Michael Vick and PETA: And We Thought Mike Was the Sick One!
Let me begin by saying that I am no fan of Mike Vick. Never have been. His string of bad judgments emanated from his bad character.
The Bible says that, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” (Proverbs 12:10). It seems clear to me that this scripture teaches that how a man treats his animals is an obvious indication of his character.
A righteous man will show regard (the word means to “observe with care”) for the animals under his supervision. On the other hand, a man who is cruel to his animals reveals a much deeper character flaw than just insensitivity.
I don’t think that Mike Vick has ever been mistaken for a righteous man. One can only hope that he will walk a different path once he feels the rush of freedom again.
But, this isn’t really about Mike Vick or the arrogance that made him think that it was alright to kill dogs. It isn’t about the Falcons, the fans, or the NFL. Football is a game—just a game. This is about something much deeper than sports and the stars who fall from their silvery pedestals where we, the fans, have elevated them. This is about how we, as a civilized society, view life.
The animal rights activists aggressively used the Mike Vick scandal as a platform to promote the "animal rights" concept that drives their worldview. They weren’t just trying to sack a QB that had long been scrambling from the truth of who he really was on the inside.
They were trying to force their warped agenda on the rest of us. The closer you look, the more you see the deep conflicts in core values that fracture our society.
A perfect example of this warped logic is PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) who asks us not to eat fish because they "are smart, interesting animals with their own unique personalities." PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk explains that "when it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy."
In truth, they place greater value on the rat and the pig and the dog than they do on the boy. Why is it that the abuse of dogs is outrageous to so many who feel no similar outrage in the 800,000-plus abortions that occur in the United States each year? Do we really care more about our animals and our trees than we do our children?
The PETA site refers to the writings of Princeton philosopher Peter Singer. According to Singer, parents should be permitted to kill a baby born with a tragic illness or defect. He argues that "the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo-sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference."
"Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.”
And we thought Mike Vick was sick! The idea that animal abuse is wrong, but the murder of pre-born children is acceptable is an indication of how far this nation has declined morally. It is very important to realize that our conclusions are only as good as the premises we start with. If we begin with a faulty premise then we are often led down a road of twisted logic that dead-ends at a wrong conclusion.
Mike Vick broke the law and is doing his time, but we should all be reminded that there is a greater law and a higher Judge that we must all stand before one day. He knows the difference between animal life and human life.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?