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.