Theos-Talk Archives (October 2003 Message tt00034)

A political state determines what its citizens are and what are outsiders.
It determines the rights and protections under law to its citizens, and
determines what non-citizens are entitled to, if anything.

In an ancient Greek city state, men of a particular city had rights and
could vote. Greeks of neighboring cities had no rights and could be captured
as slaves. Since that time, rights have been extended to everyone of either
sex and race throughout a country and slavery has been abolished. Although
there are some exceptions, this seems to be the general rule.

Politics is influenced by religion, and some states are controlled by a
particular faith or church. In Saudi, for instance, a version of Islam rules
society and everyone is forced to comply with Islamic dictates regardless of
their personal religious belief.

The state says, "This is what you are allowed to do; these are your rights;
if you do anything else, you are a criminal and subject to punishment or
exile." It may also say, "You are not a citizen; your rights are restricted;
here is what you're allowed to do." For example, a non-citizen may be denied
the right to hold a job, but be protected against being robbed or being
exploited by a landlord.

When we come to animals, we have the same question. Are they accorded a
place in our society and given rights, or are they considered non-entities
and legally open to exploitation? We do have laws protecting animals,
looking out for their welfare. The laws may fall short of fully protecting
animals, but they do exist and they offer some help.

The dangerous fallacy in the thinking of the Jesuits is that we are entitled
to limit or ignore the rights of other living beings solely based upon our
own beliefs. It's egocentric to say that we have an idea of the inner nature
of things, and therefore laws determining the rights of others should be
based our thinking and beliefs, rather than being based upon some
utilitarian concept of the greatest good to all.

Consider some imaginary people. Albert is a white male in Montana, and
considers men of other cultures and all women as inferior and needing to be
subservient to him and his fellows. Bob is a born-again missionary for the
triple-reformed church of the blood of the saved Christ, and considers
others not converted to his church to be devil worshipers that should be
converted or put to death for the good of their own souls. Chad is an Asian
racist of the one, true genetic stock, and considers all other bloodlines as
subhuman, wishing all but those of the pureblood would be sterilized. Debra
is a common-sense woman of science that would burn all metaphysical books
and require anyone of religious or metaphysical belief to mandatory
deprogramming sessions. Ebba is a member of the Esoteric Group, a special
organization that only recruits from members of the Theocratic Society. Ebba
believes that Theocratic members not in the Esoteric Group are spiritually
inferior, unable to make proper judgments, and should never be allowed to
hold an office in her local lodge. She will always vote and manipulate
things politically to keep out the "masterless" members from holding office.

What do all of these people have in common? They not only think that their
particular worldview is correct, but also feel justified in compelling it
upon others, not caring if the others agree with them or not. 

This is what the Jesuits do. They say animals do not have souls. They
further say that beings without souls have no rights. They therefore state
that animals should not have any legal rights or protection. The problem is
that this is based upon their belief, not upon the beliefs of others, a
consensus of the beliefs of everyone, nor a simple commonsense attempt at
personal objectivity.

Such objectivity starts when we clearly distinguish in our minds between our
ideas and preferences and those of others, when we accord their preferences
as having merit too even though they are based upon different and possibly
contradictory beliefs about life. The objectivity allows us to balance our
differing outlooks without having to battle over the specifics of belief.

I would say that all living beings have rights. (As do non-living beings as
well.) The way we all interact may vary because life is complicated, there
are numerous exceptions to any rule, and everything is imperfect.
Compromises and the choice of the "least harmful way" may have to suffice
when harmlessness is impossible to be achieved. But all beings have rights.

-- Eldon

-----Original Message-----
>From: martinle@mindspring.com [mailto:martinle@mindspring.com] 
>Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 11:12 AM
>To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Theos-World Animals have no Soul - An Interesting article


Just saw it today.
Any opinions on it?

Martin


Today in Italy
Special service by AGI on behalf of the Italian Prime Minister's office
  
JESUITS: ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS NOR SOUL BUT DESERVE RESPECT
(AGI) - Vatican City, Oct. 2 - "Animals have no rights, as rights are a
privilege of spiritual beings." Jesuits commented on the issue of animals
rights with an article published on Civiltà Cattolica, and which will
probably stir up the controversies risen some years ago by another article
on the same magazine. "It not true that animals rights should be protected
by the law. In fact, animals have no rights, which are a privilege of
spiritual beings." According to Jesuits, "rights are connected to the
spiritual and personal character of human beings. Animals, which are not
personal and spiritual beings have no rights. The 'ontological' distinction
between animals and human kind should not justify a lack of respect towards
these 'minor' creatures." (AGI) 
021858 OTT 03 
COPYRIGHTS 2002-2003 AGI S.p.A.  
 


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/