The Madness of the Animal-Rights Movement


#1

From:

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?RecNum=6270

Social workers in Scotland recently rescued a pet monkey from the filthy, drug-infested apartment of a couple of heroin addicts. Contacting an animal-welfare group, the social workers took great pains to make sure the animal was removed from the squalid cesspool of a home.

But the social workers neglected to do anything about the little girl living with the couple.

The 5-year-old’s fingernails had not been cut for more than a year, she was covered in bed sores, lying in human waste and wearing a plaster cast on her broken leg that should have been removed 10 months earlier. When doctors eventually removed the cast from the girl, whose leg has been permanently scarred, they found spoons, a fork, and a pen she had used to try to scratch her ulcers.

A judge rebuked the social workers, noting incredulously that they had visited the couple’s house 18 times and had gone inside four times, but had failed to take note of or do anything about the poor girl’s plight.

Hang on to that picture for a minute.

PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is the largest animal-rights organization on the planet, boasting 600,000 members.

The group has an impressive record of getting business, industry and government to be kinder to animals. With the central theme of preventing cruelty to animals, the group has waged a long and successful campaign against research, scientific and product testing involving animals.

To demonstrate its corporate citizenship in promoting alternative methods of testing, PETA has made grants totaling $300,000 to two research firms “to assist in the validation of non-animal test methods to replace existing animal tests.” What sort of non-animal testing? How about human embryos?

As reported in WorldNetDaily, although one of the two firms funded by PETA has denied using human embryos for their testing, the other has not. Human babies, you see, are not as important as rats.

Now the National Institutes of Health has drafted new guidelines for “human embryonic stem cell research” that will make it easier than ever for human embryos to be used as mere “tissue” for research.

The general secretary of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Rev. Msgr. Dennis N. Schnurr, in his letter to the NIH, charges that “the policy of the new NIH guidelines is that human embryos outside the womb may be exploited and killed as nothing more than ‘tissue.’ In short,” he says, “live human embryos are dismissed as mere ‘tissue’ to be destroyed for useful cells.”

“Under this policy,” concludes Schnurr, “far from being treated as a human subject, the human embryo effectively ranks lower in status than a laboratory animal.”

Humans lower than animals? Is there a pattern developing here?

I always thought PETA just wanted to put a stop to homeless dogs’ being burned alive and similar horror stories, as their home page indicates. But moving beyond the shiny exterior with its heart-wrenching animal-abuse stories designed to appeal to large numbers of people and attract donations, I find this:

“For kids who want to eat their veggies and not their friends,” PETA draws children into campaigns to “Save the Chickens,” and to “Save the Pigs.”

What about “Save the Babies”? I couldn’t find that campaign. Can someone send me the link?

Wait, maybe this is it, on one of PETA.com’s many niche marketing spin-off sites called Jesusveg.com. (That’s the one for Christians, there’s also IslamicConcern.com for Muslims.)

By the way, the statement “Jesus was a vegetarian” is a lie. The Bible, which I presume is the source of PETA’s information about Jesus, clearly states that Jesus ate fish, even after his resurrection.

continued…


#2

But I digress. In “Jesus was a vegetarian,” PETA poses to itself one of the key questions that people ask of the organization, and of animal rights activists in general:

“Why don’t you focus your attention on abortion or child abuse? Why do you care about animals?”

PETA’s answer, addressed specifically to Christian, pro-lifer types:

"… Those who are particularly adamant on the abortion issue should also consider the issue of vegetarianism, as it requires no additional effort and lends the credibility of personal action to their statements about being ‘pro-life.’

"… With the issue of abortion, few of us will ever have to make this choice, and no one can make this choice for someone else, however much some people might wish to.

“But there is one area where the solution is simple: the issue of animal abuse on factory farms. Each and every one of us can simply choose not to be animal abusers by becoming a vegetarian.”

Okay, let’s get this straight. No one has the right to tell another person that it’s wrong to kill the living, breathing, pain-feeling human baby living inside its mother. That’s her business alone if she wants to kill it, so butt out.

But, it’s everyone’s duty and moral responsibility to stop the killing of chickens, pigs and fish everywhere.

There’s more: “If we purport to be ‘pro-life,’ yet we choose to support violence, misery, and death every time we sit down to eat, what does that say about our convictions? For a simple palate preference, we have become ‘pro-death,’ we are paying for cruelty to animals. The only legitimate Christian or ‘pro-life’ choice is vegetarianism.”

What are we dealing with here? Just some wacky, lovable, slightly-off-base critter-loving friends of animals?

Let’s take a deeper look.

A human being — from the moment of its conception, and as the delicate and ethereal fabric grows with its tiny, perfectly formed fingers and toes, little heartbeats, little lips, little ears, shrouded peacefully in its mother’s womb — is undoubtedly the crowning glory of creation.

“Created in His image,” the human baby at whatever stage is, simply, sacred. So of course, good-natured, decent pro-lifers are always scratching their heads and asking the animal-rights crowd, “Why don’t you folks care about the aborted babies?”

Take a really good look at PETA’s response. Look at the tortured reasoning. Notice the unfriendly tone, the disdainful use of quotes around the phrase “pro-life.” Do these seem like the words of an organization that really cares about aborting humans?

No. But they’re hoping you won’t notice. They’re hoping you’ll think, “Oh well, PETA just carved out this little niche of saving dogs and cats and chickens and pigs, but they really care about human babies too.”

Wrong.

The most PETA can grudgingly offer up in support of human life is, “Those who are particularly adamant on the abortion issue should also consider the issue of vegetarianism, as it … lends the credibility of personal action to their statements about being ‘pro-life.’”

continued…


#3

Pitiful. By the way, PETA’s core argument is the prevention of needless suffering to all life. Do they think unborn babies do not suffer? The research - all of it - says that early on, human beings have a nervous system and feel real pain. Their nerves and pain receptor cells don’t suddenly switch on the moment they exit their mother’s womb. They feel the abortionist’s scalpel, they feel the forceps, the suction devices, skull crushers and other torture implements used in the various barbaric rituals of infant sacrifice that we call abortion. If PETA really cared about human life, it would have answered the question something like this: “Although abortion is the worst travesty, the greatest injustice, and the most egregious cause of needless suffering on the planet today, we at PETA have chosen to come to the defense of animals, since not many people have the will or the means to do so. But we know our mission pales into nothingness next to the horrendous ongoing tragedy of tens of millions of innocent human babies killed painfully, sometimes meeting excruciating deaths, every year while in their mother’s wombs. We salute our brothers and sisters in the pro-life movement for their dedication and commitment to end this needless suffering.”

Sorry, it’s just a nice dream. The reality is that you pro-lifers are the enemy of the radical animal-rights crowd. Because you, through your standing up for the little divine spark in God’s most perfect and prized creation, are championing the very reality - namely, the existence of the soul in human beings — that they want to forget. The real message of the radical animal rights movement is that people are only animals - and not very good ones at that.

Elevating animals up to the level of human beings — as actor Steven Segal, one of PETA’s celebrity advocates, puts it, “We have to view all life as equal” — is a round about way of saying that human beings are no more than animals and therefore have no souls.

Why would anyone deny that human beings have a soul, you might ask. Why would that notion that we have a divine spark within us be repugnant? After all, whatever goodness we humans can muster, whatever kindness and consideration we have for each other, is based on the fact that we know we are dealing with another soul. If we are faithful to our spouse, honorable in business, truthful to each other, willing to sacrifice for our children - whatever we consider to be virtuous and noble is tied up in this conviction that we are more than animals, that we are spiritual beings also, esteemed by God.

For many, there is a great comfort and “freedom” in believing that there is no soul, because if there is no soul, there is no God, no divine judgment, no accountability — you get the picture. We’re animals, so we act like animals, we do what animals do. They eat each other, mate in the street, run around naked - kind of like the '60s again, with “sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll.”

The radical animal rights folks are exactly like the multiculturalists. Do you think the multiculturalists really care about Eskimo music or how the Ubangis make their lips as big as pancakes? Do they really care that much about cultures that worship rats, cows and sex organs? No, their interest is not really in elevating other cultures, nor in celebrating diversity.

Their interest is in tearing down Western civilization, in denying God, in denying the immortal soul of man — denying that we will be judged one day by One greater than us.

In the same way, the animal rights radicals don’t really love animals. They don’t even know the meaning of the word love. They just want to be their own gods. And the way you become your own god in this life is to deny the real One.

Animal-rights radicals loathe the idea of man having an immortal soul, of his being superior to the animals, because if we are superior to animals it is because we have a soul, and that reality makes us subservient to something greater than ourselves. And, as I said, some people just want to be their own god.

Besides, many people just don’t get along with other people. After all, people give you a hard time, they can criticize you, they can even tell you the truth when you don’t want to hear it. Animals never do that.

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com


#4

They are crazy:mad: They are in need of anti-psycotic drugs!I have five dogs and two birds, but my five children are infinantly more importatant:mad: I don’t even know what else to say.God Bless


#5

[quote=Brad]Pitiful.
In the same way, the animal rights radicals don’t really love animals. They don’t even know the meaning of the word love. They just want to be their own gods. And the way you become your own god in this life is to deny the real One.
[/quote]

It is pitiful. I work with a few animal rights activists. I think they are generally well intentioned, though seriously misdirected. In my discussions with them on this topic (usually related to my annual fall jaunt to the woods to pursue Bambi for consumption) they really are adamant in their zeal to protect the animals. I have had a few bewildered looks (the deer in the headlights gaze of “I never thought of it that way before”) as I explain my game management (you know, animals are a renewable resource in need of man’s management, lest they incur the risks of overpopulating the carrying capacity of the land). Their failure/shortcoming is to recognize/admit/acknowledge that a person is an immortal being from the moment of conception; and that God ordained an order of creation for man’s mastery and good stewardship. They simply don’t get it. :banghead:

The animal rights folks are certainly are a sentimental and zealous lot. From what I have heard, the PETA folks are more akin to the abortion rights advocates in their militant approach and mission belief. The hopeful thing is that because these co-workers of mine respect my person ethics, they actually give my views a respectful hearing–I call this evangelization of the Christian worldview.


#6

[quote=felra]It is pitiful. I work with a few animal rights activists. I think they are generally well intentioned, though seriously misdirected. In my discussions with them on this topic (usually related to my annual fall jaunt to the woods to pursue Bambi for consumption) they really are adamant in their zeal to protect the animals. I have had a few bewildered looks (the deer in the headlights gaze of “I never thought of it that way before”) as I explain my game management (you know, animals are a renewable resource in need of man’s management, lest they incur the risks of overpopulating the carrying capacity of the land). Their failure/shortcoming is to recognize/admit/acknowledge that a person is an immortal being from the moment of conception; and that God ordained an order of creation for man’s mastery and good stewardship. They simply don’t get it. :banghead:

The animal rights folks are certainly are a sentimental and zealous lot. From what I have heard, the PETA folks are more akin to the abortion rights advocates in their militant approach and mission belief. The hopeful thing is that because these co-workers of mine respect my person ethics, they actually give my views a respectful hearing–I call this evangelization of the Christian worldview.
[/quote]

Great - always seize an opportunity to evangelize.

I think the animal-righters are so sentimental and zealous(some) because they are burying personal guilt (just a theory). We all do
it - it’s just a matter of how it comes out - kind of a pain-reliever as opposed to aspirin.


#7

[quote=felra]It is pitiful. I work with a few animal rights activists. I think they are generally well intentioned, though seriously misdirected. …
[/quote]

Well put!! Brad, you were on a tear this morning!! But what an interesting and informative post.

[quote=]The hopeful thing is that because these co-workers of mine respect my person ethics, they actually give my views a respectful hearing–I call this evangelization of the Christian worldview.
[/quote]

Always a fine beginning step to reforming attitudes. I think a guy named Jesus was also particularly effective in getting a respectful hearing because of the exemplary ethics he demonstrated.


#8

Such maddness. I think it is a mixture of radicalized sentimentality mixed with secularist notions of the value of life.


#9

C’mon - it’s 2005. Animal life trumps human life! My how we have fallen in our own eyes. :bigyikes::banghead:


#10

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]They are crazy:mad: They are in need of anti-psycotic drugs!I
[/quote]

Those pills would make them even more crazy.

People Eating Tasty Animals. There. Someone had to say it.


#11

A curious theory; I’ve always wondered about some type of unconscious overcompensation by overzealous animal lovers. I pulled out the definitions of a couple of defense mechanisms for a possible fit :hmmm: :

Undoing: if you have done something bad, sometimes you can undo it or make up for it. Example: if you have said some very critical and hurtful things about one of your parents or a friend, later you may try to undo the harm by saying nice things about them or by be being nice to them and apologizing (sometimes it is the overdone apology that reveals the hostility). In essence it is having the decency to feel guilty and do something about it.

Freud used undoing to explain certain obsessive-compulsive acts, e.g. a 17-year-old with masturbation guilt felt compelled to recite the alphabet backwards every time he had a sexual thought. He thought that would undo the sin.

Reaction formation: a denial and reversal of our feelings. Love turns into hate or hate into love. “Hell has no fury like a spurned lover.” Where there is intense friction between a child and a parent, it can be converted into exaggerated shows of affection, sometimes sickeningly sweet and overly polite. The feelings and actions resulting from a reaction formation are often excessive, for instance the loud, macho male may be concealing (from himself) sexual self-doubts or homosexual urges. Or, the person who is unconsciously attracted to the same sex may develop an intense hatred of gays. People, such as TV preachers, who become crusaders against “loose morals” may be struggling with their own sexual impulses.

Disclaimer: the above cited definition examples would not have been of my choosing, those darn biased secular humanist psychiatrists!


#12

Amen - A “perfect” example.


#13

Not sure what was being hinted at above but abortion guilt could have something to do with the craziness, not that one could ever prove it,.

I confess to harboring residual feelings, probably from having a secular upbringing and imbibing all this Bambi nonsense from the culture. It’s a perverted type of “humility”–humans are terrible, we’ve ruined the planet, animals are innocent. In reading American history and things like Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee I found myself wishing we’d never come to this continent in the first place, blah blah. It’s almost like they agree on the Catholic idea of original sin, and the “solution” is to denigrate ourselves. It really is idiocy and anti-life. But it’s Christianity and Judaism that proclaim the supremacy of human life, and if you throw all that over then this is what you get.


#14

Brad just a side comment, there is a huge difference between ‘animal welfare’ and ‘animal rights’ organizations. The former are the ones who rescue animals from cruel situations, run animal shelters etc. When you thought PETA was the one rescuing animals from being tortured, you were really thinking of the animal welfare folks. The latter are zealots who as you have aptly stated through example, are completely off base.

If you talked to an animal welfare advocate you would not get the adamant population control freak philosophy that advocates abortion on demand. They really think people have no right to exist. Lucky their parents weren’t of the same mind! It just amazes me to listen to AR people who will say that an unborn baby isn’t sentient and thus deserves no protection, yet they will protests some bug or fish habitat being compromised. Talk about strange priorities!

At any rate animal welfare folks often get mixed up with the rights people and there is a HUGE difference in overall philosophy, tactics, and outlook. I work with an animal rescue group that takes in abandoned animals and finds them good homes. We certainly do not condone the terrorist activities of the PETA folks.

Lisa N


#15

[quote=caroljm36]Not sure what was being hinted at above but abortion guilt could have something to do with the craziness, not that one could ever prove it,.

[/quote]

If you are referring to my post, I was hinting at sin in general, abortion or otherwise. If we don’t go to confession, it eventually results in some sort of abnormal behavior. One (very good - can’t remember who) priest said that it is impossible to think clearly in the state of mortal sin.


#16

[quote=EddieArent]Those pills would make them even more crazy.

People Eating Tasty Animals. There. Someone had to say it.
[/quote]

Point taken:) I am crazy over my dogs 4 out of the five are chihuahuas,and God truly broke the mold when he created them:D If there ego was a physical presence they would not be able to get through the front door. I am totally against cruelty of animals,but humans take presidence.The peta people,I think have a secret hatred for people,maybe they have been hurt I don’t know.All I do know is they are way off the deep end.God Bless


#17

[quote=Lisa N]Brad just a side comment, there is a huge difference between ‘animal welfare’ and ‘animal rights’ organizations. The former are the ones who rescue animals from cruel situations, run animal shelters etc. When you thought PETA was the one rescuing animals from being tortured, you were really thinking of the animal welfare folks. The latter are zealots who as you have aptly stated through example, are completely off base.

If you talked to an animal welfare advocate you would not get the adamant population control freak philosophy that advocates abortion on demand. They really think people have no right to exist. Lucky their parents weren’t of the same mind! It just amazes me to listen to AR people who will say that an unborn baby isn’t sentient and thus deserves no protection, yet they will protests some bug or fish habitat being compromised. Talk about strange priorities!

At any rate animal welfare folks often get mixed up with the rights people and there is a HUGE difference in overall philosophy, tactics, and outlook. I work with an animal rescue group that takes in abandoned animals and finds them good homes. We certainly do not condone the terrorist activities of the PETA folks.

Lisa N
[/quote]

Actually, I didn’t write the article but I wanted to post it because I wasn’t sure if all had access to it.

I understand the difference you are talking about. I think the author’s intent was to point out how society, in general, is repulsed by animal cruelty (probably everyone is) but NOT by baby cruelty (not everyone is). PETA is obviously the extreme result/example of a society that has lost its moral compass.

I know what you mean about animal welfare. I myself am a proponent. My (1 year old) cat decided to stop eating and drinking the week of Christmas and I sacrificed much time and money giving him every fluid test and examination under the sun and prying him from underneath dressers and beds to find out what was wrong/keep him going. It took a lot of my will in the midst of other family members being also sick and wanting of Christmas cheer. But it was necessary in that we took on responsibility for his welfare when we adopted him - our responsibility to God’s creatures. (Seems to be doing fine now in case anyone is interested).


#18

[quote=Brad]Actually, I didn’t write the article but I wanted to post it because I wasn’t sure if all had access to it.

I understand the difference you are talking about. I think the author’s intent was to point out how society, in general, is repulsed by animal cruelty (probably everyone is) but NOT by baby cruelty (not everyone is). PETA is obviously the extreme result/example of a society that has lost its moral compass.

I know what you mean about animal welfare. I myself am a proponent. My (1 year old) cat decided to stop eating and drinking the week of Christmas and I sacrificed much time and money giving him every fluid test and examination under the sun and prying him from underneath dressers and beds to find out what was wrong/keep him going. It took a lot of my will in the midst of other family members being also sick and wanting of Christmas cheer. But it was necessary in that we took on responsibility for his welfare when we adopted him - our responsibility to God’s creatures. (Seems to be doing fine now in case anyone is interested).
[/quote]

No absolutely it was a very interesting article. We in the NW not only have PETAs but we have “environmental terrorists” who think some tree has rights over humans.

FWIW many times cruelty to animals is a first indication that the person will eventually turn to cruelty to people, particularly child abuse. Studies have been done showing the literally every serial killer started out by torturing animals. There is a similarlity of mindset.

Glad Mr Kitty is doing better!

Lisa N


#19

As someone who raises livestock, I’ve found most of these people actually have no idea what really goes on with many of these causes they fight so adamantly against. They are inclined to believe the worst of the worst, thinking those people are a norm- or even preferred- meathod of keeping animals. They get their ideas from these cases which have been- rightly so- prosecuted by law, and assume everyone does this to every cow/ewe/sow, when they have no actual, working knowledge of it. If I ask how many times they have seen x happen… they grow quiet very quickly, and I don’t mind explaining what certain practices are- or better yet WHY they are done, which no one ever seems to include.


#20

That makes sense(although I didn’t realize it was that highly correlated - interesting). We are supposed to be repulsed by torture and when we are not it indicates something is awry in the spiritual or mental mechanics.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.