Feeding the Children of Abraham:

But why should activists even be concerned with reaching out to religious believers in the first place? We have already seen some examples of the possible benefits religion might bring to animal rights, most importantly, the ability of activists to appeal to religionists in religious terms. This is vital, because as mentioned earlier, for many people worldwide religion is an immensely important aspect of daily life.

Religious beliefs designate spheres of moral concern, delineate boundaries of acceptable behavior, provide justification for behavior, and in general inform believer's lives. For some traditions, such as Islam, religious arguments are everything. Secular reasoning is usually accorded a minor position, if any at all, in Muslim consideration of such moral affairs. If activists hope to change the habits of Muslims and others who defer ethical questions to religious authority, they must make a religious case for concern, as secular ideas are always bound to fail.

Though Singer and others may rightly question, criticize, and reject religion, most people on the planet subscribe to it in some form or another. That they will suddenly leave their religious traditions behind for secular philosophy is a most unlikely proposition. Secular philosophy must continue to hold a strong place in the animal rights movement, especially in America and Europe, but the reality of religion for much of the world's inhabitants cannot be ignored. Recognizing that religion will continue to play a crucial role in the oppression or liberation of animals, activists need to accept this fact and move to address religionists on their own ground, in their own terms. Many believers will probably never be swayed solely by secular arguments for animal rights, especially if they sense a conflict with the teachings of their faith. However, they may well be inspired by pro-animal concerns that originate within their religion. So whether an animal rights activist personally accepts or rejects religion, they should still recognize its importance to others and thus, to animal liberation. Addressing religious concerns in animal rights dialogue is important not only to understand and convince individual religionists, but also to engage religious communities as a whole.

While many in the animal liberation movement view animal ab/users as demonic enemies (and they may often be right), the general tone of activists seems to be less damning. This is especially true in the case of the average meat-eating, leather-wearing, animal tested-products using individual. Though it is easy to picture the slaughterhouse owner or vivisectionist as cruel and uncaring, the typical person can usually be seen as the unwitting victim of the deeply entrenched animal industries. Assuming the main thrust of activists will continue to be for the hearts and minds of such individuals, it is of great importance to recognize how religion shapes the average person's attitude towards animals. Research confirms what most activists would assume: a strong correlation exists between degrees of religious involvement and negative attitudes towards animals. One study showed that the more often a person went to church, the more likely they were to hold negative, utilitarian views about animals. Americans who were not members of an organized religion or who attended services only rarely, scored higher in areas of interest, compassion, and concern for animals.7

Obviously, the majority of these people are not animal abusers in the direct sense, but the influence of religion does allows them to participate in society's accepted areas of animal ab/use. Religionists clearly fit the profile of those that activists would like to reach and inform. Appealing to them with arguments in line with their religion will prove the most successful approach. As their ideas about animals are often a result of what they hear from their religious leaders, effort should be made to temper these leader's views, and thus the entire denomination's views, with an animal-friendly tone. Activists would then be spreading their message through the religious hierarchy -- a better use of time than engaging religionists individually. Appealing to religionists as a group should not, however, be the end goal. Rather, animal liberationists should then work with supportive religious groups and organizations to change society's attitudes towards animals.

Every other major liberation movement has had strong religious backing, whether the cause was the abolition of slavery, suffrage, civil rights, or a host of others.8 The power of religion needs to be reclaimed and redirected by animal liberationists, to be employed for the animals rather than against them. The potential power of religious groups unified in protest and boycott of animal ab/using industries and institutions is immense.

The Goals of This Paper

I have two immediate goals in mind as I undertake this project. The first is to identify those religious points which could support arguments for animal rights in general, and vegetarianism in particular. I will point out a variety of areas within each faith that activists will find most useful in making a case for vegetarianism (and by extension, other animal rights issues). The traditions of each religion will find some arguments more compelling than others. Identifying the points which each particular faith will or will not be likely to support will prevent activists from wasting time on some approaches and allow them to focus on those with the most promise. Once these areas are identified, the possibility arises of establishing a ecumenical front of religious protest and boycott.

While the support of one group or denomination would be a boost to vegetarianism, the combined influence of a broad coalition of religionists working to promote vegetarianism and factory farm reform would be tremendously powerful. Additionally, identifying religious issues amenable to vegetarian concerns will also uncover methods and teachings that may be extrapolated to other animal rights issues. For example, a teaching of kindness that requires animals not to suffer or be mutilated may also be applicable to cosmetics testing or vivisection. This topic will be examined in the conclusion of the paper.

The second goal is to increase the religious "literacy" of those within the animal rights movement. With a stronger grasp of some key religious notions, both for and against animal rights and its related issues, activists will be better able to engage religionists in animal rights debate. Instead of tuning out and writing off someone who justifies animal ab/use through religion, my hope is that activists will be able to suggest competing religious notions that would support vegetarianism and other animal liberation concerns, or at least deliver a verbal touché. Increased awareness of religious ideas will also provide activists with new avenues of approach in spreading their message. Animal liberation speakers would be able to add synagogues, mosques, and churches to their itineraries. Activists who may be members of a certain faith can approach their religious leaders with animal rights concerns and ideas, expressed in religious terms. Rather than hoping to have secular animal rights ideas translated into religious terms, religious animal rights notions would be more acceptable and appealing to religious authorities and hence, more likely to be transmitted to the congregation.

Why the emphasis on vegetarianism?