{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029155787641427327, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004786771105308964, 'mean_word_length': 4.910025706940874, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Riders in the Storm: Ethics in an Age of Climate Change . By Brian G. Henning. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2015. 216 pages. $22.95 (paper).

of this book. Still, the strength of For Love of Animals contains its inherent weakness, and the author’s desire to cover so many topics leads to outright inaccuracies. Camosy wants to argue that contrary to many people’s perspectives, Christianity is not responsible for the atrocious treatment of animals in human history. He attempts to develop the case that Christian thought is “not the problem,” but “part of the solution” to treating animals justly and well. Yet, in the process of making this defense, he overlooks aspects of Christian history and theology that certainly did encourage the harmful treatment of animals in negligent if not outright cruel ways. For example, contrary to his defense of Thomas Aquinas as a great medieval theologian whose thinking “actually supports a rather sophisticated view of nonhuman animals” (), Aquinas believed that animals were created exclusively for human use, encouraging the idea that they had no rights nor value in themselves. (Andrew Linzey, Anglican theologian and pioneer in animal theology, develops this much further in his books.) Too often, however, Camosy turns to his primary sources, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and statements of recent popes, to support his contention that Christians have nothing to be ashamed of in their treatment of animals. A simple acknowledgment of past misdeeds and harmful attitudes would strengthen his case for moral decision making today. In addition, his chapter , on angels and aliens, offers no support for his argument for nonhuman animal rights; rather, it distracts from it. Despite some of these problems, For Love of Animals can be a helpful book in promoting precisely what it says: the love of nonhuman animals, and a serious consideration of how that love should be interpreted by human animals of whatever faith today. It asks serious questions about whether Christians should eat meat, whether medical research is justified, and whether factory farms should be changed. This is a thoughtful book for those interested in developing a loving treatment of all animals from the perspective of Christian ethics and a consistent ethic of life.