Re: Bryan 12/4/10

In Bryan's latest post he asked, "What do you think about the role religion should play in the treatment of animals?"

It seems like most people in class feel as though religion should not play a role in the treatment of animals. Yet, I disagree. Religion is what people who are religious look to when determining what is ethically wrong or right. The constitution and the beginning laws of our country were based off of religion. This is true with many other cultures. Where do our morals come from, that is, what external sources? Laws, religion and culture. If we look to the bible for how to live our lives and how to treat others, then why is it so obscure to look to the same source for how to treat animals?

I think religion should play a role in the treatment of animals if you are a religious person. My family justifies their meat-eating alone on, "that's why God made them, for us to eat." Besides this reason there is no other justification for meat eating. "it tastes good" is simply not sufficient enough for me. Yet, if your religion justifies it, then it is okay.

The reason why no one brought up religion in reference to the treatment of animals in zoos or as pets is because it is not relevant. The bible says nothing about zoos, yet one could argue that when there is an endangered species that a Noah's Arc situation (one male, one female) is pronounced okay. Yet, that is not really saying much about the ethicacy of zoos. I really do not think that the bible says anything about pet keep either.

The bible does state to treat every creature kindly, whether that is explicit or not. If we were to use the bible as a reference for animal treatment law, I do not see the animals being treated worse than they are currently being treated.

Question: If the bible was used to create new animals treatment laws, would the treatment of animals become better or worse?