The letters of our thoughts are the ideas present in our mind before they come to realization . . . Thoughts that are, yet not felt . . . The words of the subconscious . . . of the soul . . .


Thursday, May 03, 2007

PETH: People for the Ethical Treatment of Humans

It seems that my photos of Shechita yesterday ruffled a few feathers . . .

Which is fine, I hope that all of my photos elicit responses from people, be that for the good or . . .
As to the actual issue of animal rights I choose to differ from others (For the record, I do not think TG feels this way, but since the issue has come up . . .)


I do not believe that animals intrinsicly have rights.
Rights are, as defined by Webster's dictionary is: something that one may properly claim as due.

An animal is not with in the realm of demanding of such rights. Rights are a uniquely human concept that come into play only when dealing with the ability to choose between good and evil. Animals lack that ability.

We as humans are obligated to act properly towards animals. Because we can choose between right and wrong, we must act towards them in such a light.

The Torah imparts upon us the importance of not being cruel to animals, but the injunction is one upon us. We must be just to G-d's creations. It is a our obligation as humans made in the image of G-d, possessing free will, to act justly.

Let it also be noted that this knowledge of the intrinsic sanctity of life, being that it comes from G-d, is one that was not found outside of Judaism until the previous century. While we stated emphatically that a lamb brought to the slaughter must be killed as painlessly as possible, our gentile neighbors would unleash starved dogs on a bear tied to a stake for sport. Just food for thought.

However in light of Human, i.e. greater, need we have the right to use animals.

That is my Religious belief. Other's may differ. That's between them and G-d.
On a purely human and rational level, however, I feel that PETA is one of the lowest, most depraved, and reprehensible organizations on Earth. My G-d given right to eat meat playing no roll in this feeling.

As a Human Being I object to being compared to an animal.

I love animals. But animals have as of yet to paint art as Monet, or sculpt as Rodin. A cat can not write poetry or blank verse. A pet may display basic aspects of loyalty and love . . . but the love of a husband to a wife or the bond of a father to son is not within its realm. A beast of the field can not lift it's head to see above its own plane of reality. A dog in English is an it, outside of direct reference to its gender. A man is he. A woman is she.

In short an animal is within the realm of nature. It lacks transcendence . . . it may not sink as low as us, but it can never soar as high.

As a Moralist I object to the perverse moral relativism used by these people. When a mouse is as good as a person, then a person is no better then a mouse. A lady once told me that she would save her two friends, a pair of chihuahuas, before she would a stranger. She may be odd . . . But it is no coincidence that the Nazis would pay for the care of abused animals while perpetrating such foul crimes against humanity . . . Only one who could raise a dog so high, can make a human so low.

In 2003 Newkirk (Co-founder of PETA) sent a letter to then-PLO leader Yasser Arafat in
response to a Jerusalem bombing attack, in which a donkey was loaded
with explosives and blown up. After being "bombarded with calls,"
according to a PETA spokesperson, Newkirk asked Arafat to appeal to
those involved in the attacks to keep animals out of the conflict. When
criticized for involving herself on behalf of the non-human victims
only, Newkirk told the Washington Post: "It's not my business to inject
myself into human wars."

This is the same force that drives the moral-racism which keep those living in Developing Nations from leaving their poverty due to the moral imperative of solar power and other less effective forms of energy over the use of their natural resources. It is easy for us to sit in our condos and SUVs (not that I have such things) and tisk at those who lack running water . . . but it is wrong.

I am not advocating the cruel experiments of scientists (Though if there is a valid and necessary need I am open to it. I will not tell a mother that the life of a cat is more important then that of her child. End of AIDS or Cancer supersedes such things)

What I am advocating is some level of sanity in how we are ethical. Anyone who gives money to stop the production of hot-dogs, however cruel, is guilty of the the sin of "Lo sa'amod al dam reiecha" -don't stand idly by the blood of your brother. He is guilty for deaths in Darfur, Somalia, the suffering of survivors of natural disasters such as Katrina and the Tsunami . . . He may not wear the fur of a rabbit, but his clothes made in Indonesian sweatshops are far worse . . . This and all other cases of human suffering around the world. An animal must be taken care of, but it does not supersede the needs of a human.

Don't eat chicken. That's fine with me. But don't compare me to one either.

A few other signs that PETA is made of wackos:

  • PETA regularly asks towns and cities whose names in its view are suggestive of animal exploitation to change their names. In April 2003, they offered free veggie burgers to the city of Hamburg, New York, in exchange for changing its name to Veggieburg; the town declined the offer. PETA also campaigned in 1996 to have the town of Fishkill, New York, change its name, claiming the name suggests cruelty to fish. (The root "kill", found in many New York town names, is Dutch for "creek".)
  • A recent letter from PETA said:
    On behalf of PETA’s more than 1.6 million members and supporters worldwide, I am writing to request that you revise The Associated Press Stylebook so that its grammatical rules reflect the fact that animals are living beings rather than inanimate objects. In magazine articles, popular literature, and advertising, writers areusing “he,” “she,” and “who” to refer to animals—instead of the outdated and inaccurate “it” and “which.” Won’t you consider making this transition as well? As “the essential global news network,” the Associated Press (AP) should take a progressive step and give animals the respect that they deserve by revising AP style guidelines to reflect the usage of personal pronouns for all animals The public now recognizes that [animals] are feeling, intelligent individuals—not objects. Our language should reflect this.
  • See here for more

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


tikkunger said...

nope, no ruffled feathers here.

incidentally I don't care what you post and I wasn't disappointed or upset by the content on your blog. The pictures showed up in blines and they grossed me out but that's not your fault, nor is it your responsibility.

also you're right, I'm not one of those people at all. for me it's a question regarding the ethics of depth and span and my personal choice.

Be Well

ardeth01 said...

You make a fundamental error at the beginning of your argument, in separating humans from animals. In fact, humans ARE animals, and if you do not believe that animals have rights, then it logically follows that you do not believe that humans have rights either.

Also, the stylebook idea is actually a very sensible one and long overdue. I refer you to Joan Dunayer's "Language and Liberation" if you want to read more about how language leads to negative, speciesist attitudes towards nonhuman animals.

Just thought I'd point those things out!

-Ardeth (a proud animal rights "wacko")

Mottel said...

TG: Glad you're not that crazy. . . ;-)
As I mentioned, I take no issue with you directly . . . but rather you brought up a chance to bring up a topic of interest. I just hope you weren't eating when you got grossed out.

Ardeth -I make no error for I do not see a human as an animal. The difference between man and animal is not quantitative nor even qualitative, but one beyond all comparison. The difference between an amoeba and a Ape is closer then that between Ape and Man . . . for we are infinately greater. We have a divine soul that can reason and think, that is a part of G-d above. as I said, only humans can transcend nature -animals are prisoners to their nature.

At least you're proud to be a wacko . . .
What brought you here?

Irina Tsukerman said...

I agree with everything... except the part about cats! ; )

Mottel said...

So read rats instead!

Irina Tsukerman said...

OK... not a problem, at all then! In fact, QUITE the contrary! I wish someone interfered to make the NYC subways a tad more rodent-free!

De van Halems said...

nice article

Andrew said...

You fucking ignorant insensitive pig-headed overreligious bastard. Biologically speaking we are animals. Last time I checked we don't have our own kingdom called humana and amoebas are not animals they're protists. Animals have rights. In fact it is our duty to protect our eternally younger siblings. Besides there likely isn't a "cure" for cancer or aids. They might not have the full human soul but they can think and rationalise. Besides the fact is we can't prove that any divine being exists let alone ours. Use tangible evidence to support yourself don't just go in there spouting bible verses.

Mottel said...

Andrew: Thank you very much for your comment! You may not realize, but your zealous hate, ad hominem attacks, and intellectual sophistry have done more to prove my point then any blog post I could ever write.

Thanks again, and feel better soon!

Andrew said...

No sometimes it just feels good to flame someone.

Mottel said...

geee, thanks.

Andrew said...

I'm not saying I agree with you I just enjoy giving someone what they're asking for