Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment
O.pearl
Dr. Steve Best
Five million years ago, our ancestors branched off from ancient apes;
within the next two million years, hominid lines of evolution underwent
tremendous changes in the transition to evolve into a species that was
not only bipedal, but also big-brained and in command of language
and technology.
In the last hundred thousand years, human beings changed very little in
their biology, but they evolved rapidly in their social and technological
capacities. Unfortunately, our technological evolution has greatly
outdistanced our moral evolution. In the words of Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr., "We live in a world where misguided men use guided missiles."
Human beings have made moral progress, but slowly. In Western culture,
it took over two thousand years to dismantle the ignorance, prejudice,
and biases informing the myths that legitimated inequality, hierarchy, and
inferiority as rooted somehow in human nature or the natural scheme of
things.
Western society has made rapid moral progress since the 1960s.
The student, black, brown, feminist, and gay and lesbian movements
advanced the universalization of rights process, overcame major barriers
of prejudice, and deepened human freedom.
During this turbulent period of social strife, riots, mass demonstrations
against the U.S. war in Vietnam, and worsening problems with poverty,
homelessness, and class inequality, Martin Luther King formulated a
vision of a "world house." In this cosmopolitan utopia, all peoples around
the globe would live in peace and harmony, with both their spiritual and
material needs met by the fecundity of the modern world.
But to whatever degree this dream might be realized, King's world house
is still a damn slaughterhouse, because humanism doesn't challenge the
needless confinement, torture, and killing of billions of animals. The
humanist non-violent utopia will always remain a hypocritical lie until so-
called "enlightened" and "progressive" human beings extend nonviolence,
equality, and rights to the animals with whom we share this planet.
The next logical step in human moral evolution is to embrace animal rights
and accept its profound implications. Animal rights builds on the most
progressive ethical and political advances human beings have made in the
last two hundred years. Simply put, the argument for animal rights states
that if humans have rights, animals have rights for the same reasons.
Moral significance lies not in our differences as species but rather our
commonalities as subjects of a life.
This is the challenge of animal rights: can human beings become truly
enlightened and overcome one of the last remaining prejudices enshrined
in democratic legal systems? Can they reorganize their economic systems,
retool their technologies, and transform their cultural traditions? Above
all, can they construct new sensibilities, values, worldviews, and identities?
The animal rights movement poses a fundamental evolutionary challenge
to human beings in the midst of severe crises in the social and natural
worlds. Can we recognize that the animal question is central to the
human question? Can we grasp how the exploitation of animals is
implicated in every aspect of the crisis in our relation to one another and
the natural world?
Animal rights is an assault on human species identity. It smashes the
compass of speciesism and calls into question the cosmological maps
whereby humans define their place in the world. Animal rights demands
that human beings give up their sense of superiority over other animals.
It challenges people to realize that power demands responsibility, that
might is not right, and that an enlarged neocortex is no excuse to rape
and plunder the natural world.
These profound changes in worldview demand revolutionizing one's daily
life and recognizing just how personal the political is. I teach many radical
philosophies, but only animal rights has the power to upset and transform
daily rituals and social relations. "Radical" philosophies such as anarchism
or Marxism uncritically reproduce speciesism. After the Marxist seminar,
students can talk at the dinner table about revolution while dining on the
bodies of murdered farmed animals. After the animal rights seminar, they
often find themselves staring at their plates, questioning their most basic
behaviors, and feeling alienated from their carping friends and family.
The message rings true and stirs the soul.
Let's be clear: we are fighting for a revolution, not for reforms, for the
end of slavery, not for humane slavemasters. Animal rights advances the
most radical idea to ever land on human ears: animals are not food,
clothing, resources, or objects of entertainment.
Our goal is nothing less than to change entrenched attitudes, sedimented
practices, and powerful institutions that profit from animal exploitation.
Indeed, the state has demonized us as "eco-terrorists" and is criminalizing
our fight for what is right.
Our task is especially difficult because we must transcend the comfortable
boundaries of humanism and urge a qualitative leap in moral consideration.
We are insisting that people not only change their views of one another
within the species they share, but rather realize that species boundaries are
as arbitrary as those of race and sex. Our task is to provoke humanity to
move the moral bar from reason and language to sentience and subjectivity.
We must not only educate, we must become a social movement. The
challenge of animal rights also is our challenge, for animal rights must not
only be an idea but a social movement for the liberation of the world's
most oppressed beings, both in terms of numbers and in the severity of
their pain. As with all revolutions, animals will not gain rights because
oppressors suddenly see the light, but rather because enough people
become enlightened and learn how to rock the structures of power, to
shake them until new social arrangements emerge.
Are we asking for too much? Justice requires only what is right, and is
never excessive. Is the revolution remotely possible? In a thousand ways,
the revolution is gaining ground. From the near nation-wide ban on
cockfighting to making animal abuse a felony crime in 37 states, from
eliminating the use of animals to train doctors in two thirds of U.S. medical
schools to teaching animal rights and the law seminars at over two dozen
universities, from increasing media coverage of animal welfare/rights issues
to a 2003 Gallup Poll finding that 96% of Americans say that animals
deserve some protection from abuse and 25% say that animals deserve
"the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation" it
is clear that human beings are beginning to change their views about other
species.
Human beings simply will have to reinvent their identities and find ways to
define humanity and culture apart from cruelty. Whether people realize it
or not, this is not a burden but a liberation. One no longer has to live the
lie of separation and the opening of the heart can bring a profound healing.
Animal rights is the next stage in the development of the highest values
modern humanity has devised - those of equality, democracy, and rights.
Our distorted conceptions of ourselves as demigods who command the
planet must be replaced with the far more humble and holistic notion that
we belong to and are dependent upon vast networks of living relationships.
Dominionist and speciesist identities are steering us down the path of
disaster. If humanity and the living world as a whole is to have a future,
human beings must embrace a universal ethics that respects all life.
Growth is difficult and painful, and the human species is morally immature
and psychologically crippled. Human beings need to learn that they are
citizens in the biocommunity, and not conquerors; as citizens, they have
distinct responsibilities to the entire biocommunity.
The meaning of Enlightenment is changing. In the eighteenth century it
meant overcoming religious dogma and tyranny; in the late twentieth
century, it demanded overcoming racism, sexism, homophobia, and
other prejudices; now, in the twenty-first century, it requires overcoming
speciesism and embracing a universal ethics that honors all life.
We can change; we must. The message of nature is evolve or die.
http://www.drstevebest.org/Essays/AnimalRightsandtheNewEnlightenment.htm
Giga
"O.pearl" <pri...@iol.ie> wrote in message
news:twQjm.29797$j7.4...@news.indigo.ie...
Their would a whole lot less of these animals you say you care about if
people could no longer make a living breeding, looking after them and
slaughtering them for food. What you advocate would decimate the animal
population of this world.
>
> The next logical step in human moral evolution
Logic and moral have nothing much to do with each other.
is to embrace animal rights
> and accept its profound implications. Animal rights builds on the most
> progressive ethical and political advances human beings have made in the
> last two hundred years. Simply put, the argument for animal rights states
> that if humans have rights, animals have rights for the same reasons.
Of course they have rights, to not suffer needlessly etc.
> Moral significance lies not in our differences as species but rather our
> commonalities as subjects of a life.
What about plants then, or bacteria (throw away those anti-biotics).
>
> This is the challenge of animal rights: can human beings become truly
> enlightened and overcome one of the last remaining prejudices enshrined in
> democratic legal systems? Can they reorganize their economic systems,
> retool their technologies, and transform their cultural traditions? Above
> all, can they construct new sensibilities, values, worldviews, and
> identities?
Probably artificial meat and fish is not too far away. It'll probably be
cheaper and guilt free for you so enjoy (though I'm sure there will be some
nuts who find a reason against even that).
Ed
For some reason those who advocate “animal rights” speak almost
exclusively of the rights of quite large animals. This is odd because
large animals like whales, polar bears and chickens are numerically a
very small part of the animal kingdom. It is the small (relative to
human beings) animals who represent the majority of animal life on
earth. Insects, bacteria and protozoa represent far and away the
largest mass of animal life.
Animal rights advocates often are most interested in the right to life
and to a lesser degree the right not to be enslaved. Humans kill
small creatures in far, far greater numbers than the larger animals
often cited as examples. We enslave bacteria and protozoa to live in
our gut and digest our food for us. Yeasts are forced to produce our
alcohol. If there is any area where there is need to address the
moral issue of humans versus animals it is here, with the small
animals where the slaughter is so much bigger.
If I’m wrong and size is part of the moral issue, then we need to
carefully consider the moral relationship between humans and animals
that are even larger than we are, like whales, squid, alligators and
monitors.
Ed
George Orwell
what hope have animals got?
John Stafford
George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> In a country where it's legal for the state to kill (execute) humans,
> what hope have animals got?
And if eating animals is so bad, then why are they made out of meat?
gordo
wrote:
Why are you made of meat?They do not execute humans in the civilized
world.
Dave U. Random
wrote:
>In article <e7a18f588382dac6...@mixmaster.it>,
So are humans. Should we eat them too?
.
John Stafford
Why not? If they are dead. But I rarely eat meat. Only when my main dog
dies, then we eat him. It's part of the tribal way.
George Orwell
wrote:
>In article <74480b5b130b74e4...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net>,
> Dave U. Random <anon...@anonymitaet-im-inter.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 20:11:16 -0500, John Stafford <no...@nowhere.moc>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <e7a18f588382dac6...@mixmaster.it>,
>> > George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In a country where it's legal for the state to kill (execute) humans,
>> >> what hope have animals got?
>> >
>> >
>> >And if eating animals is so bad, then why are they made out of meat?
>>
>> So are humans. Should we eat them too?
>
>Why not? If they are dead. But I rarely eat meat. Only when my main dog
>dies, then we eat him. It's part of the tribal way.
Like em tough hey?
Michael Gordge
> 'Animal Rights and the New Enlightenment
Death to the cats that kill rats, yeah rats have rights, ewe wanker.
MG
ZerkonXXXX
> Human beings have made moral progress, but slowly. In Western culture,
> it took over two thousand years to dismantle the ignorance, prejudice,
> and biases informing the myths that legitimated inequality, hierarchy,
> and inferiority as rooted somehow in human nature or the natural scheme
> of things.
First and foremost. Today's (human) Children's Welfare services are
modeled on a pre-exiting Animal Welfare System. Animal Welfare
Institutions came before Institutions for Child Welfare.
Secondly, Morality is not a sequential construct. This article is way too
blithe in dismissing the horror of the perpetual nearly culturally
embedded 'military action'. Now so accepted that ongoing War is being
presented as a necessity to a ongoing Peace. "War is Peace" of Orwell's
fiction has entered the realpolitik of this very day.
Lastly, obviously this article does not apply to people who live
(willingly or not) with cats. It is unfathomable to even image what
'rights' these animals do not already have to the point of questioning
who is given what to whom? The most delusional people are those who,
quite pathetically, think themselves as being cat 'owners'.
John Stafford
ZerkonXXXX <Z...@erkonx.net> wrote:
> Lastly, obviously this article does not apply to people who live
> (willingly or not) with cats. It is unfathomable to even image what
> 'rights' these animals do not already have to the point of questioning
> who is given what to whom? The most delusional people are those who,
> quite pathetically, think themselves as being cat 'owners'.
I wonder what the ratio is for those who own cats AND homes and those
who own cats and do NOT own homes. :) (Folks, this goes back to
ZerkonXXX's earlier posts regarding the double-think of home ownership.)
I live in a small Midwest, rural city. This year we have had two
convictions of citizens shooting cats with bow-and-arrow within the city
limits, and articles regarding the harvesting of feral cats in the
countryside. See, if you shoot a loose cat in the city, it is cruelty to
an animal, but outside city limits it is just taking care of natural
space. Thank Borg for the coyote that they take most feral cats, and in
turn there is an open season on coyote. Yumm! Cat-fed coyote!
dh
wrote:
>In article <e7a18f588382dac6...@mixmaster.it>,
� Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. �
dh
That's what they want. "animal rights" is a gross misnomer in
regards to domestic animals. They dishonestly use the term to obtain
more contributions, so they'll get money from people who are actually
in favor of decent animal welfare and mistakenly contribute to
eliminationist organizations dishonestly misrepresenting themselves
with the misnomer. As you mentioned, the difference between the
misnomer and decent AW is: The animals.
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of
domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding...We
have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of
livestock produced through selective breeding."
(Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, former director of the Fund for Animals, Animal
People, May 1993)
[...]
Tom Regan, Animal Rights Author and Philosopher, North Carolina State
University
"It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands...but empty
cages."
(Regan, The Philosophy of Animal Rights, 1989)
http://www.agcouncil.com/leaders.htm
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
. . . Not only are the philosophies of animal rights and animal
welfare separated by irreconcilable differences, and not only are the
practical reforms grounded in animal welfare morally at odds with
those sanctioned by the philosophy of animal rights, but also the
enactment of animal welfare measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights.
. . . There are fundamental and profound differences between the
philosophy of animal welfare and that of animal rights.
. . . Many animal rights people who disavow the philosophy of animal
welfare believe they can consistently support reformist means to
abolition ends. This view is mistaken, we believe, for moral,
practical, and conceptual reasons.
. . . welfare reforms, by their very nature, can only serve to retard
the pace at which animal rights goals are achieved.
. . .
"A Movement's Means Create Its Ends"
By Tom Regan and Gary Francione
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
AVMA POLICY ON ANIMAL WELFARE AND ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animal welfare is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects
of animal well being, including proper housing, management, nutrition,
disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling,
and, when necessary, humane euthanasia.
Animal rights is a philosophical view and personal value characterized
by statements by various animal rights groups. Animal welfare and
animal rights are not synonymous terms. The AVMA wholeheartedly
endorses and adopts promotion of animal welfare as official policy;
however, the AVMA cannot endorse the philosophical views and personal
values of animal rights advocates when they are incompatible with the
responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship,
food, fiber, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and
animals.
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalwelfare.asp
���������������������������������������������������������
_________________________________________________________
[...]
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about
by human manipulation." -- Ingrid Newkirk, national director,
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us?
Toward a Nation of Animal Rights" (symposium), Harper's, August
1988, p. 50.
[...]
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete
jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains
by which we enslave it." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and
more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to
exist." --John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A
Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PeTA), 1982), p. 15.
[...]
"We are not especially 'interested in' animals. Neither of us had
ever been inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or horses in the way
that many people are. We didn't 'love' animals." --Peter Singer,
Animal Liberation: A New Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals, 2nd
ed. (New York Review of Books, 1990), Preface, p. ii.
"The theory of animal rights simply is not consistent with the
theory of animal welfare... Animal rights means dramatic social
changes for humans and non-humans alike; if our bourgeois values
prevent us from accepting those changes, then we have no right to
call ourselves advocates of animal rights." --Gary Francione,
The Animals' Voice, Vol. 4, No. 2 (undated), pp. 54-55.
[...]
http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/pets.txt
���������������������������������������������������������
dh
>For some reason those who advocate �animal rights� speak almost
>exclusively of the rights of quite large animals.
Which rights for which animals? I've asked them that many times
and they can never even attempt a respectable answer. Sometimes they
lie and say all rights for all animals or some such thing, but when
questioned about how to keep animals from dying in crop production or
construction projects etc they have no answer and the subject is
quickly changed or they just stop responding.
No rights for domestic animals of course, since there would be
none. Anyone in favor of decent AW certainly should be opposed to the
misnomer "animal rights", since the misnomer is a completely different
objective which would make decent AW impossible. Misnomer huggers like
to make that seem like a positive idea by saying it wouldn't make AW
impossible--which is a lie--but that it would make it "unnecessary".
>This is odd because
>large animals like whales, polar bears and chickens are numerically a
>very small part of the animal kingdom. It is the small (relative to
>human beings) animals who represent the majority of animal life on
>earth. Insects, bacteria and protozoa represent far and away the
>largest mass of animal life.
>
>Animal rights advocates often are most interested in the right to life
>and to a lesser degree the right not to be enslaved.
They are opposed to domestic animals. They feel that no life at
all is better than any life as a domestic animal, regardless of
conditions and quality of life. They feel it is better for animals not
to exist than it is to experience lives as domestic animals even when
those lives are of positive value. So they are very much NOT right to
life, and in fact are very much ANTI life.
>Humans kill
>small creatures in far, far greater numbers than the larger animals
>often cited as examples. We enslave bacteria and protozoa to live in
>our gut and digest our food for us. Yeasts are forced to produce our
>alcohol. If there is any area where there is need to address the
>moral issue of humans versus animals it is here, with the small
>animals where the slaughter is so much bigger.
For one thing we must kill them in order to exist. Just giving
rights to rodents would almost certainly destroy human civilization as
we know it probably within one human generation or less. Giving rights
to microorganisms would be even worse.
How much should we even feel guilt? How much can microbes feel?
Those in our gut like it there, and only exist because of the
relationship. But how about those we kill needlessly? When we turn on
the stove or oven, or light a match, candle, cigarette, fire, bbq
grill etc are we causing horrible suffering to millions of microbes?
Can they feel pain? Can they feel anything?
Dutch
> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters
No, it does not. Not "The meat industry" nor any man, nor any agent of man
has the power or ability to "provide life" to an animal. A gardener does not
"provide life" for the flowers in his garden, he places seeds in the ground,
seeds which already contain within themselves the DNA code for life. What
"The meat industry" does is in fact is house, feed, inseminate, and
slaughter animals. Only Nature herself, or God if you prefer, "provides
life". There is no implied debt of gratitude owed to man or fact to be
considered in this moral equation. The raising of livestock is perfectly
moral in its own right and this shabby sophism if anything only tarnishes
it.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:40:20 +0100, "Giga" <"Giga"
>>Their would a whole lot less of these animals you say you care about if
>>people could no longer make a living breeding, looking after them and
>>slaughtering them for food. What you advocate would decimate the animal
>>population of this world.
>
> That's what they want. "animal rights" is a gross misnomer in
> regards to domestic animals.
No, it is not. "Animal rights" does not deny or imply the denial of any
right to any animal, domestic or wild.
Dutch
> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Ed <edg...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>For some reason those who advocate "animal rights" speak almost
>>exclusively of the rights of quite large animals.
>
> Which rights for which animals?
The question is absurd, the beginning of a transparent attempt at circular
logic which has no meaning.
Grumpy
Hash: SHA1
A Buddhist teacher I know comes from the highlands of Tibet where the
main occupation is breeding and tending yak. They feel sorry for the
lowland people who are farmers because the farmers kill countless
beings in the production and harvesting of crops, whereas the
highlanders only kill one animal a month for all their family needs.
There is a Tibetan monk living in India who has some worm/grub eating
the bones in his nose. He's been told it will eventually get into his
brain and kill him. He refuses to remove the grub because the act of
removal will kill it.
Unlike Christianity where 'Thou shalt not kill' has been interpreted
to mean killing humans, Buddhism teaches that killing any being is
wrong and brings negative karma.
~~~
This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
It implies no approval from the administrators of nym.mixmin.net.
Date: Mon Aug 24 01:24:43 2009 GMT
From: gru...@nym.mixmin.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkqR69sACgkQViYZwngkfDsd8gCeMnJn0iApyi+UjHBGK0SDDVqk
g9kAmwUPebHCrt1VM9EbCK7VjUPAP7v0
=RXni
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Shrikeback
Shrikeback
> Spay and castrate your pets.
Oh wait. My wife pointed out that many animal
rights activists are all in favor of involuntary spaying
and castrating of homo sapiens too. I guess it's not
a reductio.
Shrikeback
Well, yeah. What's up with predators? Do they
have a right to eat or not? Maybe animals only
have rights over homo sapiens; that has to be it.
Otherwise it just doesn't make sense. So, what
animal rights is really about is reducing human
rights to meaninglessness. Maybe it's like certain
leftards in this newsgroup say: human rights are
just a matter of taste. Which brings us back to
the question: if Gawd didn't mean for mankind to
eat animals, why would She have made them of
meat?
Giga
"Shrikeback" <shrik...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cf13107-8c4c-4a10...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
=And dirty great fangs in our mouths.
dh
<gru...@nym.mixmin.net> wrote:
> Unlike Christianity where 'Thou shalt not kill' has been interpreted
>to mean killing humans,
Genesis 4
3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil
as an offering to the LORD.
4 But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his
flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain
was very angry, and his face was downcast.
Genesis 9
1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful
and increase in number and fill the earth.
2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the
earth
and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves
along
the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given
into
your hands.
3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I
gave
you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it.
5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will
demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too,
I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
Exodus 12
1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt,
2 "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of
your year.
3 Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this
month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each
household.
[...]
6 Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when
all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them
at twilight.
7 Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides
and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the
lambs.
8 That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire,
along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast.
9 Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over
the fire-head, legs and inner parts.
[...]
14 "This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come
you
shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD -a lasting
ordinance.
Leviticus 1
1 The LORD called to Moses and spoke to him from the Tent of
Meeting.
He said,
2 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: `When any of you brings
an
offering to the LORD, bring as your offering an animal from
either
the herd or the flock.
3 "`If the offering is a burnt offering from the herd, he is to
offer
a male without defect. He must present it at the entrance to the
Tent
of Meeting so that it[1] will be acceptable to the LORD.
4 He is to lay his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it
will
be accepted on his behalf to make atonement for him.
5 He is to slaughter the young bull before the LORD, and then
Aaron's
sons the priests shall bring the blood and sprinkle it against
the
altar on all sides at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
6 He is to skin the burnt offering and cut it into pieces.
7 The sons of Aaron the priest are to put fire on the altar and
arrange
wood on the fire.
8 Then Aaron's sons the priests shall arrange the pieces, including
the
head and the fat, on the burning wood that is on the altar.
9 He is to wash the inner parts and the legs with water, and the
priest
is to burn all of it on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an
offering
made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the LORD.
Leviticus 12
6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are
over,
she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of
Meeting a
year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove
for
a sin offering.
7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her,
and
then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood. "
'These are
the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a
girl.
8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two
young
pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin
offering. In this
way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be
clean.' "
Deuteronomy 12
15 Nevertheless, you may slaughter your animals in any of your
towns and eat as much of the meat as you want, as if it were
gazelle or deer, according to the blessing the LORD your
God gives you. Both the ceremonially unclean and the clean
may eat it.
Deuteronomy 14
4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the
goat,
5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex,
the antelope and the mountain sheep.
6 You may eat any animal that has a split hoof divided in two and
that chews the cud.
7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof
completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the
coney. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split
hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you.
8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a split hoof, it does
not
chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their
carcasses.
9 Of all the creatures living in the water, you may eat any that
has
fins and scales.
10 But anything that does not have fins and scales you may not eat;
for you it is unclean.
11 You may eat any clean bird.
12 But these you may not eat: the eagle, the vulture, the black
vulture,
13 the red kite, the black kite, any kind of falcon,
14 any kind of raven,
15 the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk,
16 the little owl, the great owl, the white owl,
17 the desert owl, the osprey, the cormorant,
18 the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
19 All flying insects that swarm are unclean to you; do not eat them.
20 But any winged creature that is clean you may eat.
21 Do not eat anything you find already dead. You may give it to an
alien living in any of your towns, and he may eat it, or you may
sell it to a foreigner. But you are a people holy to the LORD your
God. Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk.
1 Kings 8
5 and King Solomon and the entire assembly of Israel that had
gathered about him were before the ark, sacrificing so many
sheep
and cattle that they could not be recorded or counted.
[...]
63 Solomon offered a sacrifice of fellowship offerings to the LORD:
twenty-two thousand cattle and a hundred and twenty thousand
sheep and goats. So the king and all the Israelites dedicated
the
temple of the LORD.
Mark 7
18 "Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing
that enters a man from the outside can make him `unclean'?
19 For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and
then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods
"clean.")
Mark 14
12 On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it
was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus' disciples
asked him, "Where do you want us to go and make preparations
for you to eat the Passover?"
13 So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, "Go into the city,
and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.
14 Say to the owner of the house he enters, 'The Teacher asks:
Where is my guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?'
(refer to Exodus 12 for details about the Passover food)
Luke 2
22 When the time of their purification according to the Law of
Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to
Jerusalem to present him to the Lord
23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, "Every firstborn male is
to be consecrated to the Lord" ),
24 and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law
of the Lord: "a pair of doves or two young pigeons."
Luke 24
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see;
a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and
amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?"
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
John 21
4 Early in the morning, Jesus stood on the shore, but the disciples
did not realize that it was Jesus.
5 He called out to them, "Friends, haven't you any fish?" "No,"
they
answered.
6 He said, "Throw your net on the right side of the boat and you
will
find some." When they did, they were unable to haul the net in
because of the large number of fish.
[...]
9 When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with
fish
on it, and some bread.
10 Jesus said to them, "Bring some of the fish you have just caught."
11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full
of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.
12 Jesus said to them, "Come and have breakfast."
Acts 10
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and
approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray.
10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal
was being prepared, he fell into a trance.
11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let
down to earth by its four corners.
12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles
of the earth and birds of the air.
13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything
impure or unclean."
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure
that God has made clean."
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken
back
to heaven.
Romans 14
1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on
disputable matters.
2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man,
whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who
does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not
condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own
master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is
able
to make him stand.
1 Corinthians 10
25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of
conscience,
26 for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."
>Buddhism teaches that killing any being is
>wrong and brings negative karma.
� Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:
tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
dh
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Ed <edg...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>For some reason those who advocate "animal rights" speak almost
>>>exclusively of the rights of quite large animals.
>>
>> Which rights for which animals? I've asked them that many times
>>and they can never even attempt a respectable answer. Sometimes they
>>lie and say all rights for all animals or some such thing, but when
>>questioned about how to keep animals from dying in crop production or
>>construction projects etc they have no answer and the subject is
>>quickly changed or they just stop responding.
>
>The question is absurd
LOL!
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:07:01 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Ed <edg...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>For some reason those who advocate "animal rights" speak almost
>>>>exclusively of the rights of quite large animals.
>>>
>>> Which rights for which animals?
>>The question is absurd, the beginning of a transparent attempt at circular
>> logic which has no meaning.
>
> LOL!
Giggling when your dishonesty and stupidity is pointed out is not impressive
The term "Animal Rights", which I do not support, speaks of a theoretical
world where all animals live freely "as nature intended", free from
captivity, free from exploitation and commoditization at the hands of man.
Those are the rights spoken of and the animals it refers to are all the
animals in such a future world. What is your criticism of this ideal? That
some livestock that would otherwise have existed will never get to exist?
News flash pal, nobody CARES. That is not a meaningful criticism of AR.
ex-PFC Wintergreen
> On Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:07:01 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>> On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:53:03 -0700 (PDT), Ed <edg...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For some reason those who advocate "animal rights" speak almost
>>>> exclusively of the rights of quite large animals.
>>> Which rights for which animals? I've asked them that many times
>>> and they can never even attempt a respectable answer. Sometimes they
>>> lie and say all rights for all animals or some such thing, but when
>>> questioned about how to keep animals from dying in crop production or
>>> construction projects etc they have no answer and the subject is
>>> quickly changed or they just stop responding.
>> The question is absurd
>
> LOL!
He's correct: the question is absurd.