Feeding the Children of Abraham:

Those concerned with ending the suffering and exploitation of animals employ a variety of tools and methods in their quest. Philosophers and professors rationally and laboriously work through ethical proofs, highlighting humanity's inconsistent and arbitrary use of non-human animals. Doctors, both traditional and alternative, nurses, athletes, and nutritionists expound the profound health benefits of vegetarian and vegan diets. Scientists and anti-vivisectionists attack not only the frivolous testing of toiletries and household products on animals, but also medical experiments claimed to save human life. Environmentalists and biologists condemn animal agriculture as a major contributor to the destruction, degradation, and pollution of the earth's soil, air, and water. It seems the struggle for animal rights is moving forward on all fronts, challenging many people to rethink their relationship to non-human animals.

The Movement's Neglect of Religion

But even though the scope of our concerns for animals continues to grow, one vital component in an holistic approach to animal rights has been quietly overlooked: religion. There are probably any number of reasons why religion, an area which constitutes such an important, if not the supreme aspect of many people's lives, has been neglected among the majority in the animal rights movement. This neglect of religion comes in spite of a variety of important links between the animal rights movement and the various religious faiths.

Perhaps the cause lies in the predominantly secular tone of today's movement. Most ethical challenges to animal use are made by philosophers, not theologians. The majority of animal rights books, articles, and actions are devoid of any religious influence. With no mention of religion in the major organs of the movement, activists may simply assume religion to be irrelevant to the issue, or may not even notice its absence.

But activists would do well to remember the influence of religion upon early legal considerations for animal welfare, as well as the first humane societies. These roots run deep. Today's animal rights movement has grown in part from Puritan legal codes of animal protection ¹. Vegetarianism was first borne to America courtesy of British churchgoers.² What would become the RSPCA, the world's first animal welfare society, was founded on Christian principles and designed upon Christian lines.³ Additionally, the RSPCA/SPCA received some of its initial impetus from the first Jewish animal rights activist, Lewis Gompertz.⁴ It is to these pioneering religionists that today's primarily secular animal rights movement owes at least some small debt.

Those activists who are aware of the separation of the church and the movement may very well want it that way. Often the only time an activist may see the two meet is when they are on the receiving end of a religiously-based justification for the ab/use of animals. I would wager there are few activists who, when debating animal rights issues, have not come up against the stone wall of "Well, I just think God put animals here for us." And it is not just the individual believers who cloak their animal ab/use in divine decree. Their religious leaders supply them with such justifications and encourage their use. In the face of these sorts of challenges it is no small wonder that animal liberationists like Peter Singer have devoted a fair amount of effort to proving religion's animosity towards animal rights and subsequently rejecting religious values.⁵

While understandable, such criticism of religion is often off-base. Many, if not all religious faiths, have traditions of kindness to animals. Though they may have been overlooked historically by both believers and skeptics, these traditions are still present, waiting to be reclaimed. Activists should not dismiss religion simply because the current establishment has subverted earlier pro-animal strands within the faith. Rather, it is the establishment that must be challenged and brought to rediscover these teachings. Even those faiths without an explicit foundation of animal concern cannot be overlooked. Teachings of kindness towards, the poor, orphaned, and otherwise disadvantaged can certainly be argued to include animals. Finally, as animal rights theologian Andrew Linzey has pointed out, secular concern for animals was also lacking until modern times.⁶ Philosophy is no less culpable than religion for the long-standing lack of concern for animals, nor is religion any less useful than philosophy to affect a change in people's attitudes towards animals. Activists should not allow their personal biases against religion to prevent them from recognizing its promise as well.

Activists may also simply be at a loss for words when confronted with religiously-based arguments for animal use or exploitation. Whether because an individual activist is of a different faith than the person to whom they are talking, or if that activist does not subscribe to any religion at all, they may find themselves unable to effectively comprehend and argue points which originate in religious belief. But one need not be of a particular religion, nor of any religion at all in order to employ and address religious arguments. Even a rudimentary knowledge of only a few major points may well cause a religionist to take pause and reconsider their animal use.

Why Religion is Important to the Animal Rights Movement