The Christian Post Equating Animals with Humans Holy Muttrimony By Chuck Colson Christian Post Guest Columnist Sun, Mar. 16 2008 12:14 PM ET


http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080316/31539_Equating_Animals_with_Humans.htm

The groom was attired in a black tuxedo, and the bride—decked in a white silk gown and pearls—carried a small bouquet. Max and Bella exchanged rings, and the reverend declared them wed. And then the bride and groom ran off, barking and wagging their tails.



Enlarge this Image Max and Bella, you see, were Chihuahuas—and their owners had just had them joined in "holy muttrimony." The dogs' owners say they did it just for fun—but I am not so sure.


It appears to be just one more sign of the success of an aggressive animal-rights movement—one that seeks to blur the distinction between animals and humans. And even some Christians are being unwittingly pulled into their orbit. For example, I know of a Bible-study group in Los Angeles that recently laid hands on a sick dog, praying God would heal her—and if not, receive her into heaven.


Dozens of websites offer so-called biblical "proof" that animals are resurrected just like humans.Well-meaning evangelical authors write of their hopes that God will admit their beloved pets into heaven. Of course Christians have a specific command to care for the creation.But that is not what we are witnessing here. These are signs of Christians weakening their own best defense on what constitutes the distinctiveness of humans.



Christianity teaches that humans are the only part of creation that bears the image of God. We are, thus,unique in all creation, conscious of our existence, aware of death,and capable of works of great creativity. Humans alone have eternal souls, which confers upon us a unique moral status. Many animal-rights activists dismiss any distinctions between humans and animals as "speciesism." Princeton professor, Peter Singer,defines this as "a prejudice" that favors "the interests of the members of one's own species . . . against those members of other species." If the material world is all there is, if humans are nothing more than the product of evolutionary forces, then they are essentially no different from pigs, dogs, or rats. We are merely the latest stage in evolutionary development.


Singer and PETA are consistent at least. Their campaigns to grant constitutional rights for pigs or make it illegal to keep laying hens in cages are perfectly logical. It is Christians who behave irrationally when they fall into naturalist positions out of love for their pets.


I am not suggesting that people should not love their pets. There are few things more painful than the death of the family pet, long-time companion. But nowhere do the Scriptures teach that animals have souls. They will perish with the rest of creation. When Christ returns and our bodies are resurrected, we will live in the new heaven and the new earth—where there may be new (but not resurrected) animals.


If we fail to understand our own doctrines, more and more Christians will accept the idea that animals and humans are morally equivalent.Animal-rights activists will then press on: eliminating animal agriculture and banning life-saving research, and yes, Singer says,affording the same rights to animals that we give to humans. Christians, arguing that humans alone are made in God's image, can make the only logical defense of the uniqueness of human life. But if out of sentimentality we treat our pets as if they have souls, we giveaway the argument. What tragic irony if the Church finds it has been conquered through our beloved pets.

Excellent post.Family pets/dogs,cats are one of the soft spots many rational people have.The nuts are well aware of this,take the footlooseMont ordeal as example.I own dogs that I would take a bullet for......sometimes its hard to remember they are just a dog.

These people are not Christians or Jewish. When they die---move on---they come back as a cat, rat, dog, or butterfly. Sounds a lot like Hindu to me!

Crowkiller

I think that post hits on a thread of thought I have long held.
The fights we face on so many fronts from gay rights, abortion, second amendment, seperation of church and state, ad infinitum are just seperate fronts of the same war. A war that is much larger than each of us as individuals, a war that is older than time itself. It is a war against God himself. The old enemy the devil himself seeks to destroy all that is right and righteous. Even though he knows full well his fate at the end of time satan seeks to destroy the good works of God. How better than to destroy the very God given rights of man(created in the image of God) through the toxic ideas of rights of animals(merely created).
The sad paradox is that satan does not have the power to take away or infringe upon that which God has given freely but we as the recipients of God's grace can willingly surrender our birthright.

And the Devil's Handmaidens (Lawyers & Bambiology believing humans) seem to be making animals the most important portion of God's Kingdom.




Charlotte Observer (NC)
EMERGING AREA OF PRACTICE
Animal lawyers unleashed on courts
Family pets gain rights as heirs to fortunes, subjects of lawsuits
SARAH OVASKA
Mar 18, 2008
http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/541614.html

RALEIGH --Fido is getting a new name -- several, in fact: "plaintiff,"
"trustee," "beneficiary" and even "defendant."

Dogs, cats and creatures of all sorts are being redefined in an
emerging area of legal practice known as animal law.

Once considered property, animals are being invested with legal
standing as they're increasingly being named as partial beneficiaries
of estates, subjects of lawsuits and victims of abuse.

As animals rise in the law, so does the profile of animal lawyers, or
lawyers who practice animal law.

Of the 196 law schools in the country approved by the American Bar
Association, 92 now offer courses on animal law, up from the nine that
offered classes in 2000, according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund.

"You're seeing this real snowball effect," said Pamela Alexander,
director of the defense fund's animal law section.

Part of the push has come from animals' rise in prominence in people's
lives, with owners routinely spending thousands of dollars to give a
cat chemotherapy and sending dogs to day care, therapists and
groomers.

High Point publisher Randall Terry Jr., who donated $20 million toward
a new veterinary hospital at N.C. State University in Raleigh, also
left $1 million to care for his six golden retrievers after he died in
2004.

After her death last year, New York hotel queen Leona Helmsley left
$12 million to her Maltese, Trouble.

A number of top law schools, including those at Duke, Harvard,
Stanford and Columbia universities, bolstered animal law offerings
after receiving $1 million from a foundation set up by Bob Barker,
former host of "The Price Is Right" and animal philanthropist
superstar.

North Carolina is warmly regarded by animal-rights activists. They
point to a state statute that allows people to bequeath money to pets
and clears the path for lawsuits against animal abusers.

Lawyer Calley Gerber is among North Carolina's pioneers in
representing four-legged clients. She gave up a job as a corporate
lawyer to start a practice dedicated to animals.

She switched after deciding she had made the best use of her law
degree when she spent five years as an animal cruelty prosecutor in
Colorado.

"Everyone says you can't make a living doing it," Gerber said. "But I
decided, well, I'm going to try."

As the awareness of animal law grows, practitioners like Gerber are
finding more need for their expertise.

Animal law disputes still take place in largely uncharted legal
territory and revolve around questions about the inherent rights of
animals, said William Reppy Jr., a Duke law professor.

Reppy, who started Duke's animal law clinic, said the newness of
animal law is inviting to activists who see a chance to define new
rights.

"Here's an area where it's still bad," Reppy said. "People with an
activist mentality can see there's room to do something."

Terry, the High Point publisher, set up a trust, worth about $1
million, for his six golden retrievers, and arranged for caretaker
Robin Groban to live in his house and care for them until the end of
their lives, Groban said.

The dogs were family to Terry, and he wouldn't have it any other way,
Groban said.

"You know that they're being taken care of, they're not being farmed
out," Groban said.

North Carolina law generally views pets as property, but that idea is
slowly changing, said Lee Rosen, a Raleigh divorce attorney. Rosen has
seen judges start to address pets in the same way as children in
custody disputes.

When lies prevail and the system doesn't address those lies this is what happens as the gullible fall for the lies.


New America Foundation
The True Champion of Direct Democracy
Joe Mathews -
March 16, 2008 - 10:12am
http://www.newamerica.net/blog/blockbuster-democracy/2008/true-champion-direct-democracy-2836

In Colorado, state legislators are trying to head off a possible
Humane Society ballot initiative that would require veal calves and
pregnant pigs to be kept in housing that allows them to stand up and
turn around.

Why the desperation to stop the Humane Society? Because when the
society goes to the ballot, it usually wins.

No organization has a better record at the ballot than the Humane
Society of the United States, the true champion of direct democracy.
Between 1990 and 2006, HSUS won more than two-thirds of its ballot
measure campaigns. (26 out of 38). In most of those efforts, the
Humane Society has been on the "yes" side, and "yes" campaigns are far
harder to win than "no" campaigns. (About two-thirds of ballot
initiatives lose). At the ballot, the Humane Society successfully has
sought to ban dove hunting, horse slaughter, cockfighting, and
confinement of animals.

The society likes direct democracy so much that it has become one of
the leading advocates for protecting the right of the people to make
laws directly. It opposes efforts to make it harder to qualify
measures, and led the challenge to Florida's Amendment 3, which
required a super-majority of 60 percent to pass constitutional
amendments there.

Mira, this is the logical result of a Humanistic Evolution-based mindset i hope you realize.... after all if we (all life included here...) are just biochemical products of chance change over time, then what is to say that humans are any more valuable and or deserving of status than any other bacteria/plant/mouse/dog?? There is no other logical outcome when you start from that presupposition. You didn't HAVE AR nuts before Darwin....

The catholic church teaches..

#2415 to #2418 CCC of the big green book

#2418

"It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons."

But I know alot of fellow catholics who believe in zero use of animals and don't really care for my trapping, but likewise, don't care for the coyotes eating the neighbors pets!

Like basic economics and population dynamics they just fail to reconize the truth, because they FEEL it shouldn't be that way.

I don't need religion to know that I'm superior to an animal. I think we shoot ourselves in the foot quoting the Bible to the non-religious or those of different religions.

It's this simple: You break your leg and yell out, and your pet cat stares at you, and forest animals look at you for a moment and keep walking. It's only a fellow human that will help you.

If somebody doesn't get it after a simple analogy like that, there's no use in further speaking with them.

The trick for Christians is to be able to point out the fallacy of the so called Religious Christians that want to change the fact that humans are the ones noted as being created in God's image. If someone wishes to misrepresent God's Word to me, they better expect that I will use His Word to point out their Fallacy.

How does an anonymous unregistered user post here?

Well that's a good point, but there are how many different editions of the Bible? One says, "Thou shall not kill" and another's says "thou shall not murder." That's a big difference! They can always counter-back with another quote from their version. And then, to the audience that isn't religious, they just stop reading because it looks like religious nut vs religious nut (to them). Nobody can go back and interview Biblical authors, and say "hey Paul, did you mean this or that?" So the conversation goes in circles.

People tend to cling to their version and their sect, and any sort of reasoning isn't going to make them admit their version of things is "wrong," religiously.

You have much better sucess in converting somebody to your way of thinking if you hold up charts and statistics about mortality and diseases and such, in my experience.