QuakerInfo.com Forum

[Anthony]

[CelticNorth]

I'm not sure having one's throat cut with a sharp knife is any less painless than a baby harp seal succumbing to a single blow to the head by a heavy club; the media, so far, has not shown images of baby lambs having thier throats cut by Rabbinical practictioneers. I think Bardot is a vegan, but it does make me think that the domestication of animals for human consumption and the harvesting of animals in the wild obliges us to a stronger sense of stewardship, which, at the bare minimum, promotes humane treatment and the continued survival of all species.

[BM]

At the end of the day, everything and everyone has got to die. An animal in the wild is likely to die a slower and more painful death than a farm animal which will be killed quickly. To me is is more about how the animal lived that is important. In the UK battery hens are kept in horrendous and inhumane conditions. Organic hens are kept in more reasonable conditions. I choose to eat only organic chicken for this reason. I also choose to shoot game birds, which are reared pheasants, that are driven over the guns. These birds live a good life, well fed and protected from predators. If this sport was outlawed then the birds would never have the chance to live as they would not be bread, protected and fed. What is worse? I honestly grapple with this point so I am keen to get balanced feedback.

I also read some thoughts about the origin of man and that we are derived from meat eating apes. I am not sure that our derivation is really the decisive argument as to if we should eat or not eat meat. Dieticians are divided on this point but it seams to me that humans can live a very health life, if not more healthy, by not eating meat. It seams to me that it more comes down to if we enjoy eating meat and if we are morally OK about eating a fellow animal. If enough of us stop eating animals, then farmers, being economic creatures will reduce the number of animals that they grow (i.e. the animal will not get a chance to live) and instead grow more crops. What is worse, for the cow to live and then ultimately be eaten or not to live at all?

I have heard it said that you can feed a man a plate of rice and he will be fed. Or you can feed 3-4 plates of rice to a chicken and then feed the chicken to the man and he will be fed. Or you can feed 6-7 plates of rice to a pig and feed the pig to the man and he will be fed. As the developing countries, particularly China, get larger middle classes, with more disposable income, studies have shown that the first thing that people typically spend their disposable income on is food i.e. moving from rice to chicken and pork with changing from rice to meat having a 3-7 multiplier on the amount of grain that is required to be grown.

The above is one of the main reasons, along with population growth, as to why we have been having massive food inflation and the poor being increasingly priced out of the food market (note recent food price riots in several underdevelped countries) . Our planet simply can not grow enough food.

The biggest reason that we should stop or at least reduce eating meat is humanitarian and environmental in my view, not for the welfare of the animal.

[Anthony]

Should churches be boiling other creatures alive as representatives of a God of love? Would Quakers get involved?

https://secure.peta.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3391

[Pulpculture]

As near to hell on earth as possible?.......


Aljazeera


The video is titled "Lions." All of the others are equally fascinating.

.



.
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[Dan]

I find it interesting, Friends, that PETA is so for the ethical treatment of animals and yet those acting in the name of PETA go around at dog shows and pour poison in the dog's water. Now that's really kind and humane treatment of poor dumb creatures isn't it?

Thy Friend,
Dan

[Shay]

[Anthony]

Regarding hunting animals for pleasure and prifit I have compliled the following:

Thomas Tryon (1634-1703) warned the first Quaker settlers of Pennsylvania that their "holy experiment" in peaceful living would fail unless they extended their Christian precepts of nonviolence to the animal kingdom. "Does not bounteous Mother Earth furnish us with all sorts of food necessary for life?" he asked. "Though you will not fight with and kill those of your own species, yet I must be bold to tell you, that these lesser violences (as you call them) do proceed from the same root of wrath and bitterness as the greater do." He also adviced: "Refrain at all times from such Foods as cannot be procured without violence and oppression. For know that all the inferior Creatures when hurt do cry and send forth the complaints to their Maker or grand Fountain whence they proceeded. Be not insensible that every Creature doth bear the Image of the great Creator according to the Nature of each, and that He is the Vital Power in all things. Therefore let none take pleasure to offer violence to that life, lest he awaken the fierce wrath and bring danger to his own soul.

Edward Burroughs, who lived at the same time, and was an able minister of the society, joined George Fox in his sentiments with respect to the treatment of animals. He considered that man in the fall, or the apostate man, had a vision so indistinct and vitiated that he could not see the animals of the creation, as he ought, but that the man, who was restored, or the spiritual Christian, had a new and clear discernment concerning them, which would oblige him to consider and treat them in a proper manner.

This idea of George Fox and of Edward Burroughs seems to have been adopted or patronized by the Poet Cowper.

“Thus harmony, and family accord,
Were driven from Paradise; and in that hour
The seeds of cruelty, that since have swell’d
To such gigantic and enormous growth,
Were sown in human natures fruitful soil.
Hence date the persecution and the pain,
That man inflicts on all inferior kinds,
Regardless of their plaints. To make him sport,
To gratify the frenzy of his wrath,
Or his base gluttony, are causes good,
And just, in his account, why bird and beast
Should suffer torture—“

Thus the Quakers censured these diversions from the first formation of their society, and laid down such moral principles with respect to the treatment of animals, as were subversive of their continuance. These principles continued to actuate all true Quakers, who were their successors; and they gave a proof, in their own conduct, that they were influenced by them, not only in treating the different animals under their care with tenderness, but in abstaining from all diversions in which their feelings could be hurt. The diversions however, of the field, notwithstanding that this principle of the brute-creation had been long recognized, and that no person of approved character in the society followed them, began in time to be resorted to occasionally by the young and thoughtless members, either out of curiosity, or with a view of trying them, as means of producing pleasure. These deviations, however from the true spirit of Quakerism became at length known. And the Quakers, that no excuse might be left to any for engaging in such pursuits again, came to a resolution in one of their yearly meetings, giving advice upon the subject in the following words.

”We clearly rank the practice of hunting and shooting for diversion with vain sports; and we believe the awakened mind may see, that even the leisure of those whom providence hath permitted to have a competence of worldly goods, is but ill filled up with these amusements. Therefore, being not only accountable for our substance, but also for our time, let our leisure be employed in serving our neighbor, and not in distressing the creatures of God for our amusement.”

http://www.worldspirituality.org/quaker-hunting.html

[jnsn]

I realized, Friend Anthony, that you had forgotten to include the next few lines of the book from your link, which I will include here for those to busy to follow it. otherwise it is easy to get an incomplete picture.

Ibid
"The Quakers usually try the lawfulness of field-diversions, which include hunting and shooting, by two standards, and first by the morality of the old Testament.

They believe in common with other Christians, that men have a right to take away the lives of animals for their food. The great creator of the universe, to whom every thing that is in it belongs, gave to Noah and his descendants a grant or charter for this purpose. In this charter no exception is made. Hence wild animals are included in it equally with the tame. And hence a hare may as well be killed, if people have occasion for food, as a chicken or a lamb.

They believe also that, when the creator of the universe gave men dominion over the whole brute-creation, or delivered this creation into their hands, he intended them the right of destroying such animals, as circumstances warranted them in supposing would become injurious to themselves. The preservation of themselves, which is the first law of nature, and the preservation of other animals under their care, created this new privilege."

[Anthony]

[Kiahanie]

[Anthony]

Friend Kiahanie

I don't have to cite any link to prove my point and to focus on any perceived lack on my part does not alter the fact that hunting animals for sport and pleasure is not in harmony with the Quaker ethos of peace, love, non-violence and a tender concern for all creatures. If you, or any of your birds of a feather (excuse the pun), can make a valid and constructive contribution as to why this is not true, then please do so; digression is destructive, as is hunting.

If there is anything in the above article that nullifies my argument that animals are not the playthings of blood sport enthusiasts, then I would be very interested. I know that there is no denial of my claim that does not involve negative defence mechanisms and denigration of me. If you check out all of my posts on this issue and find anything I have said that validates your argument by my omission then please let me know.

[Kiahanie]

[Anthony]

[Shay]