Hambo Has a New Enemy — PETA

This one is completely off the scale of our Bizarre-O-Meter™. As you might have guessed, it’s from Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.

Ol’ Hambo just posted this at the website of Answers in Genesis (AIG), his creationist ministry: “Bring Home the Bagels”: PETA Urges People to Drop “Anti-Animal” Speech. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Also, we’ve deleted his numerous scripture references. Get ready for a wild ride, dear reader. Here we go!

Instead of saying, “beat a dead horse,” animal activist group PETA wants you to say, “feed a fed horse.” They also want to change “kill two birds with one stone” to “feed two birds with one scone,” “take a bull by its horns” to become “take a flower by its thorns,” and “bring home the bacon” to see the salty pork product exchanged for bagels. Why? To “remove speciesism” from daily conversation.

Hambo rarely defines his acronyms. PETA is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He links to this amusing article in the Washington Post: PETA wants to change ‘anti-animal’ sayings, but the Internet thinks they’re feeding a fed horse. Then he says:

Their tweet declared that these common sayings are “anti-animal language” that we should stop using. Along with an image of the offending sayings, and their suggested replacements, they tweeted,

[PETA’s tweet, which we haven’t verified:] Words matter, and as our understanding of social justice evolves, our language evolves along with it. Here’s how to remove speciesism from your daily conversations.

You may agree with us that PETA is a bit over-the-moon with their recommendations, but wait ’til you see Hambo’s reaction. He proudly tells us:

Now, here’s what I tweeted in response to PETA,

Evolutionists believe plants, animals, and humans are all relatives. In a shocking turn of events, PETA’s making racist statements [Huh?] about our plant relatives and insists we eat them instead of our animal relatives.

What’s he saying? He explains:

You see, PETA’s ridiculous statements come from their evolutionary worldview. [Groan!] They believe we’re related to the animals so they don’t want anyone killing any of our “relatives,” other species (of course, you don’t see them campaigning to save E. coli or mosquitos!). But in their view we’re also related to soy beans, fig trees, and daffodils. In my “debate” at the Ark Encounter with Bill Nye, he said we’re all related to bananas. (Remember that the next time you’re eating a banana.) So why do they urge people to avoid “anti-animal” language regarding animals and not plants, considering they believe we’re related to both?

Brilliant! Hambo has exposed PETA’s hypocrisy. He continues:

But remember, God’s Word clearly teaches that humans are special, made in God’s image. No animal was made in God’s image — only human beings. The evolutionary worldview is inconsistent. As Christians, we have a worldview that explains why we eat both plants and animals.

He elaborates on that with lots of scripture references that we’ve eliminated, but which you may want to check out for yourself in order to fully understand the authority behind what he declares:

Originally, we were created to eat plants but, after the flood, God gave us permission to eat everything. In a fallen world, the sad reality is that there is death, and animals can now be part of our diet because our Creator has given us permission to eat animals. And, we do have the responsibility not to cause undue suffering to animals in our care, whether they be pets or food stock. This is fully consistent with a biblical worldview as stewards of God’s creation having both dominion and compassion.

Then he rants about evolution and his usual adversaries:

And the truth is that, by far, the majority of teachers present evolution as fact to their public school students. [The fools!] Science textbooks used in these schools promote evolution as fact. Most teachers who reject evolution are afraid to even mention any of this, as they’re fearful they’ll be fired because of bullies like AU [Americans United for Separation of Church and State], FFRF [Freedom From Religion Foundation], etc. AU is fearful that even one teacher somewhere might teach kids the truth about evolution — that it’s a belief not confirmed by observational science.

He concludes with this:

So, grab that bull by its horns and enjoy a delicious steak if you desire. And as we would say in Australia: “Starve the Lizards and Stone the Crows!” [What?] I’m thinking of suggesting to PETA that it start a “Save the Tapeworm” program!

So there you are. Hambo didn’t have enough adversaries before, so now he’s added PETA to the roster. We’d like to end this with some clever phrase about animals that might upset them both, but we can’t think of anything appropriate. Can you, dear reader?

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

25 responses to “Hambo Has a New Enemy — PETA

  1. I don’t like PETA or Ken Ham and think both are wrong.

  2. I’m trying to remember where there is the classic treatment of refusing to eat any plants. Was that in Samuel Butler’s “Erewhon”?

    Anyway, there are Fruitarians, who eat only fruit. That is not killing or harming any living thing. The fruit tree produces nourising fruit because it will be eaten and thus spread its seeds. And then there are claims of breatharianism. Both of these are ideal of Jainism. (see Wikipedia for all of these).

    Except, of course, when you eat anyting, you are taking away food from another living thing.

  3. PETA are plant bigots. They hate plants!!! Protest their destruction of so many carrots and eat beef!!!

  4. The most noble creature is the vulture. It eats animals that are already dead.

  5. Australians like to claim “stone the crows” as one of their homegrown expressions, but I believe it was R. Zimmerman who originally said: “Every crow must get stoned.”

    This, of course, was when he was still Jewish, long before becoming a born-again Christian (and converting back again). Dylan, in his freaked out “Blonde on Blonde” period, took on the appearance of a gaunt, nebbishy crow and actually did get stoned on a bus in Gaza. A bunch of Palestinian kids heard him singing, and began pelting the bus with rocks. That was enough to inspire The Great Bob to pen a song, right there and then.

    True, this is all well known music history. But Ham should at least have acknowledged Bob’s contribution.

    “Starve the lizards” is possibly Noachian in origin, for when food stocks on board the Ark were running dangerously low.

  6. Let no tern be unstoned.

  7. “No animal was made in God’s image — only human beings.”
    How are humans not animals??? We do nothing different than other animals, it’s only to what degree of any activity that is different.

  8. Adam and Eve were the original Fruitarians, eating the forbidden fruit.

    Long ago, Tom Paxton had a song “Don’t Slay that Potato” about the tribulations of being pulled from the soil, peeled, sliced, cooked and eaten (in much more elegant language). PETA has long been off the rails.

  9. “You may agree with us that PETA is a bit over-the-moon with their recommendations.”
    Indeed I do. While I recognize the importance of animal rights (to obstruct suffering) I’m pretty sure no pig has ever been offended by “bring back the bacon”.

    “PETA’s ridiculous statements come from their evolutionary worldview.”
    In a way (Ol’Hambo’s twisted way of course) this is correct. Bertrand Russell (neither a veggie nor a creacrapper) already pointed out (in his History of Western Philosophy iIrc) that all arguments for vegetarianism/veganism also apply to plants as well. What Ol’Hambo of course “forgets” to mention is this: evolution being correct hence being related to humans being a spectrum animal rights should be a spectrum as well. I mean – we don’t grant newborn babies the same rights as adults either, do we?

    “The evolutionary worldview is inconsistent. As Christians, we have a worldview that explains why we eat both plants and animals.”
    BWAHAHAHAHA! Evolution Theory also perfectly explains why Homo Sapiens eat both plants and animals – it helped us to survive and hence producing offspring. This is the funniest version of the is-ought fallacy I’ve ever seen.

    “grab that bull by its horns”
    In this specific case PETA’s suggestion “grab that rose at its thorns” is far more accurate, because like always Ol’Hambo manages to sting himself.

    So I dedicate this nice song to him:

  10. @DavidK denies we’re special: “We do nothing different than other animals.”
    I’ve yet to meet the first non-human creationist. This kind of stupidity is a human specialty, so it seems to me.

  11. Blogging about creationism is like shooting fish in a barrel.

  12. This is just more evidence that the HAMster has long been under the influence of a creationist brain slug.


  13. “I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity. All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?”
    Ecclesiastes 3:18-22

  14. The Curmudgeon’s latest post on Ken Ham and AiG has set the cat among the pigeons.

  15. Here’s an expression I picked up from my mother: “put those two in a bag and see who comes out first!” Hambo and PETA…both covet attention and both full of the brown stuff.

  16. Michael Fugate

    Isn’t it much more likely that PETA’s argument is based on sentience and not on evolution?

  17. PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals

  18. @Michael Fugate
    I have heard of arguments based on relatedness, whereby chimps, for example, are conspired worthy of special consideration because of their close relationship.
    I have heard of arguments based on sentience, whereby animals which have, supposedly, no sentience of what is happening to them are not objects of concern.
    I understand that Jains extend their concern to all life.
    I have heard of various arguments involving various features of living beings brought up on both sides in arguments about abortion, death penalty, etc.

  19. Like so many Aussie expressions, ‘Starve the lizards’ died long ago. Bit like Hambo`s brain cells.

  20. They’ll keep on arguing ’til the cows come home, because a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.

    But I do have a beef with PETA. What would they have us say in place of “bulls**t” (he asks sheepishly)?

    But I must stop rabbiting on …

  21. Ham doesn’t tell us that God’s “permission to eat everything” represents God’s third change of mind on the issue. Genesis 1:29 implies that we may eat only plants and only those that bear seed, at that, although it does not specifically say that we may not eat animals, and the general rule is “that which is not forbidden is permissible”. But later in Genesis at 9:3, we are told that God said, “Every creature that lives and moves will be food for you”. Then later again, in the other parts of the Pentateuch, we get a library of dietary laws which include elaborate lists of what animals may not be eaten. Finally we are told (Acts 10:9-16) that God has changed his mind yet again and told Peter at Joppa that it was all OK after all.

    Disobedience to God is said to have been the original sin. But God seems to change his mind, and the rules, at random intervals. Possibly that explains the creation of the Trees of Life and of Knowledge in the Garden – God at first intended that humans should have those things, but then changed his mind.

    Well, why not? As Job found out, he’s God, isn’t he? He can do what he likes, can’t he?

    Of maybe it never happened, and it’s all a story, of the form called “myth”, ie an explanation by supernatural means of a natural event of human custom. Hunter-gatherers eat mostly plants, but they need whatever proteins come along. Ancient farmers had a regular food supply, but must be careful of meats that were prone to contamination. The Jewish dietary laws reflect that, and also a need to define themselves in a sea of different peoples; but early Christians were concerned to assimilate with the Romans and repudiate their Jewish roots. The changing rules about what can be eaten are explained by natural conditions and historical motivations.

    But of course that could never occur to Ken Ham.

  22. SC:
    ”The most noble creature is the vulture.”

    Yes – and one of the most graceful in the air, seemingly able to soar for hours while expending zero energy. And yet they are much maligned – the word “vulture” has so many ugly connotations. It’s high time we change the name “Turkey Vulture” to “American Condor”.

  23. The Hamster must be getting desperate (or going even farther off his nut than ever) to drag PETA into the creation/evolution “debate.” PETA is a crank organization and in any case,despite its attempt to put the same value on animal life as that of human beings, I don’t recall its ever endorsing Darwin.

    Ham is using a classic “straw man” argument which deserves all the ridicule which can be directed toward it.

  24. Let us remember that the creationists have been pushing for fairlness in education. Any idea deserves to be taught in K-12 school. Therefore, according to the creatonists, PETA deserves being presented to the kids, so that they can make up their minds aboiut it.
    As long as the creatonists have brought PETA to our attention, let it be noted that PETA has a positive opinion (unlike others whch are merely negative) which can be presented to school children. The next tie that a legistlator brings up topics whch should be presented fairly in K-12 schools, let Ethical Treatment of Animals be one of those specifically mentioned.

  25. Ashley Haworth-roberts

    You may have seen this (written by a Christian who is not anti-science):