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.
Thinking about making Person 2's quote my sig.
