In the 10 November 2002 issue of The New York Times Magazine, Michael Pollan offers a brilliant analysis of the animal rights movement.  It is one of the most stimulating articles I have read in a long time.  I want to summarize his critique and then comment at length on his argument from a biblical perspective.

• First, a summary of his argument.  Pollan argues that animal rights is the next frontier in ethics and law.  Though animals are still very much “things” in the eyes of American law, change is in the air.  Thirty-seven states have recently passed laws making some forms of animal cruelty a crime, 21 of them by ballot initiative.  Following protests by activists, McDonald’s and Burger King forced significant improvements in the way the US meat industry slaughters animals.  Agribusiness and the cosmetics and apparel industries are all struggling to defuse mounting public concerns over animal welfare.  Incredibly, a recent Zogby poll found that 51% of Americans believe that primates are entitled to the same rights as human children.  These astounding developments stem from the fact that ethicists like Peter Singer of Princeton University and author of the influential book, Animal Liberation, have caused many Americans to seriously consider the rights of animals and some to even become vegetarians.  At the core of Singer’s argument is equality -- that all species are equal and should receive equal consideration regardless of the abilities they may possess.  He maintains that if “possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?”  So, since animals deserve equal consideration, the issue for humans to consider is can animals feel pain?  If they can, then it is our responsibility to give them equal consideration and minimize or eliminate their pain.  To exploit animals and to deny them equal consideration is to be guilty of speciesism.  For that reason, vegetarianism is our only option, Singer argues.  Pollan reacts and responds to Singer’s arguments and ends up defending the eating of meat, but in a qualified manner.  His objections focus more on how pigs, chickens and cattle are treated and how they are slaughtered.  He still believes it is proper to eat meat.

• Second, the major problem with Pollan’s discussion and indeed with Singer’s entire paradigm is the issue of equality.  If animals are not equal to humans, even in the area of giving them “equal consideration,” so crucial for Singer, then the entire paradigm collapses.  Two critical theological points are necessary here:  (1)  Animals do not have souls; they are not eternal.  One of the central tenets of Scripture rests on the proposition that all humans have a soul and are accountable to God.  This is not the case with animals.  There is absolutely nothing in the Bible contending that animals will live forever in a resurrected body.  That is the case for humans -- all will be resurrected and will either be judged in hell or will spend eternity with God.  There is no such claim for animals.  (2)  The Bible makes it quite clear that only humans bear the image of God.  In Genesis 1:26ff, Moses makes clear that God creates humans in His image and gives them dominion authority over His world: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”  In Genesis 9:1-5, God declares that that dominion extends to eating the animals of the earth for food.  Vegetarianism might be a choice for humans and that is valid, but it is not mandated for all humans.  Humans have authority and dominion over the animals and they are to serve us.  The issue is one of stewardship and dominion, not sovereignty.  God has sovereignty authority and we have dominion authority.  It is important to God how we treat His creation, for we are accountable to Him. 

In short, Singer’s entire argument collapses on the issue of equality.  Animals are not equal to humans and do not deserve “equal consideration” as he defines it.  Instead, the biblical paradigm assumes dominion authority over God’s world, including the eating of meat.  Some may choose not to do so but vegetarianism is not mandated.  How we treat animals remains an issue of significant importance to God.  There is a clear dividing line between animals and humans, something Singer denies.  For Christians, the issue is not equality, it is stewardship of God’s world and that involves compassion and care for animals, not rigid vegetarianism.

Back to top

MODERN LAW WITHOUT A FOUNDATION

Rule of law is one of the linchpins of civilization.  Without it and without a commitment to it, civilization is impossible.  Also, there must be a front-end commitment to the proposition that law is rooted in something absolute; without that commitment, law is fluid, changing with the relativistic whims of culture.  Three areas are of interest to me in this perspective.

• First is the Ten Commandments.  Recently, the federal district court in Montgomery, Alabama ruled that a monument to the Ten Commandments in that state’s Supreme Court building was unconstitutional.  The case centered on the chief justice, Roy Moore, having a monument placed in the Court’s rotunda that included the Ten Commandments carved in granite and a plaque that bears the inscription, “Laws of nature and nature’s God.”  Naturally, the ACLU filed suit arguing for the separation of church and state and demanding that the monument be removed.  In the hearing, Judge Moore testified that the Ten Commandments are the “moral foundation of American life” and form the basis for our view of law.  The district court judge agreed but also argued that the monument suggests that the Ten Commandments are “holy and sacred,” and therefore needed to be removed.  This is really quite remarkable.  The Ten Commandments, all historians of law will agree, constitute the foundation for all western views of law.  Up until a few years ago, few would have disagreed.  Furthermore the words on the plaque, “Laws of nature and of nature’s God,” come from the Declaration of Independence, penned by the anti-supernaturalist and Unitarian, Thomas Jefferson.  This phrase is from one of our founding documents as a nation.  To rule that this monument in Alabama is a violation of separation of church and state is ludicrous.  It is one more example of judicial arrogance and the mainstreaming of postmodern autonomy.  It is an affront to all intellectually honest people who recognize the connection between the Ten Commandments and the western view of law.  See “Breakpoint,” 21 November 2002.

• Second, current asbestos litigation shows how far America has departed from the true rule of law.  As Robert Samuelson has argued, asbestos litigation “shows how the thirst for profits has led a small group of trial lawyers to erode the rights of legitimate victims while driving dozens of companies into bankruptcy and - worst of all - corrupting the court system.”  Let me explain.  Historically, asbestos litigation was fair and proper.  Companies like Johns Manville were called to accountability for not protecting their workers against known dangers.  Such cases resulted in legitimate compensation for victims.  Because asbestos use has dropped sharply, asbestos claims were expected to decline as well.  By 2001 they had done so.  They are again exploding.  Why?  In the words of Samuelson, “asbestos litigation has become less about justice and more about business.”  By shopping for the right state courts and exploiting permissive liability laws, trial lawyers have turned asbestos into a cash cow.  Already, asbestos claims have cost $54 billion.  Less than half has gone to actual victims.  In the 1990s, victims received only 43% of the settlement, with the rest going to the trial and defense lawyers.  Projections for the ultimate costs of asbestos litigation range from between $200 to $275 billion.  One trial lawyer, Steven Kazan, recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that “We’ve gone from a medical model in which a doctor diagnoses an illness and the patient then hires a lawyer, to an entrepreneurial model in which clients are recruited by lawyers who then file suit even when there is no real illness.  They are not patients.  They are plaintiffs recruited for profit.”  Such a practice is a gross abuse of our legal system.  It is not rule of law; it is “legalized fraud.”  For that reason, Samuelson and many others are calling on Congress to end this abuse.  Congress should preempt state law on asbestos; set strict medical standards for damages; and put a cap on lawyers’ fees.   This would then channel more money to legitimate victims and reduce the total costs for asbestos settlements.  This is the only remedy to restore respect for and adherence to the rule of law.  See Samuelson’s article in Washington Post (20 November 2002).

• Third, since 9/11 American society has faced the quandary of balancing openness with secrecy.  It comes at a time in our technological history when extraordinary electronic access to information has become an integral part of the system of public health and environmental protection.  The dangers of disclosure are obvious.  The incredible access of information (much of it on the Internet) about buildings, drinking water systems, nuclear power plant construction, etc. could be used by terrorists for obvious destructive purposes.  Such access to information like this ensures accountability to environmental performance.  But the events of 9/11 have caused the EPA and other governmental agencies to reassess the publicly available information on their Web sites.  This reality points out the tremendous difficulty in balancing our penchant for openness with our now obvious need for secrecy against terrorists.  There is no quick fix to this, no easy way to resolve this tension.  In the interests of environmental access to information, we cannot put our nation’s infrastructure in danger.  Yet, at the same time, we cannot maintain such tight secrecy that we return to the time where there is no accountability when it comes to environmentally sensitive behavior.  There is no easy answer to this one.  See Gary S. Guzy’s article in The Washington Post (24 November 2002).

Back to top

SHOULD WE LEGALIZE MARIJUANA?

The medical marijuana movement has championed the idea that under certain controlled circumstances marijuana can be helpful to the sick and should therefore be legal.  Recent studies over time have demonstrated the following:

• Marijuana use may help minimize pain from migraine headaches and from the spread of cancer.
• It reduces intraocular pressure; helping those afflicted with glaucoma.
• It helps calm spasms from spinal cord injury, MS and possibly epilepsy.
• It can help restore appetite in people who have lost weight from cancer or AIDS.
• It combats nausea from chemotherapy and helps minimize vomiting.

Some very powerful and influential people have promoted the legalization of marijuana for medical uses.  It has been on the ballot in several states and is currently legal for medical use in California, Alaska, Oregon, Washington and Colorado.  This movement will probably grow.

However, there are major problems with the legalization of marijuana, even for medical purposes.  We know that:

• Marijuana causes changes in brain chemistry, especially the chemical that triggers various types of signals throughout the nervous system.
• Marijuana leads to difficulty in concentration, attention to detail and learning new, complex information.  It also impairs time perception and certain aspects of memory.
• It increases the work of the heart.
• It is more irritating to and has a greater effect on the upper airways than tobacco.  It may cause lung, head and neck cancer.
• It may reduce the number and the quality of sperm and damage their mobility, thereby affecting fertility.
• It decreases blood flow to the limbs, which in extreme cases may require amputation. 
• It is also a “gateway drug” leading to other drug use. 

In short, there is some limited medical benefit to the use of marijuana.  Perhaps like other potentially dangerous substances, under controlled pharmaceutical procedures like a mouth spray being developed in Britain or some other such delivery process, the benefits could be realized for needy patients.  But to make such an issue as medical marijuana a ballot initiative without the proper research is absurd.  It has become a political issue and that makes no sense.  No matter how one looks at marijuana, it is dangerous and it is harmful to the human body.  Allow medical researchers and the pharmaceutical industry to develop ways to have the benefit of the cannabis plant without the other harmful effects we already know go with its use.  It is very difficult for me to defend the legalization of marijuana, even medical marijuana usage.

See the helpful article on marijuana in Time (4 November 2002), pp. 57-66.

Back to top