American Family Association: Stone the Killer Whale Who Killed Trainer

I find it ironic that their logo uses a large fish...

Making political hay out of a tragedy isn't good for anyone.

 

Indeed. IMO AFA is just a bunch of self-righteous busybodies run by a lunatic.

 

Stoning a whale?

 

Crazy, isn't it?

 

Mr. Bryan Fischer has his facts wrong.

He said:
"The Sentinel then recounts that Tilly, as he was affectionately known, had killed a trainer back in 1991 in front of spectators at a now defunct aquarium in Victoria, British Columbia."

That is not true. However it is certainly easy to understand how someone who does not take time to get the whole story could think that. In 1991 Tillikum, and two other whales, were in a pool where a trainer slipped and fell in. Like orcas do in the wild, they began to play with the trainer by tossing her around. Sadly the lady died of drowning. The orcas in question, including Tillikum, had never had a human in the water with them before. They were only doing what they would do in the wild.

He said:
"Then in 1999 he killed a man who sneaked into SeaWorld to swim with the whales and was found the next morning draped dead across Tilly's back. His body had been bit and the killer whale had torn off his swimming trunks after he had died."

This is also not correct. The 27-year-old male intruder died of hypothermia and drowning. Though the orca did bite the man, there is no clear evidence that the orca killed the intruder or when the bite occured.. The investigation into the incident ruled that the orca was not at fault. Though I can certainly imagine the animal was curious about the intruders body.

I researched this orca a few days ago and it took me about twenty or so minutes to learn that information. So we see, that Mr. Bryan Fischer of the AFA did not do 20 minutes worth of research into these two events. He just heard a story and jumped. No thought. No research. No attempt to understand. He just jumped. Shame on him and shame on AFA for allowing his type of sloppy "reporting" on their website.


He said:
"If the counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition had been followed, Tillikum would have been put out of everyone's misery back in 1991 and would not have had the opportunity to claim two more human lives."

Anytime I hear/read someone use the phrase "Judeo-Christian tradition" I get a bit nervous. Why? Because nine times out of ten what follows is an attempt to mix law and grace. There is certainly no exception here. Allow me to explain by examining Mr. Fischer's weak and unBiblical logic.

He said:
"Says the ancient civil code of Israel, "When an ox gores a man or woman to death, the ox shall be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner shall not be liable." (Exodus 21:28)

So, your animal kills somebody, your moral responsibility is to put that animal to death. You have no moral culpability in the death, because you didn't know the animal was going to go postal on somebody."

First, Exodus 21:28 is part of the ordinances for the people of Israel. It is part of the Law. As Christians, we are no longer under the Law. If Mr. Fischer wishes to live under the Old Testament law than he needs to do so. However he should be warned that there is no salvation in the Law. The Law will only condemn him. Salvation is found only in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Second, the passage does not speak of any animal. The passage speaks of "an ox". Also, the very next verse (vs29) says that the owner of the ox should be put to death if that owner knew that the "ox" was a danger. Is Mr. Fischer advocating the death penalty for the managers at SeaWorld? He quotes the verse, but he never advocates death for those who own the orca. Seems like he is doing the very thing he accuses others of doing, ignoring the Bible.

This is why I said I get very nervous when I hear/read someone use the phrase "Judeo-Christian tradition". It is usually a blind and unBiblical attempt at mixing Law with the Church. Such attempts often are contradictory as well since the people making them usually don't pay attention to the whole context of the verse. We see both of these problems with Mr. Fischer's article.

He said:
"If I were the family of Dawn Brancheau, I'd sue the pants off SeaWorld for allowing this killer whale to kill again after they were well aware of its violent history."

This comment has already been refuted. I must also add that there have questions about Ms. Brancheau's actions at the time of her death.

"There were special protocols for handling Tilikum because of the animal's size and involvement in two earlier deaths...Lacinak said the protocols he knew would have prohibited a trainer from lying down that close to this specific orca. "She laid completely down, which is a very vulnerable position to be in with an animal like Tilikum. And apparently her ponytail drifted into the water, he just opened his mouth, sucked it in and pulled her in the water." It was playful curiosity, Lacinak said, and not a bloodthirsty attack. Brancheau's ponytail was merely a "novelty item" to the whale, who was not trained to be in the water with people." (SOURCE)

Ms. Brancheau's actions may have been a violation of SeaWorld policy, thus her family probably has little/no case against SeaWorld. She knew the history of this orca and she knew the protocols that were in place for those who handled him. If she let her guard down and failed to carefully follow the protocols the park cannot be held accountable.


He said:
"Thompson did add, helpfully, "I think we need to evaluate his behavior and everything that's happened up to this point." You're about 19 years too late, Chuck, and the blood of Dawn Brancheau is on your hands."

A judgment that Mr. Fischer is unfit to make since he got most of his "facts" wrong.

With this one article, Mr. Bryan Fischer and the AFA have humiliated the cause for which they stand.

 

Here follows the musings of two crazy/silly friends of mine discussing stoning the whale:

Person 1:

Person 2:

Thinking about making Person 2's quote my sig.

 

This is false. Bryan Fischer said that the animal should have been put down the first time it killed a person. He then stated that if one owns an animal that is known to kill, and it kills, then the owner is responsible for the death. He cited Exodus to support his opinions.

He did not say the whale should be stoned.

http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147492239

 

Mankind takes wild creatures from their natural habitat and then expects them to act civilized when a lot of people aren't even civilized. Why blame the whale for being a whale? Release it back into the ocean where it belongs. I don't like the idea of imprisoning wild animals and trying to domesticate them.

 

Actually, they can't release it. It has been effectively de-progranned from being able to hunt by it's time in sea world and other parks. I agree about not trying to train these wld animals to do stupid human tricks. Forgetting that these are still wild animals is a lesson the 2 guys in Las Vegas learned the hard way a few years ago and a trainer at Bush Gardens learned last year with lions.

The killer whale name is wrong for several reasons. It was originally called "whale killer" because it does feed on whales. Also, it's not a whale, it is a dolphin. And in the wild, they have never been known to kill a human.

 

aye, mate.
with you on that one.
free the chimps !!
:smilewinkgrin:

 

I agree. In the case of this whale, I'd rather it be placed in a zoo or released into the wild to possibly die than let it continue to kill people. We can't really blame it for killing, as it has basically been imprisoned and trained to entertain so man can financially prosper. Wild animals are going to behave like wild animals. It's not their fault, it's our fault for removing them from their natural environment.

I don't mind zoo animals that are rescues and cannot live in the wild on their own, (and some zoos do only have rescues) but I dislike wild animals being trained for human entertainment. This is why I've never taken my kids to the circus.