Where's the Value?

Where did Anna Nichole Smith come from? What did she contribute to society that makes certain elements within the pop culture media desire to Elvis-ize her ad nauseum? I wish I knew.
Turn on your TV and you are overwhelmed with images and stories about Anna, Brittney, even Michael Vick (at least he had a real story behind his name) that seem to go on and on about not much of anything. More time will be spent on this subject in later installments, but for now, a few words about the Vick situation and trial.
Short and to the point: Animals are not people. Animals are not equal to people, in terms of worth, eternity, value, or destiny. Animals are here for our use, not for our worship. God told Adam in the garden of Eden that he was in charge of the animals, and they would be used by man for his purposes. God has a purpose for animals, but that in no way implies that they are equal to us, any more than sand has equal importance to mankind. Both were created by God, but for very different purposes. Oh, and then there's that comment made by God that the secular humanists and tree huggers seem to overlook, "we will make him in our image." The triune God does not speak those words about any other part of creation.
I (and most other sane people) do not see any value in dog fighting, rooster fighting, or other "blood sports" relating to animals. There is no excuse for mutilating animals for financial gain. So, that's a settled argument. However, the other night I saw an interview of a woman who shot her husband and less than a year later, is talking about it on TV, apparently a free woman. No public outcry, no green flag waving protesters lined up to be in the video shot. Yet Michael Vick was castigated and universally maligned as the utmost in criminal depravity, having been a part of dog fighting for wager and financial gain. Everyone who reported on him and the activity he was in purposely cast a dark cloud upon the report, showing their utter contempt.
So, the comment made here is that when some "poor dogs" are "forced" to fight in a ring, it's all hands on deck to destroy the animal (person) responsible. BUT, when one of these "poor dogs" that are bred and designed to be killing machines (they have no other useful purpose in nature or society) mutilates or even kills a human being, people respond in support of the dog. WHERE DOES SUCH MISGUIDED AND INSANE RATIONAL COME FROM?
Believe you me, any dog that bites any human needs to be a dead dog. End of discussion. Fine the owner for complete recompense for any medical bills, and an additional $1,000 for neglect, and wrap it up by burying the biting dog. This makes perfect sense to me, because I value human life far above and beyond any animal life. Humans are made in God's image, animals were made to serve man, and to serve a purpose in the balance of life here on earth. No comparison. Humans are eternal, animals are temporal. Sorry, but "Cujo" isn't "going to heaven."
The aforementioned misguided rational comes from people who find it much easier to show love and affection to a dog (or any other pet or animal), than to another human. There are millions of Americans (I won't comment on people in other countries) who are too cowardly or inept to build meaningful human relationships, and so they channel their love and affection to a dog, cat, bird, etc. This, of course, is sick, improper, and destructive, but rather than take care of their own issues that keep them from reaching out, they reach down to temporary, soulless animals as substitutes, and interestingly enough, they defend their choice with unmatched vigor and viciousness.
Leona Helmsly: does this really require comment? Millions left for a dog? But some in the media said, "well, maybe her grandchildren were mean to her!" I don't think anyone mistook Leona for a big wad of cuddly love, so let's keep that in mind, shall we? Again, choosing an animal over people. Just think what those millions (I actually don't know how much it was, so I am guessing) could do for orphanages in some of the poorest parts of our world. Instead, a stupid, soulless dog with no inherit value is soaking up gourmet meals. Gee, wonder why Brad and Angelina didn't make a public statement about that? Instead of the public crying out at this outrage, they turn their rage upon the grandchildren, assuming that they didn't "deserve" the money, based upon some alleged, assumed conduct unbefitting an inheritance.
OK, so it's easy to get affection from a dog. Feed and water them, and they're yours for life. Cats........well, that's another story. Point being, that animals give in proportion to what they require to hang around, and that's basically little to nothing. They lay in your lap, soak up your heat or A/C, shed nasty hair all over your house (bringing on all kinds of allergies that you try to blame on something else), chew up your valuables, poop on your carpet, and infest your dwelling with fleas. In return, well...........what was the point? Oh, yes - animals are so much better than humans! So why go through the bother to value human life above animal life? So what if God commands us to love one another (note there is no prescriptive charge to love animals), al la 1 Corinthians 13? Shouldn't we just show insane deference to animals, regardless of the command of our Lord or the eternal status of our souls?
Time to wrap this up with a few closing summations and comments:

• Treating animals with impunity and violence for sport or amusement is not being argued here.
• Animals were placed upon this earth to be used of, and serve man, and not the other way around.
• Animals do not have souls. Christ did not die for your cat or dog. He died for you. There may be animals in Heaven, but don't count on seeing Binky there because "he was such a good dog!"
• Human life is above all other life on this earth, as evidenced by the fact that Christ died for people, and for nothing else.
• People who either "can't," or refuse to learn to love and bond with other humans are not solving their problems by bonding with an animal.
• We say nothing while hundreds of innocent, unborn babies are mutitated and killed by doctors through abortion each day, but cry out when a few dogs are killed in a dusty arena.
• God speaks throughout His word about how we are to show love, forgiveness, and grace towards each other. In contrast, only in one or two instances does He give instruction on how to handle someone who viciously mistreats a animal, and even then, the instruction refers to restitution of the animal's owner.
• If your natural inclination is to take the side of an animal, rather than another human being, you have serious spiritual, moral, and relational problems that need to be dealt with. No exceptions. The loose definition of a physcopath is someone who has lost all value for human life. Where are you on that continuium?
• Michael Vick did offer a good apology. He assumed responsibility for his actions. People associated with such activities need to be reprimanded, of course, but we all need to keep our focus upon the big picture, and value human life above all else. Otherwise, we will continue our downward slide towards isolationism and antagonism towards each other, and ultimately, towards the God that created us.