Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • Regan, Tom - Christians Are What Christians Eat

    Загружено:

    DavidRooney
    83 просмотров5 страниц
    christians are what christians eat

    Оригинальное название

    Regan, Tom - Christians Are What Christians Eat (1)

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    christians are what christians eat

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    83 просмотров5 страниц

    Regan, Tom - Christians Are What Christians Eat

    Загружено:

    DavidRooney
    christians are what christians eat

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 5
    5: SECTION FoUR- TRADITIONAL AND CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS TEACHIGS Food is not an isolated phenomenon for Jewish people or for any ople iis deeply embedded in hisoial conditions and 1elgous st lest changes in response to socal and historical fares Food conveys, ital a language of history. of the senses, of eiguete, oF Jaks ‘ems of social relationships of pleasure of memories of holidays, and Special occasions. Vegetaanism ges Jews back thelr dietary story, tes them with God's intentions in the Garden of Een, allows them 0 ‘eto the prophets in thelr itis of meat gutony and the concern, aust det tsa vegetarians without need ofa temple in which 1 sac e animals for food, that Jews may become a ation of pest as Moses, hed them tobe for they do not then need a special priest clas to pre- over the scice of animals. I i a vegetarians tht Jews can make "7 table in every home an altar #9 the blesing of earths goodness Pout harm to any cetuce ones. 1. Tok Cooper a and Be Satis Suc Hisar fla Fad (Nontee raion Anson, 1293) 93 2 Bab Same Drea Th ish Diary Lr: Ta Manno Our ime we Yok Rabbi Assen of Ameria, 1982). 28 4 brane 7 6 W. Gaathee Pane, The Ta A Moder Commenzy (New Yods Union \ttscn Hebue Congregations 1981) p. 63 7. Adavess dled ate erent annivesary ceebvain forthe Wold ltefund Asstt Fall 1906 8 Robera Kalco Habis an Vieni An Bing Mion tienen Micah Pubietone 1995), p97 ‘fbi 58. CHRISTIANS ARE 14 | WHAT CHRISTIANS EAT Tom Regan ts simplesterms the anna sights poston Twpold salons that such verse protes as the use of animals in sienee, spor. and receational unin the aapping of fur-beasing anal for vanity products and the ‘practice of sng alia for human consumption are wrong bec Hey ‘Satematcallywolaethe rights ofthe anials solved, Movaly these prac tices ought to Fe abled This the gol ofthe socal srgge for animal tah The goal of our indivi svg so dlvst ourselves of our otal tin economies to these inasices for example, byt wearing the dead ‘Sins of animalr an by not ening thet decaying corpses. Spedesss are people who think dsat humans and other animals should he wend dferenty because humans are humans and other a nals ace not, R would be wrong, they beliwe, 1 tase and slaughter humane for flan ut nor wrong to do this to hope and cows: Wrong 10 gente ‘models’ of killer diseases ip humans but nor wrong odo the same ‘hing to chimanzees and rodent. The prejudiciak character ofthis beiet Ie evidnt after appeals fo “mtution” have been unmasked and afer fst fone then anorher unsuccessful attempt to prove human superorsy has ‘acai wenn of ig ono aie in ag: gens w Ei The ‘Ss bt aay Ose es 10) ad ps ae Coe {se hnayhs tmp ety ae 9). v7 178 SECTION FOUR: TRADITIONAL ANO CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS been defeated. Standard secular “proof” fil miserably Some (but not all) humane ae rational. Some (but not all) humnans are autonomous. Some (but not all) moma can use a language. Unless species ace prepared {pic they ze not to consign humans who are decent in tese respects {o the slaughteshoure or the teteatch lab, they perforce must nd some ther characte postesed by all and oaly human belngs. (CurisTiaNiry AND SPECIESISM. For those of us who cut our sista teeth o Chrisdaniey his challenge thas falar response usta belags~all of us—are sid to be Inher trily more valuable than everything else Because We are spicially unique, "Ths uniquenes stems from ous having been created inthe image of Ga. ‘Thus since all thane uniquely image God, we are able to cte 2 eal (spi. Intl} difference between evry member of ou species andthe millions of ther species af cemately Iie And since this difference i a morally tele- ‘ant one, Christan spaces ae able to defend thee belief in human Sperosiy- Orso thas ben thought. ‘Now? am not ll spose to he dea that humans havea unique spit worth no as ildspoted to the ida that we poss it becuse we uniguesy Jimage God) Homer the interpretation ofthese ieas [favor doesnot ve thing Ike the ress Grozed by specs. This interpretation pices Thomas as Gots Imaged presence in aetion By this Team that we are prey chogen by God ta be Go's vice inne yoy alli of he ‘wn we ate costa by God, tat to bea engin our day 0a Sealing vith the rented onder God nein eating hat ode inte fst place inthis sense, therefore, there isa morally relevant diference between ‘numan beinge an every other eatzely expression of God, Humans and pumans alone ate git the awesome freedom and rsponsbilis’ © be ‘God's tepreseaative within eeation. Aad iis, therefore, only we humans ‘who canbe held morally Blamtewonly wien we fail to do this 2nd morally praseworthy when we succeed. ‘With this integretaton of our wnique Imaging of God we fd a moray relevant difeence hers have sought. Bu a shoul be evident this diference by self offers nether aid nor comfort tothe spciess. or to agee that only humans image Ged, inthe sense tha only mans have the moral responsibly to beloving owatd God's cation, doesnot entail, ther that all and only humans have Inberent work or that all and only thumans have superior inferent worth Kas psf consistent with oot tunigue staat as God's chosen represenative within cwetion that other ‘estes have inherent wor exial to our oa "When viewed within a Chistian perspective, itis possibiy actualy Regan: Chistans Ave What Christians Eat 179 ‘ue? In gaicala how does the Bile speak to this question? As very rach ‘shonesfert in the area of biblical exegesis am relactant to ge an answer. Bur tite te proverbial fo! who “rushes in” f shall make Dold and hazard the opinion that there sno one unambiguous, unwavering bible mes- sage. Many passage lend support wewing all of nonhuman creation as hhving movie value span from human teeds and interests, reading that spoons the taditon of Christan anthropocensism. By contrast ‘other passages support views that are more or less nonanthropocenti. | ‘do not profes to Inow how 10 prove that dhe anthropocenti readings Tage or tat anonanthropocente eading tue Indeed, as aleady have Indistec do not belive the Bible oe ast one answer to our quesdon, "The peor then is that wear fe with the awsome respansolity of choosing betwen altemstive biblical representations ofthe value of nom Ihumnan eeation, ao one of which Is dearly or incontwenentabiy the coorect fone. Ane this fact shoud. believe, chasten us In our conviction that we hve phileged access othe whole uth, and roving bur the tath, With Ind so feble spite so wea anda biblical message so open to honest Uiferencs of interpretation between people of wea faith and gooderil all ‘eho tae piu sustenance fom the pages ofthe Bible ough o realize Toth theneed fo and te alt protic, he vitue of tolerance Eden's Message Having sid this nay now speak to my own reading ofthe biblical mes- sage ac indinte wh this message ab (understand i, not only falls to ‘fier aid and comfort to specisiaty, at acually presets a healthy spiral tmdoteto this vrsleat moral prejudice Teak the opening account of creation ip Genesis seriously, but not 1 hasten toa, Ierally [take seriously because I blce hiss he point fom which our sittal undentanding of Gos plazs in and hopes for Cceation must begin, and against wbich our welhconsiered judgmmenss Shout the value of cation finally must be tested. ti therefore predicable that {fd Ir slgfcant that God sald 10 judge each pant of cextion “good” before omar came upon the scene and hat humans were created by God for came pon the seme) on the same day 25 the nonhuman a Ihals to whora I have ben referring -ehove whose limbs are severed ‘hose sensory ongans ate bnullyremoned, and those bras ae ground tp for puposes of sclenfic reveaeh, for example {readin this repesen tition Othe order of cretion a pretcen.rogniion of the vital Kinship fhumaneshare ith thse oder arias 2 kinship Ihave esevhere nda ‘red co eplcate in terms of our shared biographical presence in the worl 1 Sher dnat, ute spar from anything the Bible teaches, supported by ‘both conmon sense and oar bes adence 180 SECTION FOUR: TRADITIONAL AND CONTEKIPORARY RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS ‘iat do I mean by “our shared biagrplcal presence" Let me ilu ‘zate my teaming by wsing the animals most of us know bes, ou favorite [nla Companions cas and dogs. lke us eas and dogs ae ithe word Tike as they arc avare ofthe world ke us what happens to them mates to them. There isa complicated pspehologial creature behind those eye, (Cas and dogs have a Biography, not simply 2 biology. They are some bodies noe somethings. “The same is tue of the oter animals Ihave mentioned, animals we Seno ee well ftom cows asd pg to chimpanzees and seals the other Ania beings who were created (or came on the seme) on the same day 2 human beings. The chronological identity of de day of our creation i teupler forthe psychological Kinship we share with our biographical Tut I find in the opening saga of cation an even deeper, mow Pro- ound message regarding Co's plane in and hopes for eation Fr Und In iis scout the unmistakable message that Cod did not cate non roman animals for our tst—not in science not for the purpose of vanity produets not for ur enterainmeat, not for our sport or ezeatisn, not ren for our bewly sustenance On the contrary he nonbman anima nremdy exploited in these wayr were ceated to be just what they ae Independent good expresions ofthe divine lve that, in ways that are tikely always to remain fo some degree mysterious tous, was expressed in God crentive acti. "The isos of boy sustenance Is peshaps the most noteworthy of the practices Thave mentioned since, while humans fom “de beginning” vere {anesd of food there were no rodeos or cases no leghold taps of dyaa- nite haspoons in the ongial cvation. Had irbeen par of Gods hopes TU pln for aeation to have humans use nonbursan enimals a fod, i “oul have been open to God t et his be known. And yet what we Sind Inthe opening saga of cation is just the opposite The “meat” we riven by God snot the flesh of animals “al plans tat bear eed everywhere fom the exh, and every tee eaeing fut which yes seed: they shall be sours for food” (Gea. 129 [NEB). “The message could at be any clare Inthe most perfec stat of ce sion humans se vegans (bat snot ony isthe flesh of animal exchuded fom the mem God provides for is, ever animal producs—mik and Cheese, for example-ate excluded). And so elie that, ie lok othe ‘eal acount of the beginning” ae more than merely one among many Considerations, bus Instead ay an absolut essential. Source of spinal fnsgie into God's hopes for and plans in eration, thea, like ior not we te obliged co find there a meni of divinely approved bodily wstenance {hat ifr quite make fom the steaks and chops, de roasts and stews poet Chee tane age seroctomd desouring Regan: Christians Ave What Crstians Eat 187 ‘ea Jess than optional or scholarly degree Tam aware of some ofthe apteand verses ofthe subsequent biblical cecord the Fall, dhe expel Son fom the Ganlea, the Flood. Mere is no debate about the detals of {his record Toul win if pled against an even modesty atu and rete tive young person preparing for fist communion. [wear my biblical (and theological) ignorance om may sleve. Nevers, 1 believe the essential Tnoral and spi toh any openmnded, lteate reader of the Bat ‘or Genesis mast finde the one Laleady have mentioned, namely. that nonhuman animale were aoe placed within God's creation 30 that humane might coast i, stew, broil, bake and barbeque thet oting th this reading of Goat's ceative stv, cheefore find spaital tesson that i unmistakably at odds with both the leiter andthe spit of {pevesgm. This lesson, a8 Lunderand iy doesnot represent the nom Tuan animals to whom 1 ave been refering as having no or less faheren value than hans, On the eomrary, by unnstaably exuding these aninale fom the menu of fod feely aalable to us, as granted by (God's benefcence, infer that God asks ws to recognize the independent sale ofthese animale ‘They ae not pat here to be ulized by ws, Rates, {We ae put hereto protect them. In this respect he (sypposed) Christian Tstense of speciesn emerges a8 part of the best offense of the animat sighs pasion ‘Some theologians have diferent view. Eden never was. they sy the perfection of crenon i something we ate to work to bring about in te Fare aot someting that was lost inte past donot know how to prove «ich vision of Eden fete, ete te one What T do Kxow is thas, 32 The present content this question is entrely moot, since itis clear—lear ‘beyond any doubt 36 ead the Seipaures—that aman beings simply do oveatnenbiuman animals tha filles of God's benefience the image itn repeesens. And this fete whether Eden once was (but was lost), OF is yet tbe (fe il But aeae i) ‘Two Objections, Two Replies It remains toe, nonetheless that my attempt to explain and defend en tgltaran view of the inherent alue of humtans and other animals mast {Hee « numberof imponant challenges For reasons of length, if for ne fthcr {cannot spond to all of them, not een all the most fundamental (nes The bet lean do, before concluding is descibe and defuse wo of, | the moet commen objections “The fee begins by observing that, within dhe radtions of Judaism an Chistian, every form of lie, sot simply humans and other ania 0 | hevlewed as exprestiv of Goss love Thus oatemp to “elevate” the value 152_SECTION FOUR: TRADITIONAL AND CONTEMPORARY RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS ‘of nonhuman animals 2s I maybe accused of doing. is posible ony at the ‘expense of lowering” Une value of everything esa which is unaceptable. Think this objection mises dhe mark, Tere is noting in the animal rights philosophy thot either denies or diminishes che flue of fi fains, ts, and oor forms of vegetative life or tha refuses to accep the Dosing that chee life forms and the ret of creation generally are x0 ‘any wis in which God's loving presences manifsted. Nor s there any thing in the phllowophy tha disparage the wise counsel to teatall ofc ation gently and appreciative. fs an arogant antropocensiom, often aided and abeted in out history by 2 no less arogant Christian theology notte philosophy of animal rights, that has brought the earth the bike of ecological sas: ‘Sill this philosophy does id in humans and ocher animals, because of our shared biographic status in creation, 3 Kind of vale inherent ‘alue~that other erates do not possess, either not at ll or less than we 4o, Isle psble to defend tis view I believe tis both onthe basis of 3 purely secular philosophy and by appeal to biblical authori: The seule {lefence have oered slswhere and will not repeat here. As forte Ce ‘san defense shall merely seam the ital importance of Genes 1 ‘ich teaches, eliove, that epee hfe not animal life was meant © De used by us 2 food, 'So much forthe ist challenge The second one emanate from a quite Afferent source and mounts a quite different objection, Ie begins by noting ‘the lage disparities tat exis inthe quality of fe available to hose who be fluent (the “haves and those who ae poor (the "have-nots", expe Sally those eo lve in third worl counties “Te all well sd good t0 preach the gospel of animal rights to those people who have de financial nd other means 1 Ive i if they choose to do 80, this objection begins, “but please do spare us your slErightcous condemnation of the sinig-

    Вам также может понравиться