Thursday, March 31, 2011


"Shouldn't we let the chickens and other species write in to the committee to let them know whether they are offended by the pronoun 'it?'"

PETA Stunt
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was formed in 1980, ostensibly to highlight and combat what they considered ill treatment of animals in laboratory experiments, cosmetics testing, food production, fur farming, and animals in entertainment. Since then, just about any use of an animal other than letting it live out in the wild has caught PETA's attention, including keeping a dog chained in your back yard, donkey suicide bombers in Israel, fishing, and pest control. Conspicuously missing in their complaints is the leather industry, but those Birkenstocks won't just make themselves.

PETA does not accomplish much, although it has had some minor legislative and legal victories, and it has managed to convince people that wearing fur coats isn't just unattractive but unethical. For a while now it appears that PETA's primary concern is raising funds. They hit upon the idea of using scantily clad or even nude models for their ad campaigns, and that got them quite a bit of attention. For the last twenty years, PETA has gotten more and more outrageous, presumably in an attempt to get people to notice them.
  • When Jeffrey Dahmer was in the news, PETA compared his cannibalism and vivisection of humans to the meat packing industry.
  • They compared the American Kennel Association with the KKK for showing dogs.
  • They compared the food industry with the holocaust in a series of comparison images.
  • They publicly requested Ben & Jerry's ice cream to make a flavor with human breast milk.
  • When a junk study tried to link cow's milk to autism, they ran "Got Autism?" ads.
  • They sent home comic books with kids all about how evil their parents are for cooking meat and having pets.
  • They tried to get fish re-labled "sea kittens" so people would feel bad about fishing.
The latest scheme PETA has come up with is to demand that all "species-bias" language be removed from the Bible. Ben Yakas reports at The Gothamist:
The organization has petitioned the Committee on Bible Translation to suggest that its next translation remove “speciesist” language, by referring to animals as “he or she” instead of “it.” “When the Bible moves toward inclusively in one area … it wasn’t much of a stretch to suggest they move toward inclusively in this area. Language matters. Calling an animal ‘it’ denies them something. They are beloved by God. They glorify God,” Bruce Friedrich, PETA’s vice president for policy, told CNN.
At Right Wing News, Van Helsing quipped "But then, the odds of anyone in PETA actually reading a Bible are nil, so how would they know whether their demands had been met?" Which is hard to argue with.

I can't argue with the principle that animals glorify God, Christianity teaches that everything glorifies God, and that is the primary purpose of all existence. All things either glorify God by the stark contrast of their evil with His holiness, by the fulfillment of his purposes, or by a dim reflection of His ultimate glory, according to the Bible.

However, that same Bible makes it inescapably clear that animals are secondary and subordinate to humans, existing to serve and feed humanity.

Something this Bruce Friedrich seems to not understand, or not care about, is that the Bible is not copyrighted. Anyone, anywhere, can write their own version of scripture - and when you go into a Bible book store, you get the impression they have what with all the different varieties.

In other words, If PETA wants a species neutral Bible, they can have a species neutral Bible. However, this isn't about the Bible, translation, or Christianity at all. In fact, I doubt it is about animals at this point. PETA seems to have been transformed into an organization which exists simply to raise money. They don't ever seem to do anything with their funds other than come up with new ways to raise funds.

PETA never convinces anyone of anything these days other than that they are loony and that naked women are attractive, even if exploited by a loony organization. But they sure pull in the funds. In 2008 they brought in $29,000,000, but nobody seems to really know where that money is going, except PETA execs.

No comments: