"Animal rights" from a biblical perspective.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jash Comstock

Puritan Board Freshman
I thought this article was particularly interesting. Here's a quote I thought was very good.

"This is where Christians differ from animal rights groups like PETA. While we believe in protecting animal welfare, we also believe that dignity is inherent to the creature. In contrast, atheistic animal rights advocates believe dignity is merely qualitative and that we are all—animals and humans—mere creatures.

But in leveling our creatureliness, such groups deny the dignity of both humans and chickens. Dignity is defined as the quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect. In the Christian view, human and animal life has an inherent dignity derived from God. A generous and loving Creator not only provides our biological existence but also retains this same gift for his own enjoyment. Human life, therefore, belongs not to us but to God."



The Dignity of Chickens and the Character of God | Acton PowerBlog
 
Christianity, true Christianity, teaches us to respect even the life of animals. Proverbs 12 v 10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
 
We shouldn't mistreat animals. I love my cat and don't like it when people are mean to cats and dogs. However, that's not to say that eating meat is wrong, which is what the majority of these "animal rights" groups say. PETA, for instance, is against any use of animals at all (including for milk) and advocates a fully vegan diet. I disagree with them, but I think that farm animals should not be abused or treated badly. This seems to be more of a problem in the USA rather than in New Zealand, as we don't (to my knowledge) have factory-farmed milk here.

My understanding on the Christian view of vegetarianism is that it's okay to choose not to eat meat but it's not okay to say eating meat is wrong or a sin. Am I right?
 
We shouldn't mistreat animals. I love my cat and don't like it when people are mean to cats and dogs. However, that's not to say that eating meat is wrong, which is what the majority of these "animal rights" groups say. PETA, for instance, is against any use of animals at all (including for milk) and advocates a fully vegan diet. I disagree with them, but I think that farm animals should not be abused or treated badly. This seems to be more of a problem in the USA rather than in New Zealand, as we don't (to my knowledge) have factory-farmed milk here.

My understanding on the Christian view of vegetarianism is that it's okay to choose not to eat meat but it's not okay to say eating meat is wrong or a sin. Am I right?

I'd agree with you there. I grew up working on a farm, and we treated our animals well not just because we were Christians but also because relaxed animals make tastier meat. I think perhaps the awful condition of corporate farms in the US contributes to the bad quality meat we have.
 
I think the answer is inherent in most of the responses so far. The operative word is "shouldn't." We shouldn't mistreat animals though most people don't have a problem with bug spray. The problem with using the word "right" is that it has legal connotations. Since many animal rights activists believe "meat is murder", said activists have no trouble making veganism the law of the land. I don't think this is likely given that wealthy, high profile people like Bryce Dallas Howard and Gwyneth Paltrow have ditched their high end, "properly planned" vegan diets because they were falling apart or trying to conceive. There are some that can get by on vegan diets but they are few. Most genetically can't handle it. More reasonable adherents settle into a more moderate version that allows for some fish and/or dairy products. It wasn't until I was in college that I had even heard of people that were v*ans for animal rights. I had always thought health or just the taste of the food was what drove them to it.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how many vegetarians (the ones who say eating meat is murder) realise how much of what they eat has been grown using animal by product fertilisers? Perhaps the next time someone is accused of being a meat eating animal murderer that question can be posed to them?
 
I wonder how many vegetarians (the ones who say eating meat is murder) realise how much of what they eat has been grown using animal by product fertilisers? Perhaps the next time someone is accused of being a meat eating animal murderer that question can be posed to them?

To be fair, most of those types opt for organically grown vegetables, grown without fertilizer but with compost instead.
 
The funny thing is that if folks really wanted to be 'organic' they would eat what was grown traditionally, that is, with animal-powered farm equipment (or simply by hand entirely). The idea that their 'organic' vegetables are better for the planet is quite funny in the light of the trucking, plowing, cultivating, etc. that is done by truck and tractor, spewing hydrocarbons into the air and not providing compost and nutrients for the soil that the animals would.

We live on a farm, and our milk, meat, and eggs come out of the barn across the driveway from the house. I'm very much in the 'good stewardship' camp, but calling it 'animal rights' makes it sound like they are on the same level as humans. There are good stewards and poor stewards of animals, but they in themselves do not have some sort of autonomous Bill of Rights. In the wild, they would treat each other like meals on wheels, nothing more. So yes, we have a responsibility to care for them if we are domesticating them, but no, they don't have 'rights'.

PS - for those advocating a vegan diet for health, have a look at most vegans' hair. It's notable because the lack of animal fats in their diets makes their hair dull and even brittle. If the same coat were on a dog, we'd say there was something wrong; a glossy, shiny mane comes from animal fat in your diet.
 
I always thought that "organic" just meant no pesticides or chemical fertilisers! I would say that anyone where I lived would be hard pressed to find any organic food on the shelves that was only grown using compost and no animal by product fertilisers.
 
I always thought that "organic" just meant no pesticides or chemical fertilisers! I would say that anyone where I lived would be hard pressed to find any organic food on the shelves that was only grown using compost and no animal by product fertilisers.

Hmmm.. it is everywhere here in the states. I'm from south Alabama, and we have a lot of farms down their who do stuff "the old way"
 
Compost = decomposition. Whether or not manure is used deliberately for fertilizer, dead animals are decomposing in the soil to make up the biome required for plant growth. Furthermore, PETAish types tend to put animals on the same level with man. That they don't expect more from animals (who are out there eating each other) is another glaring inconsistency in their worldview.
 
What exactly do you mean by 'animal by-products'? Dung? Blood and bone? Things that come from waste or from animal slaughter?

When I was a vegetarian, I was opposed to 'slaughter by-products' - that is, ingredients derived from the slaughter of animals (e.g. gelatine, rennet, animal fats). I have to confess I didn't even think about issues such as vegetables being grown in animal dung but I probably wouldn't have had a problem with it (although I would have deplored the animals being raised for slaughter).
 
What exactly do you mean by 'animal by-products'? Dung? Blood and bone? Things that come from waste or from animal slaughter?
Hello Michael. Yes, blood and bone, feather matter, fish fertiliser, things like that which come from the slaughter of animals used for food.
Most organic food is still grown using these as the fertiliser. The term Organic as far as commercially grown food is for food grown without the use of chemical fertiliser or chemical pesticides.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top