1. In Memorium: Norm Phelps
It is with great sadness that I relate the passing of Norm Phelps, a
tireless advocate for animals whose wisdom and personal gentleness will be
missed by many. In a movement often marred by fractious disputes, Norm was
always a peacemaker. He did not seek personal aggrandizement but rather
maintained his focus on the well-being of the countless voiceless nonhumans
who are brutalized on a massive scale throughout the world.
Among Norm’s contributions to the animal protectionism literature, I would
like to highlight three books and one essay. The Longest Struggle: Animal
Rights from Pythagoras to Peta is an overview of the long, hard campaign to
prevent animal mistreatment. Phelps noted that, in contrast to most justice
movements, those who have defended nonhumans have had distinctive
challenges. The victims are unable to organize and advocate on their own
behalf, and they are unable to express gratitude for those who have sought
to protect them.
The Great Compassion: Buddhism and Animal Rights explores whether Buddhism
demands vegetarianism and, more broadly, promotion of animal rights. Phelps
explored Buddhist sutras of different cultures and traditions, and, true to
Phelps’ dedication to truth, he did not avoid those that seem to endorse
humanity’s harmful exploitation of nonhumans.
Perhaps of greatest interest to many CVA members is The Dominion of Love:
Animal Rights According to the Bible. Phelps argued that an honest and
rigorous reading of the Bible favors animal rights just as much, if not
more, than human rights.
One article I found particularly insightful, and that received widespread
attention among animal advocates, was
One-Track Activism: Animals Pay the Price.
Phelps argued that those pressing to improve the welfare of exploited
animals and those advocating the end of all animal exploitation both play
essential roles in the animal protection movement.
Norm was kind, patient, and totally dedicated to justice. He will be missed.
Stephen R. Kaufman, MD
2. Essay: What Is Violence?
In last week’s review of Kim Stallwood’s book Growl, I mentioned that I
would use his insights as springboards to discuss why animal protectionism
should be nonviolent. Stallwood emphasized that the animal protection
movement, at its core, seeks nonviolence toward nonhumans. If activists use
violent means toward that end, such tactics will at best confuse the public
and at worst turn the public against the movement. What is violence?
Of course, activities that cause physical harm to humans or nonhumans are
violent (though, without reasonable foundation, many people don’t regard
physical and psychological abuse by humans against nonhumans on factory
farms and elsewhere as violent). Demonstrations at the homes of animal
abusers have been controversial among animal advocates. One source of
contention is whether or not they are violent.
Peacefully distributing literature and talking to passers-by might shame
animal abusers in their own communities, and I have no objection to such an
activity. Many home demonstrations seem more threatening, however. For
example, loud, angry shouting can be frightening, particularly to the
children of the targeted animal abuser. Apparently threatening behavior
often generates sympathy for animal abusers and takes attention away from
the animal victims.
If the goal is to make an animal abuser “think twice” before persisting in
harming nonhumans, then the threat must seem genuine, and this raises
ethical concerns. If the animal activists have no intention of harming
anyone, this will eventually become evident and the “threat” will be
neutralized. For threats to instill fear, there must be a willingness to
back up threats with actual violence, if threats alone don’t work. Since
genuine threats have the potential to escalate to real violence, I do not
think animal advocates should engage in activities that might reasonably be
regarded as physically threatening.
Next week, I will consider whether destruction of property is violent.
Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.
3. This Week’s Sermon from Rev. Frank and Mary
Hoffman
Our Baptism: Jesus’ Baptism