A n i m a l W r i t e s © sm
The official ANIMAL
RIGHTS ONLINE newsletter
Publisher ~ EnglandGal@aol.com
Issue #
01/19/03
Editor ~ JJswans@aol.com
Journalists ~ ParkStRanger@aol.com
~
MichelleRivera1@aol.com
~ sbest1@elp.rr.com
THE ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE ARE:
1 ~ Is Vegetarianism a Virtue? Is Carnivorism a
Vice? By J.R. Hyland
2 ~ Have A Heart For Chained Dog Week - Feb. 7-14
3 ~ No Bloody Utters in Uttar By Robert Cohen
4 ~ My Little Experiment
5 ~ Dumb Bird
6 ~ Memorable Quote
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`
~1~
Is Vegetarianism a Virtue? Is
Carnivorism a Vice?
By J.R. Hyland - HumaneReligion@compuserve.com
Recent
research has confirmed what some have long suspected: the percentage of
Americans who are truly vegetarian has not changed significantly in the past 30
years.(1) And the percentages are unlikely to change very much unless
those who believe that the deprivation and suffering caused by human
carnivorism is intolerable, learn something from those who came to the
conclusion that slavery was intolerable. As long as people did not want to
appear "judgmental" in regard to those who upheld slavery, there was
no chance of abolition.
As slavery became more widespread and its atrocities multiplied, growing
numbers of people became disturbed by its abuses and distanced themselves from
participation in it. But they could not distance themselves from the people
with whom they worked, worshipped, and lived. So in its earliest stages the
issue of slavery was treated as one of personal choice. This allowed people to live
comfortably and without dissent among neighbors and family who supported the
status quo. It also allowed them to be viewed as Good Christians who subscribed
to the biblical directive "judge not, lest ye be judged." This was a
position as politically correct and self-serving in its own day as is the
espousal of ethical relativism and value-free judgments in our own time. It was
also a position that ignored another passage of scripture which directed the
believer to "judge with a righteous judgement."
But a growing number of people began to understand that because the abuses of
slavery were upheld by custom, law, and religion, the buying and selling of
other human beings reflected a societal standard as well as an individual
choice. And they understood that as members of a society which validated and
perpetuated its cruelties, they shared the moral responsibility for its
offenses. Only when this happened did abolition become a possibility.
And it is only when those who understand that killing other beings in order to
satisfy an appetite for their flesh is much more than a personal choice, that
human carnivorism will become an anomaly. Only when the cruelty and immorality
of breeding animals for the slaughterhouse is recognized as an evil sanctioned
by society and upheld by its laws, will vegetarianism reach the next stage of
its evolution in Western civilization.
In Western civilization? Yes. We can set an example for others but our own
culture, with its values and traditions, is the only one we can hope to change.
People of other cultures will have to find the basis for change within their
own belief systems. Should this discourage us from working for the abolition of
human carnivorism? Of course not. Although slavery was ended in England almost
200 years ago by legislation and in the United States by civil war, there are
still, literally, tens of thousands of people who are being sold into slavery
in our own day. And although other countries and other cultures continue to
traffic in the buying and selling of human beings, that does not stop us from
continuing to outlaw it in our own country.
For those who are aware of the ways in which the buying and selling, the
killing and the consumption of animal beings permeates every aspect of our
society, the odds against its abolition can seem overwhelming. And were it not
for the example of the end of slavery in Western culture, an end to human
carnivorism would seem a Utopian dream. But we do have the example of slavery
to show us that no matter how deep its roots, nor how great its antiquity, a
spiritually evolving human race is able to overcome its failings.
Because slavery and carnivorism can be traced back to the beginning of
historical times, both have been accepted as enduring components of human
society. Millennia of women and men were carefully taught to rationalize or
ignore the cruelties and deprivations endured by enslaved human beings and to
claim divine sanction for brutalities that were devised by men. And just as
biblical support was claimed for slavery, the Bible has also been used to
validate the eating of other creatures, although the scripture clearly states
that men and women were created to be herbivorous.(2)
In times past, people were content to claim that God supported their carnivorism.
But in an increasingly secularized society, various pseudo-scientific
explanations have been developed to account for the brutality that demands a
diet of dead animals for its sustenance. Scientism--or junk-science--has
manufactured various theories to explain the continuing brutality that insists
on killing and eating other creatures.
For the secularist, the claim that God said it's all right to eat other
creatures has no creditability. So anthropology and physiology have provided
rationalizations to fill the void left by those who believe that God-is-dead or
never was. These alternative excuses allow contemporary humans to blame
pre-historic ancestors for their modern-day food choices. Anthropologists
offer the theory of enculturation and physiologists vaguely speak of
"adaptation" and assure you that it is your genes that make you want
to kill and eat other creatures.
Among family and friends, most vegetarians have been subjected to these ongoing
religious and secular arguments, offered as proof that carnivorism is
okay/normal. Of course, the adversarial answer to that position is that it's
not okay/normal to eat your fellow creatures. Ultimately, these arguments lead
either to a rift in relationships or an agreement not to discuss the subject again.
Every vegetarian knows how painful either decision is and no suggestions will
be offered here, about the way it should be resolved.
However, at the level of infrequent encounters with neighborhood, church or
social groups, there are guidelines that should be observed. When those who
refuse to eat the chicken kiev at the annual luncheon are challenged about
their refusal, they have automatically become spokesperson against animal
suffering. And when asked "why" they don't partake, the answer is
usually a variation on the theme of a nonviolent diet. But if the dialogue
continues, and they are asked if they think it's wrong to eat meat, many will
begin to equivocate. And generally speaking, it is those who consider
themselves well-educated and intellectually aware, who do this.
Above all other considerations, they do not want to be thought of as ignorant
and judgmental. Value-free is the way to be if you aspire to be considered a
highly developed, rational being by those who have decided the criteria for that
designation. For some people, this is even more important than the fate of the
animals for whom they may truly be concerned.
The mind-set of this kind of person prevails even at the media level.
Unfortunately, this writer has been privy to what went on at a meeting between
a journalist and the spokesman for a vegetarian group. When asked whether
or not eating meat was wrong the spokesman, who is a medical professional, said
"no," he couldn't make such a statement. It might be wrong for him,
personally, but he certainly would not make that judgement for others. Having
established himself as an intelligent, value-free observer of the human scene,
he went on to volunteer the information that we must also consider the fact
that there are people who struggle with a physical or psychological addiction
to eating flesh. Of course, this value-free standard also absolves a Hannibal
Lector of responsibility for his food choices.
In order for vegetarianism to become a societal standard, those who refuse to
eat other creatures need to resist the intellectual, religious and social
pressures that try to make it simply a matter of individual choice. Although
carnivorism has overwhelming majority approval at this time, that does not make
it a moral or ethical choice. And in a society in which optimum nourishment can
easily be had without the slaughter or cruel confinement of other creatures,
those who understand the brutality of human carnivorism have an obligation to
speak their truth when they are asked "Do you think meat-eating is
wrong?"
------------------------------------
(1) Donna Maurer, Ph.d, "Vegetarianism: Movement or Moment. "For more
information: www.veganoutreach.org
(2) Genesis 1:29. For further discussion see "The Biblical Basis of
Vegetarianism" at www.HumaneReligion.org
Copyright 2003 J.R.Hyland
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~2~
Have a Heart for Chained Dog
Week - Feb. 7-14
By Tammy Sneath Grimes - tammy@dogsdeservebetter.com
Please
crosspost widely if possible!
Dogs Deserve Better, the voice for all dogs living chained (and penned!)
outside, has designated Valentine's Week, February 7-14th "Have a Heart
for Chained Dogs Week."
We are striving to raise awareness of this issue in a positive way...by
delivering Valentines Cards (with biscuit) to chained dogs all over the
U.S. We will be delivering them locally in rural PA in person, and invite
any interested reporters to go with us Saturday, February 9th.
We also invite any interested volunteers nationwide to deliver Valentine's to
local chained dogs. Or provide us with addresses, and we will send them in the
mail with brochures and other information.
Please visit the site: <http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/hearts.html> if
you can participate by purchasing a Valentine for the wonderful dogs living
outside at this moment all across the country.
Help us make a difference in their lives!
Thank you so much,
Tammy Sneath Grimes, Founder
Dogs Deserve Better
No Chains!
Make a Dog's Life Worth Living
<http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com>
1.877.636.1408
814.941.7447
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~3~
No Bloody Udders in Uttar
By Robert Cohen - notmilk@earthlink.net
www.notmilk.com
In
notmilk@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Cohen wrote:
On January 6, 2003, the slaughter of cows was banned in India's most populous
state, Uttar Pradesh. The population of Uttar Pradesh is 180 million. If Uttar
Pradesh was a nation unto its own, it would be the fifth most populous country
on planet Earth.
Should an entire civilized humankind follow that example set by Uttar Pradesh
by banning cow slaughter?
Life for cows on dairy farms is nothing like the tranquil scenes depicted upon
the sides of milk cartons. America's happy cows (as marketed by the dairy
industry) do not enjoy being separated from day-old calves which have grown
within their own bodies for nine months. No mammalian mother would happily
accept such a contradiction against nature's plan. Nor do cows enjoy having
their tails cut off (docked) or the hairs on their udders singed with
blowtorches, or being packed into vans and transported to slaughterhouses when
their milking days abruptly end after not being able to satisfy a dairyman's
arbitrary daily quota for milk that was originally intended for her calf.
Imagine that moment of slaughter.
After living an entire life on a dairy farm, the fear caused by a long line of
animals before those who await the same fate of a stun gun, sharp knife,
butcher's slice to the aorta, smell of gurgling blood and saliva, spray of
milk, blood, urine, and feces, while hanging upside down, supported by a chain
attached to one leg, struggling, while life ebbs away as a final consciousness
struggles to come to terms with "why?"
Although steak from cows is served in many of India's big-city restaurants,
that beef must now be transported over state lines. The penalty for
slaughtering a cow in Uttar Pradesh will be as much as seven years in an Indian
prison and a fine of $290. Per capita income in India is equal to $2,200.
The sixth day of January, 2003, was a day of glorious redemption in Uttar
Pradesh. Indian regulators raided slaughterhouses and rescued over 1,100 cows
whose destiny it was to die violently by the hands of men.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030106_1581.html
Each glass of milk or wedge of cheese represents enormous pain. Every bowl of
ice cream or slice of pizza is an insult against a living creature who
exchanges her lifetime of indignity for one moment of human pleasure.
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~4~
My Little Experiment
Submitted by Kimberly Locke - KMBWolf@aol.com
Last
year, after I had sent my annual "please don't sell fur" letters to
the major department stores (Saks, Macy's, etc.), a reply made it's way through
my mail slot. It was from Macy's consumer relations. It was a polite note that
said simply that Macy's had to (yes, it said HAD TO) sell furs because people
kept buying them. I read the short three paragraphs and put the letter down. It
was that letter that sparked what would be a most interesting experiment for
the following year.
That note was written in 2001, and a few days before January 1st, 2002, I
conjured up an idea. I would save all the receipts from purchases I made of
items that could have been bought at Macy's, but were purchased from non-fur
selling stores. I would save them in a box, and then add them up at the end of
the year. I was curious to see how much money there would be.
Well, it's the end of the year. Time to bring out the old shoe box (from All
Man Made Material shoes, of course). And there's quite a lot of paper in here.
But let's do this chronologically, shall we? By the way, all totals are before tax.
-----------------------------------
February's Purchases
Valentine's Day gifts for husband, mom, dad, and sis:
Sweater = $34.00
Turtleneck = $21.00
Necklace = $14.99
Sweatshirt = $29.00
Earrings = $7.99
Earrings = $4.99
February's Totals = $111.97
-----------------------------------
March's Purchases
Birthday gifts for husband:
Sweater = $44.00
Sweater = $38.00
Sweater = $38.00
Anniversary gift for friends:
Frame = $14.99
March's Totals = $134.99
-----------------------------------
April's Purchases
Birthday gifts for dad:
Sweatshirt = $28.00
Socks = $14.97
Birthday gifts for mom:
Shirt = $21.00
Necklace = $11.99
Jewelry box = $19.99
April's Totals = $95.95
-----------------------------------
May's Purchases
Mother's Day gifts:
Shirt = $21.00
Necklace = $7.99
May's Totals = $28.99
-----------------------------------
June's Purchases
Birthday gifts for bro:
T-shirt = $14.00
T-shirt = $14.00
Father's Day gifts:
Watch (metal band) = $35.99
June's Purchases = $63.99
-----------------------------------
September's Purchases
Clothes for me:
Khakis = $25.00
Pants = $32.00
September's Totals = $57.00
-----------------------------------
December's Purchases
Birthday gifts for sis:
Purse = $24.99
Bath set = $12.99
Earrings = $4.99
Earrings = $4.99
Christmas gifts for husband, mom, dad, bro, sis, and friends:
Sweater = $44.00
Sweater = $44.00
Sweater = $38.00
Sweatshirt = $29.00
Purse = $29.99
Jewelry box = $17.99
Sweatshirt = $29.00
Necklace = $12.99
Necklace = $12.99
Socks = $24.95
Underwear = $13.98
Shirt = $21.00
Shirt = $23.00
Earrings = $2.50
Earrings = $4.99
Earrings = $4.99
Sweater = $34.00
December's Totals = $435.33
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------
2002's Totals = $928.22
Yikes! That's almost a grand! Jeez.
So that's how much Macy's could have gotten from me, had they stopped selling
furs last year. Keep in mind, that is purely one year, and just one person.
Perhaps the consumer relations people should consider what they are losing by
selling furs.
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~5~
Dumb Bird
Author Unknown
A brain can't save a powerless bird
whose name conjures food when spoken the word.
Her nature leads her to peck and take wing
But there's no room for instinct.
This life is no living.
With six in a cage, what bird needs a brain?
Inside the warehouses are endless chains
of small metal boxes with wire mesh floors.
Eroded feathers reveal scratches and sores.
No reason to cluck, no pride with no beak.
No social order, no reason to speak.
Eyes blinded by ammonia from droppings below.
One bird out of six, collapsed, must go.
Yanked from the cage and thrown to the floor.
While these birds are swept up, the factory makes more.
One particular bird on this particular day
is a snapshot you can take away,
of a bird that has been cloned and restrained
His right to life stolen for a greedy man's gain.
As you live your life, carefree,
smart creatures live as commodities.
"Not smart enough," an excuse you've learned
to slyly shroud your past concern.
Too bad that brains can't save these birds.
It seems as though they have been cursed
because there's a functioning brain in their heads
that doesn't redeem them,
but leaves them tortured instead.
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~6~
Memorable Quote
"A human being is part of the whole called
by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our
thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical
delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us,
restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons
nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening
our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of
nature in its beauty... We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking
if mankind is to survive.
~~ Albert Einstein
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Susan Roghair - EnglandGal@aol.com
Animal Rights Online
P O Box 7053
Tampa, Fl 33673-7053
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1395/
-=Animal Rights Online=-
&
Advisory Board Member, Animal Rights Network Inc.,
not-for-profit publisher of The Animals' Agenda Magazine
http://www.animalsagenda.org/
The
Animals' Agenda Magazine: WebEdition
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
(Permission Granted To Quote/Forward/Reprint/Repost This Newsletter In
Whole Or In Part with credit given to EnglandGal@aol.com)
* Please forward this to a
friend who you think
might be interested in subscribing to our newsletter.
* ARO
gratefully accepts and considers articles for publication
from subscribers on veg*anism and animal issues.
Send submissions to JJswans@aol.com
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.