Obama, the Fly, and Animal Rights

During the election last fall I had been led to believe that Barack Obama would not even hurt a fly. As a result, it took me some time to overcome the shock of his callous action in bringing to a premature end the life of that poor little insect, merely because it happened to be bothering him.

Okay, not really. But apparently there are some who reason this way. It didn't take long for a representative of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) to do an interview decrying the President's disregard for insect life. Really.

Now unlike many evangelicals, I have a lot of respect for PETA. They do raise many important issues about the suffering of animals that a "welfarist" like myself can appreciate. But all too often they descend into trite sensationalism in order (it seems to me) to garner cheap publicity (with the donor dollars that tend to follow). Bare models holding up signs saying "I'd rather go naked than wear fur." Comparisons of the poultry industry to the holocaust. And lamentations about a desceased fly. Sadly, while these actions may grab a few headlines, they all serve ultimately to marginalize PETA from the mainstream it needs to reach.

The fact is that fifty three billion land animals are slaughtered every year for food. Yes that's billion. And that isn't even to mention the oceans which have now seen a collapse of ninety percent of commercial fishing stocks, all largely due to the West's insatiable appetite for meat.

Here's another fact: the vast majority of us don't need to eat meat to supplement our diet. This means,as law professor Gary Francione points out, that we simply eat animals because they taste good. Francione then asks: is that a morally sufficient reason?

We may not think twice about the billions of chickens raised in tiny battery cages for food. But what about the dogs raised in cages in Asia for food? Many of us would find it morally repugnant to kill and eat a golden retriever but not think twice about a chicken. Why? Simply because we've chosen to befriend the former and objectify the latter?

Biblically speaking, here's the bottom line. God's original intention was that human beings and all other animals would be vegetarian (Gen. 1:29-30). Thus, the eating of animals is a concession to our fallen world (Gen. 9:3). What is more, when God redeems the world predation and carnivory will cease, to be replaced by peace among animals and people (Isa. 11:6-9, 65:25).

I am not sure what this all means for our diets at present (I confess I'm not yet a vegetarian), but it seems to me that is a conversation well worth having.