Animals as symbols in religion

In many religions animals symbolize certain things. For the christian religion:

The Lamb is an important symbol. John has phrases including "my sheep listen to my voice, I know them and they will follow me." (John 10:27) . During passover blood from the lamb was marked on the doors to prevent the "angel of death" from entering their homes. In Jerusalem lambs were made as daily sacrifices for the sins of others.
Jesus is called, "the Lamb of God" in John 1:29 and 1:36. The Lamb of God refers to Jesus as a sacrifice for sins. The bible seems to support the act of eating lambs if we were to spiritually interpret it. Because from a spiritual interpretation it would seem that eating a lamb would cleanse one's sins.

Around Christmas time, two doves are cadged in church. This is in the catholic religion, but I'm not sure if other Christians have this as well. These doves symbolizes the new and old testaments. The song "The twelve days of Christmas" has other animals that symbolize different things in the christian religion. These symbols were created because from the mid 16th to the early 19th century being Catholic was illegal in England. The twelve days of Christmas was a catechism song for those being confirmed, the code prevented them from being caught. A partrige in a pear tree symbolizes Jesus, three french hens symbolize the thological virtues- faith, hope, charity, four calling birds represents the four Gospels, six geese means the six days of creation, and seven swans symolize the seven sacrements. http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/music/12days.asp

These are only some of the things that animals symbolize in the christian religion. My questions are: What are some things that animals symbolize in other religions/cultures? How may the use of these symbols justify or not support the consumtion of these animals?

Re: Todd's Epstein Goes to Extremes

In Todd's latest post in response to Richard Epstein's article, he asked "Do you believe that animals can have freedom and liberty, even if we still utilize their resources and their labor?"
First I want to point out that I found this a very intriguing question. Yet, in order to answer it I want to first, list all human utilization of animals. Secondly, define freedom and liberty. And finally, determine if each utilization allows animals to be free and obtain liberty.
We use animals for many things, some more necessary than others. We use them for medical resources, as pets, modes of transportation, clothing/upholstery, zoo/aquarium attractions, farm hands, and food.
Freedom is, "The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice of action." And liberty is, " The power to do as one pleases." (Both as defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary). Essentially, they mean the same thing.
For clothing/upholstery and food, the animal of course has no freedom or liberty because it's dead. (I apologize for my bluntness.) Yet, for the other conditions freedom and liberty is questionable. In a medical testing facility, the animals are free to do what they please when they are in their cage... as long as they are in their cage. Oh the abundance of choices. They are not free or at liberty to say if they do or do not want to be a part of an experiment. At times, I'm sure, They have to be held down or forced to participate.
For pets, their actions are limited to the dos and don't of their owners, they technically have less freedom than cows or any other farm animal in my opinion.
As for animals that are on the farm, (that serve as Farm hands, potential food, or transpiration) and animals that are in the aquarium or zoo their freedom and liberty is a bit more complex. They are free to roam and do as they please without constraint as long as they are inside the gates and walls that bind them. Their choices of actions are limited to this space and if they were to try to escape, they would be restrained from that decision. Yet, as long as they do not try to do that it appears as though they have liberty and freedom, at least to them.

Question: Are humans even free? Who has more freedom wild animals or humans?

The psychology of dolls

I was told that in my absence on Monday the subject of the psychology of dolls came up. Well, I'm not quiet sure what the question was, but I can give some psychological insight on dolls.

Girls are to dolls what boys are to guns. A lot of young boys go through a "gun phase" when they are younger (sadly some never grow out of it). It is a pretty big psychological debate whether or not to let young boys have fake toys guns or to take them away. On the female side, young girls are attracted to dolls because they offer them the ability to show nurturance. The idea that females have an innate need to care for others makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. Being nurturing is a trait that women have needed to possess. It was the wife who stayed home and raised her children and the husband who "brought home the bacon," so to say. This is still widely prevalent today. This is something that has been a part of human culture since the cave. It also explains the gun phase in boys, while it is no longer necessary for men to hunt and cavemen didn't have the technology, hunting still went on for quite a while in human history.

Dolls can also have a negative light to them. Barbie, is supposed to be this perfect women that girls want to be just like when they are older. Yet, studies have shown that barbie is linked to eating disorders in some women. A doll symbolizes not only nurturance, but beauty as well. I'd say that infant/baby dolls symbolize nurturance. Yet, barbie and other "teen" or "women" dolls act as a form of manifestation. Some girls pretend that they are these dolls and that they look just as beautiful as the unperceivably disproportional Barbie. Yet, dolls are not the only thing that shape our thoughts on what beauty is. Disney movies also have a huge impact. Belle, Cinderella, Snow white, Sleeping beauty, etc. they all look the same essentially. High cheek bones, clear completions, slim athletic bodies, small pert noses, big eyes, and full lips! (I'll stop there.) Society plays a huge role on this idea, the media and Barbie are just some factors, yet, every day life is the biggest factor of them all.

The fact that taking care of dolls and nurturing others is an innate trait in women and letting them have stuffed animals or dolls is not going to have a huge impact on how they treat animals. I think of it in terms of: If they are a nurturing person they will be nurturing to dolls, stuffed animals and pets.

Question: How does society shape the way we treat animals? How could society better improve this? How does society shape the way we treat eachother?

Response to Mary

Mary asked, "If people were to stop keeping pets, what would the effect of society be as well as the animal world?"
Something that I do not think that we have touched on yet, are the health benefits of owning animals. People who own dogs and cats are less likely to have: heart problems, depression, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, high triglyceride, stress, among many other benifits.
So naturally, if people stopped owning pets the rates of these disorders would rise
For the animal world, the effects to fish, snakes and cats would not change at all. Yet, for dogs, it would change immensely. Like we have been discussing in class, and like Mary discussed in her post, dogs have been domesticated so much that they would not be able to survive on their own. We change them to have shorter legs, longer torsos, rounder snouts. We desire these traits because they are more aesthetically pleasing to us, or these traits are quite possibly desired because they are more human (a manipulated selection that is a borderline satire of The Island of Dr. Moreau). Our extreme breeding choices for these animals has given dog owners the opportunity to turn something that is suppose to be a nurturing act into a real life Cosmo quiz: What dog are you.
Dogs need us for their survival, and if all the dogs were dispersed in the woods, I'm sure some of them would survive. (probably not shitus or chuwuwas). Never the less, both the human world and dog would would have significant changes, because they are so intertwined.

Question: Because animals give us so many health benifits does that give us a reason to breed dogs so that there is at a right dog for everyone's lifestlye? That is to say, different dogs are specifically designed for a certain lifestyle.

People who look like their dogs

Today in class Nick brought up the theory of developmental attraction. Another theory, that realates to this topic is the reward-theory of attraction. We are attracted to the things that reward us. These aren't tangible rewards, but internal rewards. For example, we are attracted to people that agree with us beacuse it reinforces our opinions.
This relates to pet ownership (dog owner ship in particular) because the reward-theory of attraction effects the dogs we choose to own. It has been proven empiclly that people look like their dogs. This is because we are attracted to what we look like, even unconsiously because it rewards us. In one study researchers gathered 70 people to match pictures of dogs to owners. The participants were given 41 pictures of real-life owners and for each they were given a choice of three different dog breeds to choose from. Chance indicates that they would be right 33% of the time, but the results showed that the participants were correct from 50-60% of the time. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5094835/Dog-owners-do-look-like-their-pets-say-psychologists.htmlsts.html).
The researchers also looked for personality similarities, yet found no such correlation.
Yet, People choose their dog breeds for all types of reasons. I do not think that I look like my dog at all. Personally, I like bigger dogs: golden retrivers, labs, and border collies (I own a yellow lab). I like them the most because they appeal the most to me asethtically and personallity wise. These types of dogs are smart, energenic and just want to be loved.

1. If you own a dog what made you choose that breed?
2.Do you think that you look like your dog?

Animal pedagody

On Friday, we brought up the new topic of zoos, and discussed how zoos serve a pedagogical function. Sarah mentioned, that we don't really need to learn about wild animals and that we should just leave them alone. Do we need to learn from animals? Do we have the right to take them out of the wild?
Having a pet teaches you how to care for another being, and it also teaches responsibilities. We use various animals for researching which is a necessary tool for new treatments and medications. Zoos give a real life look at, for what a lot of people, will be the closest they ever come to seeing a real-life exotic animal. Animals are a huge part of our world and teach us so much, we do need to learn about them. In some aspects, humans think they own every animal (and thing). I do not think that this is intentional, but our thirst for knowledge blinds us.

Question: Yet, do we have the right to cage animals for our viewing? Where is the line between curiosity and taking away rights?

Re: Becca Lindamood's Hunting v. Stop and Shop

At the end of Becca's latest post she asked what the world would be like if everyone was required to kill their own meat?

Well, first my response was that the rate would go down dramatically. Yet, then I thought, let's think realistically here. In order to answer this correctly I first have to imply that this is regulated by law -- purchasing meat from industries or small farms is illegal. In that case, I think it would not change at all. People would buy meat from the black market or from small farms anyways.
If, just for hypothetical reasons, we didn't live in a society where people do things even though they are illegal, the rate of meat consumption would go down. This is due to the fact that some people cannot afford weapons and also due to the fact that some people would feel wrong killing an animal. Although, I do think the crime rate may increase because more people would own weapons and would have to know how to use them. When asked a "what if " question it is difficult to say what would truly happen or how the population will react. And as we know from the Prohibition act in the 1920's if people want something that is illegal they will find a way to get it. In the case of hunting, people will get what they want even if that requires someone else to do their dirty work for them.
From an environmental standpoint, there would be an abundance of extra farm animals. I would say that farmers would have to keep their animals and not breed them. If they let them out into the wilderness it would throw off the entire food chain. The amount of foxes, coyotes, wolfs and other natural predators would increase. This would make other things go off course. A realistic chain reaction.

People's schedules are so busy, with working and raising children. Most people do not have time to go out on an all day excursion killing a buck. If it became illegal, this law will be short lived because of this. Do you have time to do this? I surly don't.

Question: what do you think the effects of a vegetarian world would be if we gradually worked towards it? Is it possible?