Does Religion Have a Place In Modern Zoos?

[Jose]

This isn't strictly true. In Judaism there are two elements to the Adam story, one that we can make use of the natural resources of the world but another that we are custodians and must use this wisely.

The meanings of the names Adam and Eve are basically Earth (Adama) and Life (chava, chai). People were of the Earth, an integral part of the environment with a responsibility to look after it with clear consequences if we don't. It's true that this element of our relationship with the world has been over-looked by many of all faiths but this sense of balance is still there in much of Jewish philosophy.

Also many of the commandments in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament concern animal welfare. The Noachide Laws (laws which applied to everyone, not just Jews) included not tearing flesh from a living animal and there is a commandment to remove a bird from it's nest by shooing it away before taking eggs so as not to cause distress to the bird. Young animals can't be removed from their mother before weaning and a mother animal and it's kid cannot be slaughtered together.

Milk and meat cannot be mixed based on a commandment not to boil a kid in its mother's milk. No reason is given but many attribute this in part to a sense that eating meat is inevitable if not desirable therefore it should be done with a sense of dignity for the animal and awareness of the fact that a life has been taken in order for you to eat.

There are clear indications that in an ideal future we would all be vegetarian.

There is another commandment of Baal Tashchit which originally referred to being wasteful or unnecessarily destructive, particularly in times of war but is now applied by many to our relationship with the environment.

Sorry if I'm waffling but this is something close to my heart and while it is true that many don't apply this philosophy in the world today, Judaism has a lot to say about ethical living concerning our relationship with the natural world.

Thankyou friend for your interesting reply , i respect your faith whatever it is , however i think religeon should be firmly separated from zoological gardens it simply isnt right to mix the two together it send wrong signals to the younger generation and can easily be abused for indoctrination. There are even zoos in the world based upon the biblical story of Noah , that to me is insane and i would never take my wife or children to such a zoological garden as that.

 

[Jose]

I'm a Christian who goes to church each Sunday.

But I again belive in evolution and certainly don't think that it rules out the possiblity of a creator. Its a way to become amazed at how similar mankind is to other Great Apes. If people are creationisits thats fine but I personally think they find it much harder to convert other people if they belive in creationism. I think much of what the bible says is true but I think a copuple of myths (such as Noah's Ark) have been myths designed to teach us what God is like.

On the matter of why does a loving God allow suffering? Is IMO the best reason to disbelive in God. But how come there is love and kindness in a world which has no God? Surely thats just as hard to answer.

As for Darwin's religous views now he was a hard practising Anglican when he started up his theory on evolution but questioned the suffering aspect and from 1851 onwards was an agnostic.

Also there are many christian scientists out there (as well as 1's with other religous belifes) and again very few of them are creationisits. Richard Dawkins does indeed know a huge amount on science but to me is hugely arrogant and I've never really studied his work but I'm sure there are many flaws that can be noted down.

BTW I think religon can be taught in zoos in moderation. The main focus should be conservation and science.

Richard dawkins is i think very arrogant , but he has his heart in the right place. In a world becoming increasingly fundamental in both christianity, islam and judaism and with people turning way from science everyday , creationism being taught in schools as facts , i think "Darwins Rottweiler" is justafied in attacking organised religeons and their implications.

 

[Shirokuma]

Thankyou friend for your interesting reply , i respect your faith whatever it is , however i think religeon should be firmly separated from zoological gardens it simply isnt right to mix the two together it send wrong signals to the younger generation and can easily be abused for indoctrination. There are even zoos in the world based upon the biblical story of Noah , that to me is insane and i would never take my wife or children to such a zoological garden as that.

I agree with you on the separation, that wasn't my argument. I'm religious but scientific and progressive at the same time. I just want to clarify perceptions on Judaism and the environment/animal welfare. By the way, I forgot to mention that hunting isn't allowed by Jewish law.

I also find zoos such as Noah's Ark Zoo Farm appalling. Especially as they don't even know the texts which they use as their basis. For example their model of the ark shows the animals going in two by two which wasn't the case according to the wording of the text. It was seven pairs of 'clean' animals and two of 'unclean'.

Anyway, I also wanted to take the opportunity to make the case for the Biblical Zoo in Jerusalem which is one of the few places in that city (along with the shopping mall!) that unites secular and religious people, Jews and Muslims. I hope people won't be mislead by the name, it is a modern, scientific facility which happens to highlight the animals mentioned in the Hebrew Bible (which isn't just a religious text but is also a historical and cultural document of the Jewish people and the heritage of Israel).

 

[Leptonyx]

I'm going to throw out an idea (and sorry if it's been covered already; I read the first 2 pages then had to put my two cents down!)

Are we (as a group) more concerned with the proper education of zoo visitors; or the end product? I can see from the posts that others know as well as I do that religion plays a very important role in the lives of some people; and that no matter what facts, figures, or science you throw at them they won't budge In my mind that's a huge waste; someone who won't believe in conservation work because it doesn't mesh with their own personal beliefs. However if zoos started incorporating religion more into their exhibits, presentations, etc; perhaps we would be able to reach those people. As a graduate in Zoology I'm pretty much rooting for Darwin all the way; but I'm starting to realize now that maybe I don't need to shove my own views down others throats in order for them to appreciate the work we do.

So I guess the ultimate questions is this : Is it more important for zoos to "properly educate" its visitors by way of science/conservation/evolution; or is it more important for zoos for foster a growing appreciation for zoological/wildlife (even if it means incorporating religion?) Feel free to bash all you want- I don't mind

 

[foz]

That is a very interesting and observant point Leptonyx. I would say it is similar to the use of animals in adverts (such as 'compare the meerkat') and films ('Lion King'), whilst they are not scientifically acccurate they invite the viewer to explore and learn about the world around them. Surely that is not a bad thing?

 

[Goretex]

Are we (as a group) more concerned with the proper education of zoo visitors; or the end product? I can see from the posts that others know as well as I do that religion plays a very important role in the lives of some people; and that no matter what facts, figures, or science you throw at them they won't budge In my mind that's a huge waste; someone who won't believe in conservation work because it doesn't mesh with their own personal beliefs. However if zoos started incorporating religion more into their exhibits, presentations, etc; perhaps we would be able to reach those people. As a graduate in Zoology I'm pretty much rooting for Darwin all the way; but I'm starting to realize now that maybe I don't need to shove my own views down others throats in order for them to appreciate the work we do.

The majority of people with strong religous beliefes don't have any problem with modern scientific theory. Its just a minority who make a big deal out of a relatively small issue. I have no idea why some creationists think that the biblical account of creation must be right and to then throw away logical theroies like evolution. Do they seriously expect anyone is going to take them seriously when they think like that?

Also you would find there are plenty of christian zoo keepers and zoo owners around of whoom I'm sure will belive in these scientific theories.