Should great apes have rights?

The Big Questions, 27 July 2009, BBC1.

I must say, I hand it to this programme for coming up with a very stimulating variety of topics. Chimps and bonobos, apparently, share 98.4% of our DNA and their blood and organs can be harvested for human use. (I did a simple Google, however, and found the DNA similarity may be more like 95%.)

The first expert questioned is Professor Colin Blakemore, whom presenter Nicky Campbell challenges concerning whether a creature than can articulate (via symbols) the phrase, "Can I have an ice cream on my birthday?" should not, in fact, be given rights. The professor replies that simian linguistics is a highly controversial field, and that the conferring of rights in theory is not the same as creating a fairer world (as can already be seen amongst us humans!).

Campbell then brings out the crunch question: are we part of a 'continuum' along with apes, or do we have a special, divinely-conferred status? The former, says Professor Paula Casal of the Great Ape Project. They are persons, she insists, because they can recognise themselves in the mirror, identify their species, remember the past, have plans for the future and even tell jokes and use metaphors. This list is an interesting collection of features in my view because they are evidently sufficient in Casal's mind to constitute 'personhood'. No mention, however, of any moral or spiritual awareness.

At this point, author Jeremy Taylor steps in, describing her view as "anthropomorphic wishful thinking". Deaf people, he maintains, have worked with apes and found them not to be signing after all. Richard D North of the Social Affairs Unit chimes in arguing that humans should 'trump' apes every time - pitting, as an example, a disabled baby over against an able-bodied ape.

Primatologist Ian Redmond, who has lived in the wild with apes who have not been taught anything by humans, argues that in fact apes do have 'minds', and that they are worthy of respect. His reasoning then becomes a little creative when he starts comparing ape-rights with the rights of black people and women. He attacks the notion of 'anthromorphism' and says that in fact we should be thinking in terms of 'zoomorphism' - in other words, we should be thinking of ourselves as animals, rather than imagining apes to be like humans.

Ceri Dingle, strident in canary yellow, intervenes by asking, "Why are you so desperate to prove apes are like humans? I think you're demeaning humanity." It doesn't make us animal-haters to argue that we're a superior species.

Peter Hitchens rejects the notion of rights out of hand, arguing it to be entirely subjective and even 'atheistical', a view that I have a lot of sympathy with. We do have duties, however, which derive from our Christianity, he says. These, he says, tell us that we should treat our fellow creatures with as much kindness as we can.

Campbell continues to show how struck he is with our monkey friends, especially extolling an ape who picked up a stunned starling, carried it the top of a tree and tried to release it back into flight.

Douglas Murray, who normally disagrees with Hitchens, agrees that the emphasis must be on bringing justice for all human beings, rather than trying to elevate apes' rights. Dr Anthony Seldon demurs, questioning why we couldn't aim for both.

The most interesting contributor, possibly, is Paula Stibbe, a lady seeking to become a legal guardian for Matthew, a chimp! She rightly rejects Campbell's premise when he asks how intelligent the ape is - is it right to link value or right to life to intelligence? For me she ruins it when she cites Darwin who, apparently, said that the differentiations between species are blurred.

And this is where we come to the heart of the matter, which Campbell is the only one who faces in the programme: was man (in Adam) made in the image of God, as a special creation, or are we part of an evolutionary continuum? It's the molecules-to-man or 'goo-to-you' question! Is man special, or just another animal?

The Bible speaks on this. Genesis 9 makes the distinction clear: "The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth... they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything...Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Nevertheless, though animals are not in God's image, and can be used for food, we must remember that kindness to animals is the mark of a God-reflecting being: "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel" (Proverbs 12:10).

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...

Bridge of Reason

Search This Blog