Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Thursday, February 09, 2006

The Conservative Case For Animal Welfare

The Minneapolis Daily's Jaon Ketola



While the vegetarian, as misanthrope stereotype, is easily rejected by pointing to the lives of actual vegetarians, a stereotype that’s been harder to shed is the vegetarian as a secular liberal. Not often have religious scholars or conservative intellectuals received airtime in the mass media. The media seem to be more obsessed with ridiculing the fringe element of the vegetarian movement, which admittedly seems to bask in the coverage it gets. Yet Matthew Scully, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, received widespread acclaim for his book “Dominion,” in which he delivers a conservative and religiously grounded polemic for better treatment of farm animals.


(...)One of Scully’s greatest contributions comes with his interpretation of the Christian creation story, in which God says in Genesis 1:26 (King James version), “Let us make (hu)man(s) in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the Earth.” Rather than taking this verse to suggest that humans have divine authority to deal and dispense with animals however they choose, Scully suggests that “dominion” here aligns with the conservative ethic of stewardship. In Scully’s view, God has charged us with a caretaking role with respect to animals, and that in our relationship with farm animals we should practice humane husbandry. The egregious practices inherent in factory-style farming, which Scully delineates throughout his book, are far from meeting the humaneness demanded by a proper treatment ethic.


Scully says that as “a matter of simple decency and an obligation to justice” we should not subject animals to “human cruelty.” While he advocates for greater legal protection for animals, Scully maintains that as consumers we ought to use our purchases to obtain animal products from farms that raise and slaughter animals in humane ways, if we consume animal products at all.


He maintains that we ought to consider why prohibitions exist against taking pictures on corporate farms, why public relations professionals are necessary to represent modern farms and their practices and ultimately why so many of us “don’t want to know” where our food comes from. The distancing most of us do from the production of animal products is indicative of a conflict of conscience that ought to be rectified.


(...)Scully’s perspective is appealing in that it provides a fresh angle with which to address an important issue. His work fills a critical gap in a literature that has been bound in mostly secular, liberal ideologies. At the same time, as Scully reminds us that animal suffering is something conservatives and Christians ought to consider and respond to, he destroys the stereotype of the vegetarian as Chaco-wearing hippie. Conservative, liberal, independent or politically indifferent, we should all consider whether our personal use of animals is indeed humane.



It's a good article. My support for animal welfare and animal liberation is based on secular values, but that's just me. The conservative, Christian case for animal welfare is very strong, and the world would be a much better place if more people follwed it.

Comments

Rob
Rob
17182 comments
Send a private message

I guess i find the idea of “animal liberation” silly regardless of how it is justified.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 9, 2006 at 07:27 am
Avatar for King of Fools

Stewardship is a great word, but the same Bible also called for Adam and Eve to be clothed with the skins of animals after the fall.  They were also directed to eat them, and that is followed by a long history of animal sacrifice to cover human sins.

I guess you could say Jesus was a great animal liberator since his ultimate sacrifice for our sins was to put an end to the shedding of animal blood.

But I don’t think the Christian case for animal welfare (at least how it is defined in the article) is terribly strong.

King of Fools on February 9, 2006 at 07:47 am
Avatar for docdave

You can be for humane treatment of animals without being a member of PETA or a vegetarian.  Keeping animals in small unsanitary feed lots is not humane nor is it healthy for humans to consume meat from animals confined to these areas.

docdave on February 9, 2006 at 08:46 am
Avatar for Clint

Acts 10:9 On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour:
10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,
11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:
12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. 
14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. 
15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. 
16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

We’re supposed to be good stewards of ALL that God gives us, but he did not give animals souls and did not forbid that they be food for humanity.

Clint on February 9, 2006 at 10:19 am
Avatar for robert108

Dave: I understand that this guy more or less subscribes to your ideology, but what is it that makes him a “conservative”?  Is it that he is described as a “former speechwriter for George W. Bush”?  Pretty thin, IMO.

robert108 on February 9, 2006 at 02:31 pm
Avatar for Daniel

if animals weren’t meant to be food, they wouldn’t taste so good.

Daniel on February 9, 2006 at 04:38 pm

if animals weren’t meant to be food, they wouldn’t taste so good.

If blacks weren’t meant for slavery they wouldn’t work so hard. This is fun!

I understand that this guy more or less subscribes to your ideology, but what is it that makes him a “conservative”? Is it that he is described as a “former speechwriter for George W. Bush”? Pretty thin, IMO.

The title of the article (which I’m guessing you did NOT read) is “Compassionate Conservatives for Animals.” The author, Jason Ketola, is a member of “Students for a Conservative Voice” which, and I’m just guessing here, is a conservative organization.

Dave on February 9, 2006 at 07:22 pm
Avatar for robert108

Dave: Or they could be lying lefties.  Calling yourself a conservative isn’t the same as actually being one.  Talking the talk ain’t the same as walking the walk.  Glad you admit you are guessing here.
Still on that “eating meat equals slavery” meme, eh?

robert108 on February 10, 2006 at 01:21 am

robert108: Do you have any evidence whatsoever to justify your claim?

And eating meat does equal slavery, yes, so I’ll stay on that “meme.”

Dave on February 10, 2006 at 04:18 am
Avatar for robert108

Dave: I made no claim, I only questioned your claim that this drivel was from real conservatives.  You forgot that humans and animals are different.  Oh, I forgot! You don’t know that.

robert108 on February 10, 2006 at 09:24 am
Avatar for docdave

"And eating meat does equal slavery” Wow, profound statement!!  And up is down, white is black and eating vegetables equals homicide!!  Sure glad you clarified that.

docdave on February 10, 2006 at 09:40 am
Rob
Rob
17182 comments
Send a private message

And eating meat does equal slavery, yes, so I’ll stay on that “meme.”

Do we “enslave” animals?  Sure we do.  Is it equivalent to “enslaving” humans?  Nope.

Because animals aren’t human.  They’re just dumb, tast animals.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 10, 2006 at 10:39 am

Rob: So at what IQ level does it become wrong to enslave beings?

Dave on February 10, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Rob
Rob
17182 comments
Send a private message

Why would I use IQ level?  I don’t think any humans should be enslaved, regardless of their IQ.

I don’t have a problem with doing it to animals, though.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on February 11, 2006 at 09:23 am

So your only criterion is species membership--intelligence, capacity for moral judgments, emotional development; it’s all a wash.

 Can you explain how your criterion of species membership is a better method for determining when slavery is wrong than the racist’s criterion of race membership was?

Dave on February 14, 2006 at 01:54 pm
Rob
Rob
17182 comments
Send a private message

So your only criterion is species membership

Yup. 


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on March 30, 2006 at 01:32 pm
Avatar for Michael

"Stewardship is a great word, but the same Bible also called for Adam and Eve to be clothed with the skins of animals after the fall. They were also directed to eat them, and that is followed by a long history of animal sacrifice to cover human sins.”

But we were called to be stewards whether or not the religion allows us to stay warm and well nourished and previously were to make sacrifices. It strongly counsels us to treat animals with respect and compassion. Christians should accept their theological call to promote animal welfare issues even if they might not be accepted by the extremists who consider meat eating abhorent.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/animal_equal_consideration/

Michael on September 13, 2006 at 08:39 pm

Christians should accept their theological call to promote animal welfare issues

Of course. Thank you. But this certainly won’t happen on this blog.
Dave on September 14, 2006 at 08:15 pm
Avatar for robert108

Christians should accept their theological call to promote animal welfare issues…

There is no such call; sorry, but that’s just a fantasy you made up. 

I do respect a rare to medium rare filet mignon, though, come to think of it…

robert108 on September 14, 2006 at 08:20 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.