PETA is a wonderful organization.

"PETA has compared Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust to farm animals and Jesus Christ to pigs. PETA's religious campaigns include a website that claims—despite ample evidence to the contrary—that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. PETA holds protests at houses of worship, even suing one church that tried to protect its members from Sunday-morning harassment. Its billboards taunt Christians with the message that hogs "died for their sins." PETA insists, contrary to centuries of rabbinical teaching, that the Jewish ritual of kosher slaughter shouldn't't be allowed. And its infamous "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign crassly compared the Jewish victims of Nazi genocide to farm animals." I pretty much see how they get that. Holocaust victims were thought of as lesser, the were overcrowded, underfed, tortured, killed, tested on, it just wasn't right; the same thing happens with animals. Jesus Christ isn't being compared to the pig. It is Christian tradition to eat ham on Easter, the day celebrated as the "rebirith" (or zombification) of Jesus. Jesus made ham clean to eat so by eating the ham you aknowlage what Jesus has done. Likewise the pig had to be killed for ham, when otherwise in biblical times most would leave it along because it was a sin. So in a sense apparently they both did die for your sins, but I doubt they mean that Jesus=pig. Now as far as the Jesus was a vegetarian, I don't know the facts of that. I know someone quoted a bible verse in which Jesus says "If one does not wish to eat meat, do not try to change his mind" or something to that effect (can be found under a thread titled "health effects of fish..." made by freedo, I believe in the health forum) "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, a national animal rights group, posted giant photographs of people, mostly black Americans, being tortured, sold and killed, next to photographs of animals, including cattle and sheep, being tortured, sold and killed." Which brings the awareness that racism and speciem are both wrong. Whites used to think they could buy sell torutre and do whatever they wanted with blacks, that blacks were their property. Now the same is happening with animals. If nothing else it proves my point. "For instance, in 2003 PETA and other animal liberation groups filed suit to prevent zoos in San Diego and Tampa from importing African elephants endangered by overcrowding. National Review writer Wesley Smith observed that the court denied PETA's request for an injunction, saying that unless they were brought to the U.S. the elephants would be culled by South African authorities, since their numbers were a danger to the ecosystem of the famous Kruger National Park. The court said putting the elephants in zoos would save their lives. But the plaintiffs' attorneys argued that the elephants "will be better off if … killed rather than imported and placed in zoos."" I always wondered about the zoo policy for endangered species, but could never find the answer. I would disagree with this and say that if they move the whole family to a zoo that is large enough that provides enough room and space that there is nothing wrong with it. This is a stance I would fight for PETA to drop because not every zoo is wrong to the animals. "PETA believes animals should be killed rather than placed in homes and shelters." I see how you can get that, but I would imagine if they can find a good home for the kittens they would give them over. The extremism is undeserable but it is also needed to get people's attention to the horror worldwide. Some veiws need to be changed, this is one of them. Anything is capable of change, laws, and PETA. If all the zoos treated animals right and were good for the animals, I would imagine PETA would support zoos. "PETA says it kills animals to prevent animal suffering and humiliation. But if animals and humans have the same rights, then what stops PETA from harming humans too?" First off, when has PETA had to support people? Until it starts housing homeless people and/or (human) victims of abuse then this argument is invalid. When that happens, I might share that concern. "This question may seem far-fetched, but there is a slippery slope between the ravings of the organization and the activism of its constituent members. PETA's documented ties to violent activists, its deceitful tactics and its considerable financial resources create a frightening picture we dare not ignore." Really all your arguments seem like an anti-religion argument. PETA is no worse than a religion. No worse than islam or christianity or any such religion. They are some of the most peaceful and wonderful religions. Its not like buddhism which more or less would make the world ideal, but that does not mean it is not wonderful. (sorry to bring religion into this)