"A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy." That's the title of Wesley Smith's forthcoming book on the "human cost" of the animal rights movement. Who would have thought that we would have to worry about animals being given rights and how they might be considered as equal to, or even superior to, human rights? Are animals able to have rights when they are not able to fulfill any responsibilities? The answer according to those who espouse the doctrine of "speciesism" is a resounding "yes."
SPECIESISM is a dangerous concept promoted by Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Singer, one of the driving forces behind the modern animal rights movement, argues that one species exercising power over another is a wrong that is comparable to racism or sexism. He blames speciesism on the Judeo-Christian "prejudice" against animals that began with the creation accounts in Genesis whereby God gave man "dominion" over the animals. According to Singer, this was an injustice and animals have been suffering ever since.
While we are getting used to the educational "elite" on college campuses promoting strange philosophies, who would have thought that these views would reach to the highest levels of government? The administration's newly appointed regulatory "czar" , Cass Sunstein, explained in a 2002 Harvard paper that he could see a time in the future when animals would be granted the right to sue in court. The idea sounds ludicrous, but Sunstein, wrote, "We could even grant animals a right to bring suit without insisting that animals are in some general sense 'persons,' or that they are not property."
OK, let me repeat that concept "...grant animals a right to bring suit"!!
No comments:
Post a Comment