My goodness, it's terrible the things that go on in the world. This is her

website: http://www.somaly.org/. Also, after the conference, I researched

her online and found these really insightful articles from TIME (

http://www.time.com/time/speci…)

and this one from Glamour (

http://www.glamour.com/magazin…).

I've actually been meaning to do a {Heal the World} article here on the Pink

Book on her. But I haven't had the chance yet.

Re: the other things — I'm not siding with what PETA did, I'm beginning to

think I need to clarify my statement above, I was agreeing with Krupa's

motivation behind WHY she agreed to do it. I think a humane God, is God,

nonetheless, and animal or human — he would NOT approve of either

suffering.

I don't think it's fair when some people group animals and people together

and compare them, like you did.

I think living creatures all deserve the right to be healthy and happy in

their own right. There are exceptions to everything of course. For example,

I won't harp on about the native people in the arctics of Finland killing

animals to use their fur to survive. But I will harp on about game killing,

etc. In my personal opinion, it's wrong and inhumane on so many levels.

So what I meant above — is that I don't think anything is wrong with

Joanna's motivation behind why she posed for the advertisement. But I also

think, that someone from the church besides the Catholic League should have

made a statement. Because if you go to the Fox 411 article, you'll see that

the BD's statements are misinformed and he passes judgements and makes

assumptions about pet stores, inferring puppy mills, which are absolutely

wrong and actually go against what the church teaches; what any religion

would teach for that matter.

Life is life. We should embrace it.

Thank you for taking the time to comment Stephen, I appreciate you lending

your insight and thoughts to my blog.

I hope you have a great Thursday!

Best wishes,

Sasha

Who said God was against stopping the suffering of animals? Just because the Catholic Church thinks it's vulgar to use a cross covering up a woman's chest/crotch as a message against animal cruelty certainly doesn't mean the Church is implying that God supports abuse of animals. IMO, that's a huge jump in logic, and not very fair to the Church's position.

I also think if PETA made an ad that was offensive to other religions/cultures, there'd be a much larger uproar. In many ways, I think anti-Catholic biases in the media are accepted. When something offends Catholics, the issue is often portrayed as the Church stifling artistic creativity/freedom of expression. When something offends other groups, it's often deemed poor taste/hateful/offensive, and there's a grounswell to shut it down.

I also had trouble with your line about a “humane God” wanting to stop the suffering of animals. This may be a bit off-topic, but obviously, animals are not humans. While I admire the work that people do to prevent cruelty and abuse to animals, for me, there's a much stronger moral obligation to prevent cruelty and abuse of humans, who live/are treated like animals in many parts of the world.

Animals are certainly a part of God's creation, and they should be respected. However, I'd sacrifice the life of my dog (who I have a great relationship with and care about very much) if it meant protecting/saving the life of any person, even someone I did not know.

Do you think animals should be treated humanely? Do you think their rights, and our responsibilities to them, are on the same footing as those of humans?

My goodness, it's terrible the things that go on in the world. This is her
website: http://www.somaly.org/. Also, after the conference, I researched
her online and found these really insightful articles from TIME (
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/arti…)
and this one from Glamour (
http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2006/07/global-…).

I've actually been meaning to do a {Heal the World} article here on the Pink
Book on her. But I haven't had the chance yet.

Re: the other things — I'm not siding with what PETA did, I'm beginning to
think I need to clarify my statement above, I was agreeing with Krupa's
motivation behind WHY she agreed to do it. I think a humane God, is God,
nonetheless, and animal or human — he would NOT approve of either
suffering.

I don't think it's fair when some people group animals and people together
and compare them, like you did.

I think living creatures all deserve the right to be healthy and happy in
their own right. There are exceptions to everything of course. For example,
I won't harp on about the native people in the arctics of Finland killing
animals to use their fur to survive. But I will harp on about game killing,
etc. In my personal opinion, it's wrong and inhumane on so many levels.

So what I meant above — is that I don't think anything is wrong with
Joanna's motivation behind why she posed for the advertisement. But I also
think, that someone from the church besides the Catholic League should have
made a statement. Because if you go to the Fox 411 article, you'll see that
the BD's statements are misinformed and he passes judgements and makes
assumptions about pet stores, inferring puppy mills, which are absolutely
wrong and actually go against what the church teaches; what any religion
would teach for that matter.

Life is life. We should embrace it.

Thank you for taking the time to comment Stephen, I appreciate you lending
your insight and thoughts to my blog.

I hope you have a great Thursday!
Best wishes,

Sasha

Who said God was against stopping the suffering of animals? Just because the Catholic Church thinks it's vulgar to use a cross covering up a woman's chest/crotch as a message against animal cruelty certainly doesn't mean the Church is implying that God supports abuse of animals. IMO, that's a huge jump in logic, and not very fair to the Church's position.

I also think if PETA made an ad that was offensive to other religions/cultures, there'd be a much larger uproar. In many ways, I think anti-Catholic biases in the media are accepted. When something offends Catholics, the issue is often portrayed as the Church stifling artistic creativity/freedom of expression. When something offends other groups, it's often deemed poor taste/hateful/offensive, and there's a grounswell to shut it down.

I also had trouble with your line about a “humane God” wanting to stop the suffering of animals. This may be a bit off-topic, but obviously, animals are not humans. While I admire the work that people do to prevent cruelty and abuse to animals, for me, there's a much stronger moral obligation to prevent cruelty and abuse of humans, who live/are treated like animals in many parts of the world.

Animals are certainly a part of God's creation, and they should be respected. However, I'd sacrifice the life of my dog (who I have a great relationship with and care about very much) if it meant protecting/saving the life of any person, even someone I did not know.

Do you think animals should be treated humanely? Do you think their rights, and our responsibilities to them, are on the same footing as those of humans?

###

“We are doing the dirty work that others won't,” said Daphna Nachminovitch, vice-president for cruelty investigations. “We are proud to be a shelter of last resort that takes in old broken animals and gives them a humane end.

Chrissie Hynde, former lead singer of The Pretenders and a Peta supporter, said: “It's curious that the meat and tobacco industries, who destroy innumerable human lives with their 'goods', and billions of animals producing them, try to incite public outrage by throwing stones at a charity who's very existence is to promote the welfare of animals and offer to put suffering animals out of their misery.”

Patrick Holden, director of UK organic farming body the Soil Association, said: “The difficulty for Peta is that where animals are kept as pets or farm animals, their eventual death is inevitable.

“The moral question for society is whether we have a right to take the life of animals. Some say we do not, and I respect that, but we have a different position: if an animal life is taken, we have an obligation to respect and look after the animal during its life to the highest standards.

“Perhaps this is an example of how, in the real world, it is impossible to escape the responsibility that one sometimes has to take the life of an animal. There is an apparent contradiction in Peta's philosophy.”

###

That's crazy. But then I wonder how much of it really goes on? And also, how badly off the animals were. That one guy from Friends For Animals said that there were a lot of healthy looking animals.

I don't know. I want to research and read more about this.

Thanks for sending me the first few links, I really appreciate it!

Maybe another blog post topic will be discovered

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/cele…

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_resea…

I think the debate is so interesting. PETA is known for so many things, especially pushing the limits on things.

What I agree with is Joanna's motivation for doing the advert. She believes in God and believes that he would agree in saving defenseless animals.

What I don't agree with, are the misconceptions from the Catholic League about the organization. Another commenter, below, said that PETA actually hurts animals. Now, I've never heard that before and now I'm very interested in finding out more about that particular piece of information.

I told the other commenter below, Ashley, that I know in South Asia, where a lot of Hindu people live who are vegetarian, PETA is giant organization because they protect animals etc. Incidentally, a lot of Bollywood actors and actresses have posed in numerous campaigns for them. The one that comes nearest to my mind is John Abraham, because I believe his might have been nude and in a cage? I don't remember. But I do remember seeing that a little while ago.

I think, like with the scare tactics for the AIDS campaigns (http://sashahalima.com/blog/?p=6247), this type of marketing is unnecessary.

I think that if you do your research well, there is a better way to reach your target audiences and attract new ones, without involving scare/shock tactics.

Thanks Alex!

Thanks for your comment. I understand where you are coming from. My comment at the end of my post, where I did agree with Krupa was in reference to her stating that she didn't think that God would be against saving defenseless animals.

In terms of the picture itself, I'm not Catholic so I can't comment from that POV specifically. But I will say, that like Carrie Prejean, the choice is hers.

I look at things like Madonna and the Cross Burning in the “Like a Prayer” video, or “Live to Tell” from her Confessions tour (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdU3fKbbbu0) and I think the debate on iconography is so interesting when it comes to it's proper use. Then again, Madonna is a person who put herself 'out there.'

Why do you say, that PETA kills more animals than they save? That is news to me. Where did you see/hear that? Can you send me some links, I really want to read about that.

I know PETA is really big in South Asia. Especially, with Bollywood actors and actresses because they are all vegetarians etc. I think John Abraham did a “rather go naked than wear fur” nude advert for them too. Or maybe he was wearing leaves? I can't remember.

But yes! Please send me that info. I want to read about it.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts

Second, I do not like or respect PETA. They kill more animals than they save. As a owner of 6 rescued indoor and 2 outdoor cats, I can not respect a group that is more for shock than for helping. I donate to the Human Society who ensure that the animals that are rescued will truly be safe.

I will just say this… without passing judgment… organizations like PETA have to push the envelope to get to the front pages (nude celeb ads, blood on fur coats, naked and painted women in cages in time square, etc.)… so I'm not surprised, but i really think they need to stop this type of 'marketing' so that not to feed the stereotype (or not) of their org being perceived as fanatic and radical.