True compassionate conservatism

Most vocal critics of animal cruelty in industrial agriculture come from the Left, with arguments that tend to take the form that animals have "rights" in much the same way humans do, or that utilitarian calculi of pain/pleasure must take account of non-human animals as much as humans, since most non-human animals can feel pleasure and pain. One need not come at the issue from this perspective, however. In this essay, Christian conservative writer Matthew Sculley offers a thoughtful, passionate piece on why our current treatment of animals (particularly abuse of pet animals and food animals in industrial agriculture) is unethical. Sculley's argument is that animals aren't ethical or moral equals to humans (in the "rights" sense of Peter Singer, for example), but that as "divinely created" beings like ourselves, they are entitled to kind and compassionate treatment by humans--our "God-appointed and created" stewards.

Now those religiously-based starting points of his argument may be problematic for some people (they are for me). But I don't believe you need to share Sculley's Christianity to agree with his basic argument--at least as I understand it. Sculley basic suggests--contrary to deep ecology and anti-anthropocentric arguments--that humans are "special creations" that are superior to non-human animals in critical aspects, but that this "special" status is not merely a conversation-stopping response about why humans can do whatever they want to with animals, but a conversation-starting recognition that with special status comes special obligations, specifically the obligation to treat animals without cruelty and in a humane and decent way. I think one could as easily agree with Sculley on the "special" status of humans without deriving that from a "special creation" account lodged in Christianity or any other religious worldview. One could, I believe, simply recognize that evolution/natural selection has "bestowed" upon us a special status--including consciousness and the ability to make true choices--that creates the obligations of which Sculley speaks. Now of course that evolution/natural selection may well be viewed as God(s)-driven as well (theistic evolution), but I think his view is flexible enough to take in perhaps more than sees.

In any case check out the essay. I'm currently in the middle of the book it is drawn from (Dominion...), which is well worth a read...

PF

"Grabbing" a little more Wilderness

In the midst of the economic crisis and a few other disappointing actions by the new President, it's easy to forget what a change at the top can bring. Today is a cheery reminder. Kudos to the Congress for passing an omnibus bill setting aside more Wilderness Areas than has been done in 15 years (2 million acres), more acres in one act than Bush set aside in all 8 years of his dismal presidency (shocking I know). Wilderness designation prohibits most serious human alteration of the environment, including mechanized transportation (yeah, time to get off your ass you Blue Ribbon ORV "enthusiasts" and hike), timbering and oil and gas exploration.

The vote (H.R. 146 roll call here) was 285-140, with only 4 Democrats voting against. 38 environmentally-minded Republicans also voted yes, so props to them. Not surprisingly our own Adrian Smith was not among them (Nebraska's Fortenberry was, however).

Republicans criticized the legislation as a "land grab," perhaps forgetting that almost all of the land is federal already. What they mean, of course, is that the environmentally-minded public is finally able to "grab" a little of its land back from those narrow interests who see it primarily as a resource to be managed primarily for profit, the ecosystem be damned. And despite their high-minded language of "individualism" and "minimal government," these "managers" are typically all-too-willing to suckle at the federal teat for various forms of federal largesse, from antiquated mining laws to the "cowboy welfare" of sub-market grazing fees.

'Glad we can "grab" a little of this wonderful land back...
PF

-

The growth of "nonreligious"...

If you haven't checked out the results of the just-released ARIS survey on religion, you should do so...some genuinely unexpected results in the shifting demographics of American religious belief. A good summary from USA Today and some additional commentary are here.