SOCIAL STUDIES - Published Monday February 16th, 2009
Canada has the worst laws in the world when it comes to protecting animals.
We have virtually no protection for wild or stray animals. We do not have any way to protect animals that are used in sport, including fighting each other. It also seems virtually impossible to prosecute anyone for cases of neglect.
The main problem is an antiquated series of laws that treat animals merely as property.
My whole family was sick with stomach flu this week. It is terrible to see a baby, who cannot talk, become sick and unable to express the pain and discomfort except through crying. Of course, it is even worse when you see a sick animal. Our dog, Jacob, has epilepsy. Watching his seizures while helpless to explain or comfort him with words is a hard thing to do.
I always grew up with pets; kittens, bunnies, dogs, hamsters. I grew up in the countryside a lot and have taken care of horses and cows. I guess I have always had an animal around me in some fashion or another; as a companion.
I know that some will argue that just domesticating wild animals is a problem; and perhaps it is, but animals have been domesticated for some 10,000 years. So let's just accept that and say if we have animals as part of our households, we should protect them with the same sense as the rest of our family.
Just recently there was a case of a man in New Brunswick killing his dogs with a hammer. He was not found guilty on most of the charges in the end because; well, because they were his dogs to do what he would like with.
There is a difference between a coffee table, and a Labrador retriever. That difference is sentience. No living thing can be seen in the same category as an inanimate one.
The ruling on the Barton case I mentioned above leaves it up to the individual to determine why, for any reason, one would choose to end the life of a pet. As long as it was done without causing too much pain, it would be okay. So, need the fur for a coat, or the meat for dinner, or the body for a sandbag to stop a flood? As long as you get it over with fast and quick it should be okay.
If you are thinking about your family dog or cat then this seems pretty strange to say, doesn't it? But the thing is there is nothing in our law that distinguishes any type of animal from any other, nor is there anything that protects the life of individual animals.
Over the past 10 years 11 laws have been floated in Parliament trying to rectify this situation. They have never succeeded.
Right now Mark Holland is re-introducing his private member's bill on animal cruelty. Now numbered C-229, which is identical to the private member's bill C-373. Since first introducing Bill C-373, Mark has worked co-operatively with respected national and international animal welfare groups which are campaigning for effective animal cruelty law reform. Their concerted efforts are focused on convincing the Conservative government to introduce his bill as government legislation.
Bill C-229, is so important because it would increase penalties for animal cruelty offences and effectively close the loopholes in the Criminal Code that make it difficult for enforcement agencies and the courts to convict animal abusers.
Despite unfounded paranoia, C-229 protects against prosecution and allows for all regular hunting, fishing, farming, ranching, and industry practices to continue lawfully.
Apparently Belgium has laws that protect every sort of animal, farm animals included. As we become more ecologically aware, and as we start to think about our planet less as a machine and more as an organism, we are going to have to revisit our relationships with the other inhabitants of the planet, be they plant, animal or even insect.
Many scientists would argue that every action we take is somehow interconnected. We have all heard the saying that the beating of a butterfly's wings in China affects the weather patterns here in Canada. Well, what if there is an even higher level of interconnectedness? What if our cruelty and neglect going to come back to us as?
I remember the first time I realized just how outnumbered human beings are. Science fiction writers have been suggesting for a long time that insects, which outnumber all other animals four to one, might some day get angry with the way we treat them.
Of course, that is just fantasy, as was Planet of the Apes; which in its own way talked about what might happen if the tables were turned.
The thing is that a living being is a living being. We should be more respectful and careful of how we interact and care for the ones that cross our path. Since we as humans have very little luck with choosing to do the right thing when given the choice; we need regulations to help us.
The New Brunswick laws need to be changed, as does the federal Criminal Code, to provide a protection for animals based no longer on their status as property, but rather on their inherent self worth.
It is only when we begin to take this seriously that we will start to truly understand the depth of our relationship with our brothers and sisters of other species.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Animals do have a soul
RELIGION TODAY - Published Saturday February 14th, 2009
I saw an e-mail the other day which was a battle between church signs on opposing sides of a busy street somewhere in the United States. It started when the Catholic church put up a line from a popular cartoon movie, "All dogs go to heaven."
Then, the Presbyterian church across the street put up "Only Humans Go to Heaven, read your Bible!" The debate went on like this:
"God loves all his creation, dogs included." "Dog's don't have souls; this is not open for debate."
"Catholic dogs go to heaven; Presbyterian dogs can talk to their pastor." "Converting to Catholicism does not magically grant your dog a soul."
"Free dog souls with conversion."
"Dogs are animals; there aren't any rocks in heaven either."
To which, the Catholic church finally put up "All rocks go to heaven."
It would have been incredibly funny to drive down the road each morning and read the new signs. I suspect the Catholic church would have been a lot more fun to attend; the Priest seems like he must have a good sense of humour.
But, it is an interesting question. Animals are clearly part of the created order. If we are Biblical literalists, then God made them first, as part of the whole package. If we are secular humanists, then human beings developed over time from a mutation in the ape gene pool. Either way, there is a pretty close relationship. Anyone who has ever been around any sort of animal -- dog, cat, lizard, horse, cow or bunny -- can't help but notice that they have their own personalities, their own quirks, their own independent thoughts and their own drives to exist, and reproduce. All hallmarks of determining if something is "alive" and "sentient" according to Star Trek.
The English word "soul" derives from a number of different words in the Old and New Testaments and is used in the Bible in a variety of ways. First, it is employed as a synonym for a living, breathing person. Moses wrote: "All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls." (Exodus 1:5; cf. Deuteronomy 10:22). In legal matters also, the word soul was used to denote any individual. The Lord told Moses: "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, 'If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done." (Leviticus 4:2).
Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word "soul" (Hebrew nephesh) often is employed to mean "life principle" (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the nephesh hayyah--literally "soul breathers" or "life breathers" (often translated as "living creatures" or "life" --cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs observed in regard to animals: "A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." (12:10).
Thirdly, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal and thus never dies. In speaking of Rachel's death at the birth of her son, Moses wrote: "And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)." (Genesis 35:18). Hezekiah celebrated the fact that the soul survives the death of the body: "But thou hast in love to my soul (nephesh) delivered it from the pit of corruption." (Isaiah 38:17).
The question therefore becomes: Can the word "soul" be used correctly in referring to animals? The first definition obviously cannot apply to animals since animals are not persons. But the second definition most certainly would apply to animals. In Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as "living creatures" (Hebrew nephesh hayyah).
But can the third definition be applied to animals? Do animals possess immortal souls that one day will inhabit heaven or hell? Religious columnist and Veterinarian Michael Fox wrote:
"There is indeed a kinship in the present diversity and evolutionary continuity of all life . . . It is more important today than ever before for human beings to be aware of their kinship with all life. It is essential for our survival that we have a strong reverence for all forms of life as our kin . . ."
Theologian Frank Hoffman wrote in his book, All Creatures Here Below:
". . .if the animal sacrifice is the precursor, or type of the final sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour, which is a mainstream Christian teaching, is God's Word not also telling us that animals do have souls? . . . Now then, why are we reluctant to accept the fact that animals do have souls? Because we are still trying to hold on to some of our pride, and perhaps our greed. If we do not accept the fact that animals have souls, then we may have a self-acceptable excuse for the way we treat the rest of God's creatures, which is not in accordance with God's desire, but ours."
So, I would wade into the argument with those U.S. Roman Catholics and declare, from what I have read and from personal experience, 'my dog, Jacob, has a soul.' And so does every other creature. Now, how are we going to treat them?
I saw an e-mail the other day which was a battle between church signs on opposing sides of a busy street somewhere in the United States. It started when the Catholic church put up a line from a popular cartoon movie, "All dogs go to heaven."
Then, the Presbyterian church across the street put up "Only Humans Go to Heaven, read your Bible!" The debate went on like this:
"God loves all his creation, dogs included." "Dog's don't have souls; this is not open for debate."
"Catholic dogs go to heaven; Presbyterian dogs can talk to their pastor." "Converting to Catholicism does not magically grant your dog a soul."
"Free dog souls with conversion."
"Dogs are animals; there aren't any rocks in heaven either."
To which, the Catholic church finally put up "All rocks go to heaven."
It would have been incredibly funny to drive down the road each morning and read the new signs. I suspect the Catholic church would have been a lot more fun to attend; the Priest seems like he must have a good sense of humour.
But, it is an interesting question. Animals are clearly part of the created order. If we are Biblical literalists, then God made them first, as part of the whole package. If we are secular humanists, then human beings developed over time from a mutation in the ape gene pool. Either way, there is a pretty close relationship. Anyone who has ever been around any sort of animal -- dog, cat, lizard, horse, cow or bunny -- can't help but notice that they have their own personalities, their own quirks, their own independent thoughts and their own drives to exist, and reproduce. All hallmarks of determining if something is "alive" and "sentient" according to Star Trek.
The English word "soul" derives from a number of different words in the Old and New Testaments and is used in the Bible in a variety of ways. First, it is employed as a synonym for a living, breathing person. Moses wrote: "All the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls." (Exodus 1:5; cf. Deuteronomy 10:22). In legal matters also, the word soul was used to denote any individual. The Lord told Moses: "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, 'If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord concerning things which ought not to be done." (Leviticus 4:2).
Second, the word soul can be used to describe the physical form of life that both men and animals possess and that ceases to exist at death. In their Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Brown, Driver, and Briggs noted that the word "soul" (Hebrew nephesh) often is employed to mean "life principle" (1907, p. 659). In Genesis 1:20,24,30, God spoke of the nephesh hayyah--literally "soul breathers" or "life breathers" (often translated as "living creatures" or "life" --cf. Leviticus 11:10). The writer of Proverbs observed in regard to animals: "A righteous man regardeth the life (nephesh) of his beast; but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel." (12:10).
Thirdly, the word soul can be used to describe something that is immortal and thus never dies. In speaking of Rachel's death at the birth of her son, Moses wrote: "And it came to pass, as her soul was departing (for she died)." (Genesis 35:18). Hezekiah celebrated the fact that the soul survives the death of the body: "But thou hast in love to my soul (nephesh) delivered it from the pit of corruption." (Isaiah 38:17).
The question therefore becomes: Can the word "soul" be used correctly in referring to animals? The first definition obviously cannot apply to animals since animals are not persons. But the second definition most certainly would apply to animals. In Genesis 1:20,24, the identical Hebrew word is employed to speak of animals as "living creatures" (Hebrew nephesh hayyah).
But can the third definition be applied to animals? Do animals possess immortal souls that one day will inhabit heaven or hell? Religious columnist and Veterinarian Michael Fox wrote:
"There is indeed a kinship in the present diversity and evolutionary continuity of all life . . . It is more important today than ever before for human beings to be aware of their kinship with all life. It is essential for our survival that we have a strong reverence for all forms of life as our kin . . ."
Theologian Frank Hoffman wrote in his book, All Creatures Here Below:
". . .if the animal sacrifice is the precursor, or type of the final sacrifice of our Lord and Saviour, which is a mainstream Christian teaching, is God's Word not also telling us that animals do have souls? . . . Now then, why are we reluctant to accept the fact that animals do have souls? Because we are still trying to hold on to some of our pride, and perhaps our greed. If we do not accept the fact that animals have souls, then we may have a self-acceptable excuse for the way we treat the rest of God's creatures, which is not in accordance with God's desire, but ours."
So, I would wade into the argument with those U.S. Roman Catholics and declare, from what I have read and from personal experience, 'my dog, Jacob, has a soul.' And so does every other creature. Now, how are we going to treat them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
