When PETA attacks

By Paul Moomjean 02/13/2014


When I was in my undergraduate studies at California State University, Northridge, I had this amazing political science professor who broke down the timeline of civil rights and affirmative action. As he continued to explain where different lines were drawn, he made a very astute observation about our nation’s progress in the area of civil rights; he stated that we know life has gotten better for all genders and racial circles because of the existence of animal rights groups. He went on to add to his point by making fun of the group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and how it spend its time, resources and money, and uses its education to defend the rights of chickens and cows. The professor further explained that things for Americans must be better since groups feel the need to move on. A few students seemed upset at his mockery, but the general consensus was that PETA was a fringe group of eco-friendly Green Party members with little to no clout. Boy how we were wrong.


More than a decade and a half later, PETA has become one of the most vocal and aggressive “rights” groups in the nation. It has mobilized through schools, it has infiltrated television, and it has won over the hearts and financial support of numerous public figures and beloved celebrities.


PETA’s most controversial campaign came in 2003 when it ran the “Holocaust on Your Plate” ads comparing the slaughtering of chickens to the elimination of 6 million Jews. The Anti-Defamation League came out against them, causing the animal rights group to apologize. But it really hasn’t stopped. PETA has orchestrated anti-fur protests, created comic books called “Your Mommy Kills Animals,” and in 2011 announced that it would try to reach the sex industry crowd with soft-core pornography. It already purchased some XXX domains. 

 
Now PETA is in the news again. In 2006 the animal rights group set up shop in Los Angeles and one of its most popular propaganda pushing sites has been the elementary schools. Recently, at a Woodland Hills elementary school, a group of dairy farmers came by to visit the school children with a baby cow for a lesson about dairy farming. PETA showed up with graphic pamphlets showing the cows in horrifying ways.


“My 6-year-old daughter was handed one of these comics, saw the insert of the mutilated cow that I ripped away right away. She started flipping through it and saw pictures of baby cows being electrocuted, factory farms with machetes, I mean, just graphically horrifying images for a 6-year-old,” one parent explained.


Obviously, PETA sees nothing wrong with scaring elementary-age children with disturbing images of animals being injured. Of course, PETA is denying that it ever intended to bring the pamphlet “A Cow’s Life” to the children.


Katie Arth of PETA responded with this statement: “PETA creates material for kids and for adults. And it looks like there was just a mistake and our volunteers put the materials together to get them out quicker.”


The parents of Calabash Elementary weren’t buying it and are looking into getting lawyers to see if there are any legal ramifications. I hope PETA has to pay out some “pain and suffering” fees for its acts.


What we have here is a classic case of liberal self-righteousness. Conservatives believe liberals and leftists are naïve, whereas liberals and leftists believe conservatives are evil and uncompassionate. This is how liberal groups such as PETA can justify showing children scaring material like that described throughout this article. They believe they own the moral high ground and damn any and all who hold a different view.


The other problem with a group like PETA is that it sees animal life as equal or superior to human life. How else can anyone explain why it would want to ruin the innocence of children, by showcasing pain given to animals whom they deem to have more of a right to a pain-free life. By ignoring the repercussions of such materials on the psyches of children, the organization has proven it has no moral discernment.


My old professor was right. Life must be good for PETA to care more about animals than people. 

DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT

Other Stories by Paul Moomjean

Related Articles

Comments

Not so naive (on either side)

Paul Moomjean writes: "Conservatives believe liberals and leftists are naive, whereas liberals and leftists believe conservatives are evil and uncompassionate."

Wrong. There is definitely moral equivalence here. Many consevatives DO believe that liberals are evil and uncompassionate. Go to the right (no pun intended, believe me) places on the Internet and you'll see vicious articles and essays linking modern American liberalism to drug addiction, pornography, devil-worship, serial murder...and, of course, to the antiquated conspiracy theory about the attempt to establish a communist state in the U.S.A. I always thought that people stopped believing in that last one at about the mid-1950s, but I guess I was wrong; that particular hysteria is alive and well.

And I suspect Moomjean to be one of these slanderers. He is being disingenuous when he implies that PETA are simply naive, because he clearly believes them to be "evil and uncompassionate." Why else would he suggest that they are liars, claim they "damn" people, and call them "aggressive."

In fact, I believe that, all too often, American liberals are not aggressive enough. They're always on the defensive, always having to prove their purity and integrity to their critics. Why should PETA have ever had to apologize to ANYONE for their belief that the unprovoked taking of a life - ANY life, no matter what species - is always bad? It is what they believe, and in America you should never have to apologize for what you believe - especially since your harshest critics (like, in this case, Moomjean) are extremely unlikely to ever forgive you in exchange for your public humiliation? But that can never be, because America has become a nation of faux-politically correct apologizers. To put it more bluntly, America has become a nation of cowards - terrified to stick to their principles just because they have offended certain people.

posted by James Basolo on 2/19/14 @ 05:59 p.m.
Post A Comment

Requires free registration.

(Forgotten your password?")