Human Animal Relationships Quotes

“What the new science of anthrozoology reveals is that our attitudes, behaviors, and relationships with the animals in our lives- the ones we love, the ones we hate, and the ones we eat- are, likewise, more complicated than we thought.”
― Hal Herzog, Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It's So Hard to Think Straight About Animals

“A Fur Person must be adopted by catly humans, tactful, delicate, respectful, indulgent; these are fairly rare, though not as rare as might be supposed.”
― May Sarton, The Fur Person

“Lots of humans take a refuge for friendship with animals, because the brutality of human is more dangerous than animal.”
― Kamaran Ihsan Salih

“The horse, a creature that lives in a herd, reminds us that we are not alone and that we should not alienate others.”
― Lawren Leo, Horse Magick: Spells and Rituals for Self-Empowerment, Protection, and Prosperity

“True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power. Man-kind's true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals.”
― Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being

“At a minimum, it is clear that human beings who claim a religious tradition that is rooted in compassion and/or respect for the natural world must adopt a plant-based diet.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Anymals do not exist to satisfy our desires and pleasures.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“The thing about Glen is that, despite her offhand manner, she loves me. I know she's only a cat. But it's still love; animals, people. It's unconditional, and it's both the easiest and the hardest thing in the world.
Sometimes, after counseling sessions, I desperately want to buy vodka, lots of it, take it home and drink it down, but in the end I never did. I couldn't, for lots of reasons, one of which was that if I wasn't fit to, then who would feed Glen? She isn't able to take care of herself. She needs me.
It isn't annoying, her need -- it isn't a burden. It's a privilege. I'm responsible. I chose to put myself in a situation where I'm responsible. Wanting to look after her, a small, dependent, vulnerable creature, is innate, and I don't even have to think about it. It's like breathing.”
― Gail Honeyman, Eleanor Oliphant Is Completely Fine

“Fur Person,' he decided then—not really a name at all, but a way of describing the relationship between a Gentle Cat and his true friends among the human people. For a Fur Person, he saw in his state of extreme concentration, is not just an ordinary cat. He is a cat who is also a person.”
― May Sarton, The Fur Person

“Rightful relations between humans and anymals are spiritually significant in every major religion. Core religious teachings from around the world require humans to protect and respect all that is natural, to show compassion for all who are sentient, and in contemporary times, to rethink our relations with anymals—especially what we eat.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Anymals do not exist to satisfy our desires and pleasures. Liberationists do not accept larger gestation crates because crates of any kind are oppressive and exploitative, and are therefore inconsistent with compassionate action. They do not accept slaughter, even with improved stunning methods, because there is no need for slaughterhouses or factory farms—we can easily feed ourselves without slaughtering anymals—and because slaughtering without necessity lacks compassion and reverence for life. Even if we raise and slaughter anymals with a minimum of pain and misery, farmed anymals are killed when they are mere adolescents—lives nipped in the bud to satisfy habitual tastes and preferences. Such practices also demonstrate a lack of reverence for human life and are contrary to social justice: We can feed more of the world’s many hungry people if we stop producing anymal products. Similarly, vivisection is a selfish exploitation of other creatures—and nonhumans are not here to live and die on behalf of our hopes. Anymal liberationists avoid consuming anymal products, and oft en actively lobby to close down exploitative anymal industries and to bring an end to human-anymal relationships that fail to honor each anymal’s physical and emotional health and well-being.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Do the religious texts and exemplars support anymal welfare or anymal liberation? What do religions teach us to be with regard to anymals?

A concise formal argument, using deductive logic, rooted in three well-established premises, can help us to answer these questions about rightful relations between human beings and anymals:

Premise 1 : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach human beings to avoid causing harm to anymals.

Premise 2 : Contemporary industries that exploit anymals—including food, clothing, pharmaceutical, and/or entertainment industries—harm anymals.

Premise 3 : Supporting industries that exploit anymals (most obviously by purchasing their products) perpetuates these industries and their harm to
anymals.

Conclusion : Th e world’s dominant religious traditions indicate that human beings should avoid supporting industries that harm anymals, including food, clothing, pharmaceutical, and/or entertainment industries.

It is instructive to consider an additional deductive argument rooted in two well-established premises:

Premise 1 : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach people to assist and defend anymals who are suffering.

Premise 2 : Anymals suffer when they are exploited in laboratories and the entertainment, food, or clothing industries.

Conclusion : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach people to assist and defend anymals when they are exploited in laboratories, entertainment, food, and clothing industries.

If these premises are correct—and they are supported by abundant evidence—the world’s dominant religions teach adherents
• to avoid purchasing products fr om industries that exploit anymals, and
• to assist and defend anymals who are exploited in laboratories and the entertainment, food, and clothing industries.

Such industries include, but are not limited to, those that overtly sell or use products that include chicken’s reproductive eggs, cow’s nursing milk, or anymal flesh or hides (fur and leather), as well as industries that engage in or are linked with anymal experimentation of any kind, and entertainment industries such as zoos, circuses, and aquariums.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Such fundamental changes in diet may initially seem prohibitive, until we realize that not a single meal need be skipped—there is no weakness or hunger involved. We may eat delicious and nutritious foods—or junk food—to our heart’s content at any time of day or night. Then we come to understand that these changes do not require much of us, and a vegan diet is central to any sincere religious expression because either we make choices that cause tremendous suffering and the endless slaughter of adolescent farmed anymals or we do not.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Those guided by core religious commitments in one of the world’s largest religions are rightly anymal liberationists.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Cruelly exploiting and slaughtering human beings is widely recognized as spiritually problematic, but the veal industry is not, battery cages are not, foie gras and the use of farrowing crates are not, debeaking and slaughter lines are not. How can this be? Anymal suffering is extreme on factory farms, massive numbers of premature deaths are the expected end, and both are sanctioned not only by the government but also by the masses—including those who affiliate with a particular religious tradition and take their religious commitments seriously. The reason for this cruelty and indifference is obvious: With human beings creating the rules, anymals are the last to be noticed and the most likely to be discarded or exploited. Consequently, wherever humanity suffers, anymals suffer yet more.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“People also tend to refer to nonhuman animals as “it” or sometimes “he,” regardless of the individual’s sex. This one-sex-fits-all approach objectifies and denies individuality. In fact, nonhuman animals who are exploited for food industries are usually females. Such unfortunate nonhumans are not only exploited for their flesh, but also for their nursing milk, reproductive eggs, and ability to produce young. When guessing the gender of a nonhuman animal forced through slaughterhouse gates, we would greatly increase odds of being correct if we referred to such unfortunate individuals as 'she'.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Sister Species: Women, Animals and Social Justice

“While it is one thing to strive for a cause that fundamentally and primarily benefits you—your freedom and equality (or the freedom and equality of those you know and care about), or for your environment (on which you depend for survival)—it is quite another matter to struggle on behalf of a cause that does not benefit you directly.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Speaking Up for Animals: An Anthology of Women's Voices

“Exploring sacred teachings from around the world demonstrates that nature, including anymals, is sacred, that anymals are central to our spiritual landscape, and that we owe them respect, justice, and compassion.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Religions teach of a deep and fundamental unity on planet Earth. Interestingly, consistent with Darwin, the world’s dominant religions teach people that there is much more continuity than separation across species.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Religions are, overall, radically friendly toward anymals.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Most people are raised with the belief that anymal exploitation is religiously sanctioned, and they will readily defend this point of view. Consequently, arguments in favor of anymal exploitation—including religious arguments—are easy to come by. . . , but such arguments tend to be both shallow and specific, contradicting core and foundational teachings. Those who pose such arguments, when questioned, often agree readily that their religion does not teach or tolerate cruel exploitation, particularly when such cruel exploitation is entirely unnecessary.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Religious people tend to be unaware that chewing on a chicken’s body purchased at a grocery store contradicts the core religious ideals of every major religious tradition. Still other religious people do not take their religious commitment seriously and therefore do not care one way or the other about anymal suffering and slaughter.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“This book is about what religions teach, not about what religious people believe or how they live. There is often shamefully little correlation between the two.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“We can feed more of the world’s many hungry people if we stop producing anymal products.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Similarly, vivisection is a selfish exploitation of other creatures—nonhumans are not here to live and die on behalf of our hopes.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Do the religious texts and exemplars support anymal welfare or anymal liberation? What do religions teach us to be with regard to anymals?

A concise formal argument, using deductive logic, rooted in three well-established premises, can help us to answer these questions about rightful relations between human beings and anymals:

Premise 1 : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach human beings to avoid causing harm to anymals.

Premise 2 : Contemporary industries that exploit anymals—including food, clothing, pharmaceutical, and/or entertainment industries—harm anymals.

Premise 3 : Supporting industries that exploit anymals (most obviously by purchasing their products) perpetuates these industries and their harm to
anymals.

Conclusion : The world’s dominant religious traditions indicate that human beings should avoid supporting industries that harm anymals, including food, clothing, pharmaceutical, and/or entertainment industries.

It is instructive to consider an additional deductive argument rooted in two well-established premises:

Premise 1 : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach people to assist and defend anymals who are suffering.

Premise 2 : Anymals suffer when they are exploited in laboratories and the entertainment, food, or clothing industries.

Conclusion : The world’s dominant religious traditions teach people to assist and defend anymals when they are exploited in laboratories, entertainment, food, and clothing industries.

If these premises are correct—and they are supported by abundant evidence—the world’s dominant religions teach adherents

• to avoid purchasing products from industries that exploit anymals, and
• to assist and defend anymals who are exploited in laboratories and the entertainment, food, and clothing industries.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“Anymal liberationists do not target life—they target industries (and profits) that flourish at the expense of life—and they attempt to rescue the exploited. Terrorists kill randomly; anymal liberationists have never killed anyone. Anymal liberationists exemplify what it is to live into the core teachings of every major religion concerning rightful relations between human beings and anymals.”
― Lisa Kemmerer, Animals and World Religions

“What we are mistaking for a voluntary attraction of animals to humans can be explained by the “imprint phenomenon.” This biological process, first described by Konrad Lorenz, is responsible for the fact that animals, including humans, learn species-specific information, behaviours, and skills at specific points in their development. Imprinting is how animals learn early to attach to their mothers and identify with members of their own species. It is the mechanism that allows us to domesticate animals and nurture intimate relationships with them; as long as we integrate or selves into young animals’ lives before the attachment period ends, we can divert their identification with their own families and species onto ourselves.”
― Charles Danten, Un vétérinaire en colère - Essai sur la condition animale

“When a pet is adopted within its imprint period, the attachment it felt to its mother is quickly transferred to the new owner, who steps in to meet the pet’s physical and emotional demands. Herein lies the reason pets become so instantly bonded to us. The process may seem harmless on the surface, even natural, but keep in mind that the normal progression of things would have the young animal soon beginning to detach from its parent. Whereas the animal’s mother would discourage continued dependence, the surrogate mother, the new owner, encourages it. In this way, the case of usurped identity is never followed by detachment. Quite the contrary: the whole dynamic of interactions between people and their pets relies on the maintenance of the bond. Because of this, pets remain infantile, never reaching any level of autonomy or emotional maturity.”
― Charles Danten, Un vétérinaire en colère - Essai sur la condition animale

“Humanity passed from a world of tolerant pagan polytheism to the black and white duality of Christianity. Something was either on the side of God, salvation, and goodness or on the side of the devil, evil and perdition. The tolerance, logic, rationality, and knowledge of natural phenomena that were an integral part of the Classical world were manipulated by the Church in favor of the supernatural, the mysterious, and faith in providence.”
― Luigi Boitani