Posted on 07/02/2002 6:02:42 AM PDT by joesnuffy
Animal 'Rights' Zealot: Christianity Harmful; Infanticide OK
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com Tuesday, July 2, 2002
Princeton University professor Peter Singer, dubbed the "godfather" of animal rights, says Christianity is a "problem" for the animal rights movement.
Singer, author of the book "Animal Liberation" and a professor of bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, criticized American Christianity for its fundamentalist strain that takes the Bible too "literally" and promotes "speciesism." He defined speciesism as the belief that being a member of a certain species "makes you superior to any other being that is not a member of that species."
Baby Killing OK
In an address to the national Animal Rights 2002 conference in McLean, Va., on Saturday, Singer also reiterated his controversial position that a "severely disabled" infant may be killed up to 28 days after its birth if the parents deem the baby's life is not worth living.
"I think that mainstream Christianity has been a problem for the animal movement," Singer told about 100 people attending a workshop titled "When Is Killing OK? (Attacking animals? Unwanted dogs & cats? Unwanted or deformed fetuses?)"
He singled out the "more conservative mainstream fundamentalist views" that "want to make a huge gulf between humans and animals" as being the most harmful to the concept of "animal liberation."
Singer rejected what he termed "the standard view that most people hold," that "just being human makes life special." He told one questioner from the audience, "I hope that you don't think that just being a biological member of the species homo sapiens means that you do have a soul and being a member of some other species means they don't. I think that would trouble me."
"I am an atheist, I know that is an ugly word in America," he added.
Singer pointed out that the Judeo-Christian ethic teaches not only that humans have souls and animals don't, but that humans are made in the image of God and that God gave mankind dominion over the animals. "All three taken together do have a very negative influence on the way in which we think about animals," he said.
He explained that his mission is to challenge "this superiority of human beings," and he conceded that his ideas go very much against the grain of a country that mostly still believes in human superiority.
Infant's Right to Life?
Singer reiterated one of his most controversial positions regarding the right to kill a newborn infant within 28 days of birth if the infant is deemed "severely disabled."
"If you have a being that is not sentient, that is not even aware, then the killing of that being is not something that is wrong in and of itself," he stated.
"I think that a chimpanzee certainly has greater self-awareness than a newborn baby," he told CNSNews.com.
He explained that "there are some circumstances, for example, where the newborn baby is severely disabled and where the parents think that it's better that that child should not live, when killing the newborn baby is not at all wrong ... not like killing the chimpanzee would be. Maybe it's not wrong at all."
He said his original view, published in his book "Practical Ethics," that the parents should have 28 days to determine whether the infant should live has been modified somewhat since the book's release.
"So in that book, we suggested that 28 days is not a bad period of time to use because on the one hand, it gives you time to examine the infant to [see] what the nature of the disability is; gives time for the couple to recover from the shock of the birth to get well advised and informed from all sorts of groups, medical opinion and disability and to reach a decision.
"And also I think that it is clearly before the point at which the infant has those sorts of forward-looking preferences, that kind of self-awareness, that I talked about. But I now think, after a lot more discussion, that you can't really propose any particular cut-off date."
He now advocates that the life or death decision regarding the infant should be made "as soon as possible after birth" because the 28 day cut-off, based on an ancient Greek practice, is "too arbitrary."
He called his views on killing "non-speciest" and "logical" because they don't "depend on simply being a member of the species homo sapiens."
Protecting Insects
Singer was asked several questions about whether his concept of animal rights included the protection of insects, rodents or shellfish. "I think insects are, you are right, the toughest conflicts we generally face. I wouldn't kill a spider if I can avoid killing a spider, and I don't think I need to," he said.
What if termites were threatening his home? "With termites that are actually eating out the foundation of my home, and this happens, this is a more serious problem, and I think at that point, I would feel that I need to dwell somewhere, and if I can't drive them away in some way, I guess I would end up killing them," he conceded.
When asked by CNSNews.com why humans should not be able to eat animals when animals eat other animals, Singer said that humans have to be held to a different standard.
"Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices," he said.
One woman at the workshop, who identified herself only as Angie, asked Singer if killing humans is acceptable to defend animals. "My name is Angie, and I am not going to kill anybody, but I have a question about self preservation, because I am thinking about doing a goose intervention where people are going to be coming to my neighborhood to kill geese. I am wondering, would it be my right to kill somebody that is harming, that is killing, 11,000 geese in New Jersey?"
Singer replied, "For starters, I think it would be a very bad thing to do to the movement." He later explained that he does not support violence to further the cause of animal rights, but he does support civil disobedience, such as "entering property, trespassing in order to obtain evidence."
Singer defended his previous writings that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships as long as they are consensual. When asked by CNSNews.com how an animal can consent to sexual contact with a human, he replied, "Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact."
'Hard for Someone Not to Agree'
The animal rights activists attending Saturday's conference had nothing but praise for Singer and his influence on the movement.
Singer, who was introduced as the "godfather" of animal rights, received three standing ovations during his keynote address Saturday night, attended by about 400 people. Conference participant Jennie Sunner called Singer "fundamental to the movement's inception and its movement forward."
"I am so relieved he exists ... he's so well-reasoned and well-thought-out, that it is hard for someone not to agree," she added.
"I think he's got a really important message and a really inspiring message," stated David Berg of Utah Animal Rights Coalition.
Jason Tracy of Ooh-Mah-Nee Farm Sanctuary called Singer "very, very important to our movement." He has "done a lot of great work," he said.
Those participating in the conference had a wide variety of animal issues on their agenda, from anti-fur campaigns to promoting veganism to lobbying against "factory farming."
T-shirts and bumper stickers seen at the conference included the following slogans: "Stop Hunting"; "Milk is Murder"; "Animal Liberation: Wire Cutters are a terrible thing to Waste" (with an image of a cut farm fence cut); "Beef, it's what is rotting in your colon"; and a T-shirt featuring a cow with the slogan "I died for your sins."
Barry Clausen, a critic of the Animal "rights" movement and author of the book "Burning Rage," has studied the animal rights movement for 12 years and believes that it is having an impact.
'3,000 Acts of Terrorism'
Clausen, whose book details the illegal activities of some members of the animal rights and environmental movements, believes the biggest threat the animal rights advocates pose is their ability to limit animal medical research.
"If we can't have animal research, we can't have solutions to medical problems. You just can't stop everything to save a chimpanzee," he told CNSNews.com.
Clausen cautions that some animal rights activists have been involved in acts of what he calls domestic terrorism. "Over the past 12 years, we have had over 3,000 acts of terrorism by environmental and animal rights extremists," he said.
Clausen does not pull any punches when it comes to his opinion of the animal rights activists. "I have not come across one of these people who I did not consider to be mentally ill," Clausen said.
But conference participant Sunner defended the animal activists.
"Being normal by nature means you will never do anything extraordinary, so everything revolutionary that is good has been preceded by that kind of ridicule and trivialization," she said.
Copyright CNSNews.com
...Hmmmmmmm I'm betting, and giving odds, this guy is doing his cat....think about it
Up to 131 posts and counting:
Christianity Harmful to Animals, Says Animal Rights Godfather
And then he says this:
"Animals generally are not making moral choices. Animals are not the same as humans. They can't reflect on what they are doing and think about the alternatives. Humans can. So there is no reason for taking what they do as a sort of moral lesson for us to take. We're the ones who have to have the responsibility for making those choices," he said.
I think Mr. Singer needs to lie down in a nice quiet room for a while.
Next group in line for the "we got rights too" parade...
Apologies to all offended sewer rats and slime-molds
Princeton remained a stronghold of the Reformed Christian faith and scholarship through the 18th and most of the 19th Century. However, the debilitating effects of French rationalism, German "higher criticism," and humanistic Social Darwinism slowly undermined the university. When Woodrow Wilson became the university's president around the turn of the last century, he encouraged the hiring of nonbelievers into the professorial staff. By the time Wilson moved on to the governorship of New Jersey, Princeton had joined the other Ivy League universities on the road away from the Christian faith toward the glorification of mankind and the State.
Princeton Theological Seminary remained in the hands of Bible-believing Christians until 1929, when it, too, succumbed to liberalism. However, something of an aura of WASP gentility and restraint remained on the campus and the surrounding town even in the tumultuous 1960s, when other Ivy League colleges took on the appearance of hippie communes. However, penumbras are not reality. That this once-Christian university would now hire Peter Singer, whose ethical views are thoroughly pagan, is evidence of how far down deviancy can be defined.
Keep in mind, too, that Singer would likely define himself as a "change agent." In 2002, his views would be considered way out of the mainstream. However, Kinsey's views on sexuality were considered "fringe" in the 1940s, but by 1980, they were very much mainstream, and even codified into law or judicial rulings. For example, divorce laws moved from the Biblical grounds of adultery or desertion to "no fault"; pornography and obscenity regulations became virtual dead letters; fornication and sodomy moved from the closet to their present status as socially accepted lifestyles. Kinsey was a very successful change agent. Singer could repeat Kinsey's success unless conservatives, Bible-believing Christians, and other supporters of traditional values develop backbones to stand up to this latest wave of immorality.
Apples and oranges. Comparing newborn chimpanzees and human infants would not show the same difference. And comparing adult chimps and adult humans would show major differences, just not the ones he's talking about.
I will agree that animals have rights just as soon as a cow writes a novel or an ant carries on a deep philosophical discussion with me. Until then, my belief in Genesis will stay firmly in place.
He is trying to have it both ways. He says that humans are not better than animals. But they have to be held to a different standard? Why?
I hope that you don't think that just being a biological member of the species homo sapiens means that you do have a soul and being a member of some other species means they don't. I think that would trouble me
Yet he points out that animals cannot make moral choices and humans can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.