Both the Scriptures and the traditions of the Christian faith can be seen to promote animal welfare and, paradoxically, also to promote the idea of nonhuman animals existing only for human use. The result is that Christians can have mixed attitudes toward animals, and comparatively few Christians actively work toward improving animal welfare. It is possible that the behavior and activities of individual Christians reflect those values most strongly and frequently expressed in Christian liturgy and worship, which may be more (...) limited than what is present in Scripture or the wider tradition. The psychological theory of reasoned action/planned behavior provides a model that can help explain how these values are translated into action. This article will report on the findings of a pilot study that explored the relationship between the style and content of Christian worship and behavior in related ethical areas and will focus on those results relating specifically to animal welfare. Statistically significant correlations were found between the inclusion of animal welfare in church worship, private prayer, and related charitable giving. Participation in certain types of worship was predictive, either positively or negatively, for giving to animal welfare charities. Based on these results, this article explores the possible reasons why liturgy can have a strong influence in forming attitudes and shaping behavior and why some liturgical styles may be more influential than others. (shrink)

A question about the "moral rights" of nonhuman animals in the 1993 and 1994 General Social Survey effected an understanding of some of the demographics of those supporting animal rights. This study checked results against related questions concerning attitudes toward animal testing and meat consumption. The stereotypical profile of an animal rights supporter is female, well educated, upper-middle class, middle-aged, and white. The data in this study do not support the stereotype. Instead, the young, non-black minorities, and the less educated (...) were more likely to support animal rights; income was not a significant predictor. Other predictors examined included religious denomination, frequency of church attendance, and attitudes toward environmental protection. This study's findings suggest the need to rethink "post-materialist" and "post-citizenship" theories about who supports animal rights. This paper also points the way toward future studies to examine the causal linkages between the predictors and animal rights attitudes. (shrink)

As one example of how modern Western societies are increasingly obliged to reconcile questions of civility and justice against common, indeed revered, practices that compromise nonhuman animals, this paper examines the recent history of public debate regarding the use of animals for public entertainment in the Canadian West. Using media-based public dialogue regarding the annual Calgary Stampede as a case study and couching the high-risk use of horses in the sociological language of “sports-related violence,” the paper explores the various arguments (...) for and against the continued use of horses at the self-proclaimed “Greatest Outdoor Show on Earth” despite unambiguous evidence of the harm that regularly, and sometimes graphically, occurs. (shrink)

Bear bile has long been used in the Asian traditional pharmacopoeia. Bear farming first started in China ~30 years ago in terms of reducing the number of poached bears and ensuring the supply of bear bile. Approximately 13,000 bears are today captivated on Asia’s bear farms: their teeth are broken and the claws are also pulled out for the sake of human safety; the bears are imprisoned in squeeze cages for years; and a catheter is daily inserted into a bear’s (...) gall bladder or a tube is implanted inside its body in order to collect the dripped bile—captive bears moan in severe pain whenever the bile is extracted. When the bears cannot produce sufficient bile, they are often left to die of starvation. It must be impossible to justify the bile extraction from living bears because (1) medicinal/herbal alternatives are similar to bear bile; (2) there is no evidence to suggest that bear farming has any beneficial effects on wild bear populations; and (3) ethical problems lie not only in the painful bile extraction but also the whole lifecycle of captive bears. In conclusion, human welfare (health care) based on traditional medicine is upheld by sacrificing bear welfare. Since a trial calculation suggests that it is economically unfeasible to keep a proper balance between bear welfare and the traditional pharmacopeia, the cultivation of herbal alternatives seems to be a possible solution to phase out bear faming and maintain the practice of traditional medicine in Asia. (shrink)