A Moral Question - Circus Animals

[Cushi]

4 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

To some, keeping non-domestic animals in captivity is a form of abuse in itself.

I can understand why a person would feel that way.

[Brother_Bliss]

Moved to General Discussion

[Tortuga]

9 hours ago, Dismal_Bliss said:

Moved to General Discussion

Well, in that case...

 

I love Circus Animals.

 

[JSmith]

15 hours ago, Thesauron said:

To some, keeping non-domestic animals in captivity is a form of abuse in itself.

Is that mans view or Gods? Thats the question.

[Cushi]

5 hours ago, Tortuga said:

Well, in that case...

 

I love Circus Animals.

 

[Thesauron]

Is that mans view or Gods? Thats the question.

Under some circumstances it might be alright. God put animals in captivity to survive the Flood. Other than that the law covenant gave man a responsibility to take care of the animals in her care, with a focus on domestic animals. Focus is to treat these animals humanely. (Deuteronomy 22:10; 25:10). If saving a specimen includes keeping a few in captivity might be possible to defend, and perhaps even allowing a paying audience if it doesn't hurt the animals. But would circuses qualify?

[Old]

37 minutes ago, Thesauron said:

Under some circumstances it might be alright. God put animals in captivity to survive the Flood. Other than that the law covenant gave man a responsibility to take care of the animals in her care, with a focus on domestic animals. Focus is to treat these animals humanely. (Deuteronomy 22:10; 25:10). If saving a specimen includes keeping a few in captivity might be possible to defend, and perhaps even allowing a paying audience if it doesn't hurt the animals. But would circuses qualify?

I thought Sea World was doing an outstanding job of protecting killer whales, even having a breeding program in the interest of the specie. Then I saw the movie "Black Fish" which made me rethink my position of wild animals in a contained environment. Like most of mans efforts to do the right thing, his greed gets in the way.

[carlos]

16 hours ago, seagull said:

Does that include those used in the bull rings? 

Hopefully no fighting bulls are grown in that zoo. 

 

But yes, it's a shame that bullfighting is still very popular in Spain. Gradually more people are claiming against it, but as usual, all the attempts to ban corridas clash into the same wall: bullfighting generates a huge amount of money. So it's not going to disappear anytime soon unless the kingdom comes.

Edited September 27, 2016 by carlos

[JSmith]

On 9/27/2016 at 2:37 PM, Thesauron said:

Under some circumstances it might be alright. God put animals in captivity to survive the Flood. Other than that the law covenant gave man a responsibility to take care of the animals in her care, with a focus on domestic animals. Focus is to treat these animals humanely. (Deuteronomy 22:10; 25:10). If saving a specimen includes keeping a few in captivity might be possible to defend, and perhaps even allowing a paying audience if it doesn't hurt the animals. But would circuses qualify?

Domesticated animals are only domesticated because they are kept and bred by humans for desirable traits.

 

Wild pigs, sheep, cows, dogs, cats are very different from domesticated ones.  Humans have transformed them by selective breeding to benefit their owners.

 

Domesticated sheep have been bred to produce much more wool than wild sheep do, to the point they can barely walk.  Lamb (baby sheep) was a favorite animal to kill and devour in Bible times.

 

Pigs are kept solely for the purpose of killing and eating.

 

Dog "breeds" that we all love so much are created by inbreeding.  When a desirable trait is found they are bred with their siblings or even their own parents to preserve the trait.  This of course leads to many physical defects.  That is disturbing to many people but if you have a favorite type of dog- whether its a Pug or Yorkie or Lab, they look the way they do because they were purposely inbred.

 

I would suggest that these things done to DOMESTIC animals could be viewed as more "abusive" than simply training a wild animal to do tricks for our entertainment.  

 

But does Jehovah condemn either if they are shown respect as his creation?

[Thesauron]

Domesticated animals are only domesticated because they are kept and bred by humans for desirable traits.
 
Wild pigs, sheep, cows, dogs, cats are very different from domesticated ones.  Humans have transformed them by selective breeding to benefit their owners.
 
Domesticated sheep have been bred to produce much more wool than wild sheep do, to the point they can barely walk.  Lamb (baby sheep) was a favorite animal to kill and devour in Bible times.
 
Pigs are kept solely for the purpose of killing and eating.
 
Dog "breeds" that we all love so much are created by inbreeding.  When a desirable trait is found they are bred with their siblings or even their own parents to preserve the trait.  This of course leads to many physical defects.  That is disturbing to many people but if you have a favorite type of dog- whether its a Pug or Yorkie or Lab, they look the way they do because they were purposely inbred.
 
I would suggest that these things done to DOMESTIC animals could be viewed as more "abusive" than simply training a wild animal to do tricks for our entertainment.  
 
But does Jehovah condemn either if they are shown respect as his creation?

We should not abuse any animal. The bible makes a clear distinction between domestic and wild animals. (Genesis 1:25, 26)

[Old]

2 hours ago, Thesauron said:

We should not abuse any animal. The bible makes a clear distinction between domestic and wild animals. (Genesis 1:25, 26)

I am missing the point, what is the distinction between domestic and wild animals? Is it that they are not specified in verse 26 as being in subjection?

 

“And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.”” Ge 1:25, 26
 

 

[Thesauron]

I am missing the point, what is the distinction between domestic and wild animals? Is it that they are not specified in verse 26 as being in subjection?
 
“And God went on to make the wild animals of the earth according to their kinds and the domestic animals according to their kinds and all the creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 26 Then God said: “Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have in subjection the fish of the sea and the flying creatures of the heavens and the domestic animals and all the earth and every creeping animal that is moving on the earth.”” Ge 1:25, 26
 
 

The poster I responded to seemed to indicate that wild animals are domesticated because we made them such. But Jehovah said that he made them to be domesticated animals. That said, we should not abuse any animal. The industrial abuse of the animals we use is horrible and can hardly be supported. Also, the wild animals are missing from the list in verse 26.

[blue-jay]

I'm against all animal suffering and exploitation. I don't support circuses and zoos and such.

But it would be hypocritical for one to avoid zoos and circuses, but to support the meat and dairy industry by eating meat and dairy. 

[Thesauron]

I'm against all animal suffering and exploitation. I don't support circuses and zoos and such.
But it would be hypocritical for one to avoid zoos and circuses, but to support the meat and dairy industry by eating meat and dairy. 

These days you are hard pressed to find food that does not in some way ruin the earth. The soy beans in your salad might have been grown on old rainforest land. The tomato you're holding in your hand might have been transported across half the earth by road, air or sea. The wheat from your local farmer might have contributed to the disappearance of the meadow flowers.

[blue-jay]

7 hours ago, Thesauron said:

These days you are hard pressed to find food that does not in some way ruin the earth. The soy beans in your salad might have been grown on old rainforest land. The tomato you're holding in your hand might have been transported across half the earth by road, air or sea. The wheat from your local farmer might have contributed to the disappearance of the meadow flowers.

I'm talking about what it does to the animals. Isn't that what this post is about?

Do you have any idea what they have to go through? It's hell. But giving up meat is not as easy as just not going to the circus or zoo...

For many the compassion for animals is not as strong as their own food cravings.

[Brother_Bliss]

1 hour ago, blue-jay said:

I'm talking about what it does to the animals. Isn't that what this post is about?

Do you have any idea what they have to go through? It's hell.

 

Actually, no. This topic is about circus animals, and not about animals being farmed in the meat and dairy industry. 

 

Quote

But giving up meat is not as easy as just not going to the circus or zoo...

 

There are some things that only Jehovah's Kingdom is going to be able to fix. My personal boycotting isn't going to change anything.

 

In the meantime, I relish in meat and cheese, and see circus and zoo's as educational opportunities for my children.

[blue-jay]

1 hour ago, Dismal_Bliss said:

 

Actually, no. This topic is about circus animals, and not about animals being farmed in the meat and dairy industry. 

 

 

There are some things that only Jehovah's Kingdom is going to be able to fix. My personal boycotting isn't going to change anything.

 

In the meantime, I relish in meat and cheese, and see circus and zoo's as educational opportunities for my children.

That's where we disagree. The meat consumption has gone down a lot in recent years because many people's eyes have been opened to what it does to animals  (and their own health) and they care. That means lives are being saved. Less animals tortured and killed. That IS a difference. That IS changing something.

Obviously everyone has the right to eat meat.

But my conscience won't allow me to do it.

 

That's my personal opinion. And I have a right to share it even if many disagree. 

 

There are many things only God's Kingdom will fix. Doesn't mean that I won't do my little part right now and here.

[Thesauron]

I'm talking about what it does to the animals. Isn't that what this post is about?
Do you have any idea what they have to go through? It's hell. But giving up meat is not as easy as just not going to the circus or zoo...
For many the compassion for animals is not as strong as their own food cravings.

I don't mind examining all the nooks and crannies of a subject, so here we go: It has to do with if we do our best to take care of the earth and those who inhabit it. Living a fairly good life in a western society, I have the luxury to eat food from good sources. Quitting the animal circus does not require very much, only a moral decision. Finding good food is harder. It requires action. But still, the moral discussion is important. Just not thinking about it is not an option, in my opinion.

[Ahuvah]

5 hours ago, Dismal_Bliss said:

 

Actually, no. This topic is about circus animals, and not about animals being farmed in the meat and dairy industry. 

 

 

There are some things that only Jehovah's Kingdom is going to be able to fix. My personal boycotting isn't going to change anything.

 

In the meantime, I relish in meat and cheese, and see circus and zoo's as educational opportunities for my children.

We got some walnut relish yesterday too ... and that is yummy. (since you brought up relish heh)

[Ahuvah]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Tortuga said:

Well, in that case...

 

I love Circus Animals.

 

 

[Ahuvah]

Wouldn't let me type, must be too early in the morning for me. just was going to say we have jelly babies here, and animal biscuits too ... the things people think up huh?

[Thesauron]

 
There are some things that only Jehovah's Kingdom is going to be able to fix. My personal boycotting isn't going to change anything.
 
In the meantime, I relish in meat and cheese, and see circus and zoo's as educational opportunities for my children.

It's a moral choice we gave to make were we draw the line. The important thing is, I guess, that we don't just shrug it off, but try to make an informed decision. It could very well be important in the long run. Also, it is not about making a difference, really. This world is going down the drain. But by paying to go see animals perform, you are kind of supporting the whole chain until the animal reaches the circus. Just as it is with what you consume. Your choices show who you are, in a way. That's how I see it, anyway.

[Brother_Bliss]

On 10/3/2016 at 10:32 AM, blue-jay said:

Obviously everyone has the right to eat meat.

But my conscience won't allow me to do it.

 

That's my personal opinion. And I have a right to share it even if many disagree. 

 

That is true. Just be cautious about getting oversensitive and preachy. Years ago we had a member who got on their vegan soapbox to the point of condemning all meat eaters, insinuating that even though we had the scriptural right to eat meat, a "true" christian would not do so. We tried to reason with them using the Bible and our Bible based literature, but sadly it got to the point where we had to let them go.

 

2 hours ago, Thesauron said:

It's a moral choice we gave to make were we draw the line. The important thing is, I guess, that we don't just shrug it off, but try to make an informed decision. It could very well be important in the long run. Also, it is not about making a difference, really. This world is going down the drain. But by paying to go see animals perform, you are kind of supporting the whole chain until the animal reaches the circus. Just as it is with what you consume. Your choices show who you are, in a way. That's how I see it, anyway.

 

Good comment. My comments were based on more on zoos than the circus, though I have been to two circus acts back when my children were extremely young. The high-wire acts, the human stunts, the clowns, makeup, and juggling, and yes, even the animals, are indeed an entertaining attraction. I will say that up until this thread I have indeed been uninformed. I've spent some time reading some articles on the web about the abuse and/or living conditions of circus animals, and there is much I wasn't aware of before now.

 

I wonder if there are any circus groups that are known for their ethical treatment of their animals, like there are free range grass fed cattle and cage free eggs.

[Tcvancoops]

I don't go to circuses that have performing animals.  I used to, but after learning about the conditions these poor animal go through is heart breaking.  They are locked in cages most of the time. And the cages are in regulation, but it's only big enough for the animal to stand and turn around.  A nasty loop hole in caging giant pedators.  Plus, these animals, especially tigers and lions, have been ripped away from their mothers at birth.  They are fed poor milk substitute that isn't good for them and usually makes the babies sick.  Then they're usually given to "animal advocates" who force the babies to be held by people and take pictures when all these BABIES want to do is sleep.  When they start to fall asleep, the keepers will literally throw them in the air to wake them up.  As they age and start to go into their natural way of rough housing and being a predator they are beaten to stop such behavior.

 

When they get big enough they are either sold as "pets" or sold to circuses.  When they are trained at the circus they are again beaten to perform tricks, doing things that are so unnatural for them.  When you watch performances of tigers and lions in the ring you can see their ears are back; a clear sign that they are uncomfortable and unhappy.  They are fed poorly as well; Either getting nasty meat or not enough food for their size.  

 

There red are many zoos I will not go to because they don't provide a proper environment or care for wild animals.  It's either stone and steal, or it's too small.  Big Cat Rescue is a proper place for these beautiful predators to live, and they are well taken care of.  

 

I love the circus, but I will not support animal cruelty.  And that's my rant on this subject.

[hatcheckgirl]

On 03/10/2016 at 6:26 AM, blue-jay said:

I'm against all animal suffering and exploitation. I don't support circuses and zoos and such.

But it would be hypocritical for one to avoid zoos and circuses, but to support the meat and dairy industry by eating meat and dairy. 

I like and agree with what you're saying, Jay. But we have to make choices in this system according to our own individual circumstances without disregarding Jehovah's overall requirements. I prefer to eat less meat now that I have become more aware of the cruelties of food production as a business. Jehovah intended humans to treat their domestic animals humanely, but satan's system turns it into something abhorrent. So it is not the eating of meat that's bad. We can choose to make better choices at the supermarket or be vegetarian. And not going to zoos or circuses which we know are making animals suffer is also a choice, and shows that we do not agree with animal cruelty. Eventually they will cease to exist as people stop going.

 

These kind of moral choices are easier to make in our richer countries. Poorer countries unfortunately do not have the same opportunity as it is harder to make ends meet, and people don't have moral animal issues to the fore. For ex, those sun bears painfully exploited to earn tourism dollars in Asia. We cannot tolerate such cruelties, but those people aren't in a position to change their practises soon. Only Jehovah's kingdom will alleviate poverty and cruel practises. That's looking at the bigger picture.