On Cockfighters and Religion

Today, the Washington Post was kind enough to provide two spectacular specimens to deconstruct, one of which is actually a deconstruction of a third specimen, making my job quite easy for today.

In "Dawn in Louisiana: With Cockfighting Outlawed, a Dying Breed Mourn Their ‘Heritage,’" by Carol Guzy, Guzy introduces us to Clarence "Wooly" Bunch, a cockfighter for 40 years who has some priceless quotes such as:

"It’s my heritage. I guess there are other people that want to be president of the United States or senators or whatever. Me, I want to be a cockfighter. . . . I would rather do it out in the wide open where everyone knows it and sees it because I am not ashamed of cockfighting."

Then there’s his reasoning for why cockfighting okay, not like dogfighting.

"Dogs are your friend. . . . Not to say I don’t like my chickens, but they are not my friend."

So I supposed fitting people with whom you aren’t yet acquainted with blades and forcing them to fight to the death is acceptable, yes?

A friend of Bunch says:

"We ain’t barbaric and we ain’t hurting nobody."

That’s fascinatin’ as that is precisely what they are doing: hurting bodies. Hurting the bodies of others. Intentionally, brutally. And that in fact is barbaric.

Before you get all what-ignorant-rednecks, though, read what Guzy says, which ends up being in defense of the cockfighters and I agree with her:

"[T]here
is a sentiment among cockfighters that being sanctioned for their
pastime by those who dine on chicken from factory farms is
hypocritical. They raise their roosters for two years, vaccinate and
feed them and say the birds at least have a fighting chance of
remaining alive."

Very, very good point. It doesn’t
justify cockfighting, but I think anyone who eats animals, from factory farms or not, is on shaky ground
objecting to cockfighting. Do you agree?

The remainder of the article goes rather predictably, with a
gentleman named Carter Kinchen uttering: "Religion and cockfighting
built this country." And as much as I am not in favor of organized
religion, in 2008 religious people aren’t exactly out there treating
religion like a bloodsport and killing each other over it.

Oh, wait . . .

Kinchen’s next quote includes: "The love for a game fowl is just deep in my heart, just as much as it is for my wife," whom he has fitted with gaffs and pits her against the neighbor’s wife, I wonder?

There’s the obligatory reference to a proud man whose 5-year old
grandson "just bagged his first deer." The boy is present at the
cockfight, being entertained by:

"[A] flurry of
feathers flashes as the birds engage in a furious, fatal dance. Men try
to revive the faltering roosters by sucking from their beaks the blood
pooled in their lungs. Some wounded birds continue to drag themselves
around the pit until, finally, with a mortal stab, the bird dies. The
limp body is carried to the trash."

The one thing that stands out about this story is that the Kinchens have lost two sons: one in a car wreck and one in Iraq, yet:

"That has not rocked their faith. Kinchen believes part of that faith tells him God gave humans dominion over animals."

I
wonder . . .  I just wonder whether, being religious people, they’ve
ever pondered whether the loss of their sons has anything to do with
their own behavior and the lessons that they need to learn.
Don’t reprimand me and call me cruel or insensitive. Obviously, it’s
horrible that their sons have died. But people who are religious and
believe in a god who does things for a reason usually make connections
between what they do and what their god thinks, right? "He did this for a
reason . . .Why did he do this to me?" They speculate on why their god
presented them with certain situations (usually painful ones. I’ve yet
to hear anyone ask god why something wonderful happened).

It’s fascinating to me, then, that the Kinchens have what they probably believe is a built-in excuse. Religion allows me to do this. That way, they never would connect
what they do to roosters (or any other sentient nonhuman) with the tragedies that have befallen their
family. They have no reason to, as their behavior is just.

The concept that "dominion" includes hideous cruelty is new to me (and Matthew Scully wrote an entire book on the topic, which is not an animal rights book but does challenge the Kinchens’ notion of dominion). I thought when religious people used it they meant that we had the right to control nonhuman animals, but that there was some kind of requirement of attempts at kindness. I thought dominion was the origin of animal welfare (and that’s very much what Scully says).

Part of what I do at Animal Person is take the words of people and look at them in conjunction with their actions–or with other words they say. And as much as I’m preoccupied with language, I have to admit that what people do is far more indicative of what they believe than what they say.

Today’s other article(s) will have to wait until tomorrow. . . . Off to acupuncture!