QuakerInfo.com Forum

[Pulpculture]

The No-Nonsense Guide to ANIMAL RIGHTS is available (post free in the UK) here from play.com for £5.49

[CelticNorth]

The "agricultural revolution" that occured around 10,000 to 7,000 B.C., which enabled the labor stratification for the foundation of civilization by creating a food surplus, was also accompamied by the domestication of animals for food as well. By nature, we are perhaps equally carnivorous and vegatarian. I think that the ability to choose to be a vegitarian is a modern luxury. Humans did not always have the technology availible to store grains, and in certain climates it is still prohibitive. That we have such an abundance, and choice, in this country, is unparrelled in the hsitory of mankind. I think of that with Thanksgiving coming up.

[acfriend]

Thanks for that observation McGuffey.

[GKK]

I eat meat. I think eating meat from range-fed animals is good for the environment, for my health, and even good for the animals. I agree that the science shows that humans are adapted to be omnivores.

But, about B12. No animal manufactures B12 in its body, unless you count microorganisms. Neither do plants. Only microrganisms make B12. They are the only primary source. You can get it from eating animal-based foods, because B12 is used by and removed from the body very slowly, and builds up in it.

Lots of vegans go for decades on their vegan diets without worrying about B12 and are fine. The explaination for this is that B12 is available in nutritional yeast and in miso and other fermented vegetable foods. Some nutitionists have said that B12 persists so long and is used so slowly that you might get enough from eating a hard-boiled egg five years ago, given that you don't smoke (it destroys B12) and have enough folic acid and do not have a problem absorbing B12. As I understand it, it is almost never vegans who get the anemia associated with B12 deficiency, it's people who can't absorb B12 well. Some nutritionists also say that vegans who suffer B12 deficiency while eating the same diets as those who do not suffer the deficiency have the problem because they wash their food better, and that it is possible to get enough B12 by licking your microorganism-laden fingertips while reading a book. Depending on how grotty your fingertips are. This is why B12 deficiency never occurs in vegan communities in developing countries.

[Laurence17]

The Oxford Cenre for Animal Ethics has been launched by The Reverend
Professor Andrew Linzy, in Britain.

Professor Linzey : “We must strive to ensure animal issues are highlighted and rationally discussed throughout society - we cannot change the world for animals without changing our ideas about them. The Centre will promote ethical attitudes and contribute to informed public debate.”

Professor Priscilla Cohn, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy at Penn State University, who is the Associate Director of the Centre, added: “It seems to us that academics should take the lead in helping to foster a new kind of debate about animals ­ one that goes beyond slogans and stereotypes.”

The Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics is named after the distinguished philosopher, Jose Ferrater Mora, who spoke out vigorously against bull-fighting in Spain.
_________________
Abwoon : divine progenitor, breathing mindfulness through poor in spirit and the resonating realm of ruach

[Anthony]

[Anthony]

Christmas is almost here when millions of turkeys will be slaughtered, having been cruely reared in the sheds of the intensive farming industry, in celebration of the birth of Jesus.

I hope that I will be excused for posting this extract from an investigative report by PETA (it's obvious that that those employed in this industry have become desensitised and brutalised by the work they do on a daily basis (now, where have I come across that before?) :-

'From April to July of this year, PETA undercover investigators in the US worked in a turkey abattoir where some 50.000 birds are killed every day. The investigators witnessed despicable acts of cruelty that would horrify any kind person.

For example, live birds were slammed against transport lorries and walls, kicked, hung by broken legs and used as punch bags - sometimes for "fun", and sometimes out of frustration. One employee stamped on a birds head until her skull exploded, another swung a turkey against a metal handrail so hard that her spine popped out and another worker sexually molested a turkey.

Because electrical stunning (which is commonly used to kill chickens and turkeys) gives workers access to live birds, animals often suffer when workers become frustrated - as was the case at this abattoir, and as in countless other poultry killing facilities world-wide.

Birds such as chickens and turkeys are amongst the most abused creatures marked for the table. Many people are totally unaware of exactly what goes on in today's factory farms, and for this reason, PETA and our world-wide affiliates work hard to shine a spotlight on the worst abuses.'

[acfriend]

Meat as in beef lamb and goat use land that is not suitable for cultivation. Since people need to eat it is best that this land is used for herding instead of farming. I studied rangemanagment, crop and soil sciences. it is better for the enviroment to eat some meat because it utilizes the land God gifted us with in a greater way.

Also Cultivation loosens the soil giving the opertunity of erosion. this caries away good soil. I grew up in western KS and contray to popular belief it is not flat. We have many hills and we have to build terrices to keep the soil from being carried off the hills. these are VERY expensive. We also have to build waterways to help prevent massive erosion where the terrices empty. And just think if everyone was a vegitarian all this land would have to be used not for range but every bit of un urbanized ground in the USA would have to be used for crop production. this would be very bad for our enviroment.

[Anthony]

acfriend, Hi

[acfriend]

Anthony I'm sorry but I can't agree with you on this issue. I'm glad that you have the freedom to be vegitarian and that we live in a country where we can eat what we want. I'm not for the killing of animals for pleasure, or the brutality of animals. But Scripture does not support your theories. I eat a predominantly cereal grain , but I also eat meat. I'm sorry I offend you.

Your stances offend me to a degree. not so much your diet but your agresiveness against your oponent. I don't judge you for your stance in fact i think it is great that you stand firm. Yet you judge those of us that don't agree with you. I studied soils and rangeland and crops and animal sciences. I know what I have said is true. Maybe in the future we can all live in a vegitarian state, but I see this as highly unlikely because too many people want to limit the potentials in crop production (through the regulations of seed production and chemical usages, both of which is necissary to a degree yet some is unfounded)

I am for the ethical treatment of animals but my view of what that ethical treatment is differs from yours. For example, here in kansas we have extremly high populations of deer. To regulate the populations they issue liscences to hunt. THey deturmine the amount of liscencesby the number of roadway accidents involving deer. Which is more ethical, deer dying by being hit by a car, or deer being used to feed a family (much of the deer meat is donated to social service organizations like the Salvation Army, last year our local SA distributed over 300 pounds of Deer meet) I think it is more ethical to hunt the animal and use it to feed others than to let it rot on the road after a colision. But I do not support Hunting for the sport. I believe that is un ethical, you should only take the animals life to feed someone.

Ethics change with the culture and with the times. Today vegitarianism is an ethical debate, in a few years it probably won't matter. Today organic and hormone free foods are an ethical debate, yet in the future they won't be an issue. The biggest issue is feeding our population, which is large how can we best do so? to be totally vegitarinan Enviromentalist will have to back off some of their regulations. To be Omnivores we might be better able to suport growing populations. (because those that can afford to eat meat which will always cost more will eat it and the surplus grains can be distributed)

by the way why did you misinterperate my quote I never said that people NEED to eat animal flesh, I just said people need to eat. And if the land that I"m spoke about was used for agriculture there would be an enviromental disaster. In the 30's there was "dust" storms, why because farm land was being cultivated that was not suitable for Cultivations so the wind took the soil layers away (much of this land is now converted back to native grasses or extensive land modifications have been made to prevent erosion) Other land which have great slopes being put into production would erode from water run off (and everyone hates farmers for allowing soil runoff to go into the water supplies with the potential of chemical pollutants and excessive fertilizer in water kills fish which would be bad for animals too) Agriculture both on the animal production side of things and the Cultivation side is a very deep and intense science. Farmers do not just do what they want because they make their living off of the land, they must take care of it so they can keep their jobs, and pass the land on to the future generations. So if you want to stop all animal consumption then you might have to make some other concessions, allow further genetic modifications in crops to provide potentially greater crops, or possibly going more lax on enviromental controls (which I wouldn't like) But for the good of "human Animals" we should allow choice and the freedom there of.

[Anthony]

Dear Friend,

I have re-read my post for signs of aggression as I’m not quite sure exactly why you have accused me of this. Is it because I have said several times that your basic premise is flawed? Perhaps it’s because I introduced the last paragraph with the statement: …’before it may be mentioned as another excuse…’ This was not directed at you specifically, but it has been said before, therefore, I was being premptive in case it was repeated – perhaps this wasn’t a good idea.

However, I apologise if I have sounded in any way aggressive. Yet, you are able to object about it, something that the millions of innocent, defenceless and tortured creatures cannot do. I only hope that our sensitivities extend to their plight; will the animal kingdom ever receive an apology for the way we use and abuse them?

The main issue in this debate, on this message board, is about spiritual and not necessarily secular and materialistic values. You have praised what you understand to be an important value in that we have the freedom to eat animals. Is this relevant? Is the real value of our freedom the mandate to deprive, abuse, exploit and slaughter other creatures? This will is not be the experience of the victims of intensive farming, slaughterhouses and laboratories - but their feelings and experiences about this 'freedom' are not taken into account - that is the issue.

You say that scripture does not support my ‘theories'. I’m sure you don’t mean, by default, that scripture supports the unnecessary deprivation, usage, torture and slaughter of animals. If you wish, I would be more than happy to discuss scripture, and the inherent worth of animals, in detail, but for now I’ll try and keep it as brief as possible.

In the Bible there is recognition of animals as having inherent worth both before the Fall and in the vision of the Kingdom. Regardless of their plight after the Fall (human and nonhuman animals) they were initially created as companions for Adam in his aloneness. (Genesis 5:18.). They were not created for eating, or to be abused and exploited in any way: ‘I give you all plants that bear seed everywhere on earth, and every tree bearing fruit which yields seed: they shall be yours for food. All green plants I give to the wild animals, to all the birds of heaven, and to all the reptiles on earth, every living creature.’ So it was and God saw that all he had made, and it was very good.’ (Genesis 4: 29-31)

Please note that it was ‘very good.’ Quakers believe that the Kingdom of God may be experienced now. Isaiah had a vision of the Kingdom, in which: ‘They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for as the waters fill the sea, so shall the land be filled with the knowledge of the Lord (Isaiah 11:9). This is the Quaker hope and expectation, that God’s Kingdom may be experienced now, not necessarily in the future. What is this hope? We are told that the ‘land shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord.’ This surly means that man shall be full of the understanding and knowledge of God’s laws. What is this understanding and knowledge? A re-reading of Isaiah 11:6-9 will remind us that it is about love, gentleness and kindness between and toward all creatures. It is the knowledge of Peace and Love.

Please take particular note: animals are not left out of these narratives. Even Revelation informs us that animals will be in attendance in heaven, in the presence of the throne of God: ‘In the centre, round the throne itself, were four living creatures, covered with eyes, in from and behind. The first creature was like a lion, the second like an ox, the third had a human face, the fourth was like and Eagle in flight’ (Rev.4:6-7). We are informed that these may be understood as ‘the heads of animate creation; the lion of wild beasts, the ox of tame beasts, the eagle of birds; the man of all (mankind). (E.W.Bullinger, A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), p.147)

Is it unreasonable to expect or hope for the knowledge of the Kingdom of God to be a present reality, now, and that we should be living in this knowledge? Jesus prayed “Thy Kingdom come, on earth as it is in heaven” Is it not a logical conclusion that the way we abuse and cruelly exploit other cognitive creatures is that we are acting outside of the ‘knowledge of the lord’ - not in the heaven on earth that Jesus prayed to know?

This is a spiritually moral issue, and not a secular rationalisation based upon the value of land and agriculture. If this is an issue for man it shouldn’t be solved at the expense of animal exploitation. If the ecosystem is at risk in any way, it is because of the mismanagement and greed of man; animals should not pay for our violation of the planet.

Now, for the deer! This is a favourite rationalisation guise for defending hunting. I acknowledge that you are against hunting for pleasure. The basic premise is that our ideal should be a recognition of the inherent worth and value of all cognitive creatures, and that their worth should not be considered a commodity, either directly or indirectly, for the perceived needs of man. Their value should not be estimated in terms of commerce or satisfying man's palate.

Incidentally, you ask why I “…misinterpreted [your] quote I never said that people NEED to eat animal flesh, I just said people need to eat.” Well, what you said was in relation to a discussion that included vegetarianism, and if you did not intend to imply what I inferred, then I’m sorry. You wrote: “Since people need to eat it is best that this land is used for herding instead of farming.”

I am pleased that you don’t approve of hunting for pleasure, but those who do are clever and well organized; they are able to present a very good argument why hunting is not only acceptable but necessary. They are a powerful, well organised, wealthy and well funded lobby. May I refer you to the following website on deer hunting: http://www.animalfrontline.nl/jagen/myths-eng.php


Furthermore; the world’s population would actually be better fed without the intensive breeding of animals for consumption. I refer you to following website for further information: http://www.compassionatespirit.com/world-hunger.htm

You have accused me of being judgemental, when you say: “yet you judge those of us that don’t agree with you.’ I don’t judge any individual; I may challenge the collective psyche on this issue, but I don’t think I’ve criticised anyone individually for following his/her own conscience. If I have, then I am in the wrong and apologise.

Friend, it seems that you have actually reached quite a high level of animal welfare consciousness (not animal rights). I commend you for this and ask only that you consider the rights of animals to be allowed to live their full life span in their natural habitat, without harassment, or an early death so that man can steal their bodies. Should they appear to need the help of man, then this will usually be because man has stolen, reduced or poisoned their habitat. As a result of this, if culling is absolutely necessary – and the argument will be that it is, the use of corpses for food and clothing should be banned (oh dear, what a waste of good flesh). However, the means don’t justify the ends, particularly when the end could have been avoided. This is the moral issue!

As previously mentioned, hunting is big business; its propaganda is excellent, no doubt well funded by the gun and meat industry, besides its enthusiasts. I expect the licenses for shooting deer will be much sought after, what’s the point of having a big gun if one can’t shoot something with it, other than tin cans and clay pigeons. Let get real – animals were intended to be our friends and companions and not our victims, and no amount of rationalisation will change that, but man’s predatory actions will.

I hope we don’t differ too much. If you wish to carry on this debate, may I request that we deal with one aspect at a time.

I have just received a Christmas card with the following quote: “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Albert Einstein, Nobel Prize Winner.

[acfriend]

Anthony, I'm was not meaning that you judge me personally. (well not totally I was pretty put off by your misinterpition of very clear english) But besides that I was upset by the quote from PETA. How often do you believe Men sexually molest Turkeys? I know what goes on, on the kill floors of packing houses across the country. and no it is not pretty in fact it is emotionally retching. many people that work on the floor have to have conseling after a month of working. I am also offended that you would ally yourself with a militant group such as peta, I have found their forms of protest very distastful. Just as bad as the abotion protestors that shove fetiuses in the faces of women and girls that have found themselves in a troubling situation. As a quaker I will not protest in that way. there are better ways. Just as there would be better ways to promote a diet and lifestyle not involving the death of animals. That would be Education and promotion. and Scripture does show it in the book of Daniel, (just one case).

I have probably stereotyped you because you mentioned peta, but Just as I would stereotype someone with an NRA sticker on their window. I may have prejudged. But from my experience the most radical groups for the enviroment and animal rights have been very wrong, and un ethical in their presentation of Data. I love our enviroment I wish to take care of it but there must be a well studied plan and alturnitives for people to go to before change can take place. We can't force change without winning the minds of people. Peta and organizations like theirs turn people off, they stop listening and eventually all the work that peta has done will be unnoticed because they went for the shock factor instead of winning the minds of the people.

[Anthony]

Dear Friend,

[BillSamuel]

[Anthony]

Thank you Bill (and acfriend) I have read this before but had completely forgotten about it.