting certain foods or bobbing your dog's
tail just as few advocates for logging or energy development understand how
Endangered Species' Taking Without Compensation has made government vastly more powerful and citizens more subservient regarding so many things.
Even the national organizations and state bureaucracies that ostensibly
represent these people and their interests are more often than not,
illusory. Organizational policies and state employee career plans are
increasingly described with an eye to advancing careers with Federal
bureaucracies or receiving grants from them or simply manipulating political
powers for their own ends.
In short, those harmed to date by growing Movement control of government and it's power lack coherence. They do not even dialogue with each other. Their organizations do not attend mutual Conferences like the annual Animal Rights Conferences attended by the Environmental and Animal Rights cohorts. Their lobbyists do not coordinate activities as done by Environmental and Animal Rights lobbyists. They do not have a key core of Congressmen and Congressional staff that share their agendas, because they have no common agenda. They do not have a corps of sympathizers among Federal and State employees coordinating regulation expansions, policy switches, legislative and budget proposals, lawsuits, and justifications for new powers aimed at furthering the imposition of Environmental and Animal Rights rules for all.
2. Future groups of people that will be harmed by the imposition of more
Environmental and Animal Rights tenets disguised as laws compose an almost endless list. Not only will the arrogant rich and powerful who so far have kept themselves impervious to the harm being done to the less powerful steadily be hoist on their own petards: others who are slowly suspecting that what they supported in the past for others may be about to bite them as well will further swell these ranks.
There will be the families watching their second home properties lose value
as government land use controls make uses or development impossible:
actually second home or vacation home ownership is slated for elimination
for all but the powerful. Animal ownership revocation by government will
ensnare millions of dog and cat owners as well as livestock owners and
millions of animal aficionados from tropical fish owners and exotic wildlife
owners to elderly owners of parakeets and children fascinated by guinea
pigs. All hunters will notice that State governments will not defend
hunting programs from elimination in the same order (first Massachusetts,
then New Jersey, etc.) trapping became an outlawed activity. Suburban
residents will begin fearing rabies outbreaks and animal attacks by cougars
and wolves and bears as the myths about dangerous wild animals evaporate in the face of increasing rates of such attacks in rural and suburban areas.
Past supporters of more government land acquisition based on their dreams of places to visit on vacation will find government facilities both lacking and
in poor repair as budgets go to salaries and propaganda creation and
ever-larger blocks of public land become effectively off limits due to
reduced access and bevies of contradictory regulations. Public road users
will slowly realize that environmental requirements like "native plants" and
"impact studies" and unreasonable impact regulations make road maintenance and construction of new projects all but impossible. Social unrest will grow as young men wonder why they can't hunt or fish like the rich or like they heard their grandfathers once did and why people can no longer live and work where their parents and grandparents once lived lives rich with atmosphere and experience. Even busy urban voters will start to question why with all the Wilderness areas cleansed of people and Marine Sanctuaries cleansed of boaters and fishermen there is less and less seafood and places to enjoy outdoor recreation. Tax levels to pay for all the government
controls will cause many to understand that they have lost at great cost
exactly what they thought they were saving: a rich and varied environment
that benefited everyone and individual freedoms and liberty.
Like those harmed to date, there are no links between these groups until it
is too late. States used to the forcible imposition of urban values on a
less powerful countryside as in Illinois will be the last to see what is
happening. Conversely, rural states without powerful urban coalitions like
Wyoming will be quicker to fight these things than say a state like Oregon
where urban disdain for rural people and their values and economy is
palpable. Consequently, the faltering nature of forming opposition to the
Movements' values being forcibly adopted nationally must be assumed to
continue. Which brings us to the hope for dialogue providing a solution.
TALKING TO?
Who would talk to whom? As mentioned earlier in this series of Essays,
there is every dimension imaginable in the Environmental and Animal Rights
Movement.
- Concerned about the destruction of dams that provide power and
recreation or the elimination of logging for "Endangered Species? There is
Environmental Liberation Front extremism on one hand and the oh-so
reasonable appearing Sierra Club on the other; take your pick.
- Worried about wolves or grizzly bears or cougars being protected
and allowed to roam freely in greater numbers? Speak with the masterfully
disguised "Defenders of Wildlife" (they don't oppose hunting don't you know)
or let one of the many radical predator advocacy organizations represent the
Movement.
- Worried about an imaginary bird (extinct for 60 years) being claimed to exist by bureaucrats, professors, and Movement organizations stopping hunting and fishing and logging and dredging throughout the South?
Talk with the warm-fuzzy National Wildlife Federation or the
wonderful Audubon Society, both of which used these claims to secretly
get millions from Congress for grants and land control schemes with
benefiting bureaucrats. If they seem untrustworthy, speak with
The Nature Conservancy, they took easements and sought to purchase
more land with government control during this same period and now
(several years later as their former Chief Executive is Secretary of
the Treasury) the same unverified bird is claimed to exist 500 miles
away in order to (so far) stop an airport runway
construction project.
- Worried about animal
ownership being seized by government? You
can speak with PETA or the Animal Protection Institute on one hand or
Animal Rescue Leagues on the other: the latter will assure you that
there is no
intention to eliminate animal ownership.
- Concerned about the
impacts of unmanaged and uncontrolled
wildlife? How about asking Greenpeace or Humane Society of the
US
extremists on the one hand or Animal Rehabilitators on the other?
- Concerned about the
extent and nature of government land
ownership? Talk with The Nature Conservancy on the one hand or
the
"private" National Park and National Wildlife Refuge or
Historical advocacy
organizations on the other.
- Worried about future
access to the variety of foods you enjoy
today being constrained? There is a wide variety of Vegetarian
advocacy
groups allied with socialist and anti-globalist causes on the one hand
and
anti-fast food and Save the Rainforests groups on the other.
- Concerned about the
availability of animals for human benefit in
the future? Talk with the Animal Liberation Front or the thugs
and
terrorists of Stop Huntington Animal Cruelty (anti-medical research
use of
animals) or maybe speak with the anti-circus and anti-rodeo
organizations
that warble incessantly for the elimination of these activities.
So, whom could you dialogue with in the Environmental and Animal
Rights
Movement? There is no one agreed-to head, nor one agreed-to
doctrine in the Movement. The common goal of imposing their
beliefs forcibly on the rest of us is there but deniable when you have
this spectrum of kindly ladies and slick lawyers and dangerous
activists and contradictory presentations of the same proposal that
can be played against any perceived threat or challenge.
On the other hand, "the other side" is completely
disorganized and apparently devoid of anything approaching the common
goal of this Movement. Indeed, other than playing defense when
threatened, there is no offensive playbook of common values.
Many dog owners are opposed to trapping. Medical research advocates
are often enthusiastic opponents of ranching or logging. Many
property rights advocates oppose cockfighting. Many urban pet
owners would send money to eliminate hunting, fishing, and trapping
tomorrow given a slick appeal for funds for some such new
organization.
agreement that clean air and water standards need not be tools of societal
destruction or that hunting and fishing and trapping and logging should be
preserved for many sound reasons. Busy commuters and soccer moms don't
understand that predators are being used for hidden agendas to, among other things, change our system of government. Many people cannot see through the fog of thinking of themselves as liberal or conservative, rural or urban, much less call for development of available energy resources or the sensible management of public forests to prevent fires and maximize biological diversity and human activities from camping to hunting and grazing.
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
Consider that all the foregoing was anticipated by the Founding Fathers of
this nation and accounted for in our Constitution over 200 years ago. The
Founding Fathers knew that any religion given preference or authority by
government in a pluralistic society would abuse and grow such power to their
own advantage when left unchecked. They knew that while each person should have the liberty to believe in the religious doctrines of his choice, a
state religion with governmental powers like the one left behind in England
(or that we see in the Middle East) was not an acceptable idea. That is
where the concept of freedom OF (not TO IMPOSE) religion came from. This is the concept that must be applied to the political ascendancy of the
Environmental and Animal Rights Movement tenets through government mandates.
Adherents of these beliefs certainly have the right to these beliefs but
THEY HAVE NO RIGHT to impose those beliefs on the rest of us. What we are witnessing in this case is similar to what we see in Middle Eastern
countries where Sharia Law is intertwined with government and uses that
power to suppress not only other religious practice and beliefs but also the
families and lifestyles of non-believers. This is done in order to
implement religious power over society for the benefit of religious
authorities themselves. Nearly all Americans look at that model and shudder
to think of it being applied here while failing to see that a similar
takeover of American society is underway for the benefit of Environmental
and Animal Rights authorities.
What seems clear is that dialogue is neither feasible nor possible. It is
unrealistic to expect any result based on historical and empirical evidence
to date. It has only worked to advantage the Movements' goals. Reason and
factual arguments can no more be expected to work any more than it would for an army sweeping across a plain of small villages that refuse to cooperate
with each other because they lack a common agenda and dislike certain things about each other as well.
There is also no agreement on either side regarding spokesmen or beliefs or
authority. Arguing about whether wolves are dangerous and harmful (they
are) or whether marine fisheries can be recovered absent marine mammal
control or whether forestry and wildlife practices that pay for themselves
and more are beneficial to the nation or whether animals are property is not
the point. The point is that the US is a nation under a Constitution that
guarantees the protection of property with a Federal government aimed at
national defense and protecting interstate commerce.
When one religion succeeds in imposing itself on the rest of us: that should
not be allowed or just talked about, it should and must be opposed.
Dialogue not only doesn't work: it is not even an option in such cases.
Opposition in our case must rely on the courts and on our elected
representatives. These two direct and manage our bureaucracies and enforce our laws. It is these two things that have been twisted to create this problem.
The answer to this problem is electing representatives that will control the
bureaucracy and amend, repeal, and write laws that will prevent others from
imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. The answer lies in electing
judges and representatives that will appoint judges that uphold the
Constitutional freedom of religion for all of us.
We must reaffirm for all Americans that:
- If you want to think of yourself as your pet's guardian that is
fine as long as you license him.
- If you don't believe in hunting or trapping or wearing fur, fine,
then don't.
- If you want only "Native Species" buy some property and plant
them.
- If you want to deify certain animals, fine, but don't interfere
with the need to manage them or other people's using them.
- If you don't want to slaughter your horse, fine, but mind your own
business.
- If a plant or animal is declining, Constitutional pre-Endangered
Species Act provisions regarding payments and State's Rights are the tried
and proven way to deal with such problems.
- If government owned lands are neither paying for themselves nor
utilizing the natural resources they contain, they should either be managed
for the benefit of Americans or returned to or turned over to private
property status.
So the next time someone tells you we need "more dialogue", tell him that
history and common sense say that dialogue in this instance is like those
breath mints that Clint Eastwood once famously observed "ain't cutting it".
Jim Beers
2 November 2006
(35 Miles North of Havana, Cuba)
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
jimbeers7@verizon.net
- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow.