Welcome to God Eats Red Meat

Here we are, plain as day, God saves the life of a man by sacrificing 2000 pigs [not one or two laboratory experiments but 2000 higher mammals]. It was not a pretty sight seeing 2000 pigs running violently down the hill to their death [ ! ] yet our God did not hesitate.

We can only be thankful that Jesus is in charge of this world and cares more for us than anything else in His creation. People who decry the use of animals in experiments that benefit mankind apparently haven't got a grip on Mark 5.  Nedim Buyukmihci, an academic veterinarian and president of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights stating, in reference to using nonhuman animals in the development of antibiotics, "There is absolutely no proof that nonhuman animal research was integral to that development not was it pivotal to that development."  

Robert Speth, Ph.D. wrote, in response, "that a person with medical training would make such an outrageously inaccurate statement about medical history, is a sad commentary to the so-called medical expertise basis for the animal rights philosophy." Further, Dr. Speth writes, "In what might be one of the most famous animal experiments ever conducted, Sir Howard Florey and his associates at Oxford University experimentally infected 8 mice with a lethal dose of streptococci, on May 25, 1940. Three mice were given multiple doses of penicillin, one mouse received only one dose of penicillin, and the remaining mice were left untreated. Only the three mice treated with multiple doses of penicillin survived. This single experiment so clearly defined the value of penicillin as an antibiotic, that it led to its widespread use during World War II, and set the stage for our modern day understanding of the use of antibiotics to treat infectious diseases. Thus this statement that animal research was not integral to the development of antibiotics indicates that Dr. Buyukmihci is either grossly ignorant in his knowledge of medicine, or that he is deliberately lying to his audience."

ANIMALS AND MEDICINE

 

What do the animal rights extremists say about using animals for experiments which benefit animals as well as mankind? Put your seatbelts on and let us go for the ride. . . read on!

 

[When questioned about using animals for medical experiments] "It's immoral even it it's essential." Ingrid Newkirk, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals [PeTA] (Washington Post, May 30, 1989)

WB00882_2.GIF (263 bytes)

Opposing the use of mosquitoes in medical research -- " 'What's going to become of those mosquitoes if some sort of mutant strain develops?' Surely, Wright is not concerned about cruelty to mosquitoes? 'Why wouldn't I be?' she says. 'They are a part of this planet, too.  We don't have any right to take a being we have deemed as inferior and exploit it for our purposes.' " Roberta Wright, PeTA (Arizona Daily Star)

WB00882_2.GIF (263 bytes)

"Even painless research is fascism, supremancism, because the act of confinement is traumatizing in itself."Ingrid Newkirk, PeTA, (Washington Magazine, August 1986)

WB00882_2.GIF (263 bytes)

Cleveland Amory, founder of Fund for Animals, was interviewed on the Larry King Show by Rona Barrett.

Barrett: "What would happen . . . you have a child . . . the child is dying of diabetes.  It needs an insulin injection. The only way it can get it . . . is from a lamb.  Do you kill the lamb in order to get the insulin so you can save the child, or do you let the child die? . . . Apply it to yourself.  You have a child."

Amory: "Right."

Barrett: "What would you do?" 

Amory: "Well, I . . . would not even for my own self . . . or for . . . I would not knowingly have an animal hurt for me, or my children, or anything else."  Cleveland Amory, Fund for Animals, (Larry King Show, October 29, 1987)

WB00882_2.GIF (263 bytes)

PHEW!!   How are we, as Christians, to respond to calls banning the use of animals for experiments or respond to people who say things like those above? -[aren't you glad your dad wasn't Cleveland Amory?!!]

The Bible has a long history of man and God using animals in ways that just must drive animal rights extremists batty!  They respond to the mere suggestion of using an animal [actually for anything -- even use as a pet] with the same fury and hatred that Paul and Silas encountered in Acts 16.

Acts 16:16 And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us, which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying: 17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. 19 And when her masters saw that the hope of their gains was gone, they caught Paul and Silas, and drew [them] into the marketplace unto the rulers, 20 And brought them to the magistrates, saying, These men, being Jews, do exceedingly trouble our city, 21 And teach customs, which are not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans. 22 And the multitude rose up together against them: and the magistrates rent off their clothes, and commanded to beat [them]. 23 And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast [them] into prison, charging the jailor to keep them safely: 24 Who, having received such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks.

So, OK, you say what does the last story have to do with animal extremism or using animals in science? It is simply to show you what to expect from the world we live in when dealing with its evil. Believe me, if PeTA or HSUS [The Humane Society of the United States] were able to do it, we would all be thrown in prison for any aspect of using animals for they consider any animal use [that bears repeating] -- ANY ANIMAL USE-- is equal to animal abuse. Use = abuse.

To look at God's approval to use animals to save people, let's start early in the Bible as we really get to a wonderful story about the glory and power of God in Exodus. The story opens with God telling Moses how to get his people ready to leave Egypt. As you know, the Israelites have been oppressed and abused by the Egyptians and have called to God for help. God's response is to give them a plan. They have to trust in God and follow the plan he made.

Exodus 12.21 Then Moses called for all the elders of Israel, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover. [for clarity, the "passover" is the lamb] 22 And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip [it] in the blood that [is] in the bason, and strike the lintel and the two side posts with the blood that [is] in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning.

This is our second instance of God sacrificing animals for the health of his people [the first was for clothing in Eden so we wouldn't catch a death of cold] --- in this case, the exodus, it meant either death to a person's first born or the sacrifice of a lamb.

Mark 5:1 And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. 2 And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, 3 Who had [his] dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: 4 Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any [man] tame him. 5 And always, night and day, he was in the mountains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. 6 But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him, 7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, [thou] Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. 8 For he said unto him, Come out of the man, [thou] unclean spirit. 9 And he asked him, What [is] thy name? And he answered, saying, My name [is] Legion: for we are many. 10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. 11 Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. 12 And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. 13 And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

fish(1)1.gif (989 bytes)

If our Lord felt it OK to sacrifice 2000 higher mammals to save the life of one man, I believe he would condone, no, DEMAND experiments which may save the lives of thousands of people!

God bless Sir Howard Florey for he has saved countless human lives.

fish(1)1.gif (989 bytes)

Oh, and let's look at what benefit to animals there is from animal experimentation: rabies vaccination, distemper, operations of all types, transplants . . . . and the list goes on. . . .taken your dog or cat to the vet lately?    Your veterinarian is not able to treat your animals because them received a vision in their sleep regarding the composition of a vaccine. 

There has been some criticism of animal experiments that are considered by some to be "unnecessary testing."  I would agree if it truly is unnecessary.  If the findings from duplicated experiments are reasonably within scientific limits which would protect people, I cannot see where additional experiments would be justified.  I firmly believe that companies who do protect the public would prefer not to use animals for tests.  It is very expensive to do so.  The difficulty is there are no accurate or dependable alternatives for new compounds.  I do, however, believe  we will reach a point where there will be acceptable alternatives in the future.  I, for one, am uncomfortable with people becoming research animals [so to speak]. 

One of the most irritating things to me are these companies who primarily sell hair and personal care products and label their goods with a phrase something like, "Not tested on Animals."  We know that at least one of them [and I suspect more] uses components in their products which HAVE been tested on animals - but they feel comfortable in saying [lie to the public] what they do because the components have not been tested for the previous 5 [five] years and they themselves have not tested.  Now how about that for misleading? 

Do you think Jesus should have sent the 5000 evil spirits into trees or carrots?

 This just in from the Americans for Medical Progress.  It is a very accurate and chilling example of what animal rights is all about-putting animals ahead of people:The following was published in The San Francisco Chronicle, June 25, 2000, SUNDAY, SUNDAY EDITION SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 7; DEBRA J. SAUNDERS

HEADLINE: Monkeys First BYLINE: DEBRA J. SAUNDERS

Taub was out of the country and unavailable for comment, but he and his supporters have charged that Pacheco and others staged or were somehow responsible for the abuses. I wasn't there and can't know. But I do know that Taub was convicted of some six charges in his first trial, and a retrial resulted in one conviction that was later overturned. Afterward, the University of Alabama apparently felt that Taub was sufficiently clean that it hired him.


Let me add that if the laboratory were spotless and the food came from Spago's, PeTA would have opposed Taub's research. As Newkirk told the Washingtonian magazine in 1990, ending animal research is "as urgent as the obligation to crush the Nazi oppression of the Jews."

While she denounced his work, Newkirk nonetheless decided to give PeTA some credit for Taub's findings. She told me, "I think that by getting this man away from electro-shocking monkeys, we may be responsible in part for getting him onto a good track of actually working more sensibly, and by necessity, more humanely, directly with this human experience. You know, he hasn't been able to touch an animal in 19 years."


Edgar Koons, a New York University psychology professor who worked to defend Taub, considers that claim "absolutely unconscionable."

Yes, he said, PeTA's pressure kept Taub from operating another animal-research laboratory, but his current findings were based upon what Taub had learned during his pre-raid research. Some of the seized monkeys later were used in related research that has resulted in other gains for stroke victims, and Taub had some involvement with that research. Also, some of the monkeys later were tested and killed, and that has led to important advances in the study of neuroplasty.

Of Taub's Silver Springs research, Koons said, "This work, which they said was absolutely an example of cruelty" because it involved binding the monkeys' good arms, helped lead to the knowledge that certain techniques could rehabilitate monkeys, and humans.

In a 1990 letter sent to the Coalition for Animals & Animal Research, Taub blamed PeTA for sabotaging research that could have helped people in need. "I had just been about to start applying my findings with deafferented (nerve-severed) monkeys to human stroke victims back in Silver Spring when my work was stopped for six years by PETA's actions."

And: "The actions of the antivisectionists have resulted in withholding the potential benefits of this treatment to a large number of humans whose quality of life has been greatly compromised by their stroke. The term 'humane, 'which is commonly used to refer to animal welfare societies, obviously cannot be said to apply to animal rights groups such as PeTA."

FOUR YEARS after suffering a stroke, 75-year-old Dallas Villines underwent a new therapy that allowed him to do things he had not been able to do since his stroke. "I realized one night, I was carrying something in my left hand and right hand both," he said. "It kind of shocked me." A story in this week's U.S. News & World Report explains how a wonderful new treatment, constraint-induced therapy, developed in part by Edward Taub of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, may bring hope and movement to the 4 million Americans living with the aftereffects of strokes.

What the story doesn't mention is that if People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ( PETA) and other animal rights groups had their way, Taub never would have made these discoveries. The story begins in 1981, when Taub was doing research at the Institute of Behavioral Research in Silver Springs, Md. He severed the nerves in the forelimbs of 17 monkeys for research designed to discover whether paralyzed people could be taught to reuse limbs that had no feeling.

A young Alex Pacheco volunteered to assist him. Unbeknownst to Taub, Pacheco was an animal rights activist who became a founder of PeTA. Pacheco used his access to persuade the authorities to raid the Silver Springs lab, which led to the filing of 119 counts of animal cruelty against Taub. According to fellow PeTA founder Ingrid Newkirk, the monkeys ate urine-filled biscuits and the cages contained moldy feces. Pacheco took what has become a widely used photograph of one monkey strapped in a crucifix-like pose into a research machine. "His name is linked to cruelty to animals in laboratories until the day he dies," Newkirk said of Taub.