Search www.satyamag.com

Satya has ceased publication. This website is maintained for informational purposes only.

To learn more about the upcoming Special Edition of Satya and Call for Submissions, click here.

back issues

 

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.

 


© STEALTH TECHNOLOGIES INC.
All contents are copyrighted. Click here to learn about reprinting text or images that appear on this site.