Within Unitarian Universalism Animal Rights has become a more sophisticated movement as ethical treatment thinking has transformed to an animal ministry perspective. I think this represents, in part, a distancing from a secular animal rights activism. The emergent Animal Ministry movement looks more to moral suasion than to confrontational coercion.
I've prepared a Reader's Guide to my In Praise of Animals collection. I think it is an apt means for the uninitiated to begin to explore what is now being called "multi-species" relationships--our appropriate relationship with our animal kindred as well as the web of life that embraces us all. My guide is a resource for individual reflection. But it would also work well in a readers or book discussion group.
Animal Rights is no longer a frontier. It is a realm of ethical being that is rich and fulfilling. It is, in my estimation, a coming home for the human species.
Posts
1 comment:
I think the juxtaposition between UU “moral suasion” and secular “confrontational coercion” might be a bit too Manichean. First, there are secular groups that do not use confrontational tactics but rely solely on "moral suasion." Which is perhaps why we rarely hear of them. It is no coincidence that the often (but not always)confrontational PETA remains by far the animal rights group with the largest membership. (HSUS, which is larger, identifies itself, correctly, I think, as an animal welfare group. That is not a putdown by me; I support HSUS' approach as well as PETA's.)
We also have to remember that activism within a self-selected group such as UUs ,characterized by specific, carefully thought-out views about ethics and interpersonal relations, might be quite different from activism aimed at the general public. A generally softer approach might be more effective with UUs than with the public at large.
But more importantly, would we as UUs have objected to sit-ins, freedom rides, marches, and other forms of "confrontational coercion" during the civil rights era? Or during the campaign for the abolition of slavery would we have opposed the civil war in favor of "moral suasion?" Martin Luther King practiced both gentle persuasion and confrontational coercion simultaneously, and viewed both as forms of moral suasion--something we tend to forget now that he has passed from relevant social justice activist to hallowed but largely ignored saint. And I think we in the animal liberation community, both secular and religious, have to do the same. A successful social justice campaign requires a wide array of tactics, ranging from confrontation to gentle suasion. In a society as diverse as ours, one size does not fit all.
I think it would be a tragedy if we UUs who believe that nonhuman animals are full members of the moral community and deserve to be treated as such were to deliberately distance ourselves from the broader animal rights movement. We should pursue our methods and support others—both secular and those affiliated with other religions—as they pursue their methods. The innocent suffering and slaughter of 10 billion sentient beings every year in the United States is a moral and spiritual catastrophe of the first order. Our focus should be on establishing an ethical relationship with our nonhuman fellow beings, and we should not let ourselves be distracted from that goal by concerns that other groups may not meet our standard for gentle and loving communication. Discomfiting human beings over their own ethical blind spots is to me a much lesser offense, if it is any offense at all, than the imprisoning and killing of animals for no better reason than that we enjoy the taste of their flesh. Sometimes love and caring have to speak unpleasant truths with a clear voice.
And, besides, with only six-hundred thousand or so of us in America, we UUs aren’t going to end animal exploitation without a lot of help—much of it secular.
Norm Phelps
Post a Comment