By Selwyn Duke

It speaks volumes about our world that as time progresses, it becomes increasingly hard to distinguish real headlines from those at the satire site the Onion.  A case in point is this one, "Switzerland Places Ban on the Humiliation of Plants," by Meg Hamill.  She writes:

Recently, the Swiss Parliament asked
a panel of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians to
determine the meaning of dignity when it pertains to plants.

Lo and Behold, the team published a treatise on ‘the moral consideration of plants for their own sake.’
The treatise established that vegetation has innate value and that it
is morally wrong to partake in activities such as the ‘decapitation of
wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason [there goes my favorite pastime].’

I’d really like to know what kind of government grant these "philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians" received to generate this nonsense.  Don’t get me wrong, I believe in treating all living things with dignity and cherish all of God’s creation.  However, this is because it is a gift from Him and we have responsibilities, not because plants have "rights."

Of course, you wouldn’t expect most of those in godless Western Europe to have that perspective, and their secularism is precisely the problem.  As G.K. Chesterton once said, "When you cease to believe in God, it’s not that you start to believe in nothing; it’s that you will believe in anything."

By the way, if any of you Swiss are starting to feel self-conscious, know that we Americans are about to catapult the same kind of leftist loons into executive-branch power here as well.

               Protected by Copyright

 

Posted in , ,

4 responses to “The Rubber Room Award of the Week: Switzerland Bans the Humiliation of Plants”

  1. walt Avatar
    walt

    I would highly recommend the full download of this Swiss masterpiece. Included in this report is a very useful diagram called the decision tree. I think we need to adopt this but instead of plant use the word unborn baby. By the same reason abortion of a human life would be relegated barbaric.

    Like

  2. Sara Avatar
    Sara

    Walt,
    Say you could get rid of abortion, would you be willing to share some of your cookies in the event that the parents of a unwanted child would not be able to support their offspring?

    Like

  3. walt Avatar
    walt

    Sara,
    It is not about sharing cookies it is about having them taken and “shared” for you. PS there is no such thing as an unwanted child…only an unwilling parent.

    Like

  4. W. Tieff Avatar

    Yeah, umm.. what kind of person would be a proponent of distributing a percentage of other people’s income and savings (provisions) to people who wouldn’t even have the heart to LOVE and ADORE an infant child? I think there’s a name for that kind of person… starts with an L……. At best that’s just turning a blind eye, and at worst outright HATE, in my opinion. How could you not instead be a proponent of respect and appreciation for life? Maybe it’s a team effort, in the end, that’s needed. Teach, but Tax. Trust, but verify, etc………………………………….

    Like

Leave a reply to walt Cancel reply