The forwarded message was sent to Jay Laksin and Wesley J Smith. Smith recently wrote a book, 'A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement', condemning the animal rights movement as being anti-democracy, anti-humanity, and irrational. He claims it will ultimately lead to the fall of western civilization. Such unfounded hysteria cannot go unanswered.

Jacob Laskin conducted an interview with Smith. He too is active in condemning the animal rights movement. In the words of Jacob Laskin:

"For some activists, the animal rights ideology amounts to a quasi religion, one whose central doctrine declares a moral equivalency between the value of animal lives and the value of human lives. Animal rights ideologues embrace their beliefs with a fervor that is remarkably intense and sustained...�

The unreasonable negativity towards a humane and compassionate movement must be countered with facts and the reality of the situation, as these individuals are misrepresenting and falsifying our intentions and our motivation.

If you would like to respond to either Laskin or Wesley here is their contact information:

Jacob Laskin: jlaksin@gmail.com
Wesley J Smith: info@discovery.org  (include attn: Wesley J Smith in the subject field of the msg)

The interview is enclosed as an attachment after the rebuttal.

Ruth Eisenbud

From: homerific1990@hotmail.com
To: jlaksin@gmail.com; info@discovery.org
Subject: DOMINION DECONSTRUCTED - (Attn: Wesley J Smith)
Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:28:24 -0400

DOMINION DECONSTRUCTED:

"The West is founded on a Judeo-Christian moral ethic, which holds that human welfare is central and that humans and animals are not of equal worth. The animal rights movement tears at the heart of that. It�s a movement that is not based on rationality; there is a very strong anti-human element." Wesley J. Smith

This inaccurate representation of those working for compassion for animals is not based on rationality or reality. When George T Angell founded the first animal protection society in the United States he was soundly criticized for helping animals, when there is so much human suffering. His response: "I am working on the root of the problem."

In an effort to discredit the animal rights movement, those who subscribe to the dominion model of animal compassion, have wrongly interpreted it as an effort to undermine western civilization and devalue human life, by granting animals the right to remain free from harm and slaughter. This does not reflect the reality of the outcome. When animal lives are respected, the value of human life goes up as well. Those who criticize unconditional compassion for animals base their fears on the mistaken belief that human progress has been achieved because man is superior to the animals and may therefore dominate and subdue them. Western religion with its notion of dominion, indicates that animals may be, ab(used), exploited, and slaughtered for human need. The claim that this belief system has benefitted man is not borne out by the facts.

The notion that progress is a result of human superiority as constructed by the dominion hierarchy is easily discredited. Inquisitions, crusades, forced conversions, holocausts and jihads are all fueled with the belief that some lives have greater worth than others and taking these lives is justified to promote an agenda. When violence to animals is justified, it cannot be easily contained and has the increased potential to extend to harming one's fellow men. It is a psychological reality that children who harm animals are more likely to harm humans as adults. So too for cultures, as those which endorse permissible harm to animals, are more likely to also justify harm to humans labeled as 'other'. Cultures with greater compassion for animals are less likely to engage in the violent extremes of the monotheistic religious tradition.

Compassion is not limited to one culture, religion or society, but resides deep within the human soul. If it is nurtured it will expand and flourish, if it is suppressed it will dampen the human spirit and result in harm to both animals and humans.

The sanctified slaughter of an animal acclimates the human spirit to tolerate violence. For example, in the Jewish faith, rabinical duties require viewing animal slaughter to insure that it is carried out according to tradition. During a discussion with a rabbi, he noted that, when he witnessed the slaughter, the screams of the animals were terrible. When he revealed that he was not a vegetarian, I understood how his heart was so numbed to the suffering he had witnessed, that he was still willing to consume the product of such pain and terror. When we close our hearts to the suffering of others it becomes easier to dismiss their lives as worth less than our own.

The family of Rachel Corrie is suing the Israeli government for the wrongful death of their daughter. She and other demonstrators stood in front of a Palestinian home to protest, as an Israeli soldier was about to bulldoze it into rubble. In her bright orange jacket she was highly visible. Perhaps the soldier did not realize she was an American citizen, as he ran over her and proceded to bulldoze the home. When some lives, animal or human are viewed as less worthy than others, those spiritually impoverished by these teachings are capable of crushing a peaceful young woman to death, as if she were nothing more than a table in a home to be demolished. When all life is not viewed as precious, than no lives are safe from harm.

The observation, just noted, of the damage to the human spirit by the allowable slaughter of animals is not unique to one religion or culture, but takes its toll on all those involved. Dominion with its endorsement of half-hearted compassion and benevolent abuse is instrumental in perpetuating violence, both to animals and humans. The devastating belief that some lives are worth more than others and may be taken to gratify a perceived need has led to untold suffering for animals and humans.

Though many children are born with an innate sense of compassion, when we teach them that it is appropriate to kill gentle animals such as cows, sheep and chickens, who have harmed no one, for our own gratification and pleasure, we send the message that our own selfish needs supercede a victims right to exist:

"No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded" Margaret Mead

There is an epidemic of gratuitous violence in the USA. Our youth are opening fire on their classmates, troubled individuals are opening fire on their colleagues in the work place, lone gunmen are opening fire on strangers in public spaces and the violence has even spread to churches where individuals have been shot to death. It is not coincidental that those who perpetrate this violence have been taught that it is appropriate to harm and kill another living being, if it is somehow beneficial. For troubled individuals this often translates into destroying those perceived as having wronged them.

The slaughter of an animal is an act of extreme violence and their pain and terror are clearly visible. Such violence undermines and erodes the very notion of compassion. The act of killing an animal, or benefitting from it has a harmful effect on those who participate, as it lowers inhibitions, potentially leading to more violence. In her book Slaughter, Gail Eisnitz documents a higher rate of domestic violence, homicide, suicide, self-destructive behavior and public violence by those who do the slaughter. Soldiers returning from war in Iraq and Afghanistan also have a similar increased rate of acting out, as they are so brutalized by the violence they have witnessed and participated in. The act of killing depletes the human spirit.

The concept of dominion is not only destructive, it also is logically flawed as it does not take into account the cooperative nature, helpful skills and intelligence of some animals. It establishes a false, self-serving hierarchy where animal rights are automatically relinquished over human rights with no exceptions. Dogs come to mind as heroes and helpers, yet a dog can be tested on without consent and a violent human criminal cannot. Something is wrong with this hierarchy.

Claims that there are provisions to address the welfare of animals with the dominion model belie the reality. While certain animals appear to be spared from harm, even for these animals, the benefits are piecemiel and dispensed with human need in mind, not the intrinsic worth of the animal's life. Dogs are cherished members of many families, yet despite this privileged position, 5-6 million healthy, young dogs a year are killed when they become inconvenient or homeless. Despite their jovial, cooperative and generous nature dogs are used as experimental subjects. Even the labrador retriever is not exempt. They are bred to develope congenital eye conditions for research to cure human eye disease. We call the dog mans best friend. Is this anyway to treat a friend?

While it is true that a model of unconditional compassion for ALL living beings, known as ahimsa, is integral to the mainstream religious and cultural tradition of India, its inclusion in western culture is not a threat to western civilization. Rather, when ahimsa is practised, it is likely to result in greater benefits, as the major tenets of western civilization remain intact. Ahimsa holds that ALL life is sacred, both human and animal, and ought to be respected. It was first introduced into Indian culture thousands of years ago by followers of the Jain religion. It is older than Christianity and predates Judaism in the shamanistic tradition of southern India. The belief that all life is worthy of respect is expressed by the following sutra:

"For there is nothing inaccessible for death. All beings are fond of life, hate pain, like pleasure, shun destruction, like life, long to live. To all life is dear." Jain Acharanga Sutra.

There have been no Jain religious wars, holocausts, inquisitions, crusades, jihads or forced conversions.

In this belief system the taking of a life that is not freely given is considered an act of gratuitous violence: To witness the terrible fear and pain of an animal during slaughter is to understand that the life was not freely given. To witness a despondent animal mutilated and restrained in a gruesome neuroscience experiment is to understand that this suffering was not volunteered. To dismiss this pain and suffering as a necessary evil, is deny our own humanity.

Shambo's Story: A few years ago in Skanda Vale Wales, Shambo, a beautiful young bull, was living peacefully in a Hindu sanctuary. Though he showed no symptoms, he tested positive for bovine TB. The Welsh government, egged on by surrounding farmers decided that Shambo must be killed, as he was viewed as a threat to the value of their livestock. The Hindu monks waged an intelligent and non-violent campaign to save his life. Transport was arranged to a cow sanctuary in India, where Shambo could be treated for TB and live out his life. During a puja (religious ceremony), to celebrate the sanctity of ALL life, Welsh government officials broke through the peaceful protestors and dragged Shambo off to be killed. Those practising ahimsa made every effort to save a life. Those practising dominion destroyed that life and violated Hindu religious rights with their violence.

While claims that democracy itself is threatened by extending full compassion to animals, the evidence indicates this irrational fear is unfounded. India, the largest thriving democracy in the world, has not been threatened by granting unconditional compassion to animals, rather it has been enhanced. India's reputation for tolerance of its many religions and cultures is widely acknowledged. When the Dalai lama sought refuge from Chinese wrath he was given a home in exile in India to practice Tibetan Buddhism. Abdul Kalam, the former president of India is a practising Moslem, a vegetarian, a physicist, a poet and a man of peace. Respect for the lives of all beings has in no way undermines democracy in India, nor would it do so in the west.

Lord Macaulay: The following statement by Lord Macaulay, a proponent of dominion in the broadest sense, presents a strategy to subjugate India and pillage its wealth, while acknowledging the integrity of the spiritual values of traditional India:

"I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their
own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation" Lord Macaulay

It would seem that it is 'dominion' that is the threat.

It is evident that the hysterical tone of those proclaiming the fall of western civilization if animals are granted full and meaningful compassion is provocative hyperbole.

Contrary to the contention that animal rights is a 'quasi-religion', respect for the lives of ALL beings is in effect an ancient religion and concept predating both Christianity and Judaism. The political expression of this time honored principle was used by Mahatma Gandhi to liberate India from dominion based tyranny and exploitation.

Clinging to the notion that man has the divine right to harm and kill other living beings, in an era where violence rocks the world daily, is irresponsible, unrealistic and a grave fallacy with potentially devasting results for humanity and animalkind.

"ahimsa parmo dharma" (non-violence, primary value) Jain sutra

Respectfully,
Ruth Eisenbud

ATTACHMENT:

http://www.amazon.com/Rat-Pig-Dog-Boy-Movement/dp/1594033463 
�Like every antidemocratic ideology, this one [animal rights] is by definition antihuman, and like any antihuman ideology, it ultimately deteriorates into a nihilistic bitterness that is anti-life. . . . Wesley J. Smith knows too well that if the activists ever succeeded in their goals, if they established through culture or law that human beings have no intrinsic dignity greater than that of any animal, the world would not be a better place for either humankind or animals.�

Dean Koontz

Over the past thirty years, as Wesley J. Smith details in his latest book, the concept of animal rights has been seeping into the very bone marrow of Western culture. One reason for this development is that the term �animal rights� is so often used very loosely, to mean simply being nicer to animals. B ut although animal rights groups do sometimes focus their activism on promoting animal welfare, the larger movement they represent is actually advancing a radical belief system.

For some activists, the animal rights ideology amounts to a quasi religion, one whose central doctrine declares a moral equivalency between the value of animal lives and the value of human lives. Animal rights ideologues embrace their beliefs with a fervor that is remarkably intense and sustained, to the point that many dedicate their entire lives to �speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves.� Some believe their cause to be so righteous that it entitles them to cross the line from legitimate advocacy to vandalism and harassment, or even terrorism against medical researchers, the fur and food industries, and others they accuse of abusing animals.

All people who love animals and recognize their intrinsic worth can agree with Wesley J. Smith that human beings owe animals respect, kindness, and humane care. B ut Smith argues eloquently that our obligation to humanity matters more, and that granting �rights� to animals would inevitably diminish human dignity.

In making this case with reason and passion, A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy strikes a major blow against a radically antihuman dogma.

http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/11/animal-wrongs-2/

Animal Wrongs

Posted by Jacob Laksin on Mar 11th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Frontpage Magazine. He is co-a ut hor, with David Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America 's Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy. His work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Philadelphia Inquirer, The Weekly Standard, City Journal, Policy Review, as well as other publications. Email him at jlaksin@gmail.com.

[Editor's note: Obama administration �regulatory czar� Cass Sunstein hit turbulence during his 2009 confirmation hearings when critics charged that he was a �radical animal rights activist.� It emerged that Sunstein had supported banning hunting; that he had urged eliminating meat eating; and that he had even championed giving animals the right to sue. Sunstein�s views were decidedly o ut of the political mainstream, b ut they were typical of a movement that a ut hor Wesley Smith, a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Instit ut e, analyzes in his new book, A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement. Smith joined Front Page to discuss what animal right activists believe, why their agenda is anti-human, and why vegetarians are no more moral than meat eaters.]

FPM: Most people would say they support animal welfare and that they are in favor of the ethical treatment of animals. B ut you argue in your book that the animal rights movement has a broader � and more insidious � agenda. What do animal rights activists believe?

Smith: The problem is that the media uses the terms animal welfare and animal rights as if they were interchangeable. They are not. Animal rightists believe that humans have no more value than animals � they consider that �speciest� � and that humans do not have the right to profit even from the proper and humane use of animals. Animal rightists draw a moral equivalency between humans and animals. There is quote from PETA�s president and co-founder, Ingrid Newkirk, that captures it well. She said: �Animal liberationists do not separate o ut the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals.�

That is why some animal rightists are opposed to the domestication of any animals at all. They believe with a furor � many of their beliefs are entirely emotional � that what gives something value is the ability to feel to pain and to suffer, and so they believe, for instance, that cattle ranching is as odious as slavery and that research on lab rats is an equivalent evil to Joseph Mengele�s experiments during the Holocaust.

FPM: You argue that animal rightists are essentially against Western civilization. Can you explain your reasoning?

Smith: The West is founded on a Judeo-Christian moral ethic, which holds that human welfare is central and that humans and animals are not of equal worth. The animal rights movement tears at the heart of that. It�s a movement that is not based on rationality; there is a very strong anti-human element. For animal rightists, being human is not special. They don�t believe in human exceptionalism. They see us as an evil species, as killers and the causers of suffering. The misanthrope is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

This actually quite odd. We are the only species that tries to mitigate the suffering of other animals. No other animals, not even dogs, have emotional empathy to the same extent that we do. A hyena in the wild is not going to have empathy if it encounters an injured animal. It�s going to eat it. Only the human species is actively trying to mitigate animal suffering.

One of the more dismaying things about the animal rights movement is that Western universities have provided a forum to its more extreme voices. In 2007, Hampshire College in Massachusetts permitted animal rights terrorists to speak. Their slogan was �Smash the State, Crush the Cage!� Universities allow these radicals to appear on campus, and yet they prevent people like David Horowitz from speaking.

FPM: In your book, you defend using animals to promote human welfare, for instance through animal testing. Can you give us an overview of that argument?

Smith: Human beings derive incredible benefits from proper and humane testing on animals. One critic of my book, Matthew Scully, has claimed that I support experiments in which chimpanzees have their arms broken, but that is erroneous: There is no such case discussed in my book. On the other hand, medical research would grind to a halt without animal testing. There would be no way to test new drugs. Ultimately there is no way to go around animal testing � unless you were willing to use human test subjects. Animal testing makes life-saving research possible.

Let me give you an example. There is a class of anti-AIDS drugs called protein inhibitors that are used to stifle infections. In the first iteration of these drugs, the researchers tested them on animals, and they ended up destroying their livers. So the researchers went back to the drawing board and came up with a new, safer, and more effective drug that has yielded great benefit to humans. But imagine if the animal rightists had their way and the drug could not have been tested on animals. Let�s say that they had tested it on humans, and found that the drug causes liver damage. At that point, there would be a huge scandal, lawsuits, and the research would be suspended. That means that thousands of people would have been dead because there would not have been no new and improved drug for them to take.

And animal rightists would go further than abolishing animal testing. Gary Francione of Rutgers University has called for human society to get rid of all domesticated animals within a single generation. Francione has said that dogs are �refugees in a world in which they don�t belong.� Think of a society that has no meat, no seeing-eye dogs, no pets of any kind. It�s impossible to quantify the consequences to our society if all animals were suddenly off limits. B ut that�s the goal of the animal rights movement.

FPM: I was intrigued by your observation that the recent tragedy in Orlando, Fla., where a killer whale drowned his female trainer, serves as a refutation of the animal rights movement, at least in so far as it illustrates the moral distinctions between humans and animals that they deny. How exactly did that illustrate the point?

Smith: This was a terrible tragedy, but what the whale did was not wrong in the moral sense: no one called for the whale to be arrested, tried, or punished. It was accepted that a killer whale was just being a killer whale. If I had done that to a woman, that would be murder. But animals don�t have moral agency and so we don�t call for them to be held to account in a way that humans can � and should � be held to account. This is a crucial distinction between humans and animals. We have moral capacities, the ability to reason, etc., that make us unique. That is part of human exceptionalism.

FPM: Although your book is primarily critical of the animal rights movement for it�s too-extreme definition of animal welfare, you�ve also been critical of those on the other extreme who suggest too narrow a view of animal rights. As you�ve noted, some have defended using animals as property; one writer, though not approving of his treatment of dogs, nonetheless defended Michael Vick�s right to treat them as his property. The majority of us would instinctively recoil at that argument, but can you explain why it is wrong?

Smith: The philosopher Descartes said that animals were automatons, and so it didn�t matter what we did to them. But today we understand that animals have feelings: they feel pain and they can experience fear. They are not inanimate objects, like a book that you can tear, trample on and burn. And they are not plants, which don�t experience emotional pain. Because we understand that animals feel pain, we are morally bound by a duty to animals to treat them properly, and not to cause them gratuitous suffering. This is our moral duty as humans. When Vick abused and tortured his dogs, he denigrated his own humanity.

It is because we have moral agency that we should seek ways to reduce the suffering of animals, whether it is cattle or pigs raised on factory farms. In my book, I have a chapter on Dr. Temple Grandin. Grandin is autistic, so she sees the world visually, like an animal would, as opposed to intellectually. And because she understood how animals see the world, she was able to design improved methods for slaughter that reduce animal suffering. The greater our ability to reduce animal suffering the more we should pursue it.

FPM: Are there any particular practices or treatments of animals in use today that you find especially objectionable?

Smith: Bull fights. They are remnants of a Roman, coliseum-like culture. It�s deeply distressing for the animal. You have a bull being baited, tortured, taunted and stabbed, until it tires long enough for the matador to run a sword through its heart. Someone may then eat the meat. There should always be some consideration of the benefit to humanity versus the suffering caused to the animal. I think bull fights would fail that test.

I would also oppose things like internet hunting, where you have people killing animals with remote controlled guns using webcams. This is killing for the sake of killing. But I am not opposed to hunting for food, and not even necessarily to hunting for sport. In Africa , sport hunting supports their ability to cull animal herds and maintain wildlife parks.

FPM: Finally, I would be curious to get your view on the vegetarian question. Are vegetarians inherently more moral than meat eaters?

Smith: Not at all. Humans are biologically omnivorous, and meat is a natural, nutritious food source. I respect those who don�t eat meat for ethical reasons, who refuse to eat anything with a face. But I see it as akin to monasticism. A monk is not more moral than a married couple that has normal sexual relations. The fact that some people choose not to eat meat doesn�t make those who do any less moral.

FPM: Wesley Smith, thanks very much for your time.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2FkNjRlMTkwNDdhYjBhOTNlNWIxOGE2OGZjOTcwNmY=
Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Animal Rights Follow-Up [Wesley J. Smith]

Like Jason Steorts, I am not sure where Matthew Scully and I disagree about the proper approach to animal rights. In my book, I criticized Scully for being overly emotional and anthropomorphic in his advocacy, and disagreed with his accusation made in Dominion that research scientists have �lost all regard for their subjects,� reducing �laboratory animals to the level of microbes or cell cultures one need not even treat as living, feeling beings at all,� a provocative claim that is not true of any legitimate research scientist. I also contended that Scully failed in Dominion to properly consider the tremendous good humans receive from animals � an issue he pointedly ignored in his review of A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy.

But I also complimented Scully in my book for demonstrating that one can support a radical approach to animal protection based on human duty. Thus on page 244, I wrote, �Dominion proves, if nothing else, that a �rights� approach is unnecessary for supporting the most stringent prohibitions on the human use of animals.�

Scully seems furious with me for defending animal uses he loathes, most particularly the culling of elephant herds in the African parks. He also seems quite put out that I actually gave a fur trapper the opportunity to defend his means of earning a living. He claims that I don�t take specific stands on banning certain animal practices. But that wasn�t the point of my book. Still, I make it abundantly clear that I support proper laws against abuse and ensuring proper methods of husbandry. For example, I specifically supported the �Three Rs� in the life sciences � refinement, reduction, and replacement � which is a program that strives to reduce the numbers and uses of animals in research. I castigated Michael Vick, not only for abusing dogs, but also for debasing his own humanity in the way he tortured them. With regard to that case, I criticized a World Net Daily writer who claimed that the dogs were his property, and thus, he was free to do as he wished with them, writing that such a purely market-based approach would �permit people to torture puppies for pleasure and starve horses to death if they failed to win a race.� I supported increased research into humane slaughter � focusing at some length on the laudatory work of Prof. Temple Grandin with cattle. Indeed, I didn�t even support industrial farming, but rather noted that there were conflicting values at stake in the issue, inexpensive, nutritious food versus the treatment of the animals, writing that working out the proper balance, �requires extensive research and empirical analysis � not the hyper emotionalism of animal rights activists � so that the benefit to humans and alleged harm to animals can be assessed and balanced.�

What I do believe in, and stated so repeatedly, is a proper animal-welfare approach to deciding these issues. That isn�t enough for Scully. He is quite overwrought about the entire issue. My great sin, it seems, was that I didn�t rail against most uses of animals. Assuming proper standards of care, I just don�t see it that way, and perhaps therein lies the rub.

� Wesley J. Smith is a senior fellow in human rights and bioethics at the Discovery Institute.