I’m sorry, but the equation of Amalek with PETA and evolutionists is simply ludicrous. No, Avi Shafran, belief in evolution does not necessarily entail espousing the position that life is meaningless, unless you start with the preconceived assumption that meaning is found only in some afterlife. No, Avi Shafran, evolutionists don’t think of their parents or grandparents as animals. No, Avi Shafran, Peter Singer does not morally equate killing all humans with killing animals (when asked if he does, he replied, “That’s a total misunderstanding. I’ve never said that – in fact, more than 30 years ago, in the first chapter of Animal Liberation, I said the opposite.”) No, Avi Shafran, the scientific question of human origins has absolutely nothing to do with the philosophical question of how to lead an ethical life given our current evolved or created state of existence.
In fact, asserts the chance-worshipper, he is no different from the animals whom he considers, through the lottery of natural selection, his ancestors. He may be more evolved, but in the end is no less an expression than they of purely random events.
Amalek’s credo is proudly and publicly proclaimed today. From “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” (PETA), which contends that “meat is murder”; to Princeton University’s Professor Peter Singer, who asserts that “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee”; to books like “Eternal Treblinka,” which makes the loathsome comparison of animals slaughtered for food with (one winces to even repeat it) the victims of the Nazis.
And it lurks, more subtly but no less surely, in the contemporary insistence that chance-based evolutionary theory is the only explanation for the diversity of species.
I am really turned off by this stuff. Why do I care? Because people “out there” read Shafran and think his views are representitive of Orthodox Judaism, and I don’t care to find my belief system defined by half-baked apologist drivel. I haven’t read Singer, but think his widely quoted beliefs can be refuted by critical thinking without resorting to Biblical references to Amalek. Isn’t it ironic to condemn the moral devaluing of life at the hands of utilitarianism or science in the context of a commentary on a mitzvah that demands no less than the murder of every man, women, and child of Amalek who does not voluntarily surrender and accept the 7 Noahide laws? Does Avi Shafran think rationally it is more morally repugnant to euthanize an infant with no consciousness, born with a congenital disorder, than to murder a conscious innocent child simply because he is a descendent of the tribe of Amalek whose ancestors attacked yours a few thousand years ago and he does not agree to accept your dictates of morality?