Suggests a theological case for the rights of animals, criticizes human insensitivity toward animal life, and describes the way animals should be treated
This book was mentioned in "Sex Robots & Vegan Meat" and immediately piqued my interest. In all my years as a Christian, the idea of animals having rights or people going vegetarian/vegan was unheard of. Christians in America without exception believe in "dominionistic" theology that animals are here for our - humans - purposes, whatever those may be. Linzey does a excellent job of laying out a theological argument that this view is outdated and needs to change. Using a combination of Bible verses and the writings of various theologians and philosophers, Linzey makes the case that our current relationship to animals - one that involves factory farms, cruel experiments, and animals used for entertainment - does not line up with the Biblical call of being "good stewards" of God's creation. He also spends a good amount of time arguing that animals first and foremost belong to God, NOT humans, and therefore need to be treated with respect and allowed to live as God designed them: "Animals are not made simply for human use and pleasure but for God's glory." While Linzey's arguments from a theological perspective are sound, some of his other arguments fail to carry as much weight. For example, he makes a case against hunting, but fails to provide any rational solution to overpopulation and animals encroachment on crops and roadways. This is a bit of a niche book, but for anyone interested in the subject of animal rights, it's worth picking up.
This book, written in 1987, seemed timely, which might be a function of its tone of moral urgency, or of the limited progress that has been made in ensuring basic standards for the animals we keep for our own purposes.
Either way, it made for very interesting reading. A mere passing interest in either Christian theology or in animal rights should be enough to keep readers engaged. Linzey does a nice job of using theological terms in context so that the layperson can follow the argument without a lot of prior reading in the area.
It did make me uncomfortable about a lot of my eating habits (which are animal product dependent, as are some of my cosmetic and fashion routines), and after I read the passage about the possible immorality of keeping pets I couldn't look my cats in the eyes for a few hours. (We're fine again.)