A Look At Portentous and Pretentious Holy Meat

I've been told a time or two that I have an unconventional sense of humor and that's nothing that I can argue with. And so when I read about the pope meeting with Jewish religious leaders, to discuss which method of animal slaughter is the "god-approved" way, I couldn't help but see the twist of a joke that needed to be teased out.

So here's my look at the conversation:

And should anyone find my opinion irreverent, so be it. I can only add my dismay that others can't see the absurd vulgarity in even speculating the "right" way to do such an evil deed as snuffing the life of an innocent! 

Look at the photo that shows them with smiles and exchanging pleasantries, while they determine the merciless fate of countless victims. Shame on anyone who professes to be enlightened while fabricating methods to make blood-shed sacred! No matter how it's done, the deliberate act of animal murder and meat eating lacks compassionate wisdom, and is void of dignity. It appeases the most base, mindless gluttony while presenting a sham of virtue. It's not hallowed. It's hollow! It's not divine! It's depraved! It's not sacred. It's sinister! Needless killing is not a magnificent ideal! It's a morally bankrupt impoverishment!

Venerate life. Live Vegan!

On Having Faith In Kindness

I wanted to post this video after the high holy days of Easter were over. I didn't want it to be lost in the mix of other religious festivities. And yes the disappointments too, as many of us will agree that most religions haven't been particularly kind to nonhumans.

But I'm pleased as I think you will be too, that the interview with Father Frank Mann is nonsectarian and the biblical reference to any god is mentioned only once in regards to his idea that we should be treating others with justice.

Father Mann has created a Tablet Forum to explore the ethical dimensions of our society's relationship to animals. The first event is scheduled for May 10th and will host the NYC free premiere of Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home, an award-winning documentary about farmers and their change of heart about animals.

Be sure you check out the Australian premier of Peaceable Kingdom.

Change only the name and this story is about you. ~Horace

So no matter if you just got done celebrating Easter, Passover or if you hold no faith in any deity, it's fine to know that you won't betray your beliefs if you choose to be kind.

On Virginia's Bible Thumping Sunday Hunters

There's so many things wrong with this story that I hardly know what bit of junk to pick out first...

The differing views of Sunday hunting in Virginia is contaminated with superstitious rubbish that goes something like this:


A deer and rabbit hunter says that God wants wildlife to have a day of rest.


And the guy who hunts elk and pigs, thinks it's his "God given right" to hunt any time.


In the end it comes down to "sacred" property rights and "holy" money. The additional killing day is worth $300 million... And well, people own land and all the life in it.

I say the deer, the rabbits, pigs and anyone who possesses a body has a right to the life within it... All the time!


If Sunday is a day to pick up "The Good Book".  May I recommend a few others?

I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. ~Susan B. Anthony

VEGAN MUST AIR DAIRY 'S DIRTY LAUNDRY

I wasn't even going to blog about the Mercy For Animals dairy investigation. I figured enough had been said about it: ABC'sWorld News Tonight with Diane Sawyer and Nightline,CNN, and hundreds of newspapers, radio and television news networks from coast-to-coast featured the investigation, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and Forbes. But when my comments were restricted from being heard on the Dairy Goddess blog site I am compelled to reply here. However before doing so, I must say, in all my blogging - or communicating in any form -I've never attempted to silence my opponents viewpoint. I've invited everyone no matter what their opinions. I've never omitted, refused, trashed or deleted any one's input - Even if some comments are embarrassing to the author. I figure, if my position is worthy it will stand up to any critic and hold its own merit. I really don't know why my comments were snuffed by the Dairy Goddess blog. It's not like it costs the blog owner time, or money - or even noticeable bandwidth. And I wasn't untruthful, irrelevant, vulgar, disrespectful, brash or crude either... My guess is I might have come too close to airing the dirty laundry about animal agriculture and how it is not only unnecessary, but hinders our progress into the future. So on those comments that were censored - I post my rebut here: In response to Brett who said that he believes that God created mankind first and then animals, and that man should rule over them and care for them. I argue that this position has many flaws. Whose "gOd"? Whose bible? This hierarchical system of "domination" was written by men to benefit men, "high priests" and kings. And we can see a continuation of such a structure in today's economics where countless favors are granted to "shepherds" of factory farms and animal industry as a whole. There are many people who believe in the Christ man and see him as one whose philosophy was rooted in kindness. Many believe he was an Essene and walked with the Desert Fathers who lived on flat breads, fruits and seeds. And that the Christ man went into a rage at the Holy Temple because of the brutalizing and slaughter of the helpless. All this would be consistent to the teachings of a man who advocated non-violence and love to Others. Many believe that the caring of innocent nonhumans does not include feasting on their tender flesh... Actually, I pointed out to Brett that many refer to Genesis 1:29-30 (King James Version) "And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so". Brett also said "We humans are on a different moral plane. In my world view, cattle’s purpose is food. God created them for us. Just like the hawk we need meat as well. I’m not a nutritionist, but I say look no farther than our teeth. Our incisors in the front were made to eat meat, while our molars in the back were made to chew. God made us to eat both." The idea that animals were created for the purpose of man's "use" calls to mind some other archaic views: Like other races were made for whites to use; And women were made for men... And the purpose of children was to be extra "hands" on the farm... etc. I hold that every living being has their own "purpose". That each of us owns but one prized thing and that is our lives. And to steal this possession for frivolous wants is indefensible. And I do not embrace this belief on any disputable, or possibly contrived words written on paper or stone, but because of a belief in the value of fairness and compassion. I pointed out that the hawk is following an imperative to survive... That biologically he has no alternative but to devour his prey. But that man, in contrast, can thrive on a plant based diet: From The American Dietetic Association: An appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. And my last comment to Brett was that I thought it was ironic that he should begin his argument based on the questionable "will" of a deity and conclude his position based in "science". But my science is: The Comparative Anatomy of Eating. by Milton R. Mills, M.D For isn't it possible that our ethics have evolved quicker than our dentures? Who bases their morals on molars anyway??? The only thing I failed to include was that no one will betray their faith if they refuse to kill or eat animals. The other participant that I never fully got to engage was writenowbiz, who thought procedures done to cows should be acceptable because: "if consent is needed then we must immediately stop spaying and neutering pets – " I say: There's a world of difference between a procedure that is done to protect an animal from harm... And one that is done to further the financial benefit of the "owner", no matter how benign. S/he also said "It seems what the view of wrong is seems a bigger issue. To you it’s wrong to use animals – to the majority of the population it isn’t." And I found this very troubling as I don't subscribe (and with good reason) to what mob rule might endorse. Just because a large group thinks or acts a certain way, does not make that way correct. Justifications that anchor themselves in crowd-think or "tradition" fall in line with ideas that "might makes right". And I sincerely don't believe that's so. Finally, writenowbiz concluded: "No matter what we eat – I don’t see many oats or soy or carrots jumping onto a plate by themselves either – they too must die for people to live." And this is similar to the time-worn "theory" that plants feel pain. To which I respond that even if someone is concerned about the "suffering of plants" they would still cause less harm by eating the plants directly, rather than fattening nonhumans in order to eat them. And that there is a world of difference between the accidental deaths of animals during crop harvesting and the deliberate breeding and slaughter of 10 billions of animal for the sake of "meat". I also interjected that we should be exploring greenhouse expansions, vertical farms, urban gardening, barge cropping technology and humanure just to name just a few alternatives to animal eating. I concluded that our differing views divide us into those who expoloit captive subjects... And others who are repelled by such an idea. And that if one truly wishes to strive for a better world... Peace begins on your plate. photo: Washday- my backyard

Animal Agriculture Uses Religion to Defend Killing Rights

In a continued critique of Mr. Jamison's views I can add this...

Another issue that I find extremely offensive about Jamison's flippant dismissal of Animal Rights as a non-sequitur... Does he infer that:

Pythagoras, Bentham, Singer, Regan, Amdur, Salt, Baird, Francione, Descartes, Kant, Diderot, Darwin, Hume, Hobbs, Gilligan, Guyer, Habermas, Jamieson, Frey, Lewis, Nagel, Locke, Schweitzer, Thomas, Taylor, Rousseau, Adams, Martin, Austen, Best, Burns, Butler, Carson, Marcus, Frost, Erskine, Keats, Mill, Moore, Hawthorn, Napoleon, Paine, Shelley, Shakespeare, Wilberforce, Franklin, Gandi, Lincoln, Aquinas, Goodall, Chomsky, Dawkins, DeGrazia, Aristotle, Aquinas, Davis, Plutarch, Assisi, Shaw, Muhammad, Buddah, da Vinci, Einstein...

and countless other philosophers and scholars who studies and wrote about Animal Rights were and are just wasting their time? The idea here is things are not written in stone when it comes to animals and how we interact with them. If it were, there would not be so many questions left unanswered. There are many bibles and religious edicts... They are all compilations gathered by humans with human interests. Is it too impractical to believe that this scenario may have happened?

In the beginning man ate everything... plants, animals, insects... perhaps even dirt. Eventually, man evolved enough to be able to grow his food... And perhaps it became distasteful for some to kill animals which they clearly saw as being like them. Animals are born, they breath, they bleed... they suffer and die. Perhaps many people began to become ill after eating killed animals... and saw this as a "message" from God to discontinue the practice? Indeed, they did not "need" animals any more for food, as they were beginning to farm their staples. But... what happens when the rich kings, and livestock owners have a culture gaining momentum that frowns upon the killing of animals? Surely their riches and wealth were in jeopardy. Indeed, maybe even a Christ-like person saw the selling of animals as evil and made a big fuss over it on the temple stairs? This Christ-like person preached that violence and bloodshed were wrong.  But how do you kill a living being without the two?

So, these kings and livestock owners then call upon priests who will shift the tide... with proclamations "from god" - that the killing and eating of animals is "sacred". And that it is man's "entitlement"... and actually his "duty". Who can argue with priests... with messages from God???  It was then that material wealth subjugated the innocent to a herding culture - sealed in a holy decree of "permission" to sacrifice... A social license to enslave, exploit and destroy others.

As told by man - it's a "god-given right" to use nonhumans... How convenient too that man could create an invisible criteria such as a soul, to further the myths along.

Well this is just one possibility... And since there is no proof otherwise - it just might make sense.

But the question here is... is it necessary now? Necessary for anything... other than the financial aspect? There is nothing that meat has nutritionally that cannot be gotten from a plant based diet. There is nothing about animal agriculture that is to the good for the eco-system - So why, if not economics... are we still using animals for food? Minister Jamison says that "God commanded that we eat animals"... And that he "commanded" the sacrifice of 2 - 3 million animals during the passover - Sounds like a good old fashioned profit motivated "cull" to me.

**********************

We have the free will to decide what's right or not...

Go Vegan

part 2 of 3 part 1 of 3

Pseudo Religious Agri-Biz Plays God with Animal Rights

Why do animal matter? This issue was discussed by minister Jamison in an Agri-Talk podcast... Jamison says that our concerns about animals have already been decided through our rank on the food chain. He says that man's privilege of might makes it all a done deal...

So according to Jamison, since we can spin a wing nut - we are justified in all we do to animals... Man's might deems it, and no further investigation is required.

I disagree. I think it's precisely because we've evolved both physically and intellectually that we have a duty to examine to every degree our influence on others. I believe we are all connected. And that we live on a planet meant to be shared with others... not ravaged for our own frivolous fancies.

Minister Jamison also said that the bible has told him that any and all use man has of animals is sanctioned by God... But we know that there are many bibles and many different beliefs of what God intended in regards to our treatment of animals. And too there is "free will" which enables us to question what our relationship with other living beings should be.

So the idea that "animal rights" has already been settled is far from true. In fact, as we become more enlightened and our social progress expands so does our interest in establishing justice for those who are being exploited. Even as a "non-theist", I would think this is exactly what any "god" would want man to do.

Furthermore, our increasing knowledge of the intelligence and emotional complexity of animals raises questions regarding what constitutes a just relationship between animals and humans. These concerns are a responsibility to discover, not only to animals but to ourselves... It is our duty to ourselves as a species... the most "entitled" one at that, to seek proper ethical solutions in our universe. This task is charged to everyone regardless of their faith. An objective, fair and rational position must be established in regards to animals, or we are doomed to remain with a club in our hands and our feet stuck in primordial goo.

But since Preacher Jamison has chosen a religious vent I'd like to argue a few points with him regarding what he believes is his favor according to "god". Using this "license" is supposed to put to rest any questions... "Anything goes" according to what was written, or (might have been) said 2,000+ years ago.

But I think it's dangerous to leave a topic as important as killing another being... unquestioned. In fact, the taking of an other's life goes against all religious teachings, of all cultures. It deserves serious deliberation and debate. It is against the primary mandate - The First Order... A Commandment of Highest Consequence... "Thy Shalt Not Kill".

Unfortunately we're such a clever species that we manage to disregard that first rule with an assortment of footnotes that make breaking it okay... Animal killing is the biggest *exception* that come to mind... And the reason we give for killing 10 billion animals yearly in the U.S. is for replaceable food. But Minister Jamison says that God gives us accolades for doing such.

Yet, there are other views, Christian ones as well... According to the King James version

Genesis 1:29: “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” And if this is true... that we can thrive on a Vegan, plant based diet... and that the innocent creatures we slaughter is totally unnecessary... then God is hardly pleased at all...

There are also the Essenes, who believe in the Gospel of Peace. And some Christian scholars have concluded vegetarianism to be the more consistent ethic with respect to the spirit of Christ's teachings. http://www.ivu.org/history/christian/christ_veg.html

There is also the fundamental ethical virtue of the Jains of India, Ahimsa. Which translates roughly into non-injury to living beings or dynamic harmlessness. http://www.ahimsa.com/

Buddhism, and Hinduism also believe in non violence to all... These theologies are in line with a God who is loving and does not want any of creation to suffer.

But modern factory farming and the unnecessary butchering of animals is in opposition to what people respect as the wishes of God... Neither is the Christian ideal of the Good Shepherd. The Good Shepherd does not harm his flock... he protects it. Animal agriculture defiles the first mandate, and does so for the lust of money, and physical pleasures. It also causes damaging consequence to the environment and human health. And through meat eating sins, and agri-business excesses, it also neglects his fellow man... who starves for want of the grain that is fed to fatten animals instead.

So as to the debate of why animals matter, it is becoming increasingly clear that this topic has a place in the social justice considerations of not only Christians, but to all. Animals are in the scope of man's moral concern, regardless of how Minister Jamison seems to think that evolution has dealt the cards.

Finally, he says that animal rights advocates will appeal to people who have no knowledge of the doctrines of their sect. That these "unguided" people will be lead to believe that a compassionate God would not be pleased with selling flesh on the temple stairs. And on this Mr. Jamison, I agree with you whole heartily.

Rebuttal to Jamison/religion part 1 of 3

Agri-Talk

Animal Rights History