Animal Rights

Some news about me: I broke my foot last Friday. Which is also the reason I respond to Dr. Mohlers show that late. I went to the hospital to see my grandma. When I left I took the stairs instead of the elevator, because the elevator took somewhat too long and I wanted to do something that's good for my health. Unfortunately I missed the last step of the stairway way, stumbled and distorted my left foot. This way I broke the fifth bone of my middle foot. There in one good thing in this whole accident: There is doubtlessly no better place to break your foot than next door to the department for accident surgery where they could plaster my lower leg.
Thanks to this I will be in hospital again on Thursday. Because the fracture is somewhat complicated they have to implant a metal splint. I hope to be home again on Monday in a week.
I wonder a bit how you put this in a theological perspective. An atheist who breaks his foot seems easy - but an atheist who breaks his foot next door the the department for accident surgery seems a bit indecisive on Gods part.

Why should we grant Rights to animals, what would stop us from doing the same with plants?

Dr. Mohler presented one case for granting Rights to animals in his show. And I don't think he presented the best one. Humans make laws for humans. Even if they are unaware of this fact. For example the protection of the environment. While it obviously protect nature and habitats it also protects human society which benefits greatly from living in an intact natural environment. When it comes to water quality it's obvious, but you shouldn't forget the recreational benefits from having a healthy landscape around you.
While animal Rights seem to protect Animals first and foremost, they also protect our society. As a society we also need compassion for each other. To preserve this compassion should be a very high priority for any society. If someone tortures, mistreats or abuses an animal that shows a great lack of compassion for animals on his or her side. And I seriously doubt that she or he can limit that to her or his treatment of members of the animal kingdom. Attitudes do have consequences. Once people accept the mistreatment of animals, who are able to show their pain and agony, it's not to unlikely that they will one day even mistreat humans in the same way.
That's where I also see the difference between mistreating animals and mistreating plants. Plants don't show their pain and agony (if they feel any). Animals do show those emotions. Especially the great apes do that and someone who is willing and able to mistreat those animals or is unwilling to show any compassion to those is a danger to the public order.
Dr. Mohler might laugh at the idea of outlawing great apes in circuses and television, but I see the logic behind all of this. Showing those animals in this fashion at some point dehumanizes them. The behavior of apes shown in circuses or television is in most cases anything but indicative of their natural behaviors. If someone acts in a ridiculous way he is said to act like a monkey. While monkeys and great apes very rarely act this way when behaving according to their nature. The whole dehumanizing insult of acting like a monkey or an ape would loose its effect if apes and monkeys would be shown how they naturally live.

Btw. 2 things

Firstly: Yes, the government of José Luis Rodrigues Zapatero did away with a lot of the conservative elements that Spain was known for. That's because Spain is a very young democracy and it is now just about 30 years ago that Spain was ruled by the fascist dictator Franco. With this time passed between to old regime and the new republic we see the Spanish society cleansing itself from the last influences of that period. I wonder why Dr. Mohler didn't mention the regime of Franco when I lauded the former conservative values of Spain... Maybe because the period of Franco, which is stained in blood, is perhaps the best example how much Christians can become complicit in an inhumane dictatorship.

Secondly: Albert Mohler seemed somewhat afraid that lawyers could be up to define a new case law by forcing precedences. That fear might be true for the anglo-american world. Not for continental Europe. Even thou a lot of my fellow citizens who are influenced by how Hollywood presents the court system (which is then by nature an anglo-american one), case-law is alien to continental Europe. That means for example that the equivalent of a county court in Germany can rule explicitly against the decisions made by higher courts. Our courts are bound to laws made by the legislator, which say have to interpret. In doing so they are free from former decisions. The only thing a judge who rules against the decision made by higher courts is that his decisions will most likely be nullified.