Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The American Family Association's vile Bryan Fischer writes about the trainer killed by a whale at Sea World and says it's all because we just don't listen to the Bible and do what it says:
You are aware by now that a 12,000 pound killer whale at SeaWorld Orlando killed his trainer Dawn Brancheau yesterday by pulling her into a pool and dragging her around until she drowned, in front of a crowd of stunned guests.Chalk another death up to animal rights insanity and to the ongoing failure of the West to take counsel on practical matters from the Scripture.
And then he goes on to argue, from the Bible, that Sea World is to blame because they knew of this whale's problems -- which is, in and of itself, a fair conclusion:
According to the Orlando Sentinel, "SeaWorld Orlando has always know that Tillikum...could be a particularly dangerous killer whale...because of his ominous history."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.
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.
What about the term "killer whale" do SeaWorld officials not understand?
Okay, so far so good. Yes, Sea World officials do bear some responsibility for keeping this animal with a track record of violence in the park and working with people. But then look at the Biblical argument he makes:
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.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.
But, the Scripture soberly warns, if one of your animals kills a second time because you didn't kill it after it claimed its first human victim, this time you die right along with your animal. To use the example from Exodus, if your ox kills a second time, "the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death." (Exodus 21:29)
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.
But then Dawn would be ignoring the "counsel of the Judeo-Christian tradition." Exodus does not say that if your animal kills somebody you can be sued for it; it says that if your animal kills somebody a second time, you get put to death. Funny how all that talk of following the council of scripture only goes so far and then suddenly stops, while he maintains the fiction that he's supporting that scripture.
Politics
Comments
Is it me, or has the AFA at last given up all pretenses of being a "respectable" RR mouthpiece seeking to influence nationwide politics and instead dived right into the Westboro Baptist waters of insanity?
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 4, 2010 12:09 PM
"Chalk another death up to animal rights insanity..."
This is major league stupid. If animal rights activists had their way, Sea World wouldn't have any animals in captivity, much less an orca.
Posted by: Steve Reuland | March 4, 2010 12:14 PM
Seems like the new testament "turn the other cheek" type tolerance should overwrite the old testament "eye for an eye" harsh reactions, but those platitudes only seem to be evident when it's convenient.
Posted by: DuggleBogey | March 4, 2010 12:40 PM
It may be a bit much to say the whale has a "track record of violence." A stranger sneaking into his pool could very easily trigger a territorial protection instinct that doesn't necessarily mean the animal is violent. And what I've heard about the trainer is that it appears her ponytail caught the whale's attention and he just grabbed it and played with it like a toy, unfortunately for too long. That leaves the first incident, about which I have no information. But keep in mind that the sheer size and power of such an animal makes it dangerous, even without any vicious intent.
Posted by: James Hanley | March 4, 2010 12:43 PM
Next, the American Family Association calls for the stoning of children who talk smack to their parents (IIRC, that bit is not too many verses away from the animal-stoning passage being cited).
But you'll never see them be that consistent, of course. The Bible: Wingnut Cafeteria Edition (with hand-picked cherries!).
Posted by: Eamon Knight | March 4, 2010 12:50 PM
Put AFA members on the orca tank's platform and let them cast stones at the beast in accordance with Israel's ancient civil code (Exodus 21:28).
Posted by: Mandrake | March 4, 2010 12:51 PM
@ James: there's also the fact that it's a frickin' non-human animal with zero capacity for reason. All killer whales have "a track record of violence" (ignoring the fact that that's a pretty anthropomorphizing description for a wild animal). What the media is failing to address is the rather elementary fact that, unlike violent humans, violent non-human animals are not acting on sociopathic impulses. And this is a killer whale, people, an animal that has developed predatory instincts for survival. It's been held in captivity by humans as a museum exhibit; every day that it doesn't revert to its violent instincts is a day that the trainers have gotten lucky.
Although I am an animal rights advocate, I'm not necessarily an proponent of closing all zoos and wildlife exhibits. Still, we ought to more carefully consider what types of animals we play chicken with (pardon the nonsensical pun) for the purposes of entertainment--for the good of everyone (human or not) involved.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | March 4, 2010 12:54 PM
Hmph, so much for Biblical Literalism. Besides your points, Ed, I might also note that the animal in question is not an ox, but an orca, and it did not gore anyone to death, but bit and drowned them.
It's amazing how easy it is to take an utterly sensible commentary and convert it into pure stupidity - just add religion.
Posted by: DaveL | March 4, 2010 12:55 PM
(seconding DaveL's comment)
Sorry, I don't see the connection. What do oxen have to to do with orcas?
Posted by: NoAstronomer | March 4, 2010 1:12 PM
If we're going to be literalist sticklers, I would remind him that the rule applies to oxen who gore. It says nothing about whales.
Posted by: Dr X | March 4, 2010 1:17 PM
Fortunately we have a constitution as the basis for law here, not the bible (old or new). If the AFA would like to use the bible as the basis for all law and judgment, I suggest they found a colony somewhere and do it by all means. The should let us know how that works out.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 4, 2010 1:30 PM
this is taken from and article on the orca at www.theregister.co.uk:
"Or, as the American Family Association King James Bible (SeaWorld Edition) puts it: "But if the whale were wont to push with his snout in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the whale shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be sued pantless."
Posted by: rob | March 4, 2010 1:49 PM
Stoning an ox to death? Is that really a sensible way to kill it?
Even within the context of a religion followed by bronze-age herdsmen, this is just plain stupid. Did the guy who wrote that passage even SEE a real ox? If it's already killed someone, do you think it'll then stand still and not try to dodge what you throw at it?
Posted by: Raging Bee | March 4, 2010 1:56 PM
MikeMa, #11: The[y] should let us know how that works out.
I dimly recall someone did try to that. A country in central Asia I believe, sometime at the end of the 20th century. I believe the group who tried it had a name beginning with "T.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 1:58 PM
There probably should have been a Commandment along the lines of "Thou shalt not fuck about with animals that have 'killer' as part of their names."
Posted by: Coragyps | March 4, 2010 2:17 PM
Chiroptera @14,
I really want these AFA idiots to do it. The AFA are pompous, self-righteous assholes. It will remove them from our vicinity and from having to listen to their pious inanities. It will serve as an object lesson for others when they end up killing each other for biblical infractions. It might even make for good reality tv.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 4, 2010 2:32 PM
@ MikeMa
"It might even make for good reality tv."
I've got dibs names on the name "Survivor: Jesus Island."
Posted by: Fifth Dentist | March 4, 2010 2:48 PM
Fifth Dentist
Better, maybe:
"Lost: Testament Tales"
or
"Lost: Who Cares?"
Posted by: MikeMa | March 4, 2010 3:12 PM
DuggleBogey "Seems like the new testament 'turn the other cheek' type tolerance should overwrite the old testament 'eye for an eye' harsh reactions, but those platitudes only seem to be evident when it's convenient."
"Turn the other cheek" is for when I hurt you. "Eye for an eye" is for when you hurt me. Obviously.
Chiroptera "A country in central Asia I believe, sometime at the end of the 20th century. I believe the group who tried it had a name beginning with 'T'."
Now you're just being ridiculous. Texans aren't in Asia. They're in Texas. Duh.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 4, 2010 3:21 PM
Biblical cognative dissonance is a source of amazement for me.
When I point out the Bible is filled with horrible acts and barbarism, Christians are quick to point out that the coming of Jesus did away with all those rules in the old testament. And these same people will not hesitate to jump back into the Old Testament and use the same rules they previously said were voided by Jesus if they support whatever hate filled viewpoint they hold.
Posted by: Alareth | March 4, 2010 3:31 PM
You want to know which Old Testament rule would excite me the most to live by? The one that says that if I kill someone accidentally, I have to quickly run to the nearest sanctuary city before that person's relatives grab me and kill me out of revenge. Then, the city's elders will decide whether it really was an accident or not.
If it was an accident, I have to live in the city until the next jubilee year. And I have to sacrifice an ox or something. Or maybe an orca. My memory gets fuzzy after that.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 3:41 PM
Unless the person I killed was a fetus. Then I would just have to pay a fine. Because fetuses are just like people.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 3:43 PM
Alareth
Yeah, yeah. same 'ole, same 'ole. Generalize much?
Posted by: heddle | March 4, 2010 3:57 PM
MikeMa, #16: It might even make for good reality tv.
I still have fond memories of grade school when they showed that National Geographic movie of Jane Goodall living among the chimps. I suspect that this could be a source of equally satisfying moments for future school children.
Or viewing the sheer brutality of existence on Fundy Island could be a traumatizing experience. Hard to say, come to think of it.
Posted by: Chiroptera | March 4, 2010 3:59 PM
Awesome. Now the AFA is stealing material from Warren Ellis. We have reached the end of history.
Posted by: mds | March 4, 2010 4:32 PM
MikeMa@11 If the AFA would like to use the bible as the basis for all law and judgment, I suggest they found a colony somewhere and do it by all means. The should let us know how that works out.
You misunderstand the AFA version of christianity. Its not about them keeping the sabbath or not taking the lord's name in vain. They could do that any time without advocating for a change in the law. For groups - like AFA - that advocate for biblically based law, its all about forcing you to do so. A colony is no good for that.
While I'm sure they'd be offended with the comparison, they hold a very Ambrose Bierce-like (Biercian?) opinion of Christianity. I.e. its a divinely inspired system admirably suited to the spiritual needs of one's neighbors.
Posted by: eric | March 4, 2010 4:47 PM
Raging Bee @ 13:
Every Bronze Age herder knows to cripple the offending ox by breaking its legs, THEN stone it to death. That's the only humane way to do it.
Then you burn some of the flesh because the Lord thinks it stinks pretty.
Posted by: Moon Jaguar | March 4, 2010 4:48 PM
A bit ironic, I was at Lunch with Shamu at San Diego and I asked, "Why does Sea World keep saying 'Killer Whale' when most bioligists and science shows now use the term 'Orca'?
The answer I got was a sputtery bit about well, 'orca' is the latin name, not what we say in english.
THe answer is obviously that they prefer killer whale to make it appear more dangerous.
Posted by: KeithB | March 4, 2010 5:28 PM
I'm always amazed that we don't have more of these fatal stories about performing animals. I guess the intelligence and trainability of the animals in question is enough to overpower hunting instincts, or enough to convince the animal that the trainer is not food. I believe Shamu, the most famous performing orca has never killed anyone. How many years did Sigmund and Roy work before Roy was mauled?
Posted by: Flying Fox | March 4, 2010 6:03 PM
Actually there have been many Shamus, and I'm pretty sure the answer is that natural predators don't have much reason to attack their trainers if they are given more than enough tasty food, which captive performing animals usually are-- in the U.S., at least. But of course they never lose their lethal abilities, and they're susceptible to boredom, frustration, and confusion...especially if they're intelligent enough to learn how to perform tricks in the first place.
Posted by: Gretchen | March 4, 2010 6:22 PM
Keith @ 28:
>>>The answer I got was a sputtery bit about well, 'orca' is the latin name, not what we say in english. The answer is obviously that they prefer killer whale to make it appear more dangerous.
Orcas got their "killer" name for their way of hunting in packs, but they are no more or less dangerous than any other predator despite how domesticated they may seem in theme parks.
Another Fun Fact: Orcas are the largest member of the dolphin family.
Posted by: CHV | March 4, 2010 9:28 PM
>>>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.
As tragic as her death was, Miss Brancheau certainly knew the daily risks of being in the same tank with such a large animal. Thus, I don't see her family having much grounds for a wrongful death suit here.
Posted by: CHV | March 4, 2010 9:31 PM
How exactly does one stone to death a killer whale? Assuming you've solved the "oh no, he's swimming a few feet deeper" problem, isn't the skull of a killer whale, like, an inch or more thick? Doesn't he have a layer of blubber that could reasonably be measured in feet? Maybe you krazy glue a token pebble to the end of an RPG or something. Ah, the lord does test us, doesn't he? Besides, that law clearly refers to work animals, not ones used for sexual or recreational purposes.
This reminds me of the Chris Rock routine where he's talking about the siegfried and roy incident a while back.
"People say that tiger went crazy. That tiger didn't go crazy, that tiger went TIGER!"
In other words, it's a big, intelligent, predatory animal that probably shouldn't be there in the first place. Don't be surprised when its instincts decide to kick in once in a while.
Posted by: n | March 4, 2010 10:51 PM
Well, the Old Testament doesn't mention killer whales. If there's any mention of whales, I'm sure they are categorized as fish. and whales don't have horns anyway. So the civil code of Ancient Israel doesn't apply here.
(I'm being just as consistent and logical as they are here).
Posted by: Christophe Thill | March 5, 2010 5:39 AM
Narwhales have horns...Are you implying that you can stone a narwhale to death?
My whole thing about humans being killed by predatory animals in any setting is that that's what predatory animals do. In this case, it sounds like the orca wasn't acting out a predatory instinct, but it's sheer size and power makes it dangerous no matter what. The kid who was killed by a tiger in a zoo last year, this death, the guy in that Werner Herzog movie who was eaten by grizzlies...if you want to be around dangerous animals, that's up to you (though you can certainly argue that animals shouldn't be treated as performers for human amusement), but don't be surprised or outraged when the human ends up dead.
Posted by: Ryan | March 5, 2010 10:55 AM
Let he who is without fin cast the first stone!
Posted by: Blondin | March 5, 2010 3:42 PM
On March 4, 2010 1:17 PM, Dr X @10 (seconding the thoughts at 8 and 9)
If we're going to be literalist sticklers, I would remind him that the rule applies to oxen who gore. It says nothing about whales.
Biblical literalists can be elastic when it suits them.
Posted by: Blue Nine | March 5, 2010 4:35 PM