Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Christianity Harmful to Animals, Says Animal Rights Godfather
cnsnews.com ^ | July 01, 2002 | Marc Morano

Posted on 07/02/2002 10:32:01 AM PDT by lasereye

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: animalrights; christians; infanticide; petersinger

1 posted on 07/02/2002 10:32:01 AM PDT by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Peter Singer says?

This is the guy that advocates sex with animals, correct?

Ok, I'll take him seriously.
2 posted on 07/02/2002 10:41:29 AM PDT by Tennessee_Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
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.

Hold it. Hold IT! I thought humans were no better than animals. Held to a higher standard? WHY?? If we're all the same, then we're all the same. Period.

What a nut-case.

3 posted on 07/02/2002 10:46:54 AM PDT by FourPeas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
I've long been struck that in virtually all translations of Genesis, including Torah, ...God said, "let us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness....", this plurality of which seems to suggest a pact between God and man, and even Being to that point.

If humans then, are the species most able to abstract information from their environment, and deriving meaning from it, even to the point of being able to alter that environment, then this plurality has that deep a meaning.

A certain beauty in this too is that it is not all inconsistent with what we can observe in nature.

4 posted on 07/02/2002 10:49:58 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
Singer bump
5 posted on 07/02/2002 10:52:15 AM PDT by College Repub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: lasereye
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.

Very artful. Start with the position that a "severely disabled" infant might be fair game. Note that if something (like a "severely disabled" infant) is not self-aware then it mightbe OK to kill it. Then finish with the oh-so-casual statement that newborn infants (with no qualifier as to disablity) are not self-aware. Voila! Carte blanche for infanticide.

Of course, later on we discuss spiders and how it's wrong to kill them.

7 posted on 07/02/2002 10:58:23 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
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.

Have you ever read a novel written by a chimpanzee?
Sat on furniture constructed by chipmunks?
Browsed a website designed, coded and maintained by rottweilers?
Driven a car engineered by cats?
Been a patient at a hospital staffed by moose doctors and turkey nurses?

8 posted on 07/02/2002 11:03:05 AM PDT by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
"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.

He should heed his own words. While we ARE superior to animals, we shouldn't see that as an excuse to mistreat them. It's fruitcakes like him, however, that cast a negative light on all that feel compassion towards animals.

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."

Now we can see what motivates this guy. He wants to be able to dress up his pooch and marry it, then see if he can produce some sort of hybrid, and if it doesn't come out right, he can have it killed within 28 days...

9 posted on 07/02/2002 11:12:16 AM PDT by FormerLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
I think democraticunderground.com is run by chimps. Does that count?
10 posted on 07/02/2002 11:14:39 AM PDT by College Repub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
"I think that a chimpanzee certainly has greater self-awareness than a newborn baby," he told CNSNews.com.

This is true. This is why intelligence, alone, is not the measure of what is or isn't a person.

11 posted on 07/02/2002 11:41:54 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
" 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."

By this twisted rationale, every single animal that eats another for survival on this planet is a "hate-filled species-ist".

To further delve into the machinations of this lunatic's thought processes, feel free to bang yourself on the head with a hammer repeatedly.

12 posted on 07/02/2002 11:44:00 AM PDT by eric_da_grate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
So what? At least the goat's blood was only used to paint the doors. We are not the ones using a headless goat carcass as a polo ball.
13 posted on 07/02/2002 11:48:04 AM PDT by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

1 Corinthians 1:20

14 posted on 07/02/2002 11:50:21 AM PDT by TexasNative2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
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.

Professor Peter Singer should immediately resign his job at Princeton, remove all trappings of humanity, and march off into the woods to commune with Mother Nature.

I bet he'll be worm food within a week.

15 posted on 07/02/2002 11:52:41 AM PDT by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas
What a nut-case.

Absolutely correct.

This freak makes the handicapping case on human "moral judgement", as if a rabbit were somehow LESS DEAD if it was to be hunted down by a wolf, instead.

As for the "species superority" argument, I'll bet my a$$ that a wolf considers itself FAR SUPERIOR to a rabbit because he was put on this earth to hunt that bunny down....This is common sense even to a child, but at some of our nation's most esteemed academic institutions, this nonsense passes for "intellectual accumen".

16 posted on 07/02/2002 11:59:24 AM PDT by eric_da_grate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: FourPeas
Hold it. Hold IT! I thought humans were no better than animals. Held to a higher standard? WHY?? If we're all the same, then we're all the same. Period.

Yeah, in one question-answer, he says that Animals are not the same as humans, and can't reflect on what they are doing.

In another question-answer, he says that Animals can consent to sexual contact.

17 posted on 07/02/2002 12:04:36 PM PDT by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Yeah, so what! God gave us food.
Genesis 9:3
Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

I am much more concerned about the green herb since it is not for us to irradicate but for the animals to eat too.
Genesis 1:30

And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
18 posted on 07/02/2002 12:14:36 PM PDT by PaxMacian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
How does he know whether a spider is diabled or not and I saw a limping duck the other day,let's kill it too.
19 posted on 07/02/2002 12:20:50 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
Princeton University Professor Peter Singer,


Identity politics.
20 posted on 07/02/2002 1:28:38 PM PDT by cascademountaineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatima
Is it ok to then eat the (disabled) duck after it is legaly killed? If it's not ok, how can he justify the wasting of food?
21 posted on 07/02/2002 1:43:48 PM PDT by College Repub
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: College Repub
Sorry disabled duck,I would like to really post about this man but I can't figure out what he is trying to say.Why do they print what he says,he can't even figure out what he is saying.
22 posted on 07/02/2002 3:35:31 PM PDT by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Alouette
No, but...
we've seen a Donkey as POTUS and with an Asp for a wife
23 posted on 07/02/2002 4:35:33 PM PDT by Litany
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
"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."

This person is actually employed by an American university.

24 posted on 07/02/2002 6:51:44 PM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lasereye
No one has done more to damage the reputation of Princeton than Singer. Former president of the university Harold Shapiro's legacy is defined by this hire, and, as a result, his name is Mudd among those who care about the school.
25 posted on 07/02/2002 7:05:35 PM PDT by beckett
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson