Continuing on our deep dive into the connections between animal rights (AR) and the deep state (Part 1), let’s start at a 40,000 foot view of things and then drill down in later pieces to the specific details of individual connections. This second part (and continuing into Part 3) is going to begin to take us to church, so just a heads up if you aren’t of the Judeo-Christian mindset. But even if you aren’t, I still think it important to understand how these groups seek to pervert the Biblically ordained relationship and order of things determined by God, and how they use our generally compassionate nature and dedication to our religion against us. Even though, the AR movement and ideology tries to make itself look benevolent, humane, kind, and divinely inspired, it is far from any of those things.
Let me preface this discussion with a couple of thoughts to put things into context. First, as mentioned in Part 1, the animal rights groups have absconded with the animal welfare vernacular. They have deliberately muddied the waters and interchanged terms and definitions so that the average person has no clue that there is a huge chasm between the notions of animal welfare and animal rights.
As stated previously, the animal rights groups have paved the way for what is happening now within the broader overall leftist goal to remottle our country into the vision of what the globalist and Agenda 21/2030 seek. One of the main goals of the The Great Reset – Klaus Schwab crowd is the removal of meat and animal products from our diets, and the abolition of any animal enterprises. The goal being “getting back to nature,” or ultimately if you put it into the Christian perspective, it is very much about worshipping the creation and not the Creator. Since the presidency of Barack Obama, the animal rights ideology has been successful in using the Alinsky playbook (Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for those who may not know) to test out a number of facist and unconstitutional public policies using the smaller population of animal owners and industries.
Do any of these sound familiar when you look at what is happening to our country now… (a) public policy that is driven by nothing but emotion – no logic, no cost benefit analysis – no honest debate of the issue – no compromise, even when the compromise seems simple and serves the broader population; (b) simply doing the bidding of one special interest group to the detriment of the citizenry as a whole; (c) asking citizens to rat out their neighbors and friends if they suspect any breech of what the government has attempted to mandate; (d) “anonymous” tip lines for all that wrongdoing you may see; (d) weaponizing our law enforcement and our judicial systems against conservative voices while failing to hold “progressive” entities accountable; (e) commonly understood definitions becoming a moving target with regard to what they really mean – the definition being either changed or erased completely; (f) using derogatory names to demonize and isolate groups of people who don’t align with the left’s narrative; (g) publicly bullying and cancelling anyone who is determined to threaten the left’s societal vision. All of this should sound very familiar by now. All of these were tested out, and perfected on the animal owning and producing communities prior to being unleashed on the country as a whole. Remember that canary in the coal mine I mentioned in Part 1?
Secondly, nothing I write here is any kind of advocation of mistreating animals for the sake of being cruel or deliberately causing needless suffering. Just because I “own” my animals does not equate to any form of mistreatment at all. This is one of the big fallacies that the animal rightists try to advance. As God commands, I am a steward of my animals; I respect and appreciate my animals for what and who they are, and I find joy in my relationship and life with them. But they are not my equals, and I will not yield my God given human rights to them. Because animals can never rise to be equal to humans (they can never form their own governments, be capable of rational and moral thoughts and actions, or be able to fulfill the requisite responsibilities that go hand in hand with the concept of “rights”), in order to achieve “equality,” humans and human rights must be lowered to meet them. That is not how God has designed our relationship with animals or nature.
“Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition.” (Peter Singer – Animals Agenda, September 1987)
The first time I saw the above quote by Peter Singer, I had to read it several times before the gravity of it sunk in. Singer is a Professor of bioethics at Princeton University. He is an atheist and utilitarian, and he advocates killing disabled infants up to 28 days after birth (he claims they are human, but not “persons” – this becomes significant when you understand the animal rights groups’ relentless push for “legal personhood” for animals.). With the writing of his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, Singer is widely considered the father of the current animal rights/liberation movement.
Given that biblically, the notion of animal “rights” is not supported, there are strong efforts by the animal rights groups to influence Christians and infiltrate Judeo-Christian organizations. Well funded and organized groups like HSUS and PETA have formed “faith based” religious departments within their organizations and are systematically doing exactly what Singer has advocated; setting about destroying the Judeo-Christian religious tradition. With messages and material that appealingly advocate “humaneness,” and compassion for all God’s creatures, these groups are easily deceiving even evangelical leaders and churches to support and advance their agenda of creating a world where animals are viewed as legally equal to humans.///
The notion of animal rights is not supported biblically. It is not a Judeo-Christian value, as Singer accurately points out. While the bible does teach that God values all life, including animals, and frowns upon the mistreatment or abuse of animals, there is nothing in the bible to support that animals have equal worth to humans, or that humans should not make responsible use of animals. In fact, God required animal sacrifice at various times in Old Testament history. And in the New Testament, Jesus fed the masses fishes as well as loaves, and he partook of lamb during the last supper. Clearly, the use of animals for food and for clothing throughout Biblical history is not forbidden.
Vegetarianism or veganism is a valid lifestyle choice. Some are motivated due to a belief that it is healthier than other alternatives. But a large portion of vegetarians, and the vast majority of vegans are motivated by revulsion to the killing of animals. This is also a valid life choice. But a personal, moral reason to engage in something does not make it a universally righteous choice. And it does not make it a choice that is supported in Scripture.
The hypothesis of evolution could argue more convincingly that animals and humans are on an equally moral plain, though even under the evolutionary world view, man is at the top of the food chain and not buried in the middle of it. But just because evolutionists believe that man evolved from animals, (and are therefore fundamentally similar in nature) one should not expect God to treat animals similarly or equally to humans. There is nothing in Scripture that supports the notion that animals have rights, as that term is used and understood today.
First and most fundamental to the biblical position that man and animal are not equal in the eyes of God is the teaching that MAN, not any animal, was created in the image of God. (Genesis 1:26-28) As such, man is distinct from, and superior to animals. Man was created to be a party to the character of God, and be in fellowship with Him in ways that animals were not created to be. God created man as a moral being, accountable to God for his thoughts and actions. He did not create animals with either the ability or the responsibility to be a moral agent. In Genesis 9:2-6, God distinguishes between killing of men and killing of animals, and He teaches that the two acts are distinguishable from each other in that He will demand an accounting of human life taken by fellow humans, while He will not seek accounting of animal life taken by humans. The parallels animal rights zealots draw between animals and humans break down at this starting point. God has said, man, any man, regardless of physical features (sex, race) or stature (disabled or able bodied), is made in His image. As such, God clearly articulates that man is fundamentally different in nature than animals.
Besides our God-given, inherent nature of being made in His image, God has given man a superior intellect and a responsibility to account morally for our right and wrong choices. Man is capable of understanding and obeying God’s commands. Because God has a higher, deliberate purpose for us than He does for animals, we have been given intellect, and the ability of free will to make reasoned choices, and we will be judged accordingly for those choices Nowhere does the Bible say that animals are endowed with any morality or will be held accountable for knowing right from wrong. In fact, God compares men who practice evil or who degrade themselves to animals, which indicates that animals are indeed of a lesser standing and are not expected by God to be of an equal standing to men.
In their argument that animals and humans have equal worth, animal rightists compare the treatment of animals to the treatment of humans and claim that if it is wrong to treat a human a certain way, then it is wrong to treat an animal that way. In contrast, the Bible is clear that man, as created in God’s image, has greater value and importance to Him than animals do. That is not to say God does not value the rest of His creation, as there is Scripture that states He indeed does care. But man is His ultimate creation, and it is the reconciliation of mens’ souls to Himself through Jesus Christ that gives Him greatest joy. When animal rightists equate animals to humans, they may think they are raising the importance of animals, but in truth, they are degrading the value of man. Nature is cruel. Animals act on instinct and training alone, not on rational, moral decision making. If man is no more a moral being than animals, then we soon begin treating each other as animals, with no regard for obedience to God’s will or His word of law. It is only after we discover our true nature and worth in God’s image, that we become accountable to serve Him, and understand our responsibility to not only God, but to each other, and then finally to God’s creation/creatures in which we have been given dominion and stewardship over.
I will argue that the cruelty and disrespect we see today from the left towards anyone who does not tow their line; the abuse, mistreatment, and brutal criminal attacks against people and property in the name of “justice,”; the complete breakdown of our justice system; the seeming glee at being a part of “cancelling” someone publicly; the brutality of internet lynch mobs; and the willingness to remove and diminish our Constitutional and human rights is the natural devolution into treating people as animals. Animal rights groups have spent the last 12+ years, and many millions of dollars, influencing laws that remove our Constitutional rights. Far from valuing human life to any degree close to that which God does, their efforts to degrade and strip human rights away is evidence that they have no respect for the human condition at all. And the brutality and cruelty with which they have torn lives apart, all in the name of “compassion” for animals, is very real evidence that is isn’t equality they seek for animals, but the submission of man to a status lower than animals.
Part 3 will further explore the biblical relationship that God has commanded with regard to animals and nature, including the notion most hated and defiled by the animal rights ideologues; what the scriptures say about man’s dominion over the earth.