Christian exceptionalism on the bbs

I have taken this post down for editing. When I posted it I was expecting to be attacked by a group of people who, I guess, decided not to bother after all (Shrug!) I did find that I was attacked from another direction, so I’m reassessing.

But, now that we’re here, lets look at more problems this story about seals raises. These are problems which I hadn’t even thought about in my first discussions about the story.

I was asked by someone why I had such sympathy for the woman who was attacked. The person suggested that unless I knew this woman personally, it was somehow strange that I would have such sympathy, and take up her cause online so strenuously. I think it’s not really that inexplicable.

The woman who was attacked by the seal is 60 years old. I’m old also, and while I can’t speak for her, I know that when I read about this situation it was the first time I’d ever heard of a marine mammal getting it’s own private beach, and one taken from the public, with signs and tape saying a section of the public beach now belonged to the seal. I even think that the woman has a valid complaint that she paid good money for her condo and she is being denied full use of the beach.

It seems to me that in the past, for most of my life, if a seal was raising a pup on a public beach, well, the city workers or the rangers, or someone would trap and relocate the seal and pup to someplace away from the public. There were areas that were given over to seals and wildlife. They weren’t public beaches. So this is something new for older people. I understand that it might have been something very strange for this woman to figure out. It isn’t the way it was before. And there were changes she couldn’t have expected.

A change she couldn’t have expected is the truly astonishing scenario of wild animals having free rein to attack people at will. In this situation it’s not just that the seal has more rights than the woman does to to lay on the beach, eat, sleep and raise her young, but it it has the right to do what, if done by a human, would be a criminal assault. That usually was handled differently in the past also. A lot of times the animal would be shot because, it was reasoned, the animal that attacked once would attack again. The animal “overcoming its fear of humans” was usually considered a bad sign. Attacking a person? Keeping that from happening was the responsibility of the agency in charge of the animal. What happened to this woman was a dereliction of duty by the city, state, and federal authorities.

There’s an expression called “blowing smoke” and I’m wondering if all the talk about how this woman won’t be fined by the state agency, and that she may not be fined by the federal agency either is smoke blown, calculated to move past the fact that the city, the state, and the federal governments are maintaining a dangerous nuisance. Maybe they are hoping no one will question this arrangement. A primary duty of any government is to protect the citizens. I’ve looked up what a individual person must do to keep a wild animal. It has to be enclosed. You must keep it in place that’s safe for everyone. You can’t have a wolf that eats the letter carrier when it feels like it.

If this woman were my sister I already would have found the correct lawyer, This was a preventable attack, and I think a lawyer would just have to show a judge (who also might have grown with the commonsense idea that humans and wild animals don’t mix) the videos showing the vehemence of the attack and a medical report on the wounds, and rabies testing would be a done deal. The pup might have to be brought up in a zoo or wildlife sanctuary. If that bothers you then maybe we need to get back to the idea that seals are best kept at seal beaches and people are best kept at people beaches.

1 Like

No thanks. I’m good.


I’ve been around this site for a while now, and I can’t think of anyone matching that description. Did you have anyone specific in mind?


And I’d rather be safe than sorry. Thank you for your concern.


Thank you, also. for your concern.

There are actually some Christians around here. They’re just not dicks about their faith is all.

Many of us have no problems with Christians just for being Christians. We have a problems with Christians who use their faith to justify shitty behavior and who try to impose their faith on others. :woman_shrugging:


I don’t know how this comment has been allowed to stand. That’s an incredibly hateful, bigoted thing to say.


The following video is a work of fiction. It does not represent actual sentiments toward Christians.


People use biblical references all the time here. It has nothing to do with faith. Put you light back under your bushel and ease up.


Indeed, there are plenty of prodigal sons in here, but we tend to turn the other cheek rather than cast the first stone.

Oh no…now they’ve got me doing it!


And what kind of Christian are you being like?


How – HOW? – did this end up being a case study in misogyny?

Where’s my bingo card?


This discussion was about a woman who had an angry seal try to kill her because the seal lost track of her own cub and was mad about that. DukeTrout and I had a very interesting discussion about the rights and wrongs involved with the woman attacked by the mother seal. Insofar as I can tell, from what the husband said, the woman knows she wound up in the wrong place, but it was not intentional. I believe that.

I’m outta here. Insofar as I know I’ve said all I need to to say. Take a look back at most of the comments. I’m the only one trying to say she checked for seals, and didn’t see any, and then didn’t know the seal and her pup came to the area. She was trying to do what the other people told her to do, but made mistakes. Where were all you Christians when people were accusing her of deliberately bothering the seals?

Nobody said that she was deliberately bothering the seals. Everyone said that she was bothering the seals through negligence. DukeTrout explicitly explained that avoiding seals is an active responsibility, which means that the woman was at fault for being in proximity to the seals whether she meant to or not. I know that you are objecting to the initial use of the word “harassment,” but DukeTrout also explained what that word means in this context.

You are imagining these accusations of intentional seal harassment just as you are imagining generalized Christian persecution. Unless you know this woman in the story personally, I do not see why you are so vigorous in defending her. You admit that she made mistakes, and that is pretty much the consensus here. In the future, let’s all just stay away from seals and discussions of seals, okay?


Yep, that about sums up the vibe you’re putting off. Like you came here to lecture and judge and not to listen to anyone else. Glad you got to “say all you need to say,” and good day.


And with that, I think we can declare this topic dead. The dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.

Thanks for playing.