Saturday, November 07, 2009 Last Update:07:14 pm ET

Opinion|Wed, Jul. 01 2009 10:20 AM EDT

Obama, PETA, and the Value of Human Life

By Chuck Colson|Christian Post Guest Columnist

There was a lot going in the news last week-riots over the election in Iran, North Korea’s nuclear saber-rattling. But the biggest story of the week, it turns out, was-drum roll, please-the story of President Obama swatting a fly.

“I got the sucker!” Obama told CNBC correspondent John Harwood after killing a fly that had been buzzing around his head.

Harwood laughed and the camera crew applauded. But the sight of the fly’s corpse lying on the White House rug was too much for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals-and insects, apparently. They sent a letter to the Fly Swatter in Chief, expressing their disapproval.

In the future, PETA said, they hoped Obama would treat flies in a more “humane” manner. To underscore their point, PETA sent the President a Humane Bug Catcher, which allows flies to be trapped and then released outside.

The story of the squashed fly afforded us a moment of comic relief. But there’s a serious point at stake here. We are seeing more and more examples of people treating animals-and even insects-as if they had as much value as humans.

The other day, I saw what I first thought was a school bus. It wasn’t. It was a doggie daycare bus, taking the neighborhood pooches to a dog-sitting facility. As Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.

Go online, and you’ll see many ads for expensive clothes for dogs and cats. And a few years ago, during the making of the film Men in Black, the American Humane Society was on hand to make sure none of the hundreds of cockroaches used in the film were injured. Cockroaches!

Groups like PETA illustrate a philosophy of reductionism, which treats all life as morally equivalent. Of course, if reductionists really want to be consistent, they would not even boil water, because every time they do, they kill millions of innocent microbes. If all life has equal value, then the logical conclusion is to treat all life the same, no matter how lowly-or how deadly, like mosquitoes carrying the West Nile virus.

Obviously, nobody can live in the real world on the basis of this philosophy.

A realistic and livable philosophy of life comes from Scripture, which teaches that God created us in His image and set us up as stewards over the rest of creation, from amoebas to apes to houseflies.

That doesn’t give us license to treat animals cruelly. But it’s one thing to treat animals kindly, and quite another to accord them equal status with humans.

Christians need to learn to press people to face the logical conclusion of their own beliefs. The idea that animals-even flies-ought to be treated with the same respect as humans may sound humane at first. But press the idea to its rational conclusion, and people will soon begin to see how irrational and illogical it really is.

The good news is that this many Americans did begin to think about these ideas last week. The result: Many people told PETA to buzz off. So I think we ought to congratulate the President for squashing that sucker, as he put it. It ignited a great national discussion about the absurdity of putting flies on the same moral plane as humans made in God’s image.

_______________________________________________________

From BreakPoint, June 24, 2009, Copyright 2009, 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
Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
  • Fri Jul 03, 2009 12:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    u4, although I don't agree with your view of Chuck Colson, I do agree with your concern about flagging, I think the flagger should have to identify themself so the person they flagged has an oppotunity to ask them to explain why they were flagged. The reason I don't agree with your view on Chuck Colson is based on the work he has done through Prison Fellowship in ministering not only to prisoners but more importantly to their families and especially their children. Project Angel Tree is an excellent example of his concern and love for them and if he wouldn't have gone to prison which he rightly deserved chances are he would have never started this meaningful ministry.

  • Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Believer, thanks I think ;) My objective is always to use logic and be rational, cite historical facts or supported science and relevant expert opinions in a civil manner for discussion. That I don't agree is the point of posting, it seems counterproductive to say I shouldn't post here because I'm not of the Faith. To flag a polite but dissenting opinion is just insulting. But you know this thread illustrates something. I can think Chuck Colson is the biggest faker on the planet but if he writes something I find logical I will agree and support without regard to the writer's unrelated opinions that I am not in concurrence with. I once even read a Cal Thomas column I agreed with. There are some that don't possess that intellectual flexibility. Those rigid thinkers are the ones that pointlessly FLAG. hide

  • Fri Jul 03, 2009 6:18 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show HoMo - the TEST WORKED - This is Wrong folks - JUST 1 click and the post is GONE. I will now back-up on Txt Edit the long one's but I think we need at least a 5 Flag click threshold or something. Is there such a thing as a Moderator? hide

  • Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Gotta go with scientist3 on this one. Aren't viruses a form of life that should be respected? How about bacteria? Isn't using anti-bacterial soap a form of mass-murder, then?

    We allow the decimation of millions of unborn children in this country and not expect God's judgement to fall upon us, yet we want to offer special protection to something that lands on poo, then flies into your house and lands on your food.

    That's more twisted than my most disgusting song parodies.

  • Thu Jul 02, 2009 9:40 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To H-man,

    Interesting point. Let's look logically at this view and think it through (I realize you're not completely agreeing with this).
    Why stop at preserving insects? Why not all living things? Plants are living. If you follow this reasoning logically out, humans couldn't survive because we couldn't eat corn, beans, lettuce, etc (in essence, all non-meat type food).
    Also, do you eat meat, poultry or fish? If you do, your being inconsistent.
    Do you believe in abortion? If so, your being inconsistent. A poll was done years ago that showed the majority of PETA members believed in the right to abortion. No one asked them about this appalling inconsistency....protect flies but not babies?
    No one with this view, where life is so broadly defined, can live consistently.
    The nice thing about the Bible is that it draws a clear distinction between humans, animals & other life forms (see Genesis 1&2). It says that these things are given to us as sustenance, if we so desire, but it protects innocent human life.

  • Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Also I kind of agree with PETA. Not vehemently but more or less. The exercise of giving compassion for any other being is good, whether it's a fly, a co-worker, a tree, a pet, a child, a "weed." If there's a spider in the bathtub, you practice compassion and become a better person by tossing it out the window than by crushing it. If a fly comes through, shoo it away. Killing a fly doesn't solve the problem. If you want to fix the "fly situation," then empty the trash can. Not the biggest issue in the world, but it's so easy to be compassionate. Why go out of your way *not* to be compassionate to God's creation? Not only does it say something about the person, but more importantly, it brings compassion to the forefront of one's attention. And it's nicer to the bug. hide

  • Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Hey u4 by the way, were you able to flag that post that I put up the other day just for the sake of our experiment? I'm thinking it looked like it worked for you - amIrite? hide

  • Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Colson writes: "We are seeing more and more examples of people treating animals-and even insects-as if they had as much value as humans." My concern with Colson is the reverse. We see endless examples of right-wingers - and many people on this forum - treating gay people as if we had less value than humans. hide

  • Thu Jul 02, 2009 5:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    u4, on the Virginia thing, it just shows biblical ignorance is not limited to non-believers, but this flagging nonsense needs to stop and I'm surprised CP hasn't done something about it. The reason I asked if you were the former scitsonga was your ideals are very similar and even though we disagreed on most issues he was very civil and respectful in his posts although like most of us he had his moments and I see you in the same light.

  • Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:09 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Believer - u4 is only name i've used on CP 1. I got tagged on the Survey article thread because I linked to an article where a group of paleontologists go to the Creation Museum of Ham's. I saw that this disconnect is why the under 30 creation can't follow literal teachings and cause the Churches bleeding members. See AlterNet for the story. 2. The other was where I said that if interracial marriage went up to a vote before the America people in 1962, it too would have been defeated. I mention that the Virginia legislature used a part of the New Testament that prohibits being unequally yoked. That was the historical argument why people of different races shouldn't marry. Yes I know there are many verses that counter that. Not the point. It is true that was how it was argued in the 1967 Loving v Virginia case. Today we all call that bigotry. Point was that Scripture is ambiguous and that Truth is in the Eye of the Beholder. Nothing really worth pulling but whatever! hide

  • Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:25 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    u4, what's getting you flagged on those other cites, I was looking forward in going a little deeper in our discussion on the survey of young people leaving their faith site, oh well. But it is kinf of scary when we totally agree on something, by chance are you the former scitsonga?

  • Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:24 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Take a Picture! Due to a rare alignment of the Cosmos, I find myself in 100% agreement with Chuck Colson. There's a first time for everything I guess. and with Believer's small edit of the Rev's absolute hide

  • Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:08 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    P.E.T.A. - People Eating Tasty Animals.

  • Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    rev, I totally agree with your post, but with one additional word, the word "can" between "inerrant" and "leads" minus the "s".

  • Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:46 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    PETA is os far over the edge it's insane. If they want to spend time catching and releasing bugs, go for it, but don't expect the rest of the world to be that silly about bugs. I'm squarely in the Obama camp on this one. It won't shrink the insect population significantly and it keeps the critters where they belong; outside or dead.

    Enough of these vegan bug huggers already. Treating animals humanely is one thing, but we have dominion and will excercise it, thank you. We can be good stewards without sacrificing our natural canrnivour nature and treating bugs like they were something like human. Give ma break!

  • Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:05 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Flagged as inappropriate. show Colson: "Christians need to learn to press people to face the logical conclusion of their own beliefs". September 11 was the result of religious beliefs. The only logical conclusion is that believing religious texts to be inerrant leads inexorably to intolerance and murder. hide

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Gifts
  • Health
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links