Friday, April 27, 2007

PETA and The Redefinition and Degeneration of Personhood


PETA is pulling no punches, but now with a letter to Norm Goldstein, editor of The Associated Press Stylebook, has gone to an all time high in its effort to deny the distinction between humans and animals and its effort to supplant the scripture which draws such a distinction.

While readers can view the letter for themselves, let me draw attention to a few significant points found in the letter:

1. PETA's agenda is to attack and replace traditional thinking and values (declared by Scripture).

The letter states "While the world accelerates through the 21st century, progressive ideas are challenging and changing conventional perspectives". Where have those perspectives come from, and where is it that man has come to recognize there is a significant difference between humans and animals? Answer: the Bible. Here's an illustration where if you reject the Bible, you can declare whatever you want, or better put if you want to declare whatever you want, then you must first seek to reject, deny, challenge or change the truth.

2. PETA agenda seeks to deny and wipe away difference between humanity and animals. This is seen in their request for guidelines to reflect the usage of personal pronouns for all animals, and in their statement that animals are felling, intelligent "individuals", not objects. A quick look at Websters Dictionary relates the word personal to that having to do with a person or human being. Peta, in seeking not to establish a new set of pronouns, but to assign "personal" pronouns seeks to exalt all animals to the status that's traditionally been reserved for humans, and in effect also taking away traditional distinctions found in humans from that of animals. What's interesting is that dictionaries also speak of a spirit or soul associated with that which is "personal". Any guesses as to where PETA is headed with this? Will it be to suggest that there is no difference (to do so one must either add revelation of a soul to animals, or to take away the soul of humans, both of which contradicts the Scriptural truth).

3. PETA's agenda speaks of giving animals the "respect" they deserve, without specifying the authority and grounds for that respect. To do so would produce interesting discussion.

4. PETA's agenda sets a false argument in suggesting that one must either view animals as "property" or as people. Is that not an additional category of "animals"? To fail to include that category as an alternative is to mislead.

5. PETA's agenda also sets a false argument in suggesting that one must assign personal pronouns in order to acknowledge that animals are living beings rather than inanimate objects? This too is to mislead.

6. PETA's agenda is no mistake. It draws intentionally on the distinction of male and female within animals but seeks to use that as a means of equating personhood. That would be like suggesting that just because a chair has four legs, then one should refer to a chair as being or possessing the qualities of a table.

May the world recognize the greater issue here, and not be misled by the people of PETA (all of the "more than 1.6 million members and supporters worldwide" ... unbelievable, isn't it? Surely, some them will speak out and show they do not support this, won't they? ... or, is PETA becoming exactly what people have become to think of them as being?)

Act wisely Associated Press, or before long, pit bulls will have more rights than babies named Paul or Paula.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Why I believe in baptizing babies (condensed version)

I grew up with the traditional Baptist view, typically referred to as " believers baptism ". It is theologically known as credobap...