This page should more probably be entitled Ethics and Anti-Humanism, but here goes . . . I sincerely want to thank the extremists, for without their absolute "in your face, God!" attitude, for without which, I would not have attempted this web project.
I will present the points as raised by the extremists, each followed by the appropriate [if applicable] Bible verse.
"Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth." Ingrid Newkirk, Founder, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PeTA] (Readers Digest, June 1990)
Hello, Ingrid! Obviously, you have not read your Bible - you might be able to find it under the PeTA propaganda pile. Well, push those pleas for money aside and open it up to Genesis 1.
Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
OK, so now we know that God wanted us to BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY. [Probably bad news to all those environmental Socialists too - you know Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Audubon Society, etc. - you know the guys that preach that Government (their god?) is capable of taking care of it all -including you - but that is a whole different web project...]
"Animals are in many respects superior to ourselves." British philosopher Patrick Corbett (The Intellectual Activist, Sept. 14, 1983)
The response to this is found in Genesis also. God describes his creation of man. Be sure to note animals were created "after their kind" where man was created "in the image of God." In what respect, Mr. Corbett, is a creature superior to the given order in which God created it?
Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good. 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
In the light of the last passage, the next quote begins to expose the basic belief of animal rights. Without question, it is diametrically opposed to what God states in Genesis.
Ingrid Newkirk ,PeTA (Washingtonian Magazine, Aug, 1986) - "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
I will now list a number of quotes which will allow you to gain insight into the animal extremist philosophy. I believe you will learn that these people have no belief in their Creator or his plan for man. Let us remember that God's plan specifically deals with mankind.
In the New Testament in the Gospel of John, God tells us what he intends for all he created. It specifically talks of man. In no case, did Jesus say he was here, or that the Father sent him here to save animals. You have all seen this passage displayed on a placard by some individuals during the televised football games when the extra point is being attempted -- you have all seen the person in the stands waving the sign John 3:16:
John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
OK, now put your seatbelt on. . .you will not believe that people can actually believe what you are about to read. . . .
"We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child." Alex Pacheco, Chairman, PeTA (New York Times, Jan 14, 1989)
"the tyranny of human over nonhuman animals. . . can only be compared with that which resulted from the centuries of tyranny by white humans over black humans." Peter Singer,(Animal Liberation)
Your child is dying of diabetes. The only way to get insulin is to kill a lamb. Do you kill the lamb to get insulin for your child? "I would not knowingly have an animal hurt for me, or my children, or anything else." Cleveland Amory, Fund for Animals (Larry King Show, Oct. 29, 1987)
People should not use bug sprays. "Only a few of the million you kill would have bitten you." Michale J. Fox (Returning to Eden)
"I've never been able to communicate very will with people and I've never been a socially oriented person. I identify more with individuals of other species." Elliot Katz, In Defense of Animals (Focus Magazine, Nov. 1988)
"I am not a morose person, but I would rather not be here. I don't have any reverence for life, only for the entities themselves. I would rather see a blank space where I am. This will sound like fruitcake stuff again but at least I wouldn't be harming anything. All I can do - all you can do - while you are alive is try to reduce the amount of damage you do by being alive." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA, (Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1983)
"on a radio talk show in Miami, a spokesperson for PeTA was asked a question. If a baby and a dog were in a boat, and the boat capsized, which would she save first? 'I don't know. . .it might depend if it's my baby or my dog, or my baby and someone else's dog. . . ." (FFAWC White Paper)
In Fort Lauderdale, on WFTL, talk show host Pat Hurley asked Don Agony, a spokesperson for the Animal Rights Foundation of Florida [ARFF] the following question, "I am a terrorist. I have a pig under one arm and a baby under the other. I AM going to kill one of them. Which one do I kill?" Don Agony would NOT [or could not for fear of embarrassment] answer the question.
"Six million people died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses." Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA (Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1983)
Can you believe this one? Equating the victims of the Holocaust with chickens? I can only say this has to be the epitome of evil. If you were ever to say you have looked evil in the eye, you could say it here!
"When Ingrid Newkirk solemnly announces that 'six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses,' she may think that she is making us more sensitive to the plight of barnyard fowl, but she is really muting the horrors of the Holocaust. by placing chickens and Jews on the same ethical plane, she means to make it more difficult for us to kill the birds, but she may just make it easier for some future Hitler to herd millions of humans into the gas chambers. (Reason, 1990)
. . . while keeping the last quote in mind and just when you thought it was safe to call a pet a pet. . . . from the Americans for Medical Progress email newsletter [AMP News Service -- Sunday, September 24, 2000] comes this gem:
"FROM THE 'I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP' DEPARTMENT:
It seems PETA president Ingrid Newkirk is protesting the downward revision of the number of deaths attributed to Firestone tires by the National Traffic Safety Administration. Two journalism students discovered that two animal deaths were erroneously being counted by the agency. The revised death count went from 103 to 101.
But Newkirk believes those animals should also be counted. "If these animals were in the car, they were obviously family members, not groceries. Death is death, and I think they should keep them in."
"Among all civilized states, Germany is the first country to end the shame of vivisection. The New Germany not only frees people from the course of materialism, egotism and cultural bolshevism but also gives rights to the tortured, tormented and, up until now, completely unprotected animals. The animal friends and opponents of vivisection in all countries will hail this act of the National Socialist government of the New Germany with a joy! . . . . What Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and Prime Minister Goring did and will do for the protection of animals, stands as a guideline to the leaders of all civilized states." Nazi party press release, 1933 [Nazi Germany enacted anti-vivisection as official policy.]
Think about that for a while. The epitome of man's inhumanity to man, substituting experimentation on "a lower class of human" rather than "tortured, tormented and up until now, completely unprotected animals." It is a black mark on all of us for letting that happen. However, PeTA would not think so, I fear.
Just read on the next quote to find out what country did, in fact, ban the use of animals for experimentation. . . .
At a recent conference of the NAIA [National Animal Interest Alliance] in Portland, OR, a spokesman for the biomedical community was speaking on bioethics in regard to animals. He made an interesting point - animals are not people, they are animals. People are different from animals. The question was posed, "If we were to give personhood to animals like the extremists would like, does that then mean we can marry the animals - and have children with them?"
Dr. James I. Cook states in The Church Herald, November 1998, ". . .I rejoice in the thought that the two creation accounts of Genesis are supplementary. Just as the church is immeasurably enriched by the witness to the one gospel according to four [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John], so is it similarly enriched by the witness to the one creation according to two. Amid their differences in both form and content, the accounts bear a united witness to a pair of foundational theological confessions:
God is our creator ['so God created humankind,' Genesis 1:27; then 'the Lord God formed man.' Genesis2:7], or in Walter Brueggemann's words: 'The single sentence, 'Creator creates creation,' is decisive for everything.
Human beings are more closely related to God than any other creature. The first account expresses this intimacy by saying that humans alone are made in the image and likeness of God: the second expresses it by saying that humans alone received their life directly from God: "Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life: and the man became a living being" (Genesis2:7).
'. . .I believe that we are most biblical when we link creation with redemption rather than evolution. For one thing, it helps me to bear in my mind that although chronologically, creation precedes redemption (this, Genesis properly comes before Exodus in our Bibles), theologically, redemption precedes creation! That is, whether we are persuaded that Moses or a later Israelite authored Genesis, it is clear that the creation accounts were written by one who had already in the Exodus experienced God as Redeemer! For this reason, creation may be regarded as the first event in the history of salvation. The biblical writers understood that no doctrine of redemption could be complete apart from a doctrine of creation, for God could not be our Redeemer if the creation were in control of someone else. I am equally convinced that when the author of Genesis bore witness that God created Adam, the only kind of human he knew was not some per-human creature, but a person like himself." (The Church Herald, November 1998)
I included this most interesting message to again impress on the reader the fact that people are not just animals. People are a special creation of God, empowered by God to use the creation in its entirety, including all of the lower animals, to the glory of God!
We know we are different from the animals in God's sight. God tells us that animals are our property.
Exodus 22:10 "If a man gives a donkey, an ox, a sheep or any other animal to his neighbor for safekeeping and it dies or is injured or is taken away while no one is looking, the issue between them will be settled by the taking of an oath before the Lord that the neighbor did not lay hands on the other person's property."
A 'must read' article on FirstThings.com from Thomas S. Derr, a professor in the Department of Religion and Biblical Literature at Smith College.
Professor Derr points out that the "movement has not made a compelling case for animal rights and, on present course, is unlikely to do so." A must read for proponents of animal welfare.