The case for Judeo-Christian values, part 4: Prager skewers belief in human-animal equivalence

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Tuesday, February 8, 2005 | Dennis Prager

[JohnHuang2]

Would you first save the dog you love or a stranger if both were drowning? The answer depends on your value system.

One of the most obvious and significant differences between secular and Judeo-Christian values concerns human worth. One of the great ironies of secular humanism is that it devalues the worth of human beings. As ironic as it may sound, the God-based Judeo-Christian value system renders man infinitely more valuable and significant than any humanistic value system.

The reason is simple: Only if there is a God who created man is man worth anything beyond the chemicals of which he is composed. Judeo-Christian religions hold that human beings are created in the image of God. If we are not, we are created in the image of carbon dioxide. Which has a higher value is not difficult to determine.

Contemporary secular society has rendered human beings less significant than at any time in Western history.

First, the secular denial that human beings are created in God's image has led to humans increasingly being equated with animals. That is why over the course of 30 years of asking high-school seniors if they would first try to save their dog or a stranger, two-thirds have voted against the person. They either don't know what they would do or actually vote for their dog. Many adults now vote similarly.

Why? There are two reasons. One is that with the denial of the authority of higher values such as biblical teachings, people increasingly make moral decisions on the basis of how they feel. And since probably all people feel more for their dog than they do for a stranger, many people without a moral instruction manual simply choose to do what they feel.

The other reason is that secular values provide no basis for elevating human worth over that of an animal. Judeo-Christian values posit that human beings, not animals, are created in God's image and, therefore, human life is infinitely more sacred than animal life.

That is why people estranged from Judeo-Christian values (including some Christians) support programs such as "Holocaust on Your Plate," the PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) campaign that teaches that there is no difference between the slaughtering of chickens and the slaughtering of the Jews in the Holocaust. A human and a chicken are of equal worth.

That is why a Tucson, Ariz., woman last year screamed to firefighters that her "babies" were in her burning house. Thinking that the woman's children were trapped inside, the firemen risked their lives to save the woman's three cats.

Those inclined to dismiss these examples as either theoretical (the dog-stranger question) or extreme (the Tucson mother of cats) need to confront the very real question of animal experimentation to save human lives. More and more people believe as PETA does that even if we could find a cure for cancer or AIDS, it would be wrong to experiment on animals. (The defense that research with computers can teach all that experiments on animals teach is a lie.) In fact, many animal-rights advocates oppose killing a pig to obtain a heart valve to save a human life.

Belief in human-animal equivalence inevitably follows the death of Judeo-Christian values, and it serves not so much to elevate animal worth as to reduce human worth. Those who oppose vivisection and believe it is immoral to kill animals for any reason, including eating, should reflect on this: While there are strong links between cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans, there are no links between kindness to animals and kindness to humans.

Kindness to animals has no effect on a person's treatment of people. The Nazis, the cruelest group in modern history, were also the most pro-animal-rights group prior to the contemporary period. They outlawed experimentation on animals and made legal experimentation on human beings.

The second reason that the breakdown of Judeo-Christian values leads to a diminution of human worth is that if man was not created by God, the human being is mere stellar dust – and will come to be regarded as such. Moreover, people are merely the products of random chance, no more designed than a sand grain formed by water erosion. That is what the creationism-evolution battle is ultimately about – human worth.

One does not have to agree with creationists or deny all evolutionary evidence to understand that the way evolution is taught, man is rendered a pointless product of random forces – unworthy of being saved before one's hamster.

[tallhappy]

Many people who post here also totally buy in to the human anmimal equivalence and actually think it is somehow conservative.

[ScottM1968]

Don't I know!

[goldstategop]

I happen to believe you and I are more than an accidental agglomeration of chemicals and water put together for no purpose. We were certainly created by a sentient and loving God and the gifts we have are a reflection of His Image. In short, we can believe man to quote Shakespeare, is "the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals" or he is worth nothing. That is the difference between those who insist human life is sacred and those who think it is worth nothing.

Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. First God and then Fox News."

[JohnHuang2]

Amen.

[Jaysun]

The very idea that humans and animals are the same is absurd. How many animals have ever written a book, cured a disease, or sat in a room full of other animals to discuss bullsh*t like this?

[Selkie]

I know that my pets havent cause me the amount of strife and heartache idiot libs and lefties have.

Choice between saving a marxist/abortionist/dean supporter and fido from drowning ?

Use the DUer as raft for the pooch.

;-)

[Jaysun]

Use the DUer as raft for the pooch.

Same here Selkie (provided that the pooch has been adequately treated to repel fleas of course).

[Terriergal]

I hear ya. It's sickening.

[Terriergal]

Your sentiment expressed there is appreciated! lol