Despite having killed three humans, a bull orca is being trotted out to “entertain” the crowds at SeaWorld:
Tilikum, the 6-ton whale that drowned a SeaWorld Orlando trainer in 2010 is performing again.
Since the tragic accident, SeaWorld officials say they have taken extensive safety measures, including the addition of nets and rails, to prevent something similar from happening again.
Tilikum has been involved in three deaths and hasn’t performed in more than a year.
As God told Noah, any animal that kills a man must be put to death. This Noahide Code applies to all humans and at all times—it has never been superseded or revoked. We can choose to ignore it, but at what cost? How many other people must die before SeaWorld does the right thing and puts this animal to death?
March 31st, 2011 | 10:10 am
An example of mindless biblical literalism. The Hebrews did not have zoos, nor did they have pets in our sense of the word. The situation here has a totally different context from that in the noahide injunction.
Besides, I’m sure Joe Carter has eaten blutwurst or some other dish involving animal blood–and that was one of the few Noahide prohibitions carried over by the Council of Jerusalem as binding on gentiles. So, is Joe Carter going to shop exclusively at kosher butchers from now on?
March 31st, 2011 | 10:49 am
At the same time, it seems all the more irresponsible for a zoological park–where there is a curious assumption that humans are in control–to continue to endanger their employees and visitors with an animal that clearly they have been unable to train.
Since the park can in no way ensure the “proper behavior” of the animal, it should either release the creature into an environment without humans (good luck) or end the poor creature.
Whether or not we adhere to Levitical rules that are further clarified through the revelation of the Gospel (indeed, the Law is not destroyed, but fulfilled), animals that are dangerous do not stop being dangerous just because we think they’re noble or intelligent or cute.
Maybe some animals should not be forced to cater to human entertainment after all. Maybe we should stop pretending we understand impersonal nature in an anthropomorphizing way and give them the respect reserved for nonhuman entities, with the awareness that our stewardship never means that we cease to value human life.
And maybe we should just accept plain old common sense, even when it comes from the Bible.
March 31st, 2011 | 10:50 am
The link speaks of the whale as “hating” humans. That’s an interesting conclusion to offer.
If Mr Carter can’t stomach a kosher diet, I’m sure he and First Things have a daily paycheck offered to employees.
March 31st, 2011 | 10:57 am
The Noahide Code was revoked the day humans learned to think.
March 31st, 2011 | 11:02 am
Besides, I’m sure Joe Carter has eaten blutwurst or some other dish involving animal blood–and that was one of the few Noahide prohibitions carried over by the Council of Jerusalem as binding on gentiles.
In all fairness, I understand that the rabbinical understanding of the Noahide laws holds that the prohibition on eating “life blood” means that one should not eat parts of an animal that is still alive. Eating dead meat with blood in it is apparently okay. Not that I’m an expert on this or anything.
March 31st, 2011 | 11:08 am
Chuck The Noahide Code was revoked the day humans learned to think.
Oh really? So you are okay with murder and theft and believe we should do away with courts of law?
Or is it that you just spouted off an anti-religious sentiment without thinking?
March 31st, 2011 | 11:18 am
Ethan,
For meat to be kosher, the animal must be killed by the severing of the jugular vein and carotid artery, so that it bleeds to death, and all blood must be drained from the carcass. Any dish made with blood is traif, as is meat from animals that have been strangled or from which the blood has not been drained.
When you have orthodox Jews in your family, you pick up on these things.
But that’s neither here nor there: in the context of the Noahide code, the killing of an animal that kills a human must be understood in the context of a culture where animals either work or are raised for food. Keeping an animal for its own sake–as a companion or for entertainment– would be unthinkable, as it is in the Middle East today (Arabs do not have dogs or cats as pets, nor do they generally allow them in the house as they are “unclean”). Zoos are a Western import.
So, the situation with regard to the orca has no bearing on noahide law: the animal is being kept as a exhibit, for its own sake. Any risk from owning and training the animal must be assumed by the owners and trainers. One cannot punish a wild animal for acting according to its nature when we have taken it out of nature.
Take a much more common situation of a person who climbs into a bear, lion or tiger pit at the zoo (so as to get a better photo?), and is mauled to death by the animal. Most of the time, the animal is not put down (unless he prevents the authorities from recovering the body), because the whole incident is the fault of the person who climbed over a fence marked “Do Not Climb Over Fence”.
If something needed to be done to the orca, it should have been released into the wild. Failing that, the owners have an obligation to care for it for the remainder of its natural life.
March 31st, 2011 | 11:35 am
The solution is to stop using such animals for cheap entertainment. Leave them where they belong.
March 31st, 2011 | 11:54 am
Dogs are unclean in Islam, not cats. Muhammed had a pet cat, for whose comfort he cut off his sleeve rather than disturb its sleep. Cats appear in favorable contexts in Muslim illuminated manuscripts and traditional stories.
March 31st, 2011 | 12:30 pm
Stuart,
The Noahide law against life-blood consumption is completely separate from the kosher requirements. The additional restrictions placed on Jews do not apply to non-Jews, and so they are irrelevant.
On the specific issue of reciprocal life-taking, I’m gonna go devil’s advocate a little bit here.
The command to kill an animal that kills a person is based upon the principle that human life is specially sacred, and thus the taking of human life entails special consequences for whatever took it. Nothing in the text indicates that it depends upon the animal’s participation in the agricultural economy or the human community.
If the whale were being raised for meat, presumably we would have a situation congruent with what you see as the original context of the commandment. If that were the situation, would you agree that the whale should be killed?
March 31st, 2011 | 12:59 pm
ANy animal that kills a human being should be put down immediately, if only to prevent the creature from coming to think that we are prey.
If this huge beast were a pit bull terrier or a rattlesnake that had killed three people, there would be no argument at all.
Unfortunately, we have an excessively sentimental view of killer whales (“Objection, Your Honor! Alleged killer whale!”), conditioned to think of plush, cuddly Shamu dolls and “Free Willy”.
On my Facebook page, for example, people speak of how we can’t “blame” the beast for “doing what comes naturally.” Good Lord.
March 31st, 2011 | 1:26 pm
The link speaks of the whale as “hating” humans. That’s an interesting conclusion to offer.
This whale does hate humans.
It was abused at Sealand of the Pacific before being sold to Sea World.
March 31st, 2011 | 4:11 pm
I believe Sea World is called “whale jail” by people who work there. So perhaps some softie thinks the whale should serve a life sentence without parole, not suffer capital punishment.
March 31st, 2011 | 5:23 pm
Elephants , while in heat , killing humans is not an uncommon news , in places where they are used in festivals , weddings etc :
Whales as distantly related to elephants – could they too be susceptible to similar states !
If so, what would be the chance of recurrence !
Then there is legends such as of St.Francis and the wolf …who became tame in his presence ..
Could the whale in Seaworld be victim to ‘pollution ‘ from poltergiests in the neighborhood …
March 31st, 2011 | 10:04 pm
So, animals that are used to kill human beings in warfare also are not exempt from the apparently crystalline and exception-free noahide code….?
April 1st, 2011 | 4:13 am
An example of mindless biblical literalism.
I’ve been told that people who insult others for no apparent reason are trying to get attention.
April 1st, 2011 | 6:37 am
Why does the animal have to be put to death? Clearly, it could be placed in a sanctuary, or even out in the ocean.
It seems odd to me that, some people are acting as if the whale did something “malicious”, and should be punished, or at least killed, because this whale, as of course opposed to all of the other morally scrupulous whales, is a danger to humans.
Since any wild creature, could kill a humans, why not get rid of any that could possibly come in contact with humans. Absurd, of course. But also absurd to argue that this particular whale should be killed.
And, as for the biblical literalism: with all due respect, Joe, your quoting of scripture, stating that God commanded Noah to kill any animal that killed a human, and the extrapolation that we should apply it here, is exhibit A for the need of deciphering biblical passages, symbolocally, when warranted. I’m rather suprised, considering your intelligence, that you would interpret this literally.
April 1st, 2011 | 1:20 pm
“I’m rather suprised, considering your intelligence, that you would interpret this literally.”
What in the context would lead anyone to think that this was anything other than a command to protect human life by putting down proven dangerous animals?
The applicability might be somewhat disputable (though I can’t think why such an obvious case would really be hard to judge, or why a difference in the covenantal age would really matter to whether and how people should be protected from dangerous animals) but there’s nothing in the context of Genesis 9 to indicate that God was talking about anything other than actual animals that actually harm actual people and the actual need to dispose of them for the sake of other actual people.
April 1st, 2011 | 8:33 pm
Why does the animal have to be put to death? Clearly, it could be placed in a sanctuary, or even out in the ocean.
The best solution would be for Sea World to relocate its animals – not just this one but all of them – to a large sea pen similar to what the “Free Willy” whale was introduced into.
But that would be expensive, and it would be harder to choreograph whale circus-trick shows. It could be done, of course, but so far Sea World does not see the need to spend that money.
I believe they are making a mistake, however. They are choosing to milk what they’ve got for all the money they can get out if it, but what they’re really spending is their reputation – and reputations are rarely sold for what they’re actually worth.
April 2nd, 2011 | 12:19 am
It’s amazing how much death is demanded by the self-appointed protectors of “the culture of life.”
April 2nd, 2011 | 3:12 am
Certainly we must do all we can, to protect ourselves, from wild animals. But we must remember, that, being wild, means unpredictable, and potentially dangerous. Therefore, anyone, coming in close contact, with this whale, or any other wild creature, must realize the risks, involved.
These sea world, programs, should stop. It puts humans at risk, and exploits animals. You’re right, Blake, that money, clearly drives this. But the right thing to do, would be to put this poor creature in a sanctuary.
Pentamom, part of the problem, is reading the Bible too literally. I don’t want to get too far off Joe’s topic, here, but proper biblical exegesis, in my view, requires reading, much of the Bible, especially the parts pertaining to the Noah account, nonliterally. but I’m not a biblical expert, and I think joe knows more about it, than I do.
But, clearly, this passage, was not necessarily, in my assessment, meant to be applicable for us. Considering that God made these creatures, it stands to reason that, He would probably prefer that we relocate the dangerous animal, rather than kill it, if possible. and, since, in our modern age, we are more than capable of protecting ourselves, by relocating this whale, there’s no need to kill it. (assuming, of course, some humans have the good sense to do this. But when greed is at stake, its possible that even enlightened self interest, goes out the window).
Charlie Collier: it’s my belief that, since we’re all God’s creatures, a consistent culture of life means, being against abortion, euthanasia, AND the killing of animals. Needless to add, this appears to be a minority view here.
April 2nd, 2011 | 7:53 am
Charlie Collier said:
“It’s amazing how much death is demanded by the self-appointed protectors of “the culture of life.””
What part of self-defense don’t you understand?
April 2nd, 2011 | 9:22 am
Not Charlie Collier: if there was no other way, to protect humans, other than by killing the whale, of course, no one would be against killing it. This would constitute proper self defense.
But we can relocate this animal, to a sanctuary, for example. And, it’s disheartening that, intelligent people, seem to assume that killing it, is the only option.
question, for anyone: is the resistence to nonlethal remedies to the whale problem, because of skepticism, regarding the efficacy of relocating, the whale? Or is it due to the wish to faithfully reflect, the literalist interpretation, of the relevant biblical passage?
April 2nd, 2011 | 10:58 am
I’m not sure what you’re seeing is an insistence that killing it is the “only option,” so much as the belief that if there is a biblical prescription for killing it as the appropriate remedy, whatever we may think is a “preferable option” may not necessarily be so.
It is true that our modern abilities provide for other options, but that does not necessarily make those options “preferable” to an option that God originally ruled as appropriate and in fact mandatory. You get into dangerous ground when you start deciding that the “reason” God originally mandated something no longer applies because people are smarter than we used to be. It’s not impossible that it could be so in some respects, but it’s not wise to assume that our “advancement” automatically makes it so.
I admit I am skeptical as to the feasibility of relocation. The creature almost certainly is not equipped to survive in the wild, and in some sort of custodial care, would still be susceptible to dangerous interactions with humans, which is the whole problem. It wasn’t the audience members it was eating, it was its handlers. However, I’m not beyond persuasion on those points.
April 2nd, 2011 | 11:01 am
“Pentamom, part of the problem, is reading the Bible too literally. I don’t want to get too far off Joe’s topic, here, but proper biblical exegesis, in my view, requires reading, much of the Bible, especially the parts pertaining to the Noah account, nonliterally. but I’m not a biblical expert, and I think joe knows more about it, than I do. ”
Your view on Noah is not the only “intelligent” one, however. It may be your preferred opinion, but it is not the only “intelligent” possibility. It is not unintelligent to believe that while each part of the Bible needs to be understood on its own terms, the prescriptions to Noah are meant as actual prescriptions, and not some kind of code for something that has nothing to do with the actual words written. Many “intelligent” people believe this.
April 2nd, 2011 | 4:33 pm
Pentamom: thank you for your intelligent comments. You’re right that, one can make an intelligent case for biblical literalism. I was wrong to imply otherwise. I completely disagree, but one can intelligently defend either a literal or symbolic interpretation.
But god gave us reason, and expects us, I believe to use it. And if we can successfully prevent the whale from killing, by not killing it, we should. To place it in a sanctuary, would, you’re right, put the caregivers at risk. but they’re specially trained to anticipate violent behavior, and, moreover, they choose to go into this line of work.
April 2nd, 2011 | 4:34 pm
Sorry, the lower case “g” for God, was purely inadvertant.
April 2nd, 2011 | 7:44 pm
It’s about the money. In 2009, the last year for which I could find figures, attendance at Sea World Orlando was down 6.8% at 5.8 million visitors (which is significant but not as bad as at San Diego where attendance was down 13 percent at 4.2 million visitors). It’s been tough times for the theme park industry. I bet they’ve done market research and found out that folks would get a kick out of seeing a whale that was a literal killer (violence—or at least potential violence—sells, look at Nascar and professional hockey). The $75,000 fine imposed by OSHA last August (and whatever payments SeaWorld made in private to the heirs of Dawn Brancheau, who the whale killed) are simply costs of business, more than made up for by the increased gate. Like any dairy cow that no longer gives milk, once the whale is a real financial liability he’ll be hamburger. Joe the answer to you question, “how many people must die before SeaWorld does the right thing and puts this animal to death” is “as many as they let him kill until he becomes a liability. “ And so far, he’s not. He’s an asset. A big one. Ka-chink, ka-chink.
April 2nd, 2011 | 9:35 pm
But the right thing to do, would be to put this poor creature in a sanctuary.
There is no such thing.
Killer whales in captivity are very new, and every killer whale in captivity was captured for the express purpose of putting it on view and selling tickets.
There is no incentive to make a sanctuary and it would cost a lot of money.
However I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that Sea World could be pressured to put its killer whale shows “out to sea” (in sanctuary-like large sea pens), which would alleviate a lot of the whale’s stress, if (a) there were enough pressure to do so and (b) they could still continue to find some way to profit from the whales somehow.
The “Free Willy” episode suggests that these whales cannot be returned to the wild now, but their living conditions could be made much more appropriate than is currently the case.
There have been far more “incidents” involving trainer injury than most people realize. I have no doubt it’s caused by animal stress. Sea World has known of the problem for years and they have taken all the actions that can reasonably be taken with their current model. The model itself is not adequate: they need to ditch “Shamu Stadium” and build something around much larger and whale-friendly sea pens. There’s no reason the animals can’t still be managed, be put on display, and/or even do their tricks – killer whales do appear to be naturally friendly enough when they’re not stressed out, & let’s face it: there is ZERO chance of persuading Sea World to do the right thing if it means throwing away a very very profitable gig.
April 4th, 2011 | 11:40 am
“But god gave us reason, and expects us, I believe to use it. And if we can successfully prevent the whale from killing, by not killing it, we should.”
I understand that is your personal dogma. Please just understand that in the world of “using our reason,” that dogma has no more absolute standing than the dogma that if God says to kill it, we should kill it. Using the pure tools of human reason, there is no reason to prefer “we should avoid killing whales if we can” over “we should kill them if that is an effective way to protect people” or “we should kill them because the Bible can be interpreted to say we should.”
April 6th, 2011 | 3:04 pm
Reason, and its use, isn’t dogma, pentemom. Actually, using reason, in conjunction with sound moral reasoning, clearly, in my view, indicates that, if an animal, that’s determined to be unsafe, in one location, can be sent to another location, resulting in solving the safety problem, we’re obligated to do so.
If you wish to interpret the bible literally, that’s obviously your choice, but others, can reasonably interpret it differently.
April 7th, 2011 | 3:16 pm
Your dogma is that “if an animal’s death could be avoided, it should be.” In calling that a dogma, I am not intending to insult the belief, I am simply saying that it is a first principle. It is simply something you accept because you believe it to be right — but it really cannot be “demonstrated” to be correct.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact