That's a ridiculous example, and in fact it proves the opposite.
Notice that we only shoot bears that are actually eating hikers, even though no bear actually have moral responsibility toward us; that's because we as a society do feel moral responsibility towards bears (and animals in general), and therefore avoid shooting them except when required.
We certainly don't feel anywhere near the same moral responsibility towards animals as we do towards people, but we feel some. And as society becomes less religious, that'll tend to increase.
I think you're actually mistaking religious for urban. In the Bible we talk about dominion over all animals, that is certainly a part of western culture, but few people actually believes that one should walk around randomly kicking puppies and shooting kittens in the head because they can.
Instead, I would argue that this is a function of urbanization and removal of a connection between humans and animals. Animals, which provide meat, eggs, and milk are removed as the providers as such and instead these things come from the grocery store. Because of this disconnect, animals undergo a process of anthropomorphism, which can clearly be seen in the form of lolcatz.
I'm not mistaking anything, I'm drawing from an actual study[1]. Feel free to provide evidence discrediting it.
And you point out as evidence of the disconnect between the urban people and farm animals, by giving the example of the anthropomorphism of cats, which happen to be one of the few animals that actually live with people in urban environments?
I can't even comprehend such logic.
I've read over the study, and they've identified a trend, which you and I both accept as accurate. They don't, however, rule out the connection between urban environments and animal rights. As you are well aware, correlation does not equal causation.
As a member of a rural community your very livelihood is dependent on the relationship of people with animals. The doctor, the car dealer, etc all are connected to this. Doesn't it make more sense that this would have a bigger impact on how you view animal rights than what religion you are? It just so happens that rural people are overwhelmingly more religious, all I'm saying is they failed to account for a very important variable.
Rural people tend to view all animals as a resource, this includes cats as they are a very effective "mouser" or animal that kills mice. The same with dogs, as protectors of self and property. I'm willing to bet that Lolcats are overwhelmingly produced by urban folk, because they have lost this relationship with animals. My anecdotal evidence is that rural folks, and men in particular, don't find anything about lolcats funny at all. This is explained by their connection to cats as tools for removing rodents, not their religious views.
That may be so, but it doesn't change what I originally said; even if it's true, then as society becomes more urban, it'll both become less religious and more supportive of animal rights.
I don't know if religion is such an important impediment to moral responsibility to animals. I think capitalism is more important namely because of factory farming. Most people don't want to know about it and wouldn't stop eating meat or pay twice as much to avoid it. Factory farming is completely hidden from people in cities, so people don't empathize with it as much.
Yes I saw that and I'm saying that correlation might not be so important in practice, because however they might profess to feel about animal rights, most people will still insist on eating meat without wanting to know where it comes from.
Notice that we only shoot bears that are actually eating hikers, even though no bear actually have moral responsibility toward us; that's because we as a society do feel moral responsibility towards bears (and animals in general), and therefore avoid shooting them except when required.
We certainly don't feel anywhere near the same moral responsibility towards animals as we do towards people, but we feel some. And as society becomes less religious, that'll tend to increase.