Question:

Upon reading some of the content on your web site (admittedly, not the majority as it's quite voluminous) I was focusing primarily on the animal rights content and the Roman Catholic ChurchDemonination section.

I find it curious that upon doing a search, I couldn't find any listings for Dr. Albert Schweitzer.His "Reverence for Life" philosophy would seem to be deserving of at least being mentioned on your web site. And frankly, his dictum "Until he extends his circle of compassion to include all living things, man will not himself find peace" would seem to be worthy of mention, particularly in your "Respect" and "Animal Rights" sections.

In my many years of involvement in animal rescue (and extremism notwithstanding), I tend to view animal rights as defined by HSUSPresident, Wayne Pacelle, "The concept that we have a moral responsibility to treat animals with respect."To be sure,respect in this case is open towide interpretation!

And while as you write, "Extremism on this important issue is out of step with God" I feel that frequently when people refer to animal rights they almost exclusively use the term "extremists" or "whackos" or "nuts"; almost as if genuine animal advocacy does not exist. The other misconception is that all animal advocates are "putting animals before humans." I view it as including animals in human consideration!

Vegetarianism is a personal choice. Most of us are not qualified to authoritatively go around preaching against eating meat on any level. However, it's important for those who literally recoil at the concept of the termanimal rights to take an honest look at such practices as factory farming, canned and sport hunting, animal testing, horrendous animal shelter conditions,dogfighting, puppy mills and catteries,and theunderbellyof such sports as horse racing, dog racing, circus animalperformances and rodeos. You refer to some of these practices on your web site, but frankly, the protectivelaws-to-date are vastly insufficient andwhile there exceptions, they are much more often than not, poorly enforced. This isprobably so because so much of the economy is built on these horrors, thus the worship of the almighty dollar.

The Bible may be replete with references to eating meat and"having dominion over creation" (possibly the mostabused and distorted phrase in human history), but frankly I view our failure to see animals as co-living creatures with whom we share the planet as a tragically vexingvoid in human development.


Answer:

La Vista's web site is dedicated to teaching the Bible. What some man thinks about an issue does not establish what God wants mankind to do. So, no, you won't find quotes from people substituting as evidence of what God has said.

Many vegetarian and animal rights activist attempt to make their claims sound legitimate by saying that their particular beliefs are what God or Jesus taught. I and other writers on this web site simply point out those claims which are false and we cite God's word so that others reading can go to their Bibles and see how these people are twisting God's teachings to justify themselves.

For example, animal rights activists may state that we need to treat animals with respect. There is a trick in the statement that depends on how the speaker defines respect. God teaches man to be kind to animals: "A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel" (Proverbs 12:10). To an animal rights activist any death of an animal for any purpose translates in their mind to a cruelty. Yet, from the Scriptures the use of animals as a food source is not considered a cruelty. "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs" (Genesis 9:3). You might choose not to eat meat, and that is perfectly fine, but it doesn't change what God has taught on the matter.

As an example, you assume that training animals to perform is a cruelty. Yet, such is not the case in the Scriptures. Animals have long served mankind, such as in pulling plows or in transportation. Thus, we conclude that your definition of cruelty is not a biblical one.

In the same way, Christians do not oppose laws which define the proper treatment of animals. Quite the opposite, we support them and their enforcement by those with legal responsibility to enforce the laws. The existence of laws does not eliminate crime. It only defines crimes so that criminals may be punished. Making a law saying you must stop at a stop sign does not mean people will always stop. The fact that some people run the stop sign does not mean the laws need to be changed or made harsher. Laws don't prevent violations.

I'm glad to see that you do admit that the Bible does talk about eating meat in an approved way. Yet, I wasn't surprised to see you could not accept that simple fact, but had to add a "but" because you don't want the truth applied.

The simple fact is that the world left on its own is more cruel to animals than the world with compassionate people watching over it.