March
2001
Oh
God: For Nonhuman Animals, Religion Stinks
By Jack Rosenberger
|
|
|
As a journalist, I received my first death threat 11
years ago after the Village Voice published an article of mine
titled “Animal Rites: The Latest Battle Between Activists and Researchers,”
a cover story. Having a stranger express a desire to end my earthly
existence was a peak experience, but it was not nearly as memorable
as a small incident that occurred when a Voice staff member (who I’ll
call Alison) was fact checking my article.
“Animal Rites” was an account of an early-morning Animal Liberation
Front (ALF) raid on the office of Adrian Morrison, an anatomy professor
at the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine, and
an expose of Morrison’s many dirty deeds in defense of the practice
of cutting apart live animals. The article was quite a challenge to
fact check, particularly because much of it concerned the gruesome
animal
experiments of vivisectionists like Morrison, Edward Taub, and John
Orem.
In a full-page sidebar, I sketched out an overview of the animal rights
movement in America and its philosophical underpinnings, most notably
the arguments put forth by philosopher Peter Singer in Animal Liberation. “Singer’s book argues that mankind has not extended the concept
of ‘rights’ far enough,” I wrote. “He points out
that not too long ago in this country, blacks, on the basis of race,
and women, on the basis of sex, were denied the most elementary rights.
Man himself is an animal, Singer points out, yet he denies rights to
all of his fellow animals.”
Alison invested nearly a week verifying my manuscript, but was particularly
stumped by one fact. In reference to the above quoted passage, she
asked
me to prove that humans are animals. The tone of her voice and the
conviction with which she made her request led me to believe that Alison
thought
she’d caught me committing a glaring mistake.
I may never forget that moment. In those days, I often carried a paperback
edition of Animal Liberation around with me, so it was relatively
easy for me to open Animal Liberation and locate the passage in the
preface that said “We commonly use the word ‘animal’
to mean ‘animals other than human beings.’ This usage sets
humans apart from other animals, implying that we are not ourselves
animals—an implication that everyone who has had elementary lessons
in biology knows to be false.”
What really struck me about Alison’s inquiry was that she was obviously
a well-educated and intelligent person. Yet she had a problem with the
fact that humans are obviously animals. What I didn’t admit to
Alison was that it wasn’t until several years after I’d graduated
from college and read the preface of Animal Liberation that I
ever thought of myself, or other humans, as an animal.
Perhaps the most formidable intellectual challenge facing the animal
rights community is the erroneous belief of many humans that they are
not animals. For this, I largely blame organized religion and its centuries
of influence on humanity’s attitudes toward nonhuman animals.
For the purpose of this article, I will focus on Christianity, the
dominant
Western religion, which teaches that humans are not animals but special
beings who were created by God in his image and entitled to everlasting
life.
A Matter of Faith
Personally, I think God is a human invention, a coping mechanism
that shields people from the unpleasant facts that human life is often
violent, chaotic, and unfair. Interesting but nonexistent. When I’ve
challenged Christians for proof of God’s existence, they invariably
reply, “It’s a matter of faith.” Of course, faith doesn’t
constitute proof; a young child may be convinced that Santa Claus exists.
From an animal rights perspective, the problem with Christianity (and
other religions) is that not only does it grossly mislead humans about
their membership of the animal species, but it has traditionally viewed
nonhuman animals as inferior beings, like slaves, and condoned the most
horrific abuses. For century after century.
Then along came Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution, which demonstrated
that humans are animals too. Yet, more than a century after the publication
of The Origin of Species, evolution still isn’t taught in
many American schools. In 1925, high school biology teacher John Scopes
was put on trial in Tennessee for violating a state law that prohibited
the teaching of evolution in public schools; in 1999, a USA Weekend
survey found only “40 states have science standards that put some
emphasis on evolution. Some are mandates; others, voluntary.” That
same year, The New York Times reported that the Kansas Board
of Education voted “to discourage the teaching of evolution and
eliminate questions about the subject from student evaluation tests....” However,
according to a recent New York Times article (2/18/01): “In a 7-to-3 vote, the Kansas Board of Education reversed [the]
decision that removed the theory of evolution as the sole explanation
of the origin of man from the state’s public school curriculum.” Oh,
progress.
How can we counter the perception of many humans that they are not animals?
Here are some modest suggestions.
Evolving our Language
We must improve how we speak and write about humans and nonhumans,
and in our daily language constantly reiterate the fact that humans
are animals. One way we can accomplish this is by regularly using the
terms “human animals” and “nonhuman animals.”
Likewise, we must use the terms “speciesism” and “speciesist” more
often. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer defines “speciesism”
as “a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members
of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.”
Our usage of the word “speciesism” serves the dual purpose
of reinforcing the idea that humans are also animals and that the practices
of eating animal flesh, vivisection, and blood “sports” like
fishing and hunting are acts of human insensitivity and oppression.
We should discuss animals as being victims of prejudice and discrimination,
exploitation, oppression, and human tyranny. Above all, we should harshly
criticize society’s use of animal-related euphemisms like “destroyed”
and “put to sleep;” animals are murdered.
One of our biggest intellectual allies is the theory of evolution.
We should better educate ourselves about evolution (and the opposing “theory” of
creationism), and use the idea of evolution to drive home the point
that humans are animals, too.
We must make humans recognize that animals are real beings like ourselves.
Let’s promote and celebrate the differences and similarities between
the species, and make human animals more appreciative of all of their
nonhuman evolutionary counterparts, not just the cutest and most easily
likable animals like cats, dogs, and slow-moving panda bears.
Lastly, we must challenge religious leaders and ask them: what good
is a faith that condones animal abuse? During the last decade we’ve
seen Christianity, Judaism, and other religions become much more concerned
with the environment. We can also influence religions about their attitudes
toward nonhuman animals. If we lead, they may follow.
