Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

The Only Diet for a Peacemaker Is a Vegetarian Diet

By John Dear, National Catholic Reporter. Posted July 12, 2008.


Vegetarianism a key ingredient in the new life of peace, compassion and nonviolence.
Advertisement

In Fort Lauderdale, Fla., last week to speak at the National Convention of Unitarian Universalists, I met my old friend Bruce Friedrich. We spent eight memorable months together in a tiny jail cell, along with Philip Berrigan, for our 1993 Plowshares disarmament action. A former Catholic Worker, Bruce is now one of the leaders of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. He gave a brilliant workshop on the importance of becoming a vegetarian, something I urge everyone to consider.

I became a vegetarian with a few other Jesuit novices shortly after I entered the Jesuits in 1982 and later wrote a pamphlet for PETA, "Christianity and Vegetarianism." I based my decision solely on Francis Moore Lappe's classic work, Diet for a Small Planet, a book that I think everyone should read.

In it, Lappe, the great advocate for the hungry, makes an unassailable case that vegetarianism is the best way to eliminate world hunger and to sustain the environment.

At first glance, we wonder how that could be. But it's undisputable. A hundred million tons of grain go yearly for biofuel -- a morally questionable use of foodstuffs. But more than seven times that much -- some 760 million tons according to the United Nations -- go into the bellies of farmed animals, this to fatten them up so that sirloin, hamburgers and pork roast grace the tables of First-World people. It boils down to this. Over 70 percent of U.S. grain and 80 percent of corn is fed to farm animals rather than people.

Conscience dictates that the grain should stay where it is grown, from South America to Africa. And it should be fed to the local malnourished poor, not to the chickens destined for our KFC buckets. The environmental think-tank, the World Watch Institute, sums it up: "Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat eaters and the world's poor."

Meanwhile, eating meat causes almost 40 percent more greenhouse-gas emissions than all the cars, trucks, and planes in the world combined. (The world's 1.3 billion cattle release tons of methane into the atmosphere, and hundreds of millions tons of CO2 are released by burning forests due to dry conditions as in California or due to purposeful burns to create cow pastures in Latin America.)

And global warming isn't the only environmental issue. Almost 40 years ago, Lappe spelled out the environmental consequences of eating meat in stark relief. But more recently, her analysis received some high-power validation. The United Nations recently published "Livestock's Long Shadow." It concludes that eating meat is "one of the most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." And it insists that the meat industry "should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity."

Much of our potable water and much of our fossil fuel supply is wasted on rearing chickens, pigs, and other animals for humans to eat. And over 50 percent of forests worldwide have been cleared to raise or feed livestock for meat-eating. (A recent protest in Brazil denounced Kentucky Fried Chicken for clearing thousands of acres of untouched Amazon rain forest for chicken feed.)

As a Christian, I became a vegetarian because of the Gospel mandate of Matthew 25, "Whatever you did to the least of these, you did to me" -- because I do not want my appetites to contribute to the ongoing oppression of the world's starving masses. As a Catholic and Jesuit, I want somehow to side with the poor and hungry.

But another issue arises, too, over the decades, I've learned that our appetite for meat leads to cruelty to animals -- chickens pressed wing-to-wing into filthy sheds and de-beaked, for example. And since I've always espoused creative nonviolence as the fundamental Gospel value, my vegetarianism helps me not to participate in the vicious torture and destruction of billions of cows, chickens, and so many other creatures.

The chickens never raise families, root in the soil, build nests, or do anything natural. Often they are tormented or tortured before they are slowly killed, as PETA has repeatedly documented in its undercover investigations -- for your chicken dinner or hamburger. (All this is documented on a video narrated by Alec Baldwin, at www.Meat.org.)


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: vegetarianism, peace, activism, nonviolence

John's autobiography, A Persistent Peace, (with a foreword by Martin Sheen), is available Aug. 1. See also: www.persistentpeace.com. John's pamphlet "Christianity and Vegetarianism" can be read online at www.peta.org or free copies of the pamphlet or a free CD of John reading the pamphlet can be ordered by sending an email to VegInfo@peta.org. You can listen to or download John reading the pamphlet at www.ChristianVeg.com. See also: www.johndear.org.

Copyright 2006 The National Catholic Reporter Publishing Company

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Save the baby carrots!
Posted by: hunterochoa on Jul 12, 2008 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eat a vegetarian!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Super piece--and spot on.
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Jul 12, 2008 8:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I am not clear on is why the usual slew of people are not posting, attacking this piece as unreasonable and extreme.

Of course if we care about being at all frugal, the strongest of the author's arguments is that it takes so many more resources, fed to animals, than would be required if we ate crops directly.

But for me, I just don't want to eat an animal's corpse, and I have yet to hear any cogent argument to explain why there is any difference at all between eating a dog or a pig, a cat or a chicken. I wouldn't eat a cat or dog, so I'm not going to eat any animal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Super piece--and spot on. Posted by: keinemal
Chairman, Catholic Concern for Animals-USA
Posted by: Godscre@msn on Jul 12, 2008 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus said "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God." Matthew 5:9. Peacemaking is a way of life. God created us to be vegetarian (vegan), but after sin entered the world, Satan has had his way and has deceived churches/Christians for decades.
We should not support factory farming where tens of billions of God's creatures suffer every day for our appetites. In Numbers 11, God shows his opinion of greed for meat when the Israelites wanted meat to eat instead of the manna God provided.
God will hold us all accountable someday for everything including His creatures as said in Hebrews 4:13.
We need more spiritual leaders like Fr. John Dear who speak the truth. Bruce with PETA also has been fighting for justice and peace for animals.
Hopefully, the Church will get on board. It is an important part of our walk with Jesus and is a moral and ethical issue.

Jan Fredericks, LPC, MA
Catholic Concern for Animals-USA
Founder, God's Creatures Ministry

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

a nonviolent philosophy begins at breakfast
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 12, 2008 12:13 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've been vegetarian since 1982. I attended my first anti-vivisection protest in the spring of 1985, as anti-apartheid demonstrations rocked the UC San Diego campus. I became interested in promoting vegetarianism in mainstream society after reading John Robbins' Diet for a New America (1987). Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, it makes veganism seem as reasonable and mainstream as recycling.

Half the water consumed in the U.S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water are used to wash away their excrement. U.S. livestock produce 20 times as much excrement as does the entire human population; creating sewage which is 10 to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage. Animal wastes cause 10 times more water pollution than does the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes 3 times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined. Meat producers are the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contributing to half the water pollution in the United States.

Joanna Macy, author of Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age, depicts America moving towards a vegan diet in her foreword to Diet for a New America:

"The effects on our physical health are immediate. The incidence of cancer and heart attack, the nation's biggest killers, drops precipitously. So do many other diseases now demonstrably and causally linked to consumption of animal proteins and fats, such as osteoporosis...

"The social, ecological, and economic consequences, as we Americans turn away from animal food products, are equally remarkable. We find that the grain we previously fed to fatten livestock can now feed five times the U.S. population; so we have become able to alleviate malnutrition and hunger on a worldwide scale...

"The great forests of the world, that we had been decimating for grazing purposes, begin to grow again. Oxygen-producing trees are no longer sacrificed for cholesterol-producing steaks.

"The water crisis eases. As we stop raising and grinding up cattle for hamburgers, we discover that ranching and farm factories had been the major drain on our water resources. The amount now available for irrigation and hydroelectric power doubles. Meanwhile, the change in diet frees over 90% of the fossil fuel previously used to produce food. With this liberation of water energy and fossil fuel energy, our reliance on oil imports declines, as does the rationale for building nuclear power plants..."

Joanna Macy goes on to admit, "This scenario is wildly, absurdly utopian. It is also clearly the way we are meant to live, built to live." What could possibly make it a reality? "It is this very book!"

Paul McCartney also says, "If anyone wants to save the planet, all they have to do is stop eating meat. That's the single most important thing you could do. It's staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let's do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century."

When I first read Diet for a New America, I felt it could have the same kind of impact on mainstream American society that Frances Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet had in the '70s.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in pounds.

If Americans reduced their meat consumption by just 10 percent, it would release enough grain and soybeans to feed over 60 million people.

John Robbins spoke before the United Nations in 1994, where he received a standing ovation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Omnivores
Posted by: Bradley on Jul 12, 2008 6:40 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"One could almost argue that the human body is not designed for meat-eating."

A little anatomy lesson:

Carnivores have short intestines, Herbivores have long intestines, Omnivores have medium length intestines. Humans have medium length intestines and are therefore Omnivores.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Humans are herbivores Posted by: TwinsFanatic
» RE: Humans are herbivores Posted by: sakul72
» RE: Humans are herbivores Posted by: pomes
» RE: Humans are herbivores Posted by: YogiBear
humans are frugivores (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 12, 2008 11:31 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The frugivores (gorillas, chimpanzees and other primates) have intestinal tracts twelve times the length of the body, clawless hands and alkaline urine and saliva. Their diet is mostly vegetarian, occasionally supplemented with carrion, insects, etc.

Flesh-eating animals lap water with their tongue, whereas vegetarian animals imbibe liquids by a suction process. Humans are classified as primates and are thus frugivores possessing a set of completely herbivorous teeth. Proponents of the theory that humans should be classified as omnivores note that human beings do, in fact, possess a modified form of canine teeth. However, these so-called "canine teeth" are much more prominent in animals that traditionally never eat flesh, such as apes, camels, and the male musk deer.

It must also be noted that the shape, length and hardness of these so-called "canine teeth" can hardly be compared to those of true carnivorous animals. A principle factor in determining the hardness of teeth is the phosphate of magnesia content. Human teeth usually contain 1.5 percent phosphate of magnesia, whereas the teeth of carnivores are composed of nearly 5 percent phosphate of magnesia. It is for this reason they are able to break through the bones of their prey, and reach the nutritious marrow.

Zoologist Desmond Morris makes a case for vegetarianism in his 1967 book, The Naked Ape: "It could be argued that, since our primate ancestors had to make do without a major meat component in their diets we should be able to do the same. We were driven to become flesh eaters only by environmental circumstances, and now that we have the environment under control, with elaborately cultivated crops at our disposal, we might be expected to return to our ancient feeding patterns."

In The Human Story, edited by Marie-Louise Makris (1985), we read: "...recent studies of their teeth reveal that the Australopithecines did not eat meat as a regular part of their diet, and were mainly peaceful vegetarians, rather like chimps or gorillas. The popular image of the murderous ape is now as extinct as the Australopithecines themselves."

Dr. Gordon Latto notes that carnivorous and omnivorous animals can only move their jaws up and down, and that omnivores "have a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth, a blunt tooth, a sharp tooth--showing that they were destined to deal both with flesh foods from the animal kingdom and foods from the vegetable kingdom...

"Carnivorous mammals and omnivorous mammals cannot perspire except at the extremity of the limbs and the tip of the nose; man perspires all over the body. Finally, our instincts; the carnivorous mammal (which first of all has claws and canine teeth) is capable of tearing flesh asunder, whereas man only partakes of flesh foods after they have been camouflaged by cooking and by condiments.

"Man instinctively is not carnivorous," explains Dr. Latto. "...he takes the flesh food after somebody else has killed it, and after it has been cooked and camouflaged with certain condiments. Whereas to pick an apple off a tree or eat some grain or a carrot is a natural thing to do; people enjoy doing it; they don't feel disturbed by it. But to see these animals being slaughtered does affect people; it offends them. Even the toughest of people are affected by the sights in the slaughterhouse.

"I remember taking some medical students into a slaughterhouse. They were about as hardened people as you could meet. After seeing the animals slaughtered that day in the slaughterhouse, not one of them could eat the meat that evening."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

humans are frugivores (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 12, 2008 11:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Author R.H. Weldon writes in No Animal Food:

"The gorge of a cat, for instance, will rise at the smell of a mouse or a piece of raw flesh, but not at the aroma of fruit. If a man can take delight in pouncing upon a bird, tear its still living body apart with his teeth, sucking the warm blood, one might infer that Nature had provided him with a carnivorous instinct, but the very thought of doing such a thing makes him shudder. On the other hand, a bunch of luscious grapes makes his mouth water, and even in the absence of hunger, he will eat fruit to gratify taste."

As far back as 1961, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that: "A vegetarian diet can prevent 97% of our coronary occlusions." More recently, Wiiliam S. Collens and Gerald B. Dobkens concluded:

"Examination of the dental structure of modern man reveals that he possesses all the features of a strictly herbivorous animal. While designed to subsist on vegetarian foods, he has perverted his dietary habits to accept food of the carnivore. It is postulated that man cannot handle carnivorous foods like the carnivore. Herein may lie the bais for the high incidence of arteriosclerotic disease."

Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), responds to the argument that killing animals for food is natural:

"The main problem with this argument is that it does not justify the practice of meat-eating or animal husbandry as we know it today; it justifies hunting. The distinction between hunting and animal husbandry probably seems rather fine to the man in the street, or even to your typical rule-utilitarian moral philosopher. The distinction, however, is obvious to an ecologist. If one defends killing on the grounds that it occurs in nature, then one is defending the practice as it occurs in nature.

"When one species of animal preys on another in nature, it only preys on a very small proportion of the total species population. Obviously, the predator species relies on its prey for its continued survival. Therefore, to wipe the prey species out through overhunting would be fatal. In practice, members of such predator species rely on such strategies as territoriality to restrict overhunting and to insure the continued existence of its food supply.

"Moreover, only the weakest members of the prey species are the predator's victims: the feeble, the sick, the lame, or the young accidentally separated from the fold. The life of the typical zebra is usually placid, even in lion country; this kind of violence is the exception in nature, not the rule.

"As it exists in the wild, hunting is the preying upon isolated members of an animal herd. Animal husbandry is the nearly complete annihilation of an animal herd. In nature, this kind of slaughter does not exist. The philosopher is free to argue that there is no moral difference between hunting and slaughter, but he cannot invoke nature as a defense of this idea.

"Why are hunters, not butchers, most frequently taken to task by the larger community for their killing of animals? Hunters usually react to such criticism by replying that if hunting is wrong, then meat-hunting must be wrong as well. The hunter is certainly right on one point--the larger community is hypocritical to object to hunting when it consumes the flesh of domesticated animals. If any form of meat-eating is justified, it would be meat from a hunted animal."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

humans are frugivores (part 3)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 12, 2008 11:36 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, Australian philosopher Peter Singer writes:

"Killing an animal is in itself a troubling act. It has been said that if we had to kill our own meat we would all be vegetarians. There may be exceptions to that general rule, but it is true that most people prefer not to inquire into the killing of the animals they eat.

"Very few people ever visit a slaughterhouse; and films of slaughterhouse operations are rarely shown on television...Yet those who, by their purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from this or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy.

"If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the animals to experience it?"

Peter Singer concludes in Animal Liberation that "by ceasing to rear and kill animals for food, we can make extra food available for humans that, properly distributed, it would eliminate starvation and malnutrition from this planet. Animal Liberation is Human Liberation, too."

Finally, even if humans really are omnivores as some claim (and this claim is subject to dispute: I would refer these people to Dr. Milton Mills or to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, www.pcrm.org , which advocates a vegan diet, an end to vivisection, etc., for the latest on whether humans are frugivorous or omnivorous), my friend Mareechi Duvvuuri (another Hindu-American!) who once studied sports medicine, pointed out that the diet of natural omnivores is mostly (80 percent) plant food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only?
Posted by: talkville on Jul 13, 2008 5:22 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All over this world there are multitudes of individuals and groups, a great many of them living in the most extreme destitution, who still work, still try, still seek, peace. The luxury of developing a 'morality of food' is not theirs. They must eat whatever is available which will provide them with the basic, the very basic requirements of maintaining the metabolism just one more day. In this capitalist and private-property age of ours, the food available to one or another individual or group or tribe or society is not in their hands; it is not a "choice", it is an Option. Each does what one can (or what one must) to harmonize the metabolic exchanges between human species-being and other species and the rest of the natural environment. To advocate a "morality of food" to those who exist and do all they can to develop a "morality of Survival" with some dignity and stability while existing fully within a world-system of exploitation, is at minimum a narrow and elitist stand; especially when it is the "only" way to propose, sustain, and develop strategies of peaceful co-existence.

Solidarity, not charity. "The hand that gives is always above the hand that receives: E. Galleano

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

if God wanted us to be vegetarians
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Jul 13, 2008 7:44 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
why did He make animals so tasty?

seriously though - the dietary laws in leviticus and deuteronomy allow, for example, the eating of cloven-hoofed ruminant animals who are properly raised and slaughtered...the problem is not eating meat per se, but the way animals are currently raised and fed...cows for instance should not be eating grain but grass...and no animal should live its entire existence in a box...

trying to grow enough veggies - the way they are currently grown with tons of pesticides and chemical fertilizers - is really no answer to the problem...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: if God wanted us to be vegetarians (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 13, 2008 10:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
According to the Bible, God intended the entire human race to follow a vegetarian diet (Genesis 1:29). Paradise is vegetarian. Rashi (Rabbi Solomon von Isaac, 1030-1105), the famous Jewish Bible commentator, taught that "God did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its flesh. Only every green herb shall they all eat together." Ibn Ezra and other Jewish biblical commentators agree.

According to the Talmud, "Adam and many generations that followed him were strict flesh-abstainers; flesh-foods were rejected as repulsive for human consumption." Although man was made in God's image and given dominion over all creation (Genesis 1:26-28), these verses do not justify humans killing animals and devouring them, because God immediately proclaims He created the plants for human consumption. (Genesis 1:29)

In a letter to Pope John Paul II, challenging him on the issue of animal experimentation, Dr. Michael Fox of the Humane Society argued that the word "dominion" is derived from the original Hebrew word "rahe" which refers to compassionate stewardship, instead of power and control. Parents have dominion over their children; they do not have a license to kill, torment or abuse them. The Talmud (Shabbat 119; Sanhedrin 7) interprets "dominion" to mean animals may be used for labor.

Man was made in God's image (Genesis 1:26) and told to be vegetarian (Genesis 1:29). "And God saw all that He had made and saw that it was very good." (Genesis 1:31) Complete and perfect harmony. Everything in the beginning was the way God wanted it. Vegetarianism was part of God's initial plan for the world.

"It appears that the first intention of the Maker was to have men live on a strictly vegetarian diet," writes Rabbi Simon Glazer, in his 1971 Guide to Judaism. "The very earliest periods of Jewish history are marked with humanitarian conduct towards the lower animal kingdom...It is clearly established that the ancient Hebrews knew, and perhaps were the first among men to know, that animals feel and suffer pain."

After the Flood, God revised His commandment against flesh-eating. Human beings, since eating of the forbidden fruit, seemed incapable of obedience on this issue. One Jewish writer comments, "Only after man had proven unfit for the high moral standard given at the beginning, was meat made a part of the humans' diet."

In their book, The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism, Dennis Prager and Rabbi Telushkin explain: "Keeping kosher is Judaism's compromise with its ideal vegetarianism. Ideally, according to Judaism, man would confine his eating to fruits and vegetables and not kill animals for food."

In his excellent A Guide to the Misled, Rabbi Shmuel Golding explains the orthodox Jewish position concerning animal sacrifices: "When G-d gave our ancestors permission to make sacrifices to Him, it was a concession, just as when He allowed us to have a king (I Samuel 8), but He gave us a whole set of rules and regulations concerning sacrifice that, when followed, would be superior to and distinct from the sacrificial system of the heathens."

Some biblical passages denounce animal sacrifice (Isaiah 1:11,15; Amos 5:21-25). Other passages state that animal sacrifices, not necessarily incurring God's wrath, are unnecessary (I Kings 15:22; Jeremiah 7:21-22; Hosea 6:6; Hosea 8:13; Micah 6:6-8; Psalm 50:1-14; Psalm 40:6; Proverbs 21:3; Ecclesiastes 5:1).

Sometimes Christians cite Isaiah 1:11, where God says, "I am full of the burnt offerings..." The word "full" implies God accepted the sacrifices. However, Isaiah 43:23-24 says: "You have not honored Me with your sacrifices...rather you have burdened Me with your sins, you have wearied Me with your iniquities." This suggests, as Moses Maimonides taught and Rabbi Shmuel Golding confirms above, that "the sacrifices were a concession to barbarism."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: if God wanted us to be vegetarians (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 13, 2008 10:16 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Jesus taught his disciples to pray for the coming of God's kingdom (Matthew 6:9-10), the kingdom of peace, in which the entire world is restored to a vegetarian paradise (Genesis 1:29; Isaiah 11:6-9). Recalling Psalm 37:11, he blessed the meek, saying they would inherit the earth. (Matthew 5:5) The kingdom of God belongs to the gentle and kind (Matthew 5:7-9) Christians are to "Be merciful, just as your Father is also merciful." (Luke 6:36) Those who take up the sword must perish by the sword. (Matthew 26:52)

Jesus spoke of God's tender care for the nonhuman creation (Matthew 6:26-30, 10:29-31; Luke 12:6-7, 24-28). Jesus taught that God desires "mercy and not sacrifice." (Matthew 9:10-13, 12:6-7; Mark 2:15-17; Luke 5:29-32) The epistle to the Hebrews 10:5-10 suggests that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law and the prophets, but only the institution of animal sacrifice, as does Jesus' cleansing the Temple of those who were buying and selling animals for sacrifice and his overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the Temple. (Matthew 21:12-14; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17)

Jesus not only repeatedly upheld Mosaic Law (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 16:17), he justified his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals.

When teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath, Jesus healed a woman who had been ill for eighteen years. He justified his healing work on the Sabbath by referring to biblical passages calling for the humane treatment of animals as well as their rest on the Sabbath. "So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham...be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath?" Jesus asked. (Luke 13:10-16)

On another occasion, Jesus again referred to Torah teaching on "tsa'ar ba'alei chayim" or compassion for animals to justify healing on the Sabbath. "Which of you, having a donkey or an ox that has fallen into a pit, will not immediately pull him out on the Sabbath day?" (Luke 14:1-5)

Jesus compared saving sinners who had gone astray from God's kingdom to rescuing lost sheep. He recalled a Jewish legend about Moses' compassion as a shepherd for his flock. (Luke 15:3-7,10)

Jesus insisted upon the moral standards given by God in the beginning (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18), and this did not go unnoticed by early church fathers such as St. Jerome.

From history, too, we learn that the earliest Christians were vegetarians as well as pacifists. For example, Clemens Prudentius, the first Christian hymn writer, in one of his hymns exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and hearts by the slaughter of innocent cows and sheep, and points to the variety of nourishing and pleasant foods obtainable without blood-shedding.

Some of the most distinguished figures in the history of Christianity have been vegetarian. A partial list includes: St. James, St. Matthew, Clemens Prudentius, Origen, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Benedict, Aegidius, Boniface, St. Richard of Wyche, St. Columba, St. Filipo Neri, John Wray, Thomas Tryon, John Wesley, Joshua Evans, William Metcalfe, General William Booth, Ellen White, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, and Reverend V.A. Holmes-Gore.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: if God wanted us to be vegetarians (part 3)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jul 13, 2008 10:18 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reverend Marc Wessels of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) writes:

"The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

"To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals. There are many historical examples of Christians who thought along those lines, besides the familiar illustration of St. Francis. An abbreviated listing of some of those individuals worthy of study and emulation includes Saint Blaise, Saint Comgall, Saint Cuthbert, Saint Gerasimus, Saint Giles, and Saint Jerome, to name but a few."

According to contemporary Benedictine monk, Brother David Steindl-Rast:

"...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging---to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets, to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."

In a sermon preached in York Minster, September 28, 1986, John Austin Baker, the Bishop of Salisbury, England, attacked the overcrowded confinement methods of raising and killing animals for food ("factory farming"), choosing as his example, the treatment of chickens:

"Is there any credit balance for the battery hen, denied almost all natural functioning, all normal environment, lapsing steadily into deformity and disease, for the whole of her existence?" he asked. "It is in the battery shed and the broiler house, not in the wild, that we find the true parallel to Auschwitz. Auschwitz is a purely human invention."

Rick Dunkerly of Christ Lutheran Church says:

"The Bible-believing Christian, should, of all people, be on the frontline in the struggle for animal welfare and rights. We who are Christians should be treating the animal creation now as it will be treated then, at Christ's second coming. It will not now be perfect, but it must be substantial, otherwise we have missed our calling, and we grieve the One we call 'Lord,' who was born in a stable surrounded by animals simply because He chose it that way."

Rose Evans, editor and publisher of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious Left, says there are more Christian vegetarians than Jewish vegetarians. Yet some people still react to the idea of Christian vegetarianism as though it were an oxymoron.

"Every year," says Reverend Andrew Linzey, author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so...The time is long overdue to take the issue of animal rights to the churches...

"I derive hope from the Gospel preaching that the same God who draws us to such affinity and intimacy with suffering creatures declared that reality on a Cross in Calvary. Unless all Christian preaching has been utterly mistaken, the God who becomes incarnate and crucified is the one who has taken the side of the oppressed and the suffering of the world--however the churches may actually behave."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Frustrated Farmer
Posted by: Frustrated Farmer on Jul 14, 2008 3:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I grow and harvest my own vegetables. I raise and butcher my own meat. Neither one suffer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Neither one suffer" Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: "Neither one suffer" Posted by: Frustrated Farmer
» RE: "Neither one suffer" Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: "Neither one suffer" Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: "Neither one suffer" Posted by: Starfall Deception
» RE: "Neither one suffer" Posted by: Frustrated Farmer
missing the point
Posted by: peakoiler on Jul 14, 2008 4:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ahh - another vegetarianism advocate with the same stale facts and arguments - the moral and practical objections we should have are to our industrial food system as a whole rather than to meat eating in particular- the appeal for universal vegetarianism is just a pseudo-solution to the problems mentioned and it distracts us from the real issue - the desacralisation of eating and our total cultural disconnection from the ecological limits of human life - the problem is a culture that knows know limits to its consumption, animal, vegetable or mineral.
Wendell Berry gets it.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/05/0082022

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hitler was a vegetarian
Posted by: peacemama on Jul 14, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My favorite comback for those who think that becoming a vegetarian makes the world more peaceful is to remind them that Hitler espoused vegetarianism. For health and eco reason less meat in a diet is great but you have to realize that humans are omnivores and more not meant for a veggie diet. A little meat desn't hurt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Mass murder Posted by: Last Chance
» Re: Hitler was a vegetarian Posted by: offplanet
» RE: Hitler was a vegetarian Posted by: theminutepast
Only humans can be hypocrites
Posted by: Last Chance on Jul 14, 2008 5:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most people feel ashamed when it is discovered a man was executed for a crime he didn't commit. Yet, every day those same law-abiding, morally sensitive citizens pay professional butchers to slaughter innocent animals. They condemn mass murdering dictators like Saddam Hussein, yet participate in mass murder every day and think nothing of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» All humans can be hypocrites Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Only humans can be illiterate Posted by: Starfall Deception
brer
Posted by: brer on Jul 14, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What are you guys talking about!!?

Why do you think Abel tended sheep? Was it just for the wool? I don't think so.
And how about Esau whose father loved him because he provided delicious venison?

I admire your stance on Vegetarianism, but don't think you can support it with snippets from the Bible.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: brer Posted by: JimMayor
» Biblical vegetarians? Posted by: Last Chance
flush eating humanitarians, man does not live by bread alone
Posted by: solrev on Jul 14, 2008 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

“One could almost argue that the human body is not designed for meat-eating.”

Evolution's twist
USC study finds meat-tolerant genes offset high cholesterol and disease
When our human ancestors started eating meat, evolution served up a healthy bonus – the development of genes that offset high cholesterol and chronic diseases associated with a meat-rich diet, according to a new USC study.
Those ancestors also started living longer than ever before – an unexpected evolutionary twist.
The research by USC professors Caleb Finch and Craig Stanford appears in Wednesday's Quarterly Review of Biology.
"At some point – probably about 2 1/2 million years ago – meat eating became important to humans," said Stanford, chair of the anthropology department in the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences, "and when that happened, everything changed."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Do vegetarians live longer? Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Do vegetarians live longer? Posted by: john mont
» You've got a problem -- Posted by: Last Chance
Veganism
Posted by: JimMayor on Jul 14, 2008 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a thirty-year vegan and father of two life-long vegans I would have everyone consider just skipping vegetarianism and going straight to being vegan--using no animal related products.

We attempt to follow the principles of Ahimsa, the Compassionate Way. Ahimsa is a Sanskrit term that means non-killing, non-injuring, non-harming; defined in modern life as dynamic harmlessness. Reverence for life, if you will.

I am sure this will ferret out all those perfectionists who will cite potential vicious attacks on mosquitoes, black flies, baby carrots and the like. All should realize that in this age it is impossible to even move about without injuring something. So you may laugh at our efforts, but we try. We believe everyone should also.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» How vital is B12 ? Posted by: Last Chance
» recommended reading... Posted by: amcgrath815
can't resist this question...
Posted by: ellie on Jul 14, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so, first let's classify what we all mean... vegans do not eat any form of animal products including milk, eggs etc... vegetarians allow dairy and eggs etc, so according to this author, milk and eggs seem ok to consume... now onto the more pressing question...

there is a difference between sweet corn for human consumption which is the original breeding stock and feed corn which is modified to be used as animal feed and bio fuels... believe me, no one really wants to eat feed corn...

the seeds that are marketed for human consumption are hybrids which means saving seed from one year to plant the next are almost extinct... this puts the food supply in the same precarious position year after year, so the search for food seed is getting more expensive every year...

heirloom seeds for food are outlawed in many areas of the planet, like the Nile Delta where a multinational seed corporation forcibly confiscated the native seed stock from wheat farmers, forcing them to plant their seeds along with all the chemicals that go along with them... to standardize crops for export as part of the deal... no longer is the wheat crop for the people but they have to purchase wheat on the open market same as everyone else causing deeper poverty and hunger...

so the question is, how do we find enough seed to feed the planet that is not controlled by multinationals who rig the system for pure greed and profit... maybe we should address this issue first, food as a renewable resource again...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Here's your answer -- Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: Here's your answer -- Posted by: john mont
» RE: Here's your answer -- Posted by: john mont
» You Prove the Point Posted by: socialpsych
» RE: Here's your answer -- Posted by: grinch
Meat Eating
Posted by: riffraff2001 on Jul 14, 2008 6:33 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd just like to say that vegetarians are really grasping at straws these days when they try to persuade people to stop eating meat. They claim that it's healthier to be a vegetarian and yet study after study at reputable universities shows that that is false. Then they start beating the "it's cruel!" war drum again, but they have nothing to say when it's pointed out that, well, the natural world, reality that is, is quite cruel sometimes and that's just life. Animals eat other animals. Lions eat antelope. Fish eat other fish. It's just the way it all works. Now they're trying to guilt meat-eaters into giving it up by telling us that if we don't then the end of the world will be our fault. Self-righteous b.s. is all that is. My final point is this: You want to know what is the biggest waste of resources on the planet? Trying to convince a world full of meat-eaters to become vegetarians. Why even write articles like this and waste time debating it? It's never going to happen! I myself am one of those people who has no problem at all ripping the head off of any animal you choose and sucking down the blood. Blood is in fact extremely nutritious. And there are a lot of people like me and they are never going to give up eating meat. Period. It's just a waste of time and energy to argue about something that is never going to happen anyway.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]