- "There is no anti-depressant that will cure a depression
that's spiritually based, for the malaise doesn't originate from brain
dysfunction, but from an accurate response to the desecration of life."
- --Dr. David R. Hawkins, Power Vs. Force
-
- What I am about to tell you is horrific, or worse. Not
tantalizingly scary like a "haunted house," not distasteful like
a rude joke emphasizing the lower bodily functions, not even "shocking"
or "sickening" (descriptives best reserved for Rob Zombie movies
and the menu at Taco Bell). The author Isak Dinesen commented, "I
don't believe in evil, I believe only in horror. In nature there is no
evil, only an abundance of horror: the plagues and the blights and the
ants and the maggots." Of course, horror exists in (and virtually
defines) nature, but the deliberate, unnecessary, brutal theft of a life
-- ANY life -- moves beyond the impersonal horror of biologic decay and
death, to the realm of DESECRATION, a strictly human behavior that cannot
reasonably be characterized as "natural."
-
- According to the ABC news affiliate KATU (Portland, OR),
police recently booked two teenage boys on charges of aggravated animal
abuse, after they allegedly scalded a kitten with hot water, then cut off
its head with a hatchet. The website KATU.com reports: "The cat, a
black and white named White Socks, belonged to 19-year-old Shaina Nelson.
She told KATU News that she came back to her southeast Portland apartment
Thursday night and faced the alleged killer.
-
- "'He jumps over the fence...and he goes, 'The cat's
dead,'' Nelson said. 'And he had no emotion on is face. No. Nothing. He
had no emotion at all.'" (Full story: <http://www.katu.com/news/local/11066866.html>http://www.katu.com/news/local/11066866.html)
-
- Ironically, the young woman had reportedly been helping
out the two suspects, offering them a place to stay in her home. The suspects
(allegedly) responded to her kind gesture by inflicting unimaginable pain
on her cat and then decapitating it.
-
- KATU.com also reports, "The suspects reportedly
told police they wanted to put the cat out of its misery after they burned
it."
-
-
-
-
- Above, you can see the mug shots of the two suspects,
aged 19 and 18. Just as described by Ms. Nelson, the vacant eyes and slack
expressions reveal...precisely nothing. No intelligence, no warmth, no
personality, not even a spark of angry defiance. Nothing. Nothing.
-
- I'm not so arrogant as to presume what kind of lives
these alleged torturers and killers have led. Maybe they are both victims
of unimaginable abuse and thus feel compelled to reenact their sufferings
on others. Perhaps they, like countless millions of American youngsters,
have been neurologically, emotionally, and spiritually impaired by rancid
cultural agents, including pervasive media violence, psychotropic medications,
chemical-laden fast foods, aspartame, fluoride, cell-phones, a collapsed
education system, shopping malls, Hannah Montana, etc., ad nauseam. The
Internet is an astounding database for evidence of this cultural apocalypse,
and I don't feel the need to elaborate on it here.
-
- Instead, I would like to encourage the reader to join
me in a moment of honest self-inquiry. Please ask yourself, how does it
make you feel to learn of the torture and death inflicted on this animal?
-
- Do you feel angry? Disgusted? Sad? If you are of sound
mind and possess even the vaguest respect for non-human life, I'm going
to assume that you feel all of the above. (Let me say parenthetically,
what constitutes "respect for life" may be a matter of some debate,
but it is a clinical FACT that the torture of animals indicates deep-seeded
mental illness, and is a reliable indicator of future violence against
HUMANS.) So if we can agree that anger, disgust, and sadness are healthy
and appropriate reactions to the desecration of animal life, let us go
a step further and wonder, why?
-
- Here is a fact that is curious (at least to me): While
a domestic animal like a kitten can be a source of great joy and satisfaction
for its owner, it does not serve any utilitarian function in human life.
In fact, cats as pets tend to create significant burdens -- scratching
up furniture, peeing on rugs, killing frogs and mice and birds and leaving
shredded torsos on their owners' doorsteps, meowing at all hours, getting
pregnant and birthing massive litters, not to mention the vet and food
bills that will soar into the tens of thousands before Chester or Abby
finally expires.
-
- From a neo-Darwinian materialistic perspective, the human
instinct to love and nurture a weak, defenseless animal makes little if
any sense. Animals only serve our brute survival by providing food, transportation,
protection of home and body, and a few other utilitarian chores (none of
which are provided by cats and many other common house pets). How did this
joyous, irrepressible affection for essentially "useless" animals
"evolve" in a world supposedly dominated by Survival of the Fittest?
-
- Some might argue that the adoration most humans feel
for "cute" and "fuzzy" creatures is just a sloppy quirk
of the mammalian brain, nothing of any significance. They might also suggest
that we are allowed such "indulgences" as affection for pets
because we are long removed from the jungle and its relentlessly savage
laws. But these notions are totally spurious. Number one, Survival of the
Fittest as "understood" by the caveman is understood at least
equally by the CEO. The guiding principles of our capitalist society are
"kill or be killed" and "screw everyone but me." So
from a neo-Darwinian perspective, altruistic behaviors are as anomalous
today as they were in the Cro-Magnon era. Consider also that a lot of people
love their pets like they do their own children. Some would unhesitatingly
risk their own lives to to save the life of an animal -- ANY animal. A
human being who feeds a starving kitten is not serving the interests of
his own body or the interests of his "tribe." And yet for most,
the choice to aid a helpless animal isn't a "choice" at all,
but simply the very obvious Right Thing to Do. Because it FEELS right.
And the alternative feels terrible.
-
- If you meet a friendly dog while you're walking through
a park, you don't bother with inane formalities like introductions and
handshakes. You just say "Hi there!" and treat him with a touch
of affection, as if he were a lifelong friend. We love animals so fiercely
because we share with them an easy communion that is almost impossible
to achieve with other humans. People have egos, and egos are ugly, defensive,
fearful, and more dangerous than the most rabid dog or feral cat. My ego
is offended by your ego, and vice versa. I'm not saying that animals are
"superior" to humans in any way. I'm saying that the guileless
stare of a kitten or a puppy is a perfect mirror reflecting back one's
own true essence.
-
- This essence is more than a body, more than humanness,
more than animalness, more than instinct and desire and survival and death.
It is lovingness, and it is sacred. For a sane person, the act of loving
and nurturing an animal is wholly selfish, because of the fullness it provides
in one's own heart. Because like attracts like. And that likeness is love.
-
- Except of, course, for those who live in abject denial
of their true, loving essence. I dare say that the hollowed-eyed suspects
above (if they are guilty) are worthy of pity. C. S. Lewis commented to
the effect that evil is not the opposite of good, but the complete absence
of it. Anyone who deliberately inflicts pain on an animal has no awareness
of love, never tasted it, never extended it, and almost certainly never
received it. You might feel compelled to wish these young men to hell,
but rest assured, they are already there.
|
