Five years ago, Florida voters amended their state constitution to guarantee the rights of a previously unprotected class: pregnant pigs. Specifically, the ballot initiative guaranteed pregnant sows “enough space within which to turn around.”
Now, treating animals humanely is a moral imperative, especially for Christians; treating them as if they somehow were equivalent to humans is not. And, increasingly, that is what we are doing.
At the time of the initiative, bioethicist Wesley J. Smith noted that at, any given time, there are only 300 pregnant sows in the entire state. Of these, only a handful were not being provided the space required by the amendment.
So, the initiative was not being sponsored to eliminate animal cruelty. Instead, its goal was to establish a legal and political precedent that would help redefine the relationship between people and animals—and, in this case, bestow constitutional rights on animals.
The next big test for this campaign to turn animals into rights-bearing creatures is in California. There, animal-rights supporters are trying to get an initiative on the September 2008 ballot.
This initiative would extend the “rights” granted to Florida sows to the rest of the barnyard. It would, in effect, give animals a right to stand up, lie down, turn around, and fully extend their limbs.
Again, Christians ought to oppose cruelty toward animals and ensure that animals, including those we eat, are treated humanely.
But initiatives like this one and in Florida are not really about the humane treatment of animals—they are about blurring and eventually erasing the distinction between people and animals. They are about eradicating what animal-rights advocates call “speciesism.”
Princeton ethicist Peter Singer defines “speciesism” as “a prejudice” that favors “the interests of members of one’s own species . . . against those members of other species.” Singer regards “speciesism” as being the moral equivalent of racism.
For Singer and company, the offense is not only that we treat animals badly—it is that we think that people are human and, thus, different than animals.
Christians need to beware, as well. A letter from a friend told me of a group in his church praying for the healing of pets, even laying on hands. Some Christians, who rightly love their animals, begin to think of them as humans, members of the family.
How far will the animal-rights movement go? Can you imagine pigs enjoying the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Don’t laugh. Social changes in postmodern America happen very quickly—especially when couched in the language of rights. How quickly, for example, did abortion go from being a crime to a right? Or the demand by gays for marriage?
Worldviews matter. If you believe there is no God, then you believe there are no God-given rights. And to you, humans are indeed just one of many living accidents roaming the planet.
But we know better. And we know better than to cast human rights before swine.
_________________________________________________
From BreakPoint®, November 13, 2007, Copyright 2007, Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with the permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced or distributed without the express written permission of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “BreakPoint®” and “Prison Fellowship Ministries®” are registered trademarks of Prison Fellowship
RSS
Oh by the way Thanxt,...I live for stuff like this,.... Actually go to sleep on my bed and wake up the same way for stuff just like this,....SO,......lets try to get through a 360% on this and we`ll see,......feel me?
And by by the Thaxted,...How dare you,...HOW DARE YOU,..make me believe I have to worry about my Constitutional Right as in First Amendment right of "Freedom of Speach" as to not coming across to EXACTLY the point your trying to make by saying what your saying....THANKS AGAIN Brother /Sister?......
Dear Thaxted.....Thanks for your useful input,.....I got your back too,....
Oh by the way Thaxted,....stickin` with the original article thats being discussed, ABSOLUTELY...........
To Thaxted I promise to keep it that way just for you I PROMISE,.....So where are you promises at,...like I said a long time back I get on this website to learn a more 3-dimensional product PLEASE HELP.....
Dear da6383:
I fear the only help I can offer you is to advise that you to stay on your medications and maybe see about increasing the dose.
So,...let see,..Zack and Thaxted ,....with all the School teachers,..Firemen,, cabdrivers intermediate statesmen,...young kids that ALSO brouse these web pages and everyone in between apparently Chuck Colson is a problem to you so I come to you for a life changing... heart profound (ME) commentary to why I should believe otherwise in the original article....PLEASE HELP.....your issues with Chuck Colson being totally beside the point,...PLEASE...
Like I said Mr.Colson when I see ya in Heaven we`ll laugh a little,.. git me?
Isn't it ironic that Charles Colson, the sleazy charlatan who had to go to prison for Watergate in order to "find Jesus", is so ready to lecture others about the immorality of requiring that imprisoned animals be accorded the simple right to stand up and turn around? Does Mr. Colson really think Jesus Christ would be so parsimonious about such simple mercies? Is anybody out there watching the hypocrisy meter? I fear it's about to explode!
I have tried, as per directions, to comment on this stupid story by Colson. I will try once more and make it short - Colson is the only Swine I see here. Extending the minimal extra space for the pigs to ...like lie down, or maybe turn around certainly seems to tick him off. Colson, Humane Treatment for animals is what it is ALL about - Singer & Co., and I would laugh at your ridiculous claims that we think animals should have stricter laws of protection than humans - However, people like you only make me, for one, appreciate the loving, generous, loyal spirits of animals toward mankind. While you are happy to have them merely exist in misery, Hell on Earth, while you await your most assured, ??? - have you heard from God lately? -----entry into the Heaven you think you know all about. AR organizations speak for the pigs, not for the swines like you.
Speaking of the ORIGINAL ARTICLE (ME) only,... I posted last "blog" after looking at the article before I looked at the comment section,.. honestly,..
To Mr. C. Colson,....I`ll hopefully see you in Heaven and we`ll share a couple laughs,...PROMISE me?........
Da5id,
There are obviously some fine lines between what SOME mean by equal and what OTHERS mean by equal. It’s not always easy to draw distinctions between the objectives from one group to another, when there are so many extremists out there who get into the media spotlight. There are many people in the world with the best intentions; making an effort to end abhorrent practices of cruelty to animals (and people for that matter), usually in the name of money. I agree with YOU on that aspect. I AGREE WITH RBOGLE ON THAT ASPECT.
HOW-EV-ER … there is a minority out there that wants to blur the very distinction, you mentioned, between animals and human beings. SOME seem to want to place the importance of my (and your) existence equal to that of a TREE! I think JC brought up the best point. Human beings are the only living things on the planet that God took special care in creating. We are the only ones that God did not simply speak into existence.
As for the matter of the treatment of animals, I AM ALL FOR LAWS THAT PREVENT CRUEL PRACTICES AND UNNECESSARY SUFFERING, from domesticated pets to cattle, sheep, pigs, lobsters, snails, etc …
I’m pro-life. I know VERY well that the size, shape, environment, (ability to yell OUCH) of a living being is incidental when it comes to pain. I believe life is sacred. I believe life is a gift. It’s reasonable to assess that how we treat animals is a reflection of how we will treat each other. But I also believe that God placed us above the animals.
Have I made this CLEAR YET?
End animal cruelty. Make any law necessary to do so. But don’t you DARE insist that I acknowledge I am no more valuable than an animal in the eyes of God, my Father in Heaven. Animals have a right to not be subjected to pain, but their purpose in this world will never be placed above our purpose, set forth by our Creator.
I’m through explaining it. If you still don’t get it … that’s your problem.
Muggleborn said:
"...the crazy laws that Chuck Colson is talking about seem...to mix up the
defining attributes between animals and people into a soup that make people
no more 'special' than those animals."
Many people who write about this issue misrepresent what animal advocates
mean when they say humans and animals are "morally equal". Morally equal
does not mean equal in every way. It does not mean anything like equal
intelligence, talent, beauty, skill, strength, souls, made in God's image,
etc. Traits like these are not relevant to moral equality.
Most animal rights philosophers argue that humans and other animals are
"morally equal" in much the same way that Alzheimers' patients and Nobel
Prize winners are morally equal. Just because one person is more
intelligent than the other does not give the more intelligent one special
privileges...the person with the higher IQ wouldn't be first in line for the
liver transplant just because they are more intelligent, for example. In
the same way, just because animals do not possess these "superior" human
traitsdoes not mean that humans are privileged when it comes to things like
being free to enjoy ones life without pain and suffering being inflicted
upon one.
One good moral-equality argument is put forth by Tom Regan Professor
(Emeritus) Philosophy at NC State. He says that humans and other animals
are all "subjects of a life" and that we are all the same in the following
ways:
"Not only are we all in the world, we are all aware of the world and aware
as well, of what happens to us. Moreover, what happens to us - whether to
our bodies, to our freedom, or our lives themselves-- matters to us because
it makes a difference to the quality and duration of our lives, as
experienced by us, whether anyone else cares about this or not. Whatever our
differences, these are our fundamental similarities."
rbogle - I'll try to dig up the article from somewhere. At the very least you'll have a good laugh and say, "Weird, but this isn't that". God bless.
rbogle -
>> No Muggleborn, Colson and you might worry that laws mandating humane care could someday lead to rights for animals, but today he claims that allowing a pig room to turn around is paramount to treating them like a human. <<
I'll concede to that point. Looking at the face value of the law he is talking about, perhaps he's overreacting.
The reason I jumped on the bandwagon, was because from the moment I started reading it, I was immediately reminded about some previous article (in the archives somewhere? Maybe it was Slashdot) about some animal rights advocates trying to bring a case to court in Australia to grant human rights (or something thereof) to one particular chimpanzee ... never followed up on that, BTW. The main argument was the "negligible" difference in human and chimp DNA, along the evolutionary chain. I guess it still gives me the willies.
In any case, I appreciate the feedback. It's actually a very level-headed response.
No Muggleborn, Colson and you might worry that laws mandating humane care could someday lead to rights for animals, but today he claims that allowing a pig room to turn around is paramount to treating them like a human.
Colson is proposing nothing in lieu of the very moderate laws being suggested, he is wringing his hands and fretting about where it will all lead.
If one opposes cruely, then one must support laws that forbid it, otherwise it's a hollow claim. Colson is clearly wrapping himself in a banner of "humane care" while opposing the most basic protections for animals.
He seems to worry -- and be willing to let the animals suffer -- because the people taking the time to introduce the laws that will mandate changes feel more strongly than he does. With that mindset, no change is ever likely to occur.
Word Star,
I can swallow the meat of your argument, but some of the items on your menu kind of leave a bad taste in my mouth. I don’t want to torture animals any more than you do, but the crazy laws that Chuck Colson is talking about seem to be gearing up to someday making it illegal to eat meat at all, and further trying to mix up the defining attributes between animals and people into a soup that make people no more “special” than those animals. The laws they are starting out with are just fattening us up to lead us to the slaughter. I don’t mean to mince words, because some of the tidbits of delicious info you’re serving are very true … My wife makes a few different vegetarian meals that I enjoy very much … but meat, poultry and fish are yummy. I know that we could live perfectly healthy lives on vegetarian meals without choking on that decision, but sometimes I feel that activists want to shove the matter down my throat. And some of the laws they cook up illustrate that.
I hope my point was tasteful.
To Word Star:
Interesting religion you have there.
To all:
Humans and animals are not the same, and should never be considered equal. God did not. How do I know? Look at creation. We (humans) are the only creatures on this planet that was not spoken into existence. He made us. He formed us with His very hand. This can only be claimed of humans. Nothing else can make this claim. We are not the same, and should never be considered as such.
Muggleborn said:
"...please PLEASE be careful about what you read that’s positively reviewed by the NY Times. "
I didn't say it (Matthew Scully's book Dominion) was positively "reviewed" by the NYT. I said it was on the NYT best-seller list. That means that many people liked the book and bought it. The best-seller list reflects what is being purchased by everyone, not what the newspaper has to say about it.
JC said: >> If we stopped eating animals, we would cease to exist <<
This is a ludicrous statement! There are millions --if not billions-- of healthy happy people all over the planet who have been vegetarians and vegans for centuries...the Indian culture for example.
And in fact, the American The American Dietetic Association (and other medical associations) heartily endorses a vegan/vegetarian diet. At their website they say:
(http://tinyurl.com/djodu )
"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer."
I don't know where you're getting your false (and very strange) information, but you are beginning to look very uninformed.
A benevolent and omnipotent God would never allow what is being done to animals now on factory-farms. How about this new product? Would God approve of this?
RECTITE
"PoultryPress Vol 5, No 3, Summer/Fall 1995 reported on a proposed product
called RECTITE. Pacer Technology seeks government approval of this product
for use in slaughter plants to glue shut the rectal cavities of turkeys and
chickens to prevent the birds from reflexively excreting fecal material at
the time of death (Food Chemical News April 24, 1995, p. 12). UPC's Freedom
of Information Act request to the USDA Food Safety & Inspection Service
yielded the following information dated Feb. 8, 1996, concerning "an
adhesive variant of super glue or cyanoacrylate adhesive (CA) to seal the
vents of poultry during the slaughter process to prevent salmonella
contamination."
There is something grossly wrong with a society that invents Rectite!
Probably the same people who want to breed chickens without feathers, so they can
eliminate the costly process of defeathering or without eyes so that they don't peck each others eyes out. Christians need to let the factory farmers know that they disapprove of all these "innovative" ways to raise their profit-margins.
Muggle born said:
"...we are not without a soul. The same cannot be said for lower order creatures."
How exactly do you measure if a being has a soul?? I don't think we should torture or slaughter beings using an unprovable criterion like a soul. Perhaps, they do have souls, you don't know.
But even if you believe-- without evidence-- that animals don't have souls then that's an even better reason NOT to torture them or cut their lives short. If this is the only life they have...and they have no "everlasting life" to look forward to, you should want them to have the best life possible in this world and that doesn't include raising them on factory-farms or cutting their lives short.
Here's a link to a good article by Matthew Scully about the kind of lives animals live on factory farms: http://www.matthewscully.com/sunless_hell.htm
JC said:
"First of all, human beings are made carniverous, which means we eat meat. "
Dan Piraro, the Bizarro cartoonist sorts it all out for us in a very entertaining way: See his short essay and then view his short funny video. Enjoy!
http://www.bizarro.com/vegan/vegan_carnivores.htm
http://www.bizarro.com/videos/mov/VeganVideoWeb.mov
*GROAN*
rbogle - I just realized I missed the point of your post. Let's try again.
He is not opposed to laws that "just" prevent cruelty to animals, but laws that do this AND sneak in other so called "rights" that would set a precedent for eventually defining animal rights as being equal to human rights.
rbogle - I think he means that just because we are keeping some animals alive in order to eventually eat them, doesn't mean that we have to cause them unnecessary pain ... "In the interim".
Yep ... I'm just chiming in on everything today ... sorry 'bout that :^)
BTW...
Word Star, >> This is sheer nonsense. Yes, people are human. But humans _are_ also animals, therefore they cannot be "different" for that reason. <<
I think what Mr. Colson meant was God created us with a different [higher] purpose than the animals. It's true that we are "animals" in a strictly biological sense, but we are not without a soul. The same cannot be said for lower order creatures. And just because animals exhibit some of the same traits and behavior that we do does not mean we're equal. It just means that God created us and them with similar traits.
This is a horrible analogy, but one might think of us as being "animals-plus" ... Would someone please say what I'm trying to say ... caffeine withdrawals are kicking in.
Also, please PLEASE be careful about what you read that’s positively reviewed by the NY Times. That publication is notorious for toting an anti-Christian agenda. Just because someone identifies themselves as Christian, doesn’t mean they have a Christian worldview. But I’ll check out the bio. Thanks for a http ref.
God bless.
Colson says: "Christians ought to oppose cruelty toward animals and ensure that animals, including those we eat, are treated humanely," but is opposed to laws that would outlaw keeping them in conditions that are obviously cruel.
This is double-talk. He wants to appear humane but opposes laws that would mandate humane care. War is peace, apparently.
JC,
>> If you were to imply this, you have just changed God from all-knowing, to all-adapting. He knew we would fall before we fell. He knew that we would need to eat to survive.<<
That’s a good point. It brings up a LOT of discussion on God’s sovereignty, which is too lengthy for me to discuss on my lunch break. But in short, I agree. I don’t have a blog set up yet, but I would love to take that offline (from CP I mean) sometime.
>> I am also interested in understanding how you came to the conclusion that animals didn't eat each other prior to the fall. Where is this written? <<
Genesis 1:29-30 NIV:
Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
He mentions: “To” all the beasts, birds, etc… I give every green plant for food.
Let me know if I’m off the mark, though. I’ve been growing a lot reading everyone’s feedback, here.
To Muggleborn:
My apologies, you are correct, omnivorous instead of carniverous.
Very funny on animal rights activits and their "bizarre notion that no one should eat meat".
However, I cannot agree with the notion that God just "tolerates" us eating meat. If you were to imply this, you have just changed God from all-knowing, to all-adapting. He knew we would fall before we fell. He knew that we would need to eat to survive. Is this not true?
I am also interested in understanding how you came to the conclusion that animals didn't eat each other prior to the fall. Where is this written?
JC,
>> First of all, human beings are made carnivorous <<
Small correction … humans are omnivorous. We eat both plants and animals.
>> If we stopped eating animals, we would cease to exist <<
Actually, there are “vegans” out there who have sworn off all meat, dairy products, anything produced by an animal (except honey), and anything that casts a shadow (just kidding) and they remain healthy … except for the mental health issue. i.e. bizarre notion that no one should eat meat.
But seriously, God didn’t originally intend for us to be this way. It’s probably safe to say He simply “tolerates” it now. In line with your reference to the first animal killed to clothe Adam & Eve, even animals did not eat each other until after the fall of Man.
I’ll let someone else talk about the implications of the first blood sacrifice.
Their sin (ours now) corrupted and cursed the entire world, which presumably includes the food chain. The fact that we have canine teeth may not necessarily mean that we were meant to eat meat … there may even have been plants, which would now be extinct, that were edible, but actually required ripping and tearing.
Everything else you said … I agree 100%. Once we allow this type of activism to become the foundation of law, how long will it be before Humans are dragged back in the other direction?
“SOILENT GREEN IS MADE OUT OF PEOPLE!!! … Wait, I mean animals … No. Uuuh … PEOPLE!!!”
This argument always makes me chuckle.
First of all, human beings are made carniverous, which means we eat meat. We have teeth that are called canine teeth. These teeth are for ripping and cutting of meat, not bean sprouts. Now, we do know that God frowns on cannabalism, as He is very specific on this. But, if we are carniverous, and we cannot feed upon each other, what is left? Animals.
It seems that the animal-rights activists want to change this so that eating animals is also cannabalism, which is also illegal. If this is the case, what would we feed upon then? We have to eat. That's why this is a ridiculous argument. If we stopped eating animals, we would cease to exist.
Was it not God who showed us how to do this? Was it not God who killed the first animal to clothe Adam and Eve. You can probably bet that they also ate what was left over as well. I would have.
Therefore, If God made us carniverous, and he showed us how to kill, prepare and eat animals, logic would dictate that God meant for us to eat them.
Now, all this doesn't mean we have the right to abuse animals, far from it. For the Bible says that a wise man has regard for his animals well being. But the Bible never said to have enough regard for them so as to treat them as equals, so they could have a say in human affairs or the like.
If animal-rights activists want to stop eating meat, this is their choice to make. But this should not be imposed on other humans as we were not made this way.
We are living in the times, as in the past, where the created is elevated to and sometimes above the Creator. It is noble to work towards non-cruel treatment to animals, but animals are not my god.
Jesus is Lord!
Chuck Colson said:
"...we think that people are human and, thus, different than animals."
This is sheer nonsense. Yes, people are human. But humans _are_ also animals, therefore they cannot be "different" for that reason. Colson may have some other argument about why humans are different from other animals, but it is not simply because they are human.
If you want to read about animal issues from a Christian Conservative who has his head on straight, try Matthew Scully who served until 2004 as special assistant to president George W. Bush and deputy director of presidential speechwriting. His book "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy" was a NY Times best-seller. You can find some of his articles, reviews of Dominion, and a bio here:
http://www.matthewscully.com/index.htm