She spent years as an outspoken antiabortion activist, and that cause remains dear to her. But these days, Karen Swallow Prior has a new passion: animal welfare.
She wasn’t sure, at first, that advocating for God’s four-legged creatures would go over well on the campus of Liberty University, a fundamentalist Baptist institution founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell.
Among the Liberty faculty — and conservative evangelicals in general — the animal-rights movement is often disdained as a secular, liberal cause.
But activists have been working with increasing intensity to shed that image. They’re lecturing in Quaker meetinghouses and Episcopal churches, setting up websites that post Scripture alongside recipes for vegan soup — and using biblical language to promote political initiatives, such as laws mandating bigger cages for pregnant pigs.
On Wednesday, clergy from 20 faith traditions — including Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic — will sign a statement declaring a moral duty to treat animals with respect. At a ceremony in Washington, they will call on all people of faith to stop wearing fur, reduce meat consumption, and buy only from farms with humane practices. The Best Friends Animal Society, which brought the group together, plans to recruit volunteers to bring that message into at least 2,000 congregations nationwide.
At Liberty University, meanwhile, Prior took a risk: She wrote an editorial for this month’s university journal declaring animal welfare an evangelical concern. She pointed out that the abolitionist William Wilberforce, an evangelical hero of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, pushed for laws to protect animals from human cruelty. And she said there was “ample biblical support” for continuing such activism today.
To Prior’s surprise, she’s gotten plenty of praise on and around Liberty’s campus in Lynchburg, Va. Her pastor has even asked her to lecture on the topic at Bible study.
Groan. Here we go again. It is painful to see the liberal agenda adopted by those who should know better. No one is denying that animals shouldn’t be abused, but this is different. Eat less meat? What about fish? Or don’t they count? Whatever happened to FishRights? Eat fewer fish? Who is protecting the bees. AFter all, we steal their honey.
Don’t shear sheep? Don’t hunt? The liberal agenda is full of idealistic posturing but disconnected from reality. LM
[blockquote] the animal-rights movement is often disdained as a secular, liberal cause. [/blockquote]
Not precisely. It is seen as a movement which seeks to narrow if not eliminate the ontological distance between man and animals. This would make the movement hostile to the created order by denying the uniqueness of man. The theoretical purpose of course is to elevate animals to the level of man. The practical impact would be to reduce man to the level of animals.
carl
… so we shouldn’t be surprised when more and more people ACT like mere animals.
I have heard it suggested, that eating more fish is good way to fight global warming.
Presumably, pulling a greater volume of these creatures out of the ocean will help counteract the effects of a global sea-level rise.
And yet, Wilfred, Florida is talking about a moratorium on some types of fishing in the Gulf and Atlantic due to decreasing populations of these fish, such as the Red Snapper. Red Tide also takes it’s toll on the numbers.
Needless to say, Gulf fishermen are not happy about the plan.
Once a fish is pulled from the sea, the volume formerly occupied by the fish becomes filled with water, resulting in a sea-level drop. I have calculated, based on the surface area of the world’s oceans, and an assumed density of fish of 1.0, that every pound of tuna I eat, lowers sea level by 53 quintillionths of an inch. (American-system, quintillionths = 10^-18)
(Now I too should win a Nobel prize).
thanks for the article, i find it heartening that some faithful people are now becoming aware that we should treat animals more humanely than we have in the past. it is quite telling that most the folks here are eager to reduce real concern and compassion for those creatures that are at our mercy into the same old tired sterotypes-do you all really think Pope Benedict is part of a secret liberal agenda?? are we the same as animals? no, and no one implies that in this article. should we allow God’s creatures to live naturally as they provide us sustenance? i really just don’t get the opposition. thanks again for posting the article.
I say this as a conservative, a caretaker of domestic animals, and an avid hunter. NOT all concern for animal welfare and their humane treatment springs out of desire to equate animals to humans in all respects, or is part of some liberal agenda. Concern for the welfare of, and our relationship with, animals, is deeply and thoroughly Catholic. St. Basil penned this prayer in his day, which is equally applicable today:
“O God, enlarge within us the sense of fellowship with all living things, our brothers the animals to whom Thou gavest the earth as their home in common with us. We remember with shame that in the past we have exercised the high dominion of man with ruthless cruelty so that the voice of the earth, which should have gone up to Thee in song has been a groan of travail. May we realize that they live not for us alone, but for themselves and for Thee and that they love the sweetness of life even as we, and serve Thee better in their place than we in ours.”
There is a qualitative difference between consuming animals for food with wisdom and a hearty respect for their lives, minimizing the pain they suffer as they give themselves to us for our nourishment — and wantonly breeding them by the millions in conditions of disease and maltreatment with no concern for the pain they feel.
Put another way, while it is permitted to man to use animals for food, clothing and medicine, the Bible and Church Fathers knew nothing of Factory Farming.
[blockquote] NOT all concern for animal welfare and their humane treatment springs out of desire to equate animals to humans in all respects, or is part of some liberal agenda. [/blockquote]
No one ever said differently. But we are not talking about a generic concern for animal welfare. We are speaking specifically of the animal-rights movement – which derives its logic from the syllogism “Man is an animal, and so is a cow. Therefore if man has rights, so does a cow.” But man is not an animal.
carl
Carl is correct at least insofar as PETA is concerned.
Too bad Karen didn’t hang in there and keep working for the rights of preborn children. 🙁
Speaking of evangelising animals . . .
A priest, a Pentecostal preacher, and a rabbi all served as chaplains to the students of Northern Michigan University in Marquette. They would get together two or three times a week for coffee and to talk shop.
One day, someone made the comment that preaching to people isn’t really all that hard. A real challenge would be to preach to a bear. One thing led to another, and they decided to do an experiment. They would all go out into the woods, find a bear, preach to it, and attempt to convert it.
Seven days later, they all came together to discuss their experience.
Father Flannery, who had his arm in a sling, was on crutches, and had various bandages on his body and limbs, went first. “Well,” he said, “I went into the woods to find me a bear. And when I found him, I began to read to him from the Catechism. Well, that bear wanted nothing to do with me and began to slap me around. So I quickly grabbed my holy water, sprinkled him and, Holy Mary Mother of God, he became as gentle as a lamb. The bishop is coming out next week to give him first communion and confirmation.”
Reverend Billy Bob spoke next. He was in a wheelchair, had one arm and both legs in casts, and had an IV drip. In his best fire-and-brimstone oratory, he claimed, “WELL, brothers, you KNOW that we don’t sprinkle! I went out and I FOUND me a bear. And then I began to read to my bear from God’s HOLY WORD! But that bear wanted nothing to do with me. So I took HOLD of him and we began to wrestle. We wrestled down one hill, UP another and DOWN another until we came to a creek. So I quickly DUNKED him and BAPTIZED his hairy soul. And just like you said, he became as gentle as a lamb. We spent the rest of the day praising Jesus.”
The priest and the reverend both looked down at the rabbi, who was lying in a hospital bed. He was in a body cast and traction with IVs and monitors running in and out of him. He was in really bad shape. The Rabbi looked up and said, “Looking back on it, circumcision may not have been the best way to start.”
Sooo, is this another case of the lunatic fringe stepping in where the Christian Church should have been standing all along? I mean, St. Francis of Assisi has been reminding us all of the value of all God’s creation all along, right?
[blockquote]All praise be yours, My Lord,
through all that you have made.
And first my lord Brother Sun, who brings the day….
How beautiful is he, how radiant in all his splendor!
Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Moon and Stars;
In the heavens you have made them, bright and precious and fair.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air….
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Water,
So useful, lowly, precious and pure.
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Brother Fire,
through whom you brighten up the night….
All praise be yours, my Lord, through Sister Earth, our mother,
Who feeds us…and produces various fruits
With colored flowers and herbs….
Praise and bless my Lord, and give him thanks,
And serve him with great humility.
—St. Francis of Assisi[/blockquote]
oops, sorry, I grabbed the first version I came across. That version (post 12) is INCOMPLETE. Here is a more complete version:
The Canticle of the Sun
by Francis of Assisi
[blockquote]Most high, all powerful, all good Lord! All praise is yours, all glory, all honor, and all blessing. To you, alone, Most High, do they belong. No mortal lips are worthy to pronounce your name.
Be praised, my Lord, through all your creatures, especially through my lord Brother Sun, who brings the day; and you give light through him. And he is beautiful and radiant in all his splendor! Of you, Most High, he bears the likeness.
Be praised, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars; in the heavens you have made them, precious and beautiful.
Be praised, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air, and clouds and storms, and all the weather, through which you give your creatures sustenance.
Be praised, My Lord, through Sister Water; she is very useful, and humble, and precious, and pure.
Be praised, my Lord, through Brother Fire, through whom you brighten the night. He is beautiful and cheerful, and powerful and strong.
Be praised, my Lord, through our sister Earth, who feeds us and rules us, and produces various fruits with colored flowers and herbs.
Be praised, my Lord, through those who forgive for love of you; through those who endure sickness and trial. Happy those who endure in peace, for by you, Most High, they will be crowned.
Be praised, my Lord, through our Sister Bodily Death, from whose embrace no living person can escape. Woe to those who die in mortal sin! Happy those she finds doing your most holy will. The second death can do no harm to them.
Praise and bless my Lord, and give thanks, and serve him with great humility.
[i](translated by Bill Barrett from the Umbrian text of the Assisi codex.)[/i][/blockquote]
In the past, when common sense still existed, this issue was a matter of no consequence. But no longer.
Now, if we eat animals and we grow them to eat, why can we not trap animals and turn them into coats? The eskimos do precisely that. Would they do better with a polyester blend for the mukluks?
#7 asks if we should not allow the animals to live naturally. And here we may see what I said earlier, the disconnection between the liberal agenda and reality. What does live naturally REALLY mean? Does anyone know? Chickens are all a Indian birds which we have cultivated for centuries. Shall we return them to the wild so they can “live naturally?”
What can “live naturally” mean to a chicken? Or a cow? A dog or a cat? Or a flea, for that matter?
The deer in many places have been lift to live naturally, meaning they cannot be hunted so their movement and diet is unrestricted. They multiply, grow sick, starve, and eat the shrubbery from every yard and lawn. Must we really leave them to “live naturally?” But of course, with people around, they cannot live naturally, if by that one means “live as they lived prior to man’s coming.” Shall we introduce naturla predators? Wolves, e.g.? and let them live naturally, eating deer? But the wolves cannot live naturally as man invades their space. Even now, bears and coyotes move into settled areas and become unfrightened of humans. The coyotes eat the cats, the wolves eat the sheep (naturally) and the bears eat garbage. Can they live naturally? A phrase like this is silly to a degree and pays no attention to the real world.
Precious few enjoy the prospect of factory farms and most are offended by the harsh growing methods, e.g., of some veal producers. Well, what then do you wish? Every man to grow a vealer or two in his backyard? If you wish to feed vast hordes of people, giant scale farming is inevitable. Can we trim the cruelty? Sure. Live naturally? This is comic.
(Incidentally, the deer around my farm have become costly nuisances because sensitivity to animals and the loss of hunting as a man’s important activity have perished. So I shoot then every chance I can and leave them for the coyotes.
I’d hunt them with dogs if the law allowed it,. What should i do? Let them eat cake? LM
Just to add more:
God’s view on the subject was to institute the kasrut (kosher) laws of human slaughter of animals. Note that He did not forbid the eating of meat, nor the raising of animals for meat, but He did say there was a right way and a wrong way to kill those animals.