Animal Suffering and Human Suffering

[Jnyusa]

As I understood it, he was suggesting that many within the "environmental left" (to which I do not belong, btw, yov) have similar spiritual/metaphysical/emotion-driven/made-up views on the worth of animals, and that they use their views to further a political agenda in much the same way as the Religious Right, while complaining that the Religious Right is trying to bring their (religious) ideology into the government.

... Perhaps as a minority, I might be more likely to support racial minorities or minority-friendly politicians for office. But these are identity-driven notions, not quasi-religious ideological notions. So I'm not sure that I see your analogy.

If I have understood yov's argument correctly, I agree with the hypocrisy that he was pointing out.

I also understood Yov's post to mean as you describe, but his analogy is still inapt. The environmental movement may be hypocritical in many ways but not for this reason - that it is religion masquerading as something else.

It is hard to think of a political movement in the United States that is not motivated by some underlying moral consideration. The African Americans who joined the Civil Rights movement may have been identity driven, but their appeal to the larger society was made on moral grounds. And when we evaluate the religious right, I think that the first thing we have to concede is that priests/ministers etc. have the right, in the context of spiritual education, to tell their church members what their religious tenets require of them. So if the Catholic Church opposes abortion, for example, they have every right to tell Catholics that they should vote in favor of laws prohibiting abortion.

But when churches pay lobbyists they are doing something that no other tax-exempt organization is allowed to do. They are hiding, as it were, behind the first amendment to accomplish a purpose different from the purpose for which they were founded and for which they receive tax-exemption. No environmental organization is allowed to do this. If they lobby, if they engage in political advertisement, etc., they are not tax-exempt.

Every organization with an environmental tax i.d. was founded to promote environmentalism, and they hold no claim over their membership beyond voluntary adherence to this particular cause. The churches hold claim over their membership far beyond political issues, and to use this claim to coerce political action is ... well, it's unethical in my view. That bishop who said he would not give communion to John Kerry or anyone who voted for him had stepped beyond his role as a minister of his faith and required his parisheners to do something that their faith in fact does not require. And it was also, in my opinion, illegal.

My identity and my religion may be driven by the same underlying moral considerations, but that does not mean that organizations which I join because they reflect my identity are no different from religious organizations. Religion enjoys a special status under our constition which other kinds of organizations do not enjoy.

Jn

[anthriel]

Jn, you are always so enjoyable to read! Your mind is so organized, and you have at your disposal so many wonderful facts... I am glad you are a teacher. Your students are lucky people, indeed.

However, I didn't read yov's statement the same way you did.

I actually think he makes a wonderful observation, and one I had pondered myself at times; people can and will parlay whatever excites their religious fervor into political agendas. The fact that the religious right is so highly visible doing this does not mean that other groups are less guilty of it. In fact, I'm not sure that on an individual basis, it is bad at all. Obviously one would need some reason to support a proposed law, or oppose it; one's most deeply held beliefs are a reasonable place to organize one's choices.

I believe that you saw his statement as being about organized religions, and I appreciate what you have shared here about their unfair advantage with the tax breaks they have; I had not previously considered that. But I feel that yov was talking about individual religious fervor, rather than membership in an official organized religion. People can be engaged in any number of things to a degree of religious zealotry that rivals any church service I have ever attended.

As an example: I was approached FIVE times in public places when I was visibly pregnant with my son by members of the La Leche League, the breast feeding advocacy group. They even came to my door once, having found my name on a list of people signed up for a childbirth class at the hospital. They called me after my son's birth to see if I WAS breast feeding him (I lied about this, not wanting to look up one night to see some sort of "intervention" group at my door... )

I felt very much, when trying to gracefully dodge them and their amazing tenacity, the same way I feel about members of organized religions dedicated to recruitment; yes, you have some good ideas, yes, I know you think you are doing this for the betterment of humankind, no, I do not want to be rude to you, but, I gotta admit, the feeling that I somehow need to be "assimilated" by you SCARES me.




So... there are organized religions, and there are quasi-religions that just ACT an awful lot like religions, and are just as fierce in their beliefs. And... agendas, political or otherwise. They're just not tax exempt, although I'm sure they would like to be.


'Course, yov could have meant none of that, and I could have osgiliated this thread for no good reason.

But I did want to get that La Leche thing off my chest.

[yovargas]

I don't understand your objections, Jn. My point was simple. Many on the left complain about how the right uses its religious views to push its agenda, but meanwhile they are trying to push their essentially religious views into legislation. If you gave me objective reasons why the government should protect the spotted owl (or whatever), I'd be fine with it, but I can't stand when the reasons are essentially religious in nature.

At least the right is upfront about it.

[Cerin]

A good point. However, having thought it over, I guess I will stick with my original contention: humans are not "superior".

That says, of course, nothing about "value".

Perhaps we ought to define 'superior' for the purposes of the discussion. Because I think it does relate to value, and humans are 'superior' (that is, a higher form of life) because of the very things you mention below.

I value human life above the other life forms because I'm human and I can. A cat can't care about "the cat race". She can only care about herself and her kittens. But a woman can care about other women's babies. A woman can see that, aside from any motive of love, it is good for us all to care for each other as best we can.

So we might be saying we disagree when we really agree, just because we're defining a word differently.

Humans have much in common with other species, but there is one thing that sets us apart from all other species. This ability we have to affect the world; to express our thoughts in writing in order that they be shared with those we'll never know, to invent the internet, to send cumbersome vehicles to other planets -- however you wish to define it, we are capable of more than any other species. It is that additional capacity that I am calling 'superior' because others used the word first.

We are more than animals.


I think I understood yov's analogy in the same way nel did, to mean that if one person or group fashions a position on the equality of humans and animals using the concept of souls, then it can't be objected to if others fasion an idea of human superiority using spiritual concepts as well. If one argument is accepted into the discussion as valid, then like arguments (other spiritual arguments) must be regarded as valid. Similarly, if these beliefs are made the basis for political action, we can't say of the one group, 'they're trying to impose their spiritual values on me' without saying it of the other.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't understand your objections, Jn. My point was simple. Many on the left complain about how the right uses its religious views to push its agenda, but meanwhile they are trying to push their essentially religious views into legislation. If you gave me objective reasons why the government should protect the spotted owl (or whatever), I'd be fine with it, but I can't stand when the reasons are essentially religious in nature.

But they are not, not at all. Just the opposite. The reasons for protecting the spotted owl and other endangered and threatened species are scientific. The very opposite of religious.

[Cerin]

Voronwë, I think yov is saying that if there are people fighting to protect the spotted owl for spiritual reasons (an idea about the equality of human and animal life based on the concept of souls, for example), then their actions should be seen in a similar light as the efforts of other groups who try to affect change because of their spiritual beliefs.


(Sorry if I got that all wrong, yov).

[Jnyusa]

Anth: people can and will parlay whatever excites their religious fervor into political agendas ... In fact, I'm not sure that on an individual basis, it is bad at all. Obviously one would need some reason to support a proposed law, or oppose it; one's most deeply held beliefs are a reasonable place to organize one's choices.

I agree. I don't think this is bad at all. Though I too resent attempts to assimilate me!

Yov:Many on the left complain about how the right uses its religious views to push its agenda, but meanwhile they are trying to push their essentially religious views into legislation.

I don't think this is quite an accurate characterization of the complaint of the left. I can't speak for everyone on the left, of course, but for myself and for those whom I know through shared political context, we do not object to the fact that the political views of the right arise from religion. We object to the coercion of those who are the same religion but hold different views, because this is a crime against religion; and we object to the use of the church as a tax shield for political action because this is a corruption of the constitution.

It is always convenient, you see, to say to your opposition that they object to your strategy because they don't like your ideas. But the fact that I disagree with someone's idea does not mean that they are not also breaking the law with their strategies.

There is actually a growing branch of the religious right that supports environmentalism (The Green Cross) and they do so for religious reasons, but they are organized as an ordinary non-profit and not as a church. If they started using member donations to a church to pay for lobby activities, or if they started meting out spiritual punishments to members who don't recycle then I would object to them the same as I object to other groups that muddle the separation between church and state.

I don't think that environmentalists who are spiritually motivated make any secret of this. Are you surprised to learn that people who are drawn to environmentalism as a movement are often those who feel a deep spiritual connection to the Earth?

Jn

eta: cross posted with Cerin and Voronwë:

Well, I have to say that I've never heard anyone argue that the spotted owl should be protected because it has a soul. I'm not saying no one ever argued that, just that this is not the reason why it was placed on the endangered species list.

Environmentalists have done what you might call a strategic end run around the mundane ignorance of the average American. They have adopted a publicity strategy referred to as "Find the flagship species." People will vote in a hearbeat to save the cute blinking owl or the fuzzy-wuzzy panda, when long-winded arguments about the carbon cycle would make their eyes glaze over. In fact, there is not a lot we can do to determine the fate of individual species because nature is simply too dynamic. But we can preserve entire ecologies which form their habitat, and this is also beneficial to humans. If, for example, the spotted owl habitat were destroyed at the rate timber companies desire, insurance premiums in Oregon would be much, much higher. The deforestation causes mudslides, fires, loss of water supply and all these things carry a human death toll.

I've personally never met an environmentalist who cared more about animals than about people. The goal is to save people; people who are, frankly, too stupid to perceive where their own self-interest lies. That sometimes means slapping the wrist of other people driven by greed to exploit their fellow man.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Voronwë, I think yov is saying that if there are people fighting to protect the spotted owl for spiritual reasons (an idea about the equality of human and animal life based on the concept of souls, for example), then their actions should be seen in a similar light as the efforts of other groups who try to affect change because of their spiritual beliefs.

But it's a mischaracterization of the position of those who are fighting for the protection of species like the spotted owl, as Jn has already pointed out.

[yovargas]

But it's a mischaracterization of the position of those who are fighting for the protection of species like the spotted owl, as Jn has already pointed out.

Sorry, I had (and have) no idea why the spotted owl matters to anybody. It was just the first animal cause to come to mind. Maybe animal testing protesters woudl've been a better example. But I think this is getting a little bit off topic (this thread shouldn't be about the law).

More relevant to the discussion:

Every species protects its own members first at the expense of others.

Yes. Humans prioritizing human life first is as natural as a mother prioritizing her child over another's. Of course humans are the most important and valuable species on earth - to humans.

[Jnyusa]

Of course humans are the most important and valuable species on earth - to humans.

Right. And there are good reasons why it should be so. A species that did not self-preserve first and foremost would become extinct.

Jn

[Primula Baggins]

Yov, people concerned about saving the spotted owl are really trying to save what little is left of the whole old-growth ecosystem that the spotted owl inhabits. Spotted owls living in a stretch of forest are an indicator that it's healthy climax forest. Saving them means saving their environment, which means saving the forest.

[Cerin]

Well, I have to say that I've never heard anyone argue that the spotted owl should be protected because it has a soul.

I would agree.

As yov said, the example of working against animal experimentation (re the quote that was provided earlier) would have been better.

[yovargas]

If you gave me objective reasons why the government should protect the spotted owl (or whatever)...

The "(or whatever)" was supposed to mean "if this example doesn't work very well, insert a better one here".

[Jnyusa]

Yov, sorry to have taken us all on a short path through the woods in pursuit of your analogy ... some long ago memory comes back to me of calling that sort of thing 'a snipe hunt.'

Your point seems to have been that spiritual motivations are equivalent whether they come from the left or the right, and with that I would agree.

I do not agree, though, that the left in general opposes the political involvement of the religious right because it is spiritual; so I don't agree that the left is hypocritical in the manner you describe.

They may, of course, be hypocritical in other ways ... I would claim from experience, for example, that the environmental left can be quite racist and misogynist, depending on where you look. These two traits are not at all consistent with the philosophy they propound.

Jn

[yovargas]

I do not agree, though, that the left in general opposes the political involvement of the religious right because it is spiritual;

Really? I've heard leftish, anti-Republican, anti-Bush type people make that complaint all the time. (I used to be guilty of it myself, as a matter of fact.) How else would you describe, for example, the complaints (whether true or not) about Bush "getting his policy from God"?

[Jnyusa]

Um ... because that particular way of putting it would get anyone else committed to a psychiatric facility?

"I asked God for guidance after 9/11," would be OK.

"It is my belief that God wants us to seek justice for those innocent victims," would be OK.

"Those who believe in God cannot accept such atrocities," would be OK.

"I prayed together with my Cabinet before making this decision," would be OK.

But, "God told me to invade Iraq," is like, "God told me to turn left into oncoming traffic." When people say things like that we lock them up. I have heard many statements of this type from Bush. I do not in any way, shape or form equate this with spiritual motivation. I equate it with mental illness.

Sane people are able to distinguish between themselves and God. People who claim to be God or to be special instruments of God, or to hear the voice of God giving them navigational instructions while raking in power and wealth for themselves, that's a deal breaker for me. I don't care what their religion is.

(In this particular case, though, I don't think Bush is crazy. I just think he's a big fat liar. He's taking political advantage of divisions within the country and using the word 'God' to signal what side he is on.)

Can people actually be instruments of God? Sure. I think so anyway. But in those cases we do not judge them based on what they claim for themselves but on the sanctity of their lives. Their whole lives testify on their behalf, as it were. And guess what? - they almost never make claims of Godliness for themselves.

Would you call George Bush saintly? How about Martin Luther King? Ghandi? Did Jesus run for office in contested elections? Gain followers by bumping off a couple Roman soldiers to avenge his people? Own a passel of oil wells?

See the difference?

You know, instead of talking about the religious right a la Pat Robertson, let's talk about Billy Graham. I like Billy Graham and I don't agree with a single belief that he expresses. He's advised all our Presidents, he has a huge, huge following among fairly fundamental Christians, and he has never crossed the line in ways that make me squirm, e.g. self-aggrandizement, deceit, corruption or apparent mental illness. I'm sure his church rakes in tons of bucks and he makes a very comfortable living for himself, but I've never had the sense that he is hoodwinking people for personal gain, you know? I think that if we are going to have church leaders active in government, he's the model we should be looking at.

Jn

[yovargas]

Um ... because that particular way of putting it would get anyone else committed to a psychiatric facility?

"I asked God for guidance after 9/11," would be OK.

"It is my belief that God wants us to seek justice for those innocent victims," would be OK.

"Those who believe in God cannot accept such atrocities," would be OK.

"I prayed together with my Cabinet before making this decision," would be OK.

I imagine a whooooole lotta people would be very uncomfortable with all those statements. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Jnyusa]

Presidents Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon ... they all talked about God and prayer and their spiritual lives. American people rather demand that their Presidents adhere to some religious belief. I don't recall it ever being a cause for dismay the way it is with Bush. On the contrary, it has always seemed to me a necessity.

I really do think, Yov, that what makes people so terribly uncomfortable about the so-called religiosity of this Administration is the deeply held suspicion that it's all faked. It's creepy that a President would fake spirituality for political reasons and that genuinely spiritual people would be taken in by this.

It's like the Clinton/Lewinski affair ... if he had come right and owned up the adultery, people would have been angry about it but it wouldn't have been nearly as creepy as sitting in a witness box and saying that what he did depends on how you define sex.

It's the squirm factor.

Jn

[Sassafras]

*cough*

Could you two start your own political thread please and leave this one for the animals?

[Jnyusa]

Sorry, Sass! We really went off topic there!

Jn