The following article is excerpted from "GOD"S COVENANT
WITH ANIMALS: A Biblical Basis For The Humane Treatment Of All
Creatures" by J.R. Hyland, published by LANTERN BOOKS, New York,
copyright 2000 and is used by permission of the publisher and the
author.
The contempt for God's creation that is manifested in the Christian
support of recreational killing is further revealed in the wearing of
furs. At a time when synthetic materials are easily available and are
more durable and warmer than animal skins, there is no excuse to
slaughter animals for their fur. And in these circumstances, it becomes
obvious that people are willing to have animals trapped, clubbed to
death, or raised as commodities, simply to satisfy their vanity and
their greed.
Although greed and avarice are not popular subjects for
sermons in a consumer culture, when that greed becomes the impetus for
the slaughter of millions of animals it represents a serious, moral
evil. The willingness to have animals killed because people lust after
the covering given to them by God, should be challenged by every
religious leader. But it is not.
While churches denounce the violence of television and
films, of computer games and websites, as detrimental to their
children's moral development, the violence perpetrated by adults on
helpless animals is ignored. It is gratuitous violence and those young
people who have not yet sold their souls to the status quo, know it for
what it is. They, more than their complacent parents, react to the sight
of infant seals beaten to death because their snow-white bodies are such
a valuable commodity.
They are more likely than their parents to remember a
news item that shows ranch-raised animals being anally electrocuted in
order to preserve the fur for which they have been bred. And they are
usually more troubled than their parents by reports of the slow and
agonizing deaths of those creatures who are caught in steel traps.
Yet when it comes to trying to understand why some
teenagers refuse to accept the family religion, both parents and Pastors
ignore any suggestion that this refusal may arise from an unspoken
judgment on the part of the young person: a judgment of the immorality
of those who easily accept any cruelty that has not been defined as such
by their church. Church members would rather believe that the rejection
of religion can be traced to a teenage rebellion against restrictive
rules and regulations, than consider that there are adolescents, as well
as adults, who reject a religion because its followers do not maintain a
high enough standard of morality.....
....Among the most gratuitous cruelties in our culture
is the wearing of fur. The same people who are scandalized by reports of
youngsters who will kill another child because they covet his sneakers,
covet the skins of animals and are willing to have them killed in order
to steal their fur. They sit in churches, wearing the evidence of their
covetousness and their theft, and no minister or priest challenges this
sin of the affluent.
Although the clergy have no direct control over the
actions of their congregants, they do have some control over church
policy. Drinking and smoking are outlawed within the sanctuaries of
churches and there is no reason why the wearing of fur cannot also be
forbidden. There is certainly a precedent. Although ministers usually do
not speak out against hunting, neither do they allow the trophies of
recreational killing to be hung in their churches. The heads of deer and
other slain creatures are not allowed to adorn the sanctuary walls.
Neither should the fur of dead animals adorn the bodies of worshippers.
Instead of treating immorality as if it were primarily a
sexual transgression, church leaders need to exercise the kind of
leadership that goes beyond such circumscribed definitions....
In our own time, many who profess to be followers of
Christ would be incensed if their Pastors told them that worshipping
God, clothed in the bodies of His dead creatures, was sinful. Immoral.
Church leaders will preach against sexual sins even if this brings a
negative reaction from the congregation; they hope that such preaching
will keep their listeners from the spiritual and physical dangers of
promiscuity. However they do not speak out against nonsexual sins that
enjoy a high degree of acceptance among their church members; they are
afraid of offending them. But they ought to be concerned about the
spiritual dangers of greed and covetousness that are inherent in the
supplying and wearing of furs. They ought to be concerned about the sin
of self-righteousness, which is always a temptation for the religiously
observant.
Unless these ministers of the Gospel look beyond the
narrow circle of traditionally defined sinfulness, they will be like the
religious leaders of whom Jesus warned. He said that although these men
refused to see the truth themselves, they insisted on trying to lead
others in the paths of righteousness and this could only lead to
disaster. [The Pharisees] are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind
man, both will fall into a ditch." (Matt 15:14)
Unfortunately, the spirit of the Pharisees is alive and
well among those ministers who do not challenge the wearing of fur, and
among those church members who would never miss a Sunday service but
have no qualms about praising God with outstretched arms that are
covered with the remains of His dead animals.
A copy of this article is available to ARO readers in a
seven page booklet which may be copied and distributed for educational
purposes. For your copy, send a self-addressed, stamped envelope
(business size) to HUMANE RELIGION Booklet, P.O. Box 25354, Sarasota,
FL, 3427
Go on to CAFT
Return to 20 November 2000 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.