Posted on 07/01/2002 5:27:40 AM PDT by kattracks
CNSNews.com) - 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."
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 entitled "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 also 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 acknowledged 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 also 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 on 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 the Utah Animal Rights Coalition.
Jason Tracy of the 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-related 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."
Mentally Ill?
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.
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.
The animal right movement is clearly having an affect on our culture. I was at the beach this weekend and while reading the bottle of sunscreen I came across the statement that it was "cruelty free" meaning, no animal testing. It implies that any animal testing is cruel.
It just struck me that clearly the company is being coerced into putting this nonsense on their product labeling. After a few years people will believe that any animal testing is by definition cruel.
As a Bible believing Christian, I will plead guilty to Dr. Singer's charge that I practice "speciesism". Of course, sinful man disobeying the commands of God, as in the case of Dr. Singer, is nothing new.
BTW: Princeton? What a sad commentary on the current state of this University that was founded by Bible believing Christians.
In other words, Singer is the classic example of an intellectual.
For most people, I'm not sure that choice has anything to do with it. It's a matter of body chemestry. We are omnivorous. Those canine teeth in our mouths aren't decorations. God made us to eat both meat and vegetables.
I love all animals. However, loving animals will not force me to make some goofy quasi-moral choice to bow out of the food chain. MEAT. It's what's for dinner.
"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.
And this was said after he decreed that humans are not superior to animals and bashed the Word of God.
Christians--especially conservative Christians--have long been considered "enemies of mankind" by pagans and atheists, dating from the first time that the Roman Emperor Nero used those words to condemn believers.
Do you champion "animal rights" and assert that a man is not inherently more valuable than a paramecium? Then you despise conservative Christians.
Do you champion "gay rights" and assert that traditional marriage and child-rearing are anti-woman and destructive to the social well-being of children? Then you despise conservative Christians.
Do you champion the ridding of public schools of all references to God and applaud the indoctrination of captive children into humanism by the pro-gay NEA on the public dime? Then you despise conservative Christians.
Do you champion the socialization and decriminalization of dope, pornography, and all sexual perversity as "harmless victimless behaviors"? Then you despise conservative Christians.
Do you champion materialism, Darwinism, and supreme selfishness and look to the short-sighted theories of potboiler writer Ayn Rand for your ethical guideposts? Then you despise conservative Christians.
Peter Singer embodies most of these anti-Christian sentiments. The only genuine difference between him and atheist libertarians is that he is an unabashed socialist who believes that society can overcome conservative Christian superstition by implementing a suffocating nanny sate. Atheist libertarians believe you can overcome Christian superstition and eliminate government at the same time; that there is such thing as a free lunch.
Singer has made similarly controversial plunges into social policy. In a recent New York Times Magazine essay, he argued that the affluent in developed countries are killing people by not giving away to the poor all of their wealth in excess of their needs. How did he come to this conclusion? "If…allowing someone to die is not intrinsically different from killing someone, it would seem that we are all murderers," he explains in Practical Ethics. He calculates that the average American household needs $30,000 per year; to avoid murder, anything over that should be given away to the poor. "So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000," he wrote in the Times.
Rigorous adherence to a single principle has a way of hoisting one by one's own petard. Singer's mother suffers from severe Alzheimer's disease, and so she no longer qualifies as a person by his own standards, yet he spends considerable sums on her care. This apparent contradiction of his principles has not gone unnoticed by the media. When I asked him about it during our interview at his Manhattan apartment in late July, he sighed and explained that he is not the only person who is involved in making decisions about his mother (he has a sister). He did say that if he were solely responsible, his mother might not be alive today.
Singer's proclamation about income has also come back to haunt him. To all appearances, he lives on far more than $30,000 a year. Aside from the Manhattan apartment-he asked me not to give the address or describe it as a condition of granting an interview-he and his wife Renata, to whom he has been married for some three decades, have a house in Princeton. The average salary of a full professor at Princeton runs around $100,000 per year; Singer also draws income from a trust fund that his father set up and from the sales of his books. He says he gives away 20 percent of his income to famine relief organizations, but he is certainly living on a sum far beyond $30,000. When asked about this, he forthrightly admitted that he was not living up to his own standards. He insisted that he was doing far more than most and hinted that he would increase his giving when everybody else started contributing similar amounts of their incomes. *****End excerpt****
Typical Limo Liberal. Making all manner of grand Pronouncements in the Way things should be, to be applied to everyone NOT NAMED HIM.
Hey...isn't it his moral duty to stop breathing? With every inhalation, he steals valuable oxygen from the poor animals. With every exhalation, he adds greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.
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.