Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe welfare of farm animals has become a continuing source of controversy as states seek greater regulation over the livestock industry. However, empirical studies addressing the determinants of public concern for farm‐animal welfare are limited. Religion and politics, two institutional bases of attitudes, are rarely explored. Nor have sociologists responded systematically to the popular charge that people concerned with animal welfare care less about human well‐being. This study builds from sociology's stratification literature to address new questions about farm‐animal welfare. Using a range of animal‐welfare attitudes and samples drawn from a statewide and a national population in 2007, we find support for the religious and political bases of farm‐animal‐welfare attitudes. Frequent church attendance is related to less concern with animal welfare. However, we also find that religious beliefs can be a source of support for animal welfare. Political orientation as reflected by desire for more economic equality and greater tolerance of outgroups is also related to concern for farm‐animal welfare. Formal political partisanship and denomination have weaker effects. Concern with farm‐animal welfare is consistently related to greater concern with human welfare in the food sector.

This book brings together two scholarly traditions: experts in Roman, Jewish and Islamic law, an area where scholars tend to be familiar with work in each area, and experts in the legal traditions of South and East Asia, which have tended to be less interdisciplinary. The resulting mix produces new ways of looking at comparative law and legal history from a global perspective, and these essays contribute both to our understanding of comparative religion as well as comparative law