Making the Good Book animal-friendly

An animal rights group wants a non-discriminatory translation of the Bible.

Chronicling the madness of political correctness is a never-ending affair. One perennial contender for the Fruitloop of the Year is PETA -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I have taken to naming it People Ever Thinking Askew. 

Well, it seems that these good folks have been at it again. No, I am not referring to PETA’s current offer of a free vasectomy if you have your dog or cat neutered. (Applications close on April 27!)

No, I have in mind their proposal to rewrite the Good Book. Given that this is basically a secular activist group which seldom invokes divine assistance in their struggle to free animals from bondage to non-feathered bipeds, it is odd of them to claim expertise in Scripture studies. Perhaps they won some free Hebrew classes in a raffle.

Believe it or not, they have written to the Committee on Bible Translation demanding that all “speciesist” language in the Bible be removed. Here is how PETA puts it on their website:

“After hearing about the latest translation of the New International Version of the Bible -- which uses gender-inclusive language such as ‘he or she’ instead of ‘he’ -- PETA has written to the Committee on Bible Translation to suggest that its next translation also remove speciesist language by referring to animals as ‘he or she’ instead of ‘it.’ In the letter, PETA points out that many modern writers are using ‘he,’ ‘she,’ and ‘who’ in place of the inaccurate ‘it’ and ‘which’ to refer to an animal.

“‘Updating the Bible's language regarding animals would not only reflect modern writing trends but also reinforce the idea that animals are living beings valued by God, not inanimate objects,’ says PETA Vice President Bruce Friedrich. ‘Jesus taught us the importance of mercy and compassion, and this update would encourage mercy and compassion for all God's creatures - including those who have feathers, fins, and fur’.”

So the next time you page through the Bible and discover that the translation refers to a pig or a bird as “it”, make sure you scribble out the offensive pronoun and replace it with “he” or “she”. You may think that this initiative is odd, but it is consistent with PETA’s philosophy. Its president, Ingrid Newkirk, has proudly proclaimed that “A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”

That’s right, there is no difference in PETA’s eyes between a human being and a rat. We are all one big happy family. I am reminded of another animal rights’ activist, Peter Singer, who has claimed that while it is in bad taste to eat animals, there is no morally compelling reason why we cannot have sex with them.

But here we have PETA seeking a Biblical foundation for their agenda. Sorry, but they need to read Scripture a bit more carefully. While animals, like the rest of creation, need to be treated with respect, they are not on a par with human beings.

Only humans are made in the image of God; only humans are the object of Christ’s sacrificial death; and only humans will have an eternal destiny. Sure, humans share with animals the fact that we are all creatures, while God is the creator, distinct from us.

But on the level of personhood, only humans share common ground with God. Animals, rocks, trees and other created things are not persons. To conflate humans with non-humans is always one-way traffic for these folks. While they may talk about raising animals to the level of humans, what really happens is that humans are dragged down to the level of animals.

When humans are dehumanised and depersonalised, terrible things can happen. The Communists and the Nazis both regarded humans as a part of the evolutionary continuum. Because humans were seen as not special, they were dispensable. Thus scores of millions were slaughtered last century in the name of these evolutionary worldviews.

Treating animals humanely is a hallmark of a civilised society. But we do neither animals nor humans any favours by confusing the two.

G.K Chesterton once said: “A society is in decay, final or transitional, when common sense really becomes uncommon.” He had a point.

Bill Muehlenberg is a lecturer in ethics and philosophy at several Melbourne theological colleges and a PhD candidate at Deakin University.

This article is published by Bill Muehlenberg and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.