Header image

Intolerance and Bigotry (Animal People, II)

Posted by Karel Minor in Uncategorized

1. My family and I attend a Lutheran Church.  Please do not direct hate mail to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.

2. I would like to extend my apologies to Tom Cruise and his family.  Oh, and to Governor Ed Rendell.

3.  Don’t worry; it will make sense in a minute.

As much as I campaign for animal welfare, I have also increasingly campaigned for a civil dialogue among those who represent the efforts to promote the welfare of animals in our society.  I have repeatedly made the case that one of the biggest obstacles facing us in our efforts to pass good animal welfare laws are the rude, self-righteous, and hyper-emotional on our side of the aisle.  These people, using their depth of belief as a shield to excuse themselves and their behavior, indulge in viciousness and vulgarities against those they see as opposing them.

And their vitriol is not reserved solely for the opposition.  Sometimes their greatest abuse is directed at those on their own side who choose different methods, have different beliefs or agendas, or are not as extreme in their demands.  But I recently saw an escalation of personal attack which I found stunning, despite my years of seeing what those who “love animals so much” are capable of.

I recently received an e-newsletter from an animal welfare group who shares my profound disgust for the pigeon shoots which blight my organization’s home county, Berks, and Pennsylvania, the sole state in the Union still allowing them.  This group’s rhetoric has always been pretty strong, pointed and sarcastic.  But it has generally been reserved for those committing the horrible acts they (and I) oppose.  I may promote civil discourse, but skewering a local pigeon shooting attorney who was caught on tape calling a female protester a name so indecent it seems impolite to make so much as an oblique description of it here will generally get a pass, even from me.

But this email caught my attention because it referred to Governor Ed Rendell as “sleaze”.  And that made me cringe.  Governor Rendell has done more in Pennsylvania to promote improvements for animals, and dogs in commercial kennels specifically, than any we’ve had.  True, you can argue with many, many things in the legislation he signed, the way his Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement has acted and enforced our laws, the lack of forceful leadership he has shown on issues such as the pigeon shoot ban, and others.  But overall, he’s done a great deal and politics is about more than what I want so my job is help convince him to do more.  “Sleaze” seemed harsh to me, even directed at a thick skinned politician.

However, when I read on to the next article about rodeos, another issue this group feels strongly about but is not a practical issue for me or my organization since we have no rodeos, I felt like I had been punched in the stomach.

The article was about Tom Cruise being linked to a movie about a rodeo star.  This group is appalled he or anyone would make a film glorifying a rodeo star.  No problem, I get that; it is one of their issues.  They went on to mention he had been filmed at a rodeo with his children and made a mocking comment about his parenting.  As a father of three young daughters, I found that offensive.  There was no need to even bring his kids into the discussion, especially for a cheap shot.  The group then encouraged readers to write Cruise and express their displeasure.  Fine, they don’t like rodeos, he’s making a movie about them, I get it.   

What I found so stunning, so horrible, so profoundly un-American, was the next request.  They wanted readers to write to Tom Cruise’s church, the Church of Scientology International, to tell them that “he and his church will carry the stain of it for the rest of his career and beyond”. 

This injection of Cruise’s faith into their perfectly valid attack on the treatment of rodeo animals is not only insensitive, it comes at a time when our entire nation appears to be grappling with whether an entire faith can be painted with the “stain” of the actions of some of its supposed adherents.  Even President Bush, faced with the height of our Nation’s 9/11 convulsions, made a strong and clear statement that the actions of Muslim terrorists who killed 3,000 of our citizens could not be assigned to Islam. 

Yet this animal group will fault an entire congregation with the choice of motion picture jobs made by an actor who belongs to it?

Interestingly, they do not ask us to write the churches or synagogues of others they mention in their piece.  Does Cruise’s choice of church merit some special exception?

This type of attack must be called what it is: intolerance and bigotry.  It is wrong, it has nothing to do with animal welfare and it is fascistic.  It flies in the face of the very tenets that founded the United States and no justification can be made based on their strength of conviction or love of animals. 

One of the cases I make for ending pigeon shoots in Pennsylvania is that they invite the participation of individuals and groups from out of our communities, out of our state, who have agendas and axes to grind at our expense.  Do you remember who arrived to defend the pigeon shoots in Hegins, Pennsylvania, years ago?  The Ku Klux Klan.  Now we have an out-of-state group who rightly opposes the shoots but brings their hate speech with them as a consequence.  I want neither and I hope that we can send them all packing by passing a pigeon shoot ban now.

But until we do, I feel the need to apologize to Governor Rendell for the comments made by those who claim to share my views.  I feel the need to abjectly apologize for the slurs directed at Tom Cruise, his family and his church.

And to those who have a problem with that, do me a favor and send the hate mail to me.  I’m not sure my church will know what you are talking about.


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 You can leave a response, or trackback.

2 Responses

  • Karel, thanks so much for this thought-proving essay. I sure found out this past Monday up in Harrisburg at the Rally for the Animals that one catches many more flies with sugar than salt. Engaging legislators in civil discourse promotes several things: one has a nice conversation with another intelligent human being; they’ll be accessible and listen to what you have to say, some asking great questions and asking you to clarify; and if you’re really lucky come vote-time, they’ll remember the nice chat and vote your way. EMOTION gains no votes; action, common sense, and civility at least gives one a fighting chance!!!! Scott

  • DJ Kenney says:

    Mr. Minor, is there a reason why you don’t name the organization you’re attacking if you feel so strongly against what they’re doing?

    Yes, I used the word attacking, and here’s why: In your 8/25 blog you made this statement “The worst attacks, gossip campaigns, mud-slinging, insults, innuendo, sabotage, and interference I have experienced as an animal welfare professional have come almost exclusively from those on my side of the aisle.”

    Now, I don’t doubt that happens at all. I’ve personally seen evidence of it in dealing with shelters and rescues throughout web networks.

    But then you went on to make this statement in this blog: “Thank God he isn’t a Muslim; who knows what they would have asked us to do!” Now, if that isn’t unsubstantiated mudslinging and unwarranted innuendo with a slant toward bigotry in singling out the Muslim religion to make your point, I truly don’t know what is.

    It wholly appears you’re equally guilty of what you’re accusing the other organizations.

    Response: I think this comment deserves a long, thoughtful “Hmmmmmmmm….” from me and I did hover my finger over the specific line Kenney mentions. However, since one of my central points of the piece was to deride the attack on a person’s religion in a climate of mosque burning in America, I think it’s a fair point of hyperbole. I “singled out” Islam to make a rhetorical point in a pretty specific political reality. Still, it may have been one last unnecessary kick at a dead horse. The hand in my head still hovers over the delete key, though, and I may end up editing on rereading. *Note: I just did. It came off more as a snarky aside than organic to the flow so I will credit the deletion as being an editorial improvement and not a knuckling under to criticism;)

    However, on the point of equating my using another’s terrible behavior as an example of exactly what I and others in my community don’t want to see being brought in under the guise of fighting cruelty, I don’t agree. There is a difference between using behavior as an example and not attributing it to an individual or group and the extremely personally directed actions and statements of the group or individual. I think there is a substantive difference- and certainly a difference of tone and discourse- between saying “Person X is sleaze/corrupt/a coward,” and saying “A person recently called Person X sleaze/corrupt/ a coward and I don’t think that sort of thing is acceptable.” I also think there is a difference between condemning behavior and condemning a person.

    I will acknowledge that it is a fine line which I often imperfectly walk in my writing. Heck, even in my walking around and talking. I try very hard, increasingly hard over the years given my abject failure to do so at times in the past, to avoid stepping over the line from satirical to snotty, from passionate to pric….See, there I go- must be careful, careful, careful. I do think the mere fact that I have any concern at all in this regard may arguably separate my failings when they happen from the open, willful attacks of the others.

    So I grant you credit for at least an arguable point of criticism- it beats the, “You, Sir, are a total Poopyhead,” comments.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>