Okay, so it's been a while since I lit a fire in here, so I'm gonna try with this one.
I have a few other vegan philosophical issues that have been brewing for a while, but this one is BY FAR the most contentious so ;-)
Okay, so FROM A VEGAN STANDPOINT.
My claim is that religious views towards animals have more possibility to lend themselves to veganism than scientific views towards animals.
Now basing myself on Six Major religions, Budhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism
I make this claim because most religions while their texts can be used to justify the abuse of animals. Their texts can also be used for the opposite, and even to lead very close to animal rights and at least animal welfare...and the argument for veganism on religious grounds.
with Hinduism and Budhism the link is obvious.
With Christianity it is clear that God's ideal is vegetarianism and it is easy to extract veganism out of the message of Christ, the message of compassion, doing no harm and that the meek shall inherit the earth.
in both Islam and Judaism their is the idea that meat is an exception (only to be eaten if we have NO OTHER choice, which is a situation no one can claim to be in, in our grocery store society) AND they both have the idea of avoiding cruelty towards animal, to the point that the laws make slaughter pretty much impossible if they are followed to the letter.
In Islam the animal can not see the knife or even be aware that he is to be killed, which with the knowledge that we have of animal psychology today is impossible, PLUS it is important that the animal feels NO PAIN (the idea that the ancients had was that if the main artery in the neck (corotid?) is severed quickly, the blood flow to the brain is stopped and the animaml feels no pain.
Basic biology today tells us that this is not true. The animal feels pain.
In Judaism there must be NO BLOOD left in the flesh in order for the meat to be eaten, which again with our present knowledge of microcappilaries we know is impossible.
And since God (Allah, Jehovah) is all-knowing presumably while we have discovered these things recently, God would have known this. :-)
Taoism is harder to bend to veganism, but the idea behind taoism is the path of least resistance and also to go with nature, and to make the most logical use of ressources, all these environmental arguments make sense with veganism. Veganism is definitely the most in line with Taoist philosophy.
But as for science.
While many intelligent scientists have embraced animal rights. And philosophers like Tom Regan do a great job of proving the necessity of animal rights from a scientific standpoint. In the end the main argument comes down to feelings. And even Tom Regan MUST eventually use a moral argument to prove the necessity of animal rights.
There is no equation for compassion.
And scientifically the only argument that we can make against for example animal testing is that animal testing is bad science, but what if a scientists were to prove that animal testing was beneficial and that it could in fact lead to results that would save lives, the only argument that we would have left is compassion, morality.
Which has no basis in science.
I recently saw a movie called "what the bleep do you know" about quantum physics which proved this for me. These kind of scientists are proving that nothing is real, that life is just a sequence of particles moving through different dimensions of time and space.
And that all that matter is knowledge.
Well if all that matters is knowledge, and nothing is real, than there are no limits. There is no morality and there is no need for compassion or even for rights, OF ANYONE.
While religion can lead to oppression and to stiffling of rights (human and animal) and it often does, religion CAN lead to compassion, rights for all (children, women, all races, all humans and even all animals) and religion with its moral argument can lead to veganism.
Science can only lead to using animals if science needs it.
So what does this mean? I 'm not sure. What I think it means for me is that if I am trying to convince someone of the value of veganism and explain animal rights to him/her, if I find out that this person is religious I feel comfortable that I can make links for them that will make them consider veganism and start to understand animal rights.
But if I am speaking with a scientist, I think I will not bother, and just hope that when the day becomes vegan we will be able to regulate him/her and force him/her to follow the moral law, since he/she will obviously have no reason to follow it.
I have a few other vegan philosophical issues that have been brewing for a while, but this one is BY FAR the most contentious so ;-)
Okay, so FROM A VEGAN STANDPOINT.
My claim is that religious views towards animals have more possibility to lend themselves to veganism than scientific views towards animals.
Now basing myself on Six Major religions, Budhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity and Judaism
I make this claim because most religions while their texts can be used to justify the abuse of animals. Their texts can also be used for the opposite, and even to lead very close to animal rights and at least animal welfare...and the argument for veganism on religious grounds.
with Hinduism and Budhism the link is obvious.
With Christianity it is clear that God's ideal is vegetarianism and it is easy to extract veganism out of the message of Christ, the message of compassion, doing no harm and that the meek shall inherit the earth.
in both Islam and Judaism their is the idea that meat is an exception (only to be eaten if we have NO OTHER choice, which is a situation no one can claim to be in, in our grocery store society) AND they both have the idea of avoiding cruelty towards animal, to the point that the laws make slaughter pretty much impossible if they are followed to the letter.
In Islam the animal can not see the knife or even be aware that he is to be killed, which with the knowledge that we have of animal psychology today is impossible, PLUS it is important that the animal feels NO PAIN (the idea that the ancients had was that if the main artery in the neck (corotid?) is severed quickly, the blood flow to the brain is stopped and the animaml feels no pain.
Basic biology today tells us that this is not true. The animal feels pain.
In Judaism there must be NO BLOOD left in the flesh in order for the meat to be eaten, which again with our present knowledge of microcappilaries we know is impossible.
And since God (Allah, Jehovah) is all-knowing presumably while we have discovered these things recently, God would have known this. :-)
Taoism is harder to bend to veganism, but the idea behind taoism is the path of least resistance and also to go with nature, and to make the most logical use of ressources, all these environmental arguments make sense with veganism. Veganism is definitely the most in line with Taoist philosophy.
But as for science.
While many intelligent scientists have embraced animal rights. And philosophers like Tom Regan do a great job of proving the necessity of animal rights from a scientific standpoint. In the end the main argument comes down to feelings. And even Tom Regan MUST eventually use a moral argument to prove the necessity of animal rights.
There is no equation for compassion.
And scientifically the only argument that we can make against for example animal testing is that animal testing is bad science, but what if a scientists were to prove that animal testing was beneficial and that it could in fact lead to results that would save lives, the only argument that we would have left is compassion, morality.
Which has no basis in science.
I recently saw a movie called "what the bleep do you know" about quantum physics which proved this for me. These kind of scientists are proving that nothing is real, that life is just a sequence of particles moving through different dimensions of time and space.
And that all that matter is knowledge.
Well if all that matters is knowledge, and nothing is real, than there are no limits. There is no morality and there is no need for compassion or even for rights, OF ANYONE.
While religion can lead to oppression and to stiffling of rights (human and animal) and it often does, religion CAN lead to compassion, rights for all (children, women, all races, all humans and even all animals) and religion with its moral argument can lead to veganism.
Science can only lead to using animals if science needs it.
So what does this mean? I 'm not sure. What I think it means for me is that if I am trying to convince someone of the value of veganism and explain animal rights to him/her, if I find out that this person is religious I feel comfortable that I can make links for them that will make them consider veganism and start to understand animal rights.
But if I am speaking with a scientist, I think I will not bother, and just hope that when the day becomes vegan we will be able to regulate him/her and force him/her to follow the moral law, since he/she will obviously have no reason to follow it.
posted by:
|
Toronto
|
-
Islam doesn't require vegetarianism, but in my opinion naturally leads to it, for a true seeker of truth.
Some passages about animals in the Qur'an:
6:38. And there is no animal that walks upon the earth nor a bird that flies with its two wings but (they are) genera like yourselves; We have not neglected anything in the Book, then to their Lord shall they be gathered.
21:79. So We made Solomon to understand it; and to each one We gave wisdom and knowledge; and We made the mountains, and the birds to celebrate Our praise with David; and We were the doers.
27:16-19. And Solomon was David's heir, and he said: O men! we have been taught the language of birds, and we have been given all things; most surely this is manifest grace. And his hosts of the jinn and the men and the birds were gathered to him, and they were formed into groups.
Until when they came to an anthill, an ant said: O ants! enter your houses, (that) Solomon and his hosts may not crush you while they do not know.
So he smiled, wondering at her word, and said: My Lord! grant me that I should be grateful for Thy favor which Thou hast bestowed on me and on my parents, and that I should do good such as Thou art pleased with, and make me enter, by Thy mercy, into Thy servants, the good ones.
22:18. Do you not see that God is He, Whom obeys whoever is in the heavens and whoever is in the earth, and the sun and the moon and the stars, and the mountains and the trees, and the animals and many of the people; and many there are against whom chastisement has become necessary; and whomsoever God abases, there is none who can make him honorable; surely God does what He pleases.
17:44. The seven heavens declare His glory and the earth (too), and those who are in them; and there is not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise, but you do not understand their glorification; surely He is Forbearing, Forgiving.
2:168. O men! eat the lawful (halal) AND good (tayyib) things out of what is in the earth, and do not follow the footsteps of Satan; surely he is your open enemy.
From the ahadeeth we also learn that the Prophets Adam and Jesus were vegetarians. There is much reference to the ideal (that goes above and beyond Islamic requirements) of the Minhaj al-Maseeh (Way of the Messiah) or the Minhaj al-Awwal (First Way). People in the time of the Prophet Muhammad were largely desert dwellers, and there was not enough vegetation for a person to get proper nutrients without the occasional meat. However, the Prophet adamantly encouraged people to eat less meat than had been the custom of the 'Arabs (about once every forty days, or even only on the two holidays a year). However, there are no ahadeeth that say that Muhammad ever ate beef. His successor 'Ali ibn Abi Talib would often say, "Do not make your stomach a graveyard for animals", and would also say, "Blessed are those who keep the Minhaj al-Maseeh (Way of the Messiah) in this world". There is also the factor of the unreliability of the modern "halal" meat industry, with many investigations having shown that many animals have been mistreated, and so their meat becomes forbidden for Muslims.
See www.islamveg.com for more details. -
-
i agree that there's very little scientific justification for the compassion side of veganism, but there are arguments to be made regarding physiology, health, and efficient use of resources. even for hard core scientists that think nothing matters b/c everything is governed by chaos and randomness, that all life is made up of the same core particles and nothing we do actually makes any sort of difference... well those people are still bound by the laws of society, in general... they're not going around raping and murdering, etc, so ethical arguments can still usually reach them. ethics don't have to come from religion. many scientists are agnostic, whether they know the label or not, so you can still reach them with ethical arguments, i think. imo a large majority of people that call themselves "atheists" are actually agnostics and just don't realize it.
-
-
xtianity is about "being given dominion" so dont see how that lends to being vegi? at the end of the day the religions are founde using the wants and ned of a given generation and if that generation wants to eat meat then they will "dicover it" and write it into scripture. lets not forget most organised and institutional faiths are doctrine led and not self identified or intuitive. they are about control. i perosnally wouyld not look there for any argument!
as to science? more interesting as it has implied objectivity that is anything but so what are we to believe there? pure science or 2+2=4 is one thing but as has being pointed out there is no equasion for morality or veganism!
that said i would agree that there is sound scientific reasoning, for example in terms of resources, to go vegan. then again capatilist scientific reasoning would say consume all and science will solve the problems when we run out of these apparent limited resources?
so not sure where that leaves us? -
-
"xtianity is about "being given dominion" so dont see how that lends to being vegi?"
The Bible says that Adam (man) was given dominion over the earth. The Bible also says Adam was only told to eat vegetation. To translate "dominion over the earth" as, "Do whatever you want, eat whatever you want, and destroy whatever you want" would be ridiculous. The Qur'an also identifies Adam as the first Khalifah over creation. The Khalifah is to represent the will of God on Earth. If not, he is not a true Khalifah. The Qur'an says, “Do not pollute the earth after it has been (so) wholesomely (set in order) ...” (7:56). Likewise, Jesus explains in a parable in the Bible:
Matthew 25:14-30. "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two. But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord's money. After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them. And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more. His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them. His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury. Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
The true servant of God takes what he has been given "dominion over", and leaves it in a better shape than when he found it. Likewise, in the Bible it also prophesies of an era (the Messianic era) when the Lion will lay down with the Lamb. This implies the ideal of the Kingdom of Heaven is the same ideal of Eden, including the vegetarian diet. -
-
There are a number of good essays here:
www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/
Here's an excerpt from one:
"The first misunderstanding is that the Torah teaching that humans are granted dominion over animals (Genesis 1:26) gives us a warrant to treat them in whatever way we may wish. However, Jewish tradition interprets "dominion" as guardianship, or stewardship, not domination: we are called upon to be co-workers with God in improving the world. This biblical mandate does not mean that people have the right to wantonly exploit animals, and it certainly does not permit us to breed animals and then treat them as machines designed solely to meet human needs." -
-
I'm sure that I am not the only one who has noticed the discrepancies between the sacred literature a religion claims as its own and the way the religion is practiced. The majority of people who follow faiths based on the Abrahamic God follow what their religious leaders tell them, not what the text does. Many of them don't even know the texts beyond the surface appearance. Can you truly argue veganism based on religion with a person who has no deep understanding of their religion's origins?
-
when i talk about xtianity im talking about the church and movement. not so much the bible, and anyway it can be used any old way to back up any old thing you want, if this is the discussion i think its a futile one! its messages, such as they are are usually lost in intrepretation. thats the problem with some of these religions! as i said xtianity is about control... like most organised religions... its a top down, church or whatever led system... xtianity and the church is the foundation of capitalism... so domination, exploitation... whatever! its all in there!
so tell me how that kind of system can possibly lead to a morality that gives two hoots about animals?
those who do care do so from thier own inbuilt compassion, their pre-dispostion to actually care! rather than the teachings of a given faith. -
-
Well, there is no one Church or no one Movement of Christianity. As many Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, and other such would-be-Crusaders as are out there, there have also been people who actually listen to Jesus' message, which was primarily one of worshipping God, and social justice (feeding the poor, visiting the sick, clothing the naked, treating your brother as yourself). I don't think it's a futile discussion, because religion is what led me to the vegetarian ideal. I'm not Christian, but I imagine the same has occurred with many Christians. The problem is, you're only speaking about one interpretation of Christianity, among many. Likewise, one could make the same argument with any religion, from Hinduism, to Christianity, to Islam, and even Buddhism. All have been manipulated by corrupt, exploitative people. Christianity is the foundation of capitalism? That's just silly. And the Church? Which Church? The Roman Catholic Church? The Lutheran Church? The Greek Orthodox Church? The Armenian Apostolic Church? There is no ONE Christian Church.
That system can possibly lead to a morality that gives two hoots about the animals by a return to its roots, the social justice preaching of a poor, wandering Jewish carpenter from the Galilee. -
-
indeed there are many branches to the church, i use that word in its widest sense, you decide which one you want it to refer to! And I do make the same argument to other organised religions! Oh the perils of generalisations!
there are some social justice angles, the caveat being ones acceptance of one god or another... the very few individuals who are genuine in their social justice don’t need religion to back it up. in fact this version of so called “pic and mix” social justice where "all life has a right to life" can lead to pro-life ramblings! Indeed many faith centric systems do more harm than good! They don’t allow for free spirit or thought! Blind faith is required! They use their belief to condone mass slaughter of life through war, witch-hunts, persecutions, torture, suicide and on and on… (nothing much to do with pro-life here is there!?)! They justify and cleanse themselves of responsibility, as its all for “god” or some such! So tell me again why organised religion is such a positive force for social justice!!!
Hey and don’t get me wrong. Im a spiritual person but I long ago learned to take responsibility for my beliefs.
Church=capitalism! The catholic church in Europe developed a system of money, diminished the barter system, introduced wholesale privatisation of land, it built up huge wealth and exploited its followers whilst pretending to serve a higher authority, it honed a system of complete control using text that was denied to the masses. It destroyed old systems of family based on kinship; enslaved women as second to men, subdued children as second class, disempowered living groups to mere family units (so much more controllable!) It laid some major foundation stones for capitalism, a system of exploitation based on hierarchy, wealth, power and greed!
So pick a “church” and tell me how altruistic it is just for the sake of it? Tell me how a system based on this can ever lead to veganism or give too hoots about anyone? its self serving ideals and culture of fear and repression do not foster much hope in my eyes! I applaud anyone who can work with this but as I said concern for our fellows predates this market orientated religious interlude! -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.I find it rather hypocritical that you value animal life, but not human life. The double standards of vegetarians and vegans who support abortion cause me to wonder whether those people actually care about any life, or rather they have just bought into ALL the dogmas of the religion that has sprung from "Liberalism". Adding exclamation points in the spirit of righteous self-indignation does not effect the realities of religion being the primary source from which the majority of the people on the planet earth derive their conceptions of morality. If you wish to convince people that meat consumption is in any way wrong, this is the route which is most effective. Contrary to the common liberal quotes, religion is NOT the cause of most wars. Rather, religion has been exploited, as have a number of things, for the sake of some power hungry people. Ethics based on serving God ("or some such") are superior, in contrast to ethics based on "making yourself feel better" and feeding your own ego to convince yourself of your own moral superiority and near-godhood. As Muhammad said, "Do you love God? Then serve your fellow man." As opposed to, "Do you love yourself? Then make yourself feel better by doing such-and-such." While religion in its purest form (though I admit this is a rarity today) is based on Submission, to such a degree that one's illusion of self-hood vanishes, on the other hand, the ethics you speak of are based on feeding one's illusion of self-hood until it grows more and more delusioned, and more convinced that the "Self" is the only God worth serving.
-
-
using religion as a source of morality is exactly the problem! "morality" existed before regligious dogma! and was a free concept, what we have now which is a value system based tainted by authoritarianism! morality above compassion and freedom? this morality you talk of is illiberal!
abortion is a right! and no-one should tell anyone what to do with their own body! pro-lifers think its fine to save a life by killing the mother? or the doctor for that matter! that is done in the name of their religion. religion contribute to war because most religions are about power! the mess in the middle east isnt just about religion but it is obviously contributing to it! however i would agree it is also a convinient excuse for war!
ethics based on serving a god are flawed! just like its a waste of time to deny we have ego, ego dosnt mean self-godhood, its about awareness... the problems are levels! ill admit dismissing or reducing ego it is a usefull tool. we should all experience it as it creates a humility and awareness. however this is not about ego or no ego but a relative understanding of it. my problem with most religions is a that as a constant state of "achievement" or goal of submission, denial of ego is just abdicating responsibility. -
-
Ethics originate from God, and he has placed them in all peoples' hearts. Some may choose to follow them, and others not. They existed from before there was a distinguishing feature before humanity. Not before there was belief, but before there was unbelief. You have misintepreted what God has put into your heart as being from yourself. You have made yourself your own God, your only source of worship, your only source of law. Compassion and freedom also originate from God, not from you. While the self actually exists only as a "thought" within the divine, never separate of or independent from God, you have crafted a theology whereby only "You" exist. What are you? What is your self? Where was it before your birth? Where will it be after your death? Is the self the cells that comprise your body? Over your lifetime those cells are replaced, including your braincells. Is it the form they compose? That form changes over time as well, and will one day be no more.
Abortion is wrong, as this is taking innocent life. It is not right to "save a life by killing the mother", though any person convicted of murder may in some cases be eligible for the death penalty. Now a "doctor" on the other hand, who profits off of murder, is not in any way superior to Dr. Mengele, the famous Nazi "scientist" whose research was based on the pain, suffering, and death of Jews, Gypsies, and other human beings. If a person were to kill a doctor like Mengele, whose continued existence would only result in more death, this is defense of the defenseless, and I can't see a problem with it. A much better solution would just be to illegalize clinics where such doctors are paid for their role in murder, and allow abortion only as a means of saving the mother's life, to be performed in a hospital like any other medical procedure. Most religions are, at their root, not about power in this world, but in the world to come. This mess in the Middle East is mostly the product of colonialism, power, imperialism, etc. To resist an unjust cause is itself a religious obligation. Some have misinterpeted this to another kind of injustice. A convenient excuse indeed, but this is a problem owing to the corrupt nature of evil men, not to the veil of their religion of choice, which they hide under, and exploit from.
Submission, by which one realizes the illusoriness of the concept of self-hood, or at least its reality only as a thought within the Divine, is not abdication of responsibility. Rather, it is the only way of truly taking on responsibility. You have not been given free will so that you may answer to yourself. You (as well as I, and all of us) will answer to another, and you (as well as I, and all of us) will truly bear responsibility, for all the choices you have made. -
-
Well you clearly have your faith! However please do not presume to imagine that it has anything to do with me! This is exactly the problem! imposing self richeous indignation on me does not lend you any credit. My path is not one which involves some all powerful godhead! The problem here is that you’re dragging the notion of soul into this. This interpretation of spirit or the magical as a entity that belongs to someone else i.e. god yet again disempowers one and ducks responsibility! Own it!
To imagine that at some point humanity will account for its wicked ways means no-one makes much effort here and now as we believe we just have to say a prayer to get away with whatever has been committed, just be sorry if you like! Also who decides what is wrong and right? Theft is wrong by all accounts, yet that’s another foundation of capitalism.. Yet the moneyed church goes on! Who’s going to apologise for that? Or repent? Will one burn in some hell for being a capitalist? Will the church be swept away as a blasphemous sin?
All we do has ramifications, own it!
Otherwise what happens… well you decide its ok to kill doctors who do abortion and compare them to Nazi’s? So god thinks that’s ok then? Im sorry but this spurious argument holds no water, to say that all life is scarred and then say it ok to murder seems somewhat hypocritical. Abdicating responsibility to another being to justify whatever isn’t approve of, its all so easy isn’t it? Rather than making a rational argument one can hide behind so interpretation of god who apparently says it’s a sin to kill but well, ok sometimes one can murder in my name! What!!! Hello inquisition! And a raft of reasons to use religion to defend an “immoral [sic]” act!
There are many reasons to have an abortion, not just life threatening to the mother. As far as im concerned a foetus is not a life… although form your standpoint it is, as it has soul? There is also the fundamental right to self-determination! I decide what I do with my body and no state or power should interfere.
“Most religions are, at their root, not about power in this world, but in the world to come”, well so it’s about power in the afterlife now is it? Im confused about that!
Indeed colonialism has messed up the Middle East, as did ww2 and creating a homeland for the Jews and subjugating the indigenous population. Giving a religious zeal to a conflict does now legitimize it as a religious cause! And I agree evil people will manipulate this as they wish. -
-
They are not pro-life, they are anti-choice, in my opinion. A little off topic, but very important! A truly pro-life person takes into account all life involved.
Anyway, you have a point about many religions being about control, but I think it is the people in power who have used the religion to control the masses. It is the fanatical and corrupt leaders who lead the witch-hunts, bomb the abortion clinics, commit genocide, exalt suicide bombers. It is that control of the masses that leads to the denegration of all 'souls,' or sentient beings, who are viewed as different from the "righteous" in power. I am talking about all sentient beings, humans being only one of the many. Arguing veganism based on religion may not sway a person's opinion in the immediate moment, but it may plant the seed of reflection and deeper exploration or their inner self. A person's spiritual path is indeed a deep reflection of their inner self, a cornerstone of their identity, and to scorn that because of your difference of opinion (which is no less valid), denegrates and devalues a fellow sentient being. -
-
Oh! And a man has no place to judge abortion! You have no idea, and never will, of the fear, responsibility, joy, and sorrow that comes with the ability to bear life! You will never, in your wildest dreams, have even a faint concept of the wrenching, life altering experience that comes along with controlling your body and exercising your man- and, if you will, god-given rights! Most women will never know, unless they experience it. It is stupid to focus on what you call an "innocent life." What of the ramifications of bringing this unformed entity, souless or not to life? What about the life of the mother, the father, the possible other existing children and the close family of the potential parents? What of the woman in an abusive relationship? Did you know that domestic violence most commonly increases during pregnancy? What of the couple who can barely afford to feed the children they have? Is it just to force this family to further divide their resources, or place the burden on the state? Did you ever stop to consider the number of children without homes, and the relative infrequency of domestic adoptions? What would you do with all the unwanted children you would force women to bear? The growth and prosperity of humanity depended on women's reproductive freedom, thier control over when they bore children. What do you think would have happened to a woman in a hunter/gatherer tribe who birthed a child in the middle of winter? And what about the women bleeding to death or dying of infection because they were forced, out of desperation, to perform "back alley" abortions on themselves? Get over yourself, you are out of your league. Put your cock back in your pants and get over the fact that you will never, nor should you ever, control women. You think abortion is wrong? Get a fucking vasectomy and play your part in carrying out your convictions instead of pointing your judgemental finger where it does not belong.
-
-
And you clearly have your faith as well. If you presume to imagine that yours has anything to do with me and mine, I will do the same to you. God is not "someone else". God is not separate from me or you in physical separation (as Imam 'Ali so eloquently put it). Actually, what is required for Repentence in my religion (Tawbah; literally, Return) is to feel remorse for one's actions, to ask God for forgiveness, to ask any human beings wronged for THEIR forgiveness, and finally and quite importantly, to make a genuine struggling or striving (jihad) towards changing one's actions from the sins you have committed. Stop being a hypocrite and stop using so many damn exclamation marks. It's annoying and grammatically incorrect. Your Marxist tendencies are also quite annoying. You sound like a fourteen year old who just read the Communist Manifesto, and I should know -- I have BEEN a fourteen year old who just read the Communist Manifesto, haha. As long as you keep bringing up the "Church" and capitalism, I'm going to start holding you responsible for the anti-religious Stalin's actions, and his sort of Red Church.
Actually, what I said is that it is a sin to take INNOCENT LIFE. On the other hand, those guilty of murder may in some cases be killed. And a murderer may ALWAYS be killed if this is the only way to stop their killing spree. I am not "pro-life" to such an extent that I believe that murderers should not be killed, as I'm sure you are not "pro-choice" to such an extent that you support the right to CHOOSE killing one's two year old child. God never said it was a sin to kill. He said it was a sin to murder.
"Indeed colonialism has messed up the Middle East, as did ww2 and creating a homeland for the Jews and subjugating the indigenous population. Giving a religious zeal to a conflict does now legitimize it as a religious cause! And I agree evil people will manipulate this as they wish."
I agree except in that it is religiously obligatory to stop injustice.
-
-
-
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.Ah. I wondered when this turned into a discussion on abortion. I'm against it. Always. Have been since I wrote a paper on it in high school, where I researched all the methods used. Looked at all the gruesome pictures and read all the detailed medical descriptions of the cold, hard, bloody realties. It was like “Meet Your Meat,“ only “Meet Your Choice.” I wasn’t going to take anyone’s word on whether it was right or wrong without knowing what “it” was. I decided then and there where I stood, all my uber liberal friends know this, and I've never apologized for it once.
That being said, I'm an animal rights vegan. When someone asks, I talk about compassion and how we treat God's creatures, and "right vs. wrong." I'm thinking that would be "religion." -
-
i had no idea this discussion would go here. its interesting to me as i was subjected to what i call child abuse by the showing of pro-life propaganda at age 11 i think that the pro-life and yes anti-choice (as its anything buy pro-life!) message is all wrong. i think terrorising children with images and one sided stories is a scandle!
it has nothing to do with a womans right to decide on her own body and all about outside agencies telling her what she can and cant do! a foetus is not a life, it cant live outside the body... without significant help. is this what folk want?
all this is way off topic but i have to say this anti-choice veganism is a mainly USA movement. im glad its not over here much in europe! i find it somewhat bizzare. mixing religion with veganism i think is a big mistake. there is no such thing as "gods creatures" they are their own.
but as you say you have your beliefs and i have mine. and from experience there is little that can be said. -
-
veganism is about respect of all life, even unborn human life. if you think you're responsible enough to have sex, you should be willing to bear a child if it happens. if you don't want to have a baby, then please just stop fucking :/
that being said, i am against government restrictions on abortion. i think abortion is wrong (except in cases of rape), but i think if the government made it illegal it would just lead to a whole slew of additional problems. the country is not ready for a law like that.
-
I think you are being dishonest Draeyk when you say that you had no idea this discussion would go there...because YOU brought it there.
You are the one who brought up the "pro-life ramblings" and artifricially turned thsi discussion into a discussion about abortion, which is an interesting discussion, but it is hijacking this thread because pro-life pro-choice is not at all where the discussion was going nor the topic.
What leads to veganism?
while it is true that many who don't even understand their own religions (as Mary mentioned) use their weak understanding to justify holy wars and evil deeds, and even animal exploitation, the fact is that any text can be distorted to justify a certain belief.
But the main message of all major religions is one of compassion and love...although not always used in that way.
As Bilal beautifully explained most religious texts can lead to wanting to treat animals with respect, to prevent suffering and therefore the leap to veganism is a short one.
Also the definition of Dominion as explained by the quote posted by Matt is important to remember, many who don't understand the word or the concept, use dominion to justify animal exploitation, but that is not what dominion means.
For religion there are three main concepts to consider:
dominion, covenant and sacrifice.
dominion means to take care of.
a covenant is a contract, and in judeo-christian and even islamic faith the covenant was made between man and God, and it meant that man would be held responsible for all deaths (humans or not)...and there is also a covenant between God and all living creatures.
and sacrifice in modern religions is always attached to choice, in ancient religions one could "make a sacrifice" (killing virgins, or enemies, or animals) but in modern religions in order for the sacrifice to be valid it must be entered into by choice.
and these three concepts can very easily lead to veganism.
it does mean a paradigm shift for many, but the shift is possible.
the proof that the leap is possible is how many throughout the ages where directed to vegetarianism from religion.
and Draeyk, organised religion is not religion.
and church does not equal God.
and that's what it comes down to for me, while religious persons are not necessarilly vegan, it is possible to use religion to lead to veganism.(and I mean religious precepts and texts and philosophies, I don't mean churches)
but pure science, science for the sake of accumulating knowledge and defining the universe scientifically (with man at the center of it) at any cost, to me can not lead to veganism, because ultimately compassion is not a factor, morality and ethics do not exist as far as pure science is concerned.
Since Nature is random and The universe is vast and individual suffering is irrelevant.
If someone could give me a scientific argument for compassion, veganism and peace, I would love to hear it.
Of course the environmental argument of sustainability is fine, and in my opinion, the fact that animal agriculture is unsustainable is a testament ot the perfection of creation, but from a scientific point of view, if scientists can find a sustainable way to abuse animals and raise them for food (perhaps with cloning and genetic engineering) suffering, kindness and compassion do not fit in to their considerations.
On the other hand, religious people like to believe that they are compassionate and "good" and this belief of their own righteousness and goodness can be "used" to introduce veganism.
but if someone does not believe in the human soul, in goodness or right or wrong, how can it be done? -
-
>>>If someone could give me a scientific argument for compassion, veganism and peace, I would love to hear it.<<<
You can't make any argument really if you start from the basis of the universe being just a bunch of random chaos. On that scale everything we do is certainly irrelevant. But you can make an argument based on survival of the species. The goal of any species on earth (or wherever) is to survive, thrive, and multiply, and the most efficient, logical way to do that is human beings is to adopt a global vegan diet (at least under present circumstances). You mention science for the sake of accumulating knowledge, well we can no longer accumulate knowledge if we are extinct. You have to start the chain of logic with some sort of goal in mind. -
-
"You mention science for the sake of accumulating knowledge, well we can no longer accumulate knowledge if we are extinct."
I love that one! :-)
I'll use that.
-
i didnt bring up the whole "social justice" angle that led to my comment... half way through the thread... i didnt expect it to go there on abortion till it happened. my first posts were far away from that angle... hence my comment! anyway you cant seriously throw in religion and science as topic and not expect to to dart around all over the place! wasnt that your aim?
mind you im not suprised you had to have a dig at me as we dont agree on many things and it seems we had some discussion b4 about your religious zeal!
making these religions sound all nice, nice dont make it so! sure there are some positives but in the main organised religions are about power, heirarchy, service, denial, self loathing, abdication of responsibility and so on. non-organised religions and faiths do not usually allude to this as they are personal, free spirit, anarchistic et cetera. most of the latter have been swept away by later faiths that dont tolerate competition or rather blasphemy!
some wierd notions of science you have antonie, but whatever! oh and compassion can equal survival. science. as matt pointed out.
to me veganism can be about compassion but in and of itself it dosnt corner the market in it. yes, obviously its concerned with animal welfare but and i know its anoying to some, the abortion angle proves that since some vegans think that that isnt ok! now im not sure if thats seen by them as an extension of veganism... as has been implied or because of religious beliefs? then again im curious how folk feel about other life issues... as this is in the mix? like the right to "death"
-
-
okay, Draeyk we have in fact disagreed in the past, but please don't try to make this fit in with these disagreements. We have NEVER had any discussions about religion. We did disagree in the past about veganism and definitions, but never about my religious views.
could you make a choice to stop this villefying to win arguments?
and this whole "if you don't agree with EVERYTHING that I agree with then you are an @@#%$. " attitude of yours? ;-) pretty please?
Just because someone is pro-choice their opinions on EVERYTHING else are invalid?
the purpose of this tribe is to DISCUSS philosophy from a vegan standpoint and with veganism as a central point of reference.
So let's discuss and not spend all our time trying to pick fights, please.
Regardless of who an idea comes from, a good idea is a good idea.
If instead of focusing on who says the idea, and whether or not you "like" that person, and whether or not you agree with all their other ideas, you focussed on the IDEA ITSELF maybe the discussion would be more interesting.
All I'm asking (just asking) is that we please keep abortion vs pro-life out of this discussion, as I feel that it is a hijack of this thread.
if someone wants to start a new thread about whether pro-life is in-line with vegan philosophy please do.
that is my request.
As for it going all over the place, I grant you that a discussion often does, but Draeyk, my main issue is not about your opinions or your views, it is the lack of openness to evolution that you have.
when you have an opinion no matter how many argument someone else makes you always stick to your orginal opinion no matter what. To me a discussion is a request for different views, to either change one's views or reinforce one's views.
And that means always being open to the possibility that we could be wrong.
in this case, I and many others have tried (in vain) to separate religion from organised religion, to separate God and religious morality from Churches but you still keep playing the same old tired record.
Which is why I started this thread. This is what I feel about religion vs. science as it pertains to veganism, so I said what I felt, i put my opinion out there...not because it is static and unmoving, if it were, why would I open a discussion about it? but because I want to hear other people's views and opinions on it...I posted this so that others could prove me wrong, or give me good advice and suggestions, as Matt has for example.
If you diagree with me cool, then tell me what you believe in, and how your thought process works, instead of just looking for digs and turning the discussion into a diatribe on your hatred of religion.
you dislike religion and organised religion and churches, okay. But that was not the reason for this thread, this thread is about whether or not religion leads to veganism more easily than science.
opinions and views are welcome.
but rhetoric against science itself or religion itslef is off-topic.
and artificially transforming this thread into a choice vs. life discussion is not cool. -
-
I say yank the thread and start over.
-
-
you could start a new thread! but id suggest re-framing it so its less vague.
-
-
Religion vs science to promote veganism is NOT vague at all Draeyk
there was nothing in my original post that had anything at all to do with abortion.
THIS is exactly what I mean about you Draeyk, it appears that you don't learn and you NEVER evolve!
you are so focussed in trying to "win" an argument at any cost that you can't even admit when you are wrong.
I hesitate to remove this thread because Mary, Bilal and Matt and even Draeyk have made some very interesting points, and I think that this topic is an interesting one....and very current with what is happenning in veganism right now.
Most religions are SERIOUSLY discussing vegetarianism and the issue of the ethics of animal tests is a big issue in the scientific community.
As well in both religious and scientific circles, animal welfare and wild animal preservation along with the growing mainstreaming of environmental protection discussions and discussions on sustainability are happenning now.
The goal is for us to be able to vhange the minds of meat-eaters, and to find the BEST way to promote veganism.
and if we constantly get side-tracked when we discuss these things among ourselves, we will never discover the best way to explain veganism to different kinds of meat-eaters.
I agree that a sepaarte thread on abortion and veganism could be started, but I don't think this thread was vague at all and if we all commit to keeping on track with the discussion of religion vs science to promote veganism it could be an interesting discussion.
I have no problems with people disagreeing and with people having differences of opinions,
I just find it annoying when two people are discussing which is the best kind of flour for breadmaking, and someone starts to argue about the best oven to use...yes it's RELATED but it's NOT on topic.
and then (to continue with the baking discussion analogy) when someone tries to "win" an argument by insulting the apron that the baker is wearing that is just wrong. ;-) -
-
Holy crap. The OP was 836 words long, of course it wasn't vague. What's he want? an OP over a 1000 words long? Does he need charts and graphs, too? Pfft.
Oh, but something Matt said made me remember that I also bring up the fact that this idea that you have to eat meat at every meal is also fucking up the planet, emptying the oceans, and driving locals to turn rainforests into grazing land for cows. I guess that would count as “science.”
Use whatever it takes. The more you know, the more tools you have in any discussion. Draeyk may not believe that they are “God’s creatures” but a deeply religious person would find resonance in that phrase and that might make them think less cavalierly about treating another species as meat making machines with no value beyond man’s vanity and palate.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
