QuakerInfo.com Forum

[Anthony]

Friends/friends,

The British 'Quaker Concern for Animals' (QCA) is one of the oldest established faith-based animal protection groups, its origins beginning in 1891 as the Friends’ Anti-Vivisection Association, later to become the Animal Welfare and Anti-Vivisection Society. I am pleased to say that it has now introduced its own web page that offers interesting links and helpful support for Quakers who wish to address this issue with a proactive concern.

It is a pleasure to be able to share such exemplary efforts and it would be very interesting to hear about similar animal welfare and interest groups amongst our American Friends/friends - sharing is learning.

http://www.waddys.net/quaker2/

[Pulpculture]

Adding to that there is the Vegetarian Friends webpage here
_________________
http://www.dontforgetburma.org/

[wsamuel]

The Vegetarian Friends page is by American Quakers. It is an attempt to continue the work of the Friends Vegetarian Society of North America, which was laid down several years ago.

While there is definitely interest, I am not aware of any actively organized group among American Friends now.
_________________
Bill Samuel, Webservant, QuakerInfo.com

[Anthony]

The following article was published in the Friend Quaker magazine London 17th June 2005


A tenderness towards all creatures

Quakerism has grown from the Christian tradition and, as an advocate of nonviolence, it is rightly proud of its pacifist principles. The renowned Quaker Peace Testimony, based on the principle of nonviolence, is, primarily considered a testimony against militarism and the conflict and aggression of war. It is not inclusive of the violence and deprivation inflicted upon animals.

Within Quakerism, there has always been recognition of the need to respect animals as sentient creatures. George Fox, catching an ostler stealing his horse's oats, wrote in his journal, 'A wicked thieving people to rob a poor dumb creature of his food, which I had rather they had robbed me.' He also condemned hunting and hawking.

John Woolman, an 18th century Quaker, said, 'To say that we love God… and at the same time exercise cruelty toward the least creature… is a contradiction in itself.' Noting the oppression of oxen and horses and the use of the whip, he lamented that 'the creation of this day doth loudly groan.' He refused to use the English stage-coach because the horses were brutalised by strenuous journeys, often resulting in exhaustion, blindness and death.

In many Christian countries, millions of animals are killed annually in slaughter houses, experimented on in laboratories and hunted as sport. Ironically, to celebrate the birth of the founder of Christianity, millions of turkeys are bred each year for Christmas consumption – mostly in horrible, dark and cramped conditions.

Christianity continues to base its rationalisation for such action on the authority of the Bible; Quakers tend to be less inclined to seek the authority of scripture, preferring instead to recognise that, although there is a credible concern, there are more important issues in their list of Quaker priorities.

Regardless of the conflicting theological views on whether or not the Bible sanctions cruelty towards animals, there is one fact that is irrefutable: the intentional and avoidable acts of violence inflicted upon other creatures, resulting in deprivation and death, for whatever reason, are wrong.

If the principle of nonviolence is absolute, it must be non-selective; a failure to recognise animals as sentient creatures, and to extend our compassionate protection towards them, is surely contrary to the professed ethics of a religion of love. The Bible informs us that 'God is Love' and those who do not love do not know God. Yet, it would seem that the recipients of this love do not include the whole of creation.

Historically, there have been many followers of Jesus who have advocated vegetarianism, including certain of his apostles, the most notable being James. Hegesippus, second century saint and Christian historian, wrote in The Church History of Eusebius: 'James, the brother of the Lord...did not drink neither wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.'

Violence and cruelty towards animals is inextricably linked in the psyche of universal violence. Dr. Albert Schweitzer, renowned Christian theologian and missionary said in his Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech: 'The compassion in which all ethics must take root can only attain its full breadth and depth if it embraces all living creatures and does not limit itself to mankind.'

Quakers have been formally active on behalf of animals: in 1978 the Quaker Concern for Animals was established as an informal listed group within Britain Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. It is one of the oldest established faith-based animal protection groups. In 1891 the Friends' Anti-Vivisection Association began, later becoming the Animal Welfare and Anti-Vivisection Society.

In consideration of the advice of John Woolman that we be mindful of 'a tenderness toward all creatures, that we do not lessen that sweetness of life in the animal creation,' might it not be time now for us to consider testing this concern?

[John]

I have no wish to inflict cruelty on any animal. Even a dead horse should not be beaten, and so I intend to avoid becoming mired in this topic once again. However, I must comment that turkeys are mostly raised in large, sunny, fenced fields where they receive ample food and water. In general, farmers try to take good care of their animals rather than abuse them.

As for cruelty, one person's definition of cruelty might be limited to the infliction of pain and suffering, while another's is anything short of the same treatment we would give a human child. I would submit that we should perhaps live within our own leadings as to what constitutes cruelty, and not try to impose those leadings on each other.

Farm animals would shortly be extinct if there were no economic reason to breed them. As for "game" animals, few ever die of old age. Almost all of them succumb to a natural, and painful or violent end through predation or disease. Is this cruelty? If so then why would a loving God design it in such a way?

I can agree that no one should intentionally and unnecessarily inflict pain and suffering on animals. But to me, there is a difference between stewardship and cruelty. That's my leading. Yours may differ.
_________________
John Price

[Pulpculture]

[George]

A good source of information about the conditions of turkeys and chickens in the U.S. is www.poultry.org. The conditions for them here appear to be no better than in the U.K.

[sorianofan]

here's my $0.02

The teeth in our mouth indicate that we are indeed omnivores, in our very design, were supposed to eat flesh. Personally, I avoid eating non-organic meet. That way, an animal at least lived a semi-dignified life, as much as an animal can.

[Doc Bottom]

'Factory farm' practices are indeed prevailant and very cruel. Creatures raised in battery pens or feedlots suffer enormously.

However, it is perfectly possible and not even all that difficult to get meat, cheese, and eggs from animals that lead happy fulfilling lives. The range-fed cattle on this place seem to enjoy their season very much.

I don't think vegetarianism is such a great idea, and I fear the animal-rights agenda, which seems to be determined to separate human beings from animals and destroy our close relationships with them, rather than really improve our relationships with them.

Choosing humanely produced meats encourages reform in farming practices, so more animals are raised under good conditions. Free-range chicken and grass-fed beef and lamb also taste a heck of a lot better. It's very easy to get people to make this change, while talking somebody into giving up meat entirely is a rough go.

If you can't find locally produced range-fed meats, folks in the states can order from U.S. Wellness Meats http://www.grasslandbeef.com/index.html No feedlots for cattle or sheep, they raise these animals entirely on grass. The chicken is 'pasture raised' -- that'd be a step above 'free range' as pasture means that the outdoor pen is so large that it continues to grow grass even with the chickens scratching in the dirt and eating the grass. Pigs have constant access to outdoor pens, with real dirt that they can really root around in.

I'd rather lead a short life under good conditions and then die than never be born.

Also, raising livestock on pasture and rangeland is good for wildlife. If you eat a pound of grass-fed beef, you can honestly tell yourself that your money has protected several acres of land that is used by foxes, rabbits, deer, songbirds and countless other creatures that cannot live in soybean fields.

[John]

I must agree with Kale. All of our beef comes from grass fed cattle from the family farming operation (predominantly dry wheat farming in eastern Oregon).

Perhaps it is doubly important that we follow our own leadings, since circumstances seem so different in the US versus the UK. Poultry.org notwithstanding, family farmers in the US generally treat their animals and land well.

A friend of mine grew up on a California cattle ranch of 10,000 acres. I have been a frequent visitor to the ranch. Roughly 100 acres are devoted to the production of turkeys on this ranch these days. The birds are kept in large fenced fields, with shelter from the sun and weather provided by large, low sheds where they can also obtain water and feed. The climate there ranges from 25 degrees F in the most extreme winter conditions to 110 degrees F during the hottest summer days. These are vast rolling hills covered with grass and scrub oak. It is excellent habitat for the wild turkeys that live in the area as well. Hereford cattle can be seen eating and lounging in the tall grass near the many ponds and streams that exist on this 10,000 acres.

My own family raises Angus cattle in eastern Oregon on similar land. One relative keeps 12 to 15 cattle on a 90 acre parcel he owns. He supplements their natural feed with Timothy hay that he grows on another section of land he owns. These cattle also seem to lead a not unpleasant life, snoozing under the trees in the hot afternoon and ambling over to the corrals at feeding time so as not to miss a treat. They will, for the most part become food for humans at some point, but all living things die one way or another. Is a quick and humane death at human hands to be eschewed in favor of being eaten alive by predators (try viewing a video of wolves at work in Yellowstone Park), or dying of starvation or untreated disease, as is the case with most wild animals?

Perhaps in the UK, where land is at a relative premium poor conditions are more prevalent. But the conditions I've described are more the rule than the exception here. I suppose being more distant from the process breeds more suspicion and allows people to be swayed more easily by emotional appeals from interest groups like Farm Refuge. I can't do nything about that. But being close to the process myself, I see the reality and recognize the inaccurate and emotional generalizations broadcast by some people. I too abhor factory farming and its inherent abuses in pursuit of maximized profits. Family farmers love their land and its inhabitants, and generally do their best to utilize sustainable and humane practices. To do otherwise would be to forfeit the heritage they expect to pass on to their descendants, and to shirk their responsibility to God.
_________________
John Price

[John]

[Doc Bottom]

Hi, John.

Alas, the rule is that generally the meat Americans buy in the grocery stores came from an animal that lived in a cage or a tiny stall or a crowded dirtlot all its life, and ate grain that a machine served up for it, and never tasted real grass or grasshoppers.

I'm convinced that the best way to stop this is not to stop eating meat, but to support the family farms that /should/ be the rule and to stop eating the factory meat. And the factory vegetables, what with the chemical fertilizer abuse and erosion and pesticide abuse and poisonings and human worker abuse and poverty. There's something pretty sad about my vegan friends who look at my carnivorous habits in horror while munching on bannanas from the murderous United Fruit Company (Chiquita).

Heh, drifting off topic, but today I read that there's some group busily growing animal muscle tissue in dishes with the intent of making a meat factory that never actually has a whole animal in it. I'm horrified.

[John]

Kale,

We get a quarter or a half beef from our relatives a couple times a year. We know where it came from, how the animal was treated, and what it was fed. We know what fertilizers and pesticides were used in the area, and we know that we don't support the abuse that takes place on factory farms and in multi-national agribusiness operations.

I understand the irony of someone eating tofu while criticizing someone else's "barbaric" diet. As I've mentioned here before, the increased demand in the last 10 years for soy production has led to the clearing of 100 square miles per year of Amazon rain forest and savannah in South America. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess.

It's kind of like electric cars that "don't pollute the air". The lead-acid batteries need to be replaced annually, and the power plants that supply the electricity to recharge them are about 30% efficient on a BTU-out/BTU-in basis, all the while sending tons of combustion by-products into the air daily.

The truth is that all of us load the earth in some way. Some ways are simply less visible and obvious than others. I'm comfortable with people following their own consciences. They don't have to agree with me or act like I do. I wish more of them felt the same way about my leadings in these matters.
_________________
John Price

[Anthony]

[Pulpculture]

I have a 2 year old girl and she will have the choice as to whether she eats meat or not now and throughout her life. That said I do worry about the unseen part of farming. Many animal feeds contain antibiotics as standard in them and we (humans / animals) are slowly getting over exposed to them. Many animals have growth hormones in their feed as standard as well and this can't be good for humans either.

If you want an example of mass production go and buy a new piece of pine and compare it to an old piece in your attic. The two don't even resemble one another. One is mass produced with growth promoters and the other had an ambling growth a century ago.
_________________
http://www.dontforgetburma.org/