A happy story in the Los Angeles Times this morning: Evangelizing for the Animals.
On Wednesday, clergy from 20 faith traditions — including Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic — will sign a statement declaring a moral duty to treat animals with respect. At a ceremony in Washington, they will call on all people of faith to stop wearing fur, reduce meat consumption, and buy only from farms with humane practices. The Best Friends Animal Society, which brought the group together, plans to recruit volunteers to bring that message into at least 2,000 congregations nationwide.
The evangelical community “is expanding its definition of values to include work on poverty and the environment. We hope to insert concern for animal welfare as well,” said Christine Gutleben, who directs the new “animals and religion” program at the Humane Society of the United States.
That program, funded at $400,000 a year, aims to persuade faith communities to take a series of small steps: offering a vegetarian entree at a fellowship meal, or insisting that the coffee cake set out on Sundays is made with free-range eggs.
The Humane Society is also seeking to enlist religious leaders in its political campaigns. In California, for instance, the group has been pushing a ballot measure to ban certain confinement systems for farm animals. Promotional ads show photos of hens in crowded cages and ask: “Is This Faithful Stewardship of God’s Creatures?”
I’m a member of the Christian Vegetarian Association, and they provide an excellent FAQ about issues of stewardship, dominion, and diet. I’m excited to see even some very conservative evangelicals (the Times article refers to Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University) becoming open to issues of conservation and justice for animals. While most traditional Christians are not willing to place animal life on par with human life, it is encouraging to see so many engaged in critical reflection about justice, compassion, and conservation. Real change often needs to happen incrementally, and evangelical openness to animal rights issues is an exciting first step.
My wife went from eating red meat to being completely vegan in the space of a weekend. Pun intended, she gave up a carnivorous lifestyle “cold-turkey.” I went more slowly, surrendering first red meat, then poultry, then fish, then dairy and eggs. (We’ve both felt terrific on our vegan diets, and my wife’s doctors assure her that she will be able to remain vegan throughout any future pregnancy and while nursing a future child.) Asking all Christians to consider veganism may be imposing too much too fast. Asking them to buy meat that has been raised and slaughtered humanely, asking them to include vegetarian and vegan options at social events, and asking church communities to reflect on good stewardship may be the best way to begin.
A helpful and little-known bible passage: Proverbs 12:10. Good people are good to their animals; the “good-hearted” bad people kick and abuse them. The Old Testament world had no concept of “pets” as we do; the animals referred to here are working animals, livestock. If you’re going to raise animals for slaughter, you are required to treate them with kindness. Making that biblically sound point is a vital part of the battle for the hearts, minds, and palates of Christians.
And the Times article contains a tidbit I didn’t know:
Before he became pope, Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) spoke against force-feeding geese to produce foie gras and packing hens so closely “that they become just caricatures of birds.”
Would that he had spoken on the matter ex cathedra. Perhaps soon.
Is it too intrusive to ask why your wife decided to become vegan so abruptly? I’m curious what could have had such an effect, given that most of us assume that carnivores and herbivores alike are aware of the “facts”.
This is a welcome development, especially as all too many people interpret liberally the Genesis line on God having given the earth to us to use. But the humane treatment of animals while alive is for many of us a different kettle of fish to swearing off animal products alltogether. I also get upset if I see a beautiful tree vandalised, but that won’t stop me eating my lettuce… so I think at the end of the day this is about where you draw the line in the (sentient) life continuum. Religious people who believe humans are set apart by a God-given soul are perhaps more inclined to draw the line as {plants, animals}{humans} rather than {plants}{animals}{humans} or {plants. animals, humans}. My word, that was eloquent.
Also, possibly off-topic: what in the world are “good-hearted bad people”?
“my wife’s doctors assure her that she will be able to remain vegan throughout any future pregnancy and while nursing a future child”
Do you and your wife plan on raising your child on a vegan diet?
“slaughtered humanely”
?!!?
Yes, that involves treating an animal with care and respect while it is alive, putting it through as little pain as possible when it is slaughtered, and approaching the whole endeavor with reverance rather than bloodthirstiness.
Wife became vegan after getting involved with PCRM (link on sidebar); she decided to go full gusto into veganism after attending a conference in DC with me last year.
A vegan child is plausible, read this post of mine:
http://hugoschwyzer.net/2007/06/04/death-by-veganism-cheap-alarmism-at-its-most-repugnant/
“approaching the whole endeavor with reverance rather than bloodthirstiness.”
Hm. I wasn’t aware avoiding bloodthirst was a distinguishing factor for what is/is not humane.
Also, haven’t received the memo wherein acting with reverance still ends in killing.
Incidentally, If a person is not ready, or ultimately unwilling, to stop eating meat I’m happy when they are at least concerned about ‘humane slaughter’ rather than not caring at all about the subject.
Okay Hugo, this I gotta know. If you had gone Vegan but your wife decided to continue eating meat, or vice versa, would that have been a problem in the relationship? It seems you were both carnivores at the beginning so neither of you had it as a prerequisite.
Pisaquari, as a vegan I would rather there be no slaughter. But if people are still going to eat meat, I want animals killed as humanely as possible — there are better and worse ways to die, and ameliorating suffering is the first step towards ending it.
Funt, I think if one of us went back to eating meat NOW, after all this time, it would be a big issue. But we grew into this together, and it has become a major part of our lives.
I understand Hugo (and FunT). I am not diminishing the value in moving people through steps to a less carcuss consuming world. My point was more a confusion on the combination of those words. Slaughter, as I have come to know it, refers to some sort of brutality and I cannot imagine humane coming before it–in *any* circumstance.
Of course I think it a better option to consume animal meat that has been given more care and freedom within their confines. But I would never suggest or partake in waxing poetic the realities of their killing.
I may be alone there.
Fairness and faithfulness to my Anishinabek friends requires that I point out the the formulation that these religious leaders have chosen: “stop wearing fur, reduce meat consumption, and buy only from farms with humane practices” penalizes traditional and particularly indigenous cultures by accepting some meat consumption, some humane animal husbandry practices, but rejecting all fur, whether wild trapped or farmed, and saying nothing about the baneful effects of pollution (pollution sometimes caused by the production of synthetic alternatives to fur) on wildlife.
In practice, the indiscriminate fur boycott has brought severe economic hardship to cultures that have lived in balance, practically and spiritually, with the land for thousands of years. In many cases, this has left the land open for clear-cut logging, hydro-electric development, and various forms other industrial practices that have far more serious consequences for the ecosystem, including the animals, than hunting and trapping.
Aw c’mon Hugo. You GOTTA take that one on.
( I would but me dum dummmmm)
John, no one wants to stop indigenous people from WEARING fur. But selling it to rich ladies in Manhattan is not a traditional cultural practice, and I have no problem with banning its sale. Talk about a false dichotomy you set up: kill animals for fur or have the forests clear-cut. There are more options.
Also, haven’t received the memo wherein acting with reverance still ends in killing.
Try “Acts of the Apostles.”
Hugo, let me say that I appreciate your restraint. I can understand that you view the fur trade in the context of companion animals for which, by your account, you feel a good deal of affection. I also view issues around fur through the lens of my experience; in this case, through the lens of a seriously abused community.
First Nations people traded in ornaments and clothing for many thousands of years before Columbian contact. So selling furs and other adornments does constitute a traditional cultural practice. I have no brief for the fur industry, which has a long and ugly history of exploiting First Nations people, nor do I support fur farming. But for a First Nations community to make a wild fur garment and sell it does constitute a traditional cultural practice, and also, quite probably, one of the least ecologically intrusive ways of producing winter clothing.
For example, consider the St. Lawrence Gulf Belugas. Those unfortunate creatures have suffered such extensive poisoning that when they wash ashore, the authorities have to treat their carcasses as toxic waste. Those dying animals have a direct relationship to the polyester that goes into the North Face and other clothing that animal rights activists seem to consider humane. In the long run, wild fur trapping may provide one of the most, rather than one of the least humane methods of making warm clothes.
I didn’t set up a dichotomy. I described what actually happened. I did not say, nor do I believe, that animal rights/animal welfare activists cannot work to reduce the non-indigenous fur industry in a way that respects indigenous and traditional cultures. I merely pointed out that, in the opinion of people I respect, that those who designed the campaigns that actually took place did so without taking indigenous people into account; that they actually did harm the interests of indigenous people, and that this process (again, in the opinion of people I respect) helped clear the way for much more serious and destructive assaults on the land, including clear-cutting; practices which also result in widespread habitat destruction.
John, I accept your central point: animal rights activists have often been culturally insensitive. Eradicating the fur trade and eliminating animal cruelty does have to be done gradually in culturally sensitive ways that allow native peoples to continue to make a living and to continue as many of their cultural practices as possible.
I see fur as similar to cocaine and heroin; in going after Afghan poppy farmers or Colombian coca growers, there has to be a willingness to offer alternatives that can provide an equal level of prosperity. And the ecosystem has to be managed intelligently — the “fix” is long term.
In California, we permit gaming only on tribal Indian lands. As a short-term measure, I would be willing to see fur trapping and hunting coninue on First Nations lands, with the proviso that humane methods be used and that only First Nations people be allowed to take part in the hunting/trapping.
Hugo,
Your counterpoint would impress me a little more if you had addressed John’s point about the poisoned Belugas and how the manufacture of synthetics is harmful in a different way to wildlife.
Similar to the point you made weeks ago that any food production involves, ultimately, some degree of killing it would seem that the same is true of clothing.
So why is one more objectionable than the other?
BTW, you both know WAAAAAYYY more about this than I do so I’m asking this with a neutral mind.
It’s a false dichotomy: poisoned belugas or fur. It’s possible to make synthetic fabrics in environmentally responsible ways, it’s just pricier. And that’s what we have to demand.
It doesn’t do to call facts a “false dichotomy”. Our synthetics industry has poisoned the belugas and many other creatures. They have done the deed already. I consider it quite conceivable, that a wild fur garment now on the rack has cost less animal death and suffering, in the long run, than many equivalent synthetic garments. Apart from anything else, I believe that religious leaders who “evangelize for animals” have an obligation to address this reality. By what they leave unsaid, they run the risk that someone who hasn’t done the research might buy a fleece jacket from a notorious polluter thinking they have helped the animals we share this planet with.
Can we make ecologically responsible synthetic garments? I certainly hope so, if only because we probably cannot trap enough wild fur to clothe everyone. I do not believe money or technology will resolve this problem, because I have no evidence it will, and because I have learned not to trust technology or wealth to eliminate moral dilemmas. Because we live, in such numbers, many animals, indeed many whole species, probably will not survive. And technology, by itself, won’t change this reality. That should explain why I enjoin respect for the indigenous cultures that, in my experience, have a deep rich understanding of the relationship between ourselves and the world that feeds, clothes, shelters and sustains us. I also appreciate Hugo for respecting a point of view so radically different from his own.