Affluence and Veganism

The United States is one of the top wealthiest countries in the world. Which sometimes makes me wonder: is vegetarianism and veganism (sometimes referred to as strict vegetarianism) tied to affluence in some way? 

I am not a statistician, so I can only rely on information dumbed down for stupid people like myself. But I have always suspected that the answer to my question was in the affirmative. It isn't cost that made me think this, but access. The availability of vegan options is readily obvious in wealthy countries.  

Some of the greatest growth in veganism over the past few years has happened exclusively in countries that are predominantly wealthy with the infrastructure to provide the necessary vegan options. But not all countries fall under this banner. For example, Thailand (of which I'll comment more on later).

This isn't a demerit against veganism itself, nor the inability of certain groups of people to follow a vegan diet when many of the options we take for granted are unavailable to them.   But it does suggest that, for the most part, as the wealth of a country increases the rate of growth of veganism also increases. Perhaps this is because of the increase in, and availability of, education and healthcare. 

Now, I mentioned Thailand as an example. But this example has a caveat that we should keep in mind: some countries that don't have the wealth others have, and probably always had, an infrastructure that includes easy access to a large variety of grains, fruits and vegetables. This infrastructure might also include religious teachings and inclinations. Although the exception to what I've already said, they are certainly not in the majority. 

Another country that is an interesting exception is India. The vegetarian capital of the world, it has an infrastructure driven, among other things, by religious beliefs. However, there has been a growth in veganism in this predominately vegetarian country. 

So, although there seems to be a correlation between wealth and the growth of veganism, there are countries where this doesn't appear to be strictly true. I suspect, as I mentioned above, education is the most likely reason for this growth, but education is also driven by affluence. Especially in countries where veganism (or even vegetarianism) was not an original part of the countries socio-religious infrastructure. 

In fact, I suspect that the more secular a society (or the more secular it is becoming) the greater the growth in veganism. 

Anyway, just some thoughts. Check out the following links if you want more information.

https://www.veganfirst.com/article/best-vegan-friendly-countries-in-the-world-in-2022

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gdp-per-capita-by-country

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/veganism-by-country

 

Healthy vegans

 The Internet is full of videos and articles on veganism and health. If you want to learn about veganism and perhaps even give a plant-based diet a try, then now is a great time.  Unfortunately, there are bad videos as well. One category I keep running across is that of the sort which takes the anecdotal account of a "vegan" who tried the diet and became emaciated and sick. If you saw the pictures, you would think the person in question was from a third-world nation.  Any one of the people under consideration in these videos are simply victims of bad diets. This can be the case for carnists as well as vegans. 

However, these stories are just that, anecdotes. The vast majority of people who become vegan live perfectly normal and healthy lives. Please be careful what you watch. There is nothing wrong with getting both sides of the story. However, there is so much junk out there that it is sometimes difficult to know what to watch or read. My encouragement to those who wish to learn more about veganism (or any subject, for that matter) is to gather material for research from expert resources as much as possible. 

Personally, I typically find books to be one of the best resources. True, there are bad ones, but often they are better researched and it is much easier to find critiques and reviews of the book by people who are more qualified than the typical youtuber. My point is, if you are going to research, you are going to need to put some work into it.  Don't do what I see being done all the time and jump on each train as it races by. 

As far as eating goes, don't fall into the common trap of assuming everything that doesn't have an animal product listed on the label is good for you. A vegan diet consisting of crackers and Oreo cookies will leave you just as unhealthy as a typical American one. Being vegan is a choice about ethics, not just diet. But a diet that is ultimately unhealthy for you will make ethical choices more difficult than they have to be. Not to mention the bad press such a diet could potentially cause.

A final word of advice to those choosing a plant-based diet for the first time: you will, you must eat more. Plants are typically mostly made up of water. Therefore, you will have to eat more of them to both stay full and give you body all of the calories it needs to function normally. In fact, I would recommend that if you are on a healthy plant diet you stop counting calories (Except, maybe, for the purpose of making certain you are getting enough, not for the purpose of making certain you are not eating too much). Just eat and eat well. 

By healthy, I don't mean animal analogs (think Beyond Meat and the Impossible Whopper). They are great for those wanting to transition to an all plant-based diet, but not for the long haul. They are highly processed and high in salt and calories. If you stick to plants in their native form, cooking with them just as they are, you will have no problems that cannot be fixed with variety and perhaps quantity.  

That's all. 

 

Living my morals

 It has been quite a while since I wrote to this blog. If you've read my last post, "Cognitive Dissonance", you will know that I had started eating animal products. I had given some reason for this, but I have since had time to think more about it and I am understanding better why this happened. Depression was one reason. If you have never been through a severe clinical depression, you will find it difficult to understand how much of a negative effect this has on suffers' lives. I don't know if using this as an excuse is appropriate as I have discovered some other reasons for my decision, but it certainly was a large part of it and I can't help think that I might have made a different decision if I hadn't gone through such a dark period in my life. It is possible that the depression set in motion a domino effect that ultimately led to my change in diet. 

Lately I have been reading the book, "The Joyful Vegan: How to Stay Vegan in a World That Wants You to Eat Meat, Dairy, and Egg", by  Colleen Patrick-Goudreau. I highly recommend it. She mentions a few reason people go back to an animal based diet which helped my understand myself better. One of the reasons she gives is burnout. After years of guilt over feeling like I wasn't doing enough, trying to be a super-vegan, I finally just gave up, feeling as though I could never be good enough. That, topped with my mental health issues, was a recipe for failure. I've since tried to give myself permission to fail. To not be good enough and accept where I am right now. 

She also suggested reading and watching videos to help inspire me and keep me informed. These don't have to be videos of slaughter houses and pushy ultra vegans. In fact, in my case, it might not be good for me at all. So I've started reading more, including adding a few books to my audible account that will help inspire and encourage me.

It is still a difficult journey and probably will remain so for a long time. But I am well on the road to recovery, feeling stronger as far as my mental health goes, learning to forgive myself and taking one small step at a time. 

One final step that I have taken is making my journey as a vegan a one issue journey. Previously, because of religious beliefs and health related reasons, I tried to "excuse" my veganism by telling people I was vegan for ethics, religion or health, depending on my audience. With the last two I would tell people I ate a plant based diet in order to avoid discussing ethics. 

I have decided going forward that I would only be a vegan for ethical reasons, period. I don't need to give any other reason. It is almost impossible to defend the position using Christianity (except, perhaps, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, where "fasting" is plant based and monks tend to fast all year round - but not the laity), but almost all Christian sects/denominations believe the bible not only allows but also commands the eating of meat. Typically you will here the excuse from these groups, "That is what God created animals for".  

I also decided that health reasons were not a good reason for me. Veganism has been scientifically demonstrated to be healthy and meat eating harmful to humans. But, I wouldn't eat animals even if it could be shown that eating meat was healthier. Obviously I would have to eat meat if veganism was deadly to human life, but it isn't and we don't need to even focus on such hyperbole. 

So, ethics is the only reason for me to not eat animals. It is a good reason and, in my opinion the best and only real reason to stop. I am happy when anyone for any reason stop eating animals, but for me it will, from now on, be my morals that guide me.

Finally, I am doing this for myself, that is, my morals. I love the animals, I know they feel pain, happiness, sadness, loneliness and every other emotions I have. I want EVERYONE to go vegan. But, I don't care how others take it or what they do with the information I and others provide. My life will continue on just fine without their liking me or my position. I spent a lot of time thinking that my worth as a vegan and a person was tied to everyone else. If I wasn't convince people to go vegan on ethical or health grounds, then I was failing. "Why won't they listen?", "How do they see the videos and read the facts and not become vegan?" are some of the things I would think and say. Now, I don't care if they listen or not. I would love to see people change for any reason, whether it is because of my testimony, others' or because they did their own thinking and research on the subject. But if they don't, then so be it. It isn't going to change my views and I'm not going to let it bother me. 

This can sound confusing, I admit. I don't want it to appear that I don't love the animals or the people I talk to (If I loved the animals and not the people I would be just as much a hypocrite as when I loved humans but didn't care about the animals).  I just don't want to think it all sits on my shoulders. What they do with the info I give them is not my problem. I am vegan because I, me, myself, love animals and don't want to participate in causing them suffering. I was told once concerning my going vegan, "But you are only one person", to which I responded, "Yes, that is true. But I am one person" (Of course, there are tens of thousands more like me, but you get the point).  

I will be writing more about religious views on eating meat and why I think it is either a bad reason to stop or a terrible reason to keep eating animals. 

Cognitive Dissonance

I've spent the last year or so eating animal products.  I blame this on a number of things. The first and foremost being my struggle with depression (Actually, bipolar II). I got to a point where I didn't want to have to think about what I ate because I simply could not think about much of anything.  There are other reasons, but this is the most important to me and the most effective when explaining my decision to other people.  But...I've come to realize there is no truly good reason for my decision.  I just had a change of mind, of which I cannot really explain.  I've thought and thought about it, but I simply cannot come up with a good enough excuse.  And, for me, this is a problem.

How could I do it knowing what I know about animal suffering?  Cognitive dissonance.  I simply turned off that part of me that knew better. I turned off the compassion. If one is good enough at this (and I think most people are, or at least can learn to be) any guilty pangs one normally feels can be quashed. Each time that niggling in the back of my mind started to surface, I mercilessly shoved it back into the dark recesses of my mind until it could do nothing effective.

I suppose a lot of people do this. I know friends and family who admit they have seen the videos and read the articles, but continue to eat animals anyway saying something like, "I don't want to think about it".  I use to judge these people as cruel, uncaring (when it comes to animals) and ignorant. I'm reminded of the passage in the Bible, "Do not judge lest you be judged". Know I know what those people are thinking and how they are able to do what they do in the face of the data. I've become one of those people.

I've also found it difficult to decide why I should stop eating animals. I was a Christian. The church branch I was a part of believed in regular fasting. The fasting promoted was basically a vegan diet. Except for a few occasional exceptions on certain days, one was to only eat vegetables, fruit and bread.  A plant based diet was built into the church practice.  But, maybe because of the depression, I bounced back and forth between atheism and religion as I began to learn outside of my religious upbringing.  This caused me to try to fast and then to abandon the practice in an irregular cycle.  It was very frustrating. 

The difficulty with veganism by religion (at least my religion) was that eating animals wasn't looked at as being wrong.  Not harming animals was simply the byproduct of the fasting. The fact is the Bible, and Christianity in general, not only allows the consumption of animals, but it justifies it. In some places, primarily in the Old Testament, it commands it. Animals were once killed by the tens of thousands every year simply to be burned to ash for the purpose of the absolution of one's sins.  It is true that in the New Testament, supposedly instituted by Jesus and his followers, the killing of animals in place of the believer in payment for his or her sins is no longer commanded.  But that is the rub: no where does the Scripture command or even suggest the killing of animals for any other reason. Besides the sacrificial system, the Old Testament's views on animals still stands. 

All of this is to say, if you use the Christian religion (maybe even most religions) in an attempt to justify veganism or condemn the harming of animals, one is doomed to a very confusing time at best.  Even religions like Hinduism seem ineffective against the eating of animals, even the sacred cows. True, a great number of Hindus are, at the very least, vegetarians.  But a good many are not. Either because they particular brand of the religion allows it or, which is more likely, the adherents simply don't care any more about the injunction.  Something common to all religions, including Christianity.

Not eating animals is best done from an adjustment of our morals based on enlightenment values, especially that of reason. We know from both observation and science that animals suffer. They do a lot more analogous to humans, but they especially suffer. We can look at the data, look at the animals and make an informed and accurate decision concerning their suffering.  It is true that even children have a natural aversion to animal suffering and eating animal flesh appears to be, although I am not an expert in this, wholly a learned behavior.  But as adults we have every responsibility to use our capacity for reason to understand the situation and do something about it.  So why don't we?

I am going to be thinking more about this over the next few days, but I am going to go back to veganism.  This time not because of religion but because I know that the suffering of animals is a real thing and because not hurting them is the reasonable thing to do. 

Where is compassion in all of this?  That is important too, but I don't know if one can get to that point without knowing at least some of the facts. Compassion as a gut reaction can only get someone so far. At least, that is the case for me.  What about empathy?  As far as pain goes, I suppose I can feel for the animal to a certain extent. But realistically, it is impossible to truly put yourself in the place of animals because of their inability to communicate in any detail what they are truly feeling. I am not a cow or a pig or a chicken, even though I am an animal.  Any sort of empathetic reaction I have will simply be the result of anthropomorphize the animal and I am not convinced that is a good way about this.  I may be wrong here, but I think reason and compassion are the only way to steadfastly hold to one's position, the right position, when it comes down to it.

These are my thoughts, right or wrong. But they will help me better to understand the plight of the animals and do something to reduce their suffering, including gong back to a plant based diet and stick to it for the rest of my life.

Blame the vegans

Last year a study was done that showed that a quarter of Britons are turned off of veganism because of aggressive vegans.  You can read an article about it here.  I don't really want to talk about the motivation behind the study or its veracity (Although I have questions about both).  Rather I want to talk about people's perception of vegans. 

I have no doubt that some people have run into aggressive vegans somewhere.  They do exist.  But I found that the study left out one important piece of information:  How many vegans do you know?
I would have asked the following follow-up questions:

1. Do you know any vegans personally?
2. Are any of them your friends?
3. Have those vegans ever been aggressive?
4. What do you mean by "aggressive"?

Obviously that would have made the study a bit more complex and the open ended nature of number four would have presented problems in collating the information, but still, they are important questions.

For the first seven or eight years of being vegan I also believed that aggressive vegans were turning people off from being vegan.  So I decided to be the nice, non-judgmental, amiable vegan.  I would only speak when spoken too and try my hardest to eat without people catching on (Which is impossible, but I tried anyway).  Would you believe that people still thought I was a pushy, judgmental vegan?!  Friends would send out anti-vegan memes about pushy vegans even though I knew for a fact I was the only vegan they knew! 

My Christianity is analogous to this situation.  If you ask most serious Christians, they can confirm this for you.  It is something we've been going through our whole lives.  Even though I am not a in-your-face, evangelistic, bible thumping nut; even though I keep to myself, wear no stickers or preachy t-shirts; I still get labeled as "religious".   The times I've been labeled a "fanatic" have been when I've been asked questions about my religion and I've answered kindly and honestly.  I've hardly ever initiated the conversations. But that didn't stop the judgement.

Veganism is only different in that there are far fewer of them, so it is less likely that any one person actually knows one personally.  But if they are to see you not eating meat and find out you are vegan; if they are to ask you a question and you explain your position; if they are to start the argument and you defend yourself and the animals well (i.e., you win), then you are an aggressive vegan.  You are an animal rights fanatic.

Like I said, I am sure this isn't always the case.  Jerks abound (on both sides of the fence).  But I am guessing that if someone is saying they are put off by vegan aggression that:

1. They don't actually know a vegan.
2. They only heard about aggressive vegans or seen them lampooned on t.v.
3. They feel guilty for what they do and are looking for a scapegoat. When it comes down to it, they simply like eating meat.

How's that for judgmental?

When it comes down to it, people are going to label you whether you like it or not.  You could be the nicest person on the planet, and if you disagree with someone, you are an intolerant prig. I finally realized two things.  First, being quiet didn't help.  People were going to label me as soon as I said or did anything.  Second, the situation is too serious to be jovial and fun loving about it.  Innocent creatures are being tortured and killed for the pleasure of those who want to eat them for food. 

You see, that fact is people won't buy something that the person selling doesn't actually believe in.  If you act like the situation isn't dire then the people you interact with won't think it worth their time either.  Why should they take the situation seriously if we don't act like it is a serious situation? 

 I am not advocating that we be jerks.  Being a jerk does turn people off.  What I am advocating is talking to people calmly and with respect but with the seriousness and urgency that the situation demands.  True, they may label you an aggressive vegan activist jerk, but they were probably going to do that anyway, so why worry about it?   

Towards a theology of animal welfare

One of the most difficult groups of people I've ever had to interact with when it comes to animal welfare and animal rights are those of Christians or of a Judaeo-Christian background.  As I am a Christian I can identify easily where they are coming from.  I was once there myself.  But I also have to admit that I've become frustrated with the typical (almost identical) responses I get from others and how to deal with them.  The basic responses I get to the discussion of animal abuse, meat eating and animal rights are along the lines of:

"But that is what God put them on earth for", or,

"Animals aren't equal with humans".

These two responses represent two categories that really need to be dealt with as they relate to the relationship of humans with animals in order for our answers to even be considered acceptable to the Christian (I am speaking here to Christians, but I believe the same thing is true for Jews, Muslims and other religions).

The first statement really has to do with creation and God's relationship to man, not really man's relationship to animals per se.  The answer will definitely effect our relationship to animals, but that isn't the primary basis for an answer to this statement.  We need to be able to answer (or ask questions) about God's relationship to man and the initial creation of man and his world and once that is done we will be better able to answer or ask questions about man's relationship to the animals.

The second statement concerns anthropology.  On the surface it looks like it is talking about animals.  But it is not. It is talking about humans. That is, who is man to God and how does that effect animals.  I realize that my atheist friend might wish to start an answer based on whether or not animals are equal with man, but with a Christian such an argument probably isn't going to go very far (covered in the last section).  With any argument it is always important to know your audience and interact in a way they will understand and respond to, having accurate knowledge of both what you are trying to say and confidence that you are understanding the questions they are trying to ask.

One final note.  This post is not  about how to twist a Christian's arm into becoming an animal welfare activist or a vegan or what have you. It is about understanding.  Understand where others are coming from, understanding how to ask real questions and give real answers and, probably more than anything, helping me to understand the theological ramifications of what I believe. And like any interaction with humans, things are going to be in flux as ideas are thrown in, turned over, looked at and rejected or accepted.  In other words, what is said here is not the final word on the subject.  Not even close.

"But that is what God put them on earth for"

Let me first start by pointing out in answer to this particular statement, most Christians haven't a clue why they are saying this.  They know that somewhere the Bible must say this, but they don't know where and they certainly are likely not to know why it is said if it does say such a thing.  The fact is, the Bible does say such a thing.  I won't list all of the biblical passages where this is formulated, but the most important would be Genesis 9:3:

Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant." (NASB)

It really is difficult to argue against this passage.  I've heard attempts at it, but all of them appear to me to be anemic.  The passage says what it says and there is no reason to believe it means anything other than what it means.

However, to understand this passage I think it is important that we look at everything that came before it.  This passage says "...as I gave the green plant".  If we read the first couple chapters of Genesis we discover that man didn't start out eating animals.  In Genesis 2:15-16 we see that man's job was to tend the garden and that he may eat of any try except one. No where in these two chapters that deal with humans, creation and God are we told they may eat animals.  In fact, it s commonly held that man and woman were vegans at the beginning of creation.

[As a quick side note, some might argue for a mythological-poetic reading of the first few chapters of Genesis whereas I've taken a  more literal approach.  I am not taking one side or the other here as I believe either reading will end with the same conclusion I've here stated. That is, that humankind started out, according to the Bible and the Christian religion, consuming a plant based diet.]

So when it comes to answering questions about why animals were created, we have to point out that it wasn't for food.  Or, more importantly, they were not required for food.

Another interesting development are verses 18-25 in chapter two.  It first tells us that God didn't think it was good for man to be alone.  So he tries to find him a companion.  First God turns to the animals.  He creates all of the animals and basically says, "What do you think?".  But neither God nor man finds a companion suitable to the man and so God gives it another whirl and creates woman.  Here, myth or not, the overall meaning is God created woman to be a co-companion with man.  Period.  But I think it interesting that God doesn't simply jump to creating woman.  He first creates all of the animals and lets man interact with them, looking for that one companion.  I don't believe we should gloss over the fact that God's first mention of animals besides humans had to do with human companionship and not food or potential sacrificial substitutions.  This may not directly tell us what animals were for, but it certainly tells us two things they were not for: a substitute for human companionship and food.  The first point I can't deal with in this post, but the second point is exactly what this post is aiming for.

Some might argue that the point of mentioning animals in the first place, while searching for a companion for man, is to demonstrate unequivocally that animals cannot be a proper companion to man.  In fact, all of Scripture seems to bare this out as there is no mention of human to animal companionship in the way we understand it today. But I tend to read this passage as saying human companionship offers a fullness that cannot be gotten from animals.  If it were forbidding animal companionship I think Scripture would have made this more clear.  Besides zoophilia, which is condemned, Scripture is silent on this matter.  That and the fact that people do find a wonderful amount of companionship from animals, I believe my reading is closer to the intent.

Unfortunately things didn't remain so idyllic.  Humankind decided that, as so often they do, they would be better off doing things there own way and telling God to go take a hike.  This introduced sin into the world.  Sin is simply the word for the concept of humans not doing what they were created for. Or, humans going against their original God-intended nature.  It is a missing of the mark.  And the punishment for that decision was death.  But God didn't want humankind to die.  He loved them.  So God allowed another innocent being to die in their place.  Animals.  We read in chapter four that Able sacrificed an animal to God and Cain offered plants. But God accepted Able's gift and not Cain's.  So, in true human fashion, Cain murdered his brother Able.  But here is where things get sticky.  Why did animals have to die in the place of man?  Why did God accept one and not the other? Why does blood have to be shed in order for sins to be forgiven (Hebrews 9:22)?  Why must people forgive other people without any shedding of blood, yet God demands it in order for him to forgive people?  Etc.

These are all excellent questions, but ones I am not prepared to answer.  I am not prepared to answer them because I don't know the answers.   The only answer I can offer has to do with the New Covenant over the Old.  This is where Christianity has something over other religions. Things didn't remain stagnant.  God sent his only son to be that once-for-all innocent sacrifice for man's sins. Animals took the place of humans, Jesus took the place of the animals on behalf of humans.  No more animals would have to die.  God was restoring man's relationship to himself and, in a way, rolling back all of time to that moment in the garden before mankind had gone their own separate way.  This is where I believe most Christians fail to see one serious effect of the New Covenant: There is no more Old Covenant.  It seems simple enough, but it gets missed all the time.

The old covenant stipulated that a rebellious son was to be stoned, with his parents casting the first stone. It also called for the death of an adulterous woman, witches and homosexuals. It called for the sacrifice of innocent animals for the benefit of man.  And it gave man permission to eat the animals.

Animals were not put here to die for us.  They were put here as co-creations with us, not for food, but for other reasons not stipulated in the creation story.  The sacrifices and food angle did not come about until AFTER man rebelled against God.  And now that Jesus, the once-for-all sacrifice for man, died and rose from the grave, man is restored (or in the process of being restored) to what he was BEFORE the fall.

Am I saying that people are sinning when they eat meat?  No.  But for a Christian I wonder why they would justify eating meat when they certainly wouldn't justify sacrificing animals for their sins, killing homosexuals, adulterous women and witches?  I wonder why they would argue against a plant based diet when that is what humankind ate before the fall?  I wonder why they would insist that God made animals for food when, in fact, it is clear that he did not originally make them for that and that animals as food and sacrificial substitutes only came about after the fall?  In short, the statement "That is what God made them for" is, at worse, a very halfhearted response that is lacking in any real substance and is really only serving as a sort of justification for a behavior that one does not want to change.  At best it should, and does, raise more questions than it answers, as already demonstrated.

Finally, whenever I hear that response my first reaction is to ask them if they know what it is they are saying?   I like to reformulate their statement as such: "God made animals for us to torture, abuse and slaughter so that we can fill our already overstuffed bellies with food we don't even need to survive".  And then I ask them if that is what they mean?

"Animals are not equal to humans"

This is a more difficult statement to deal with.  Mostly because it is thrown out as a statement of fact that, I suppose, is expected to end the discussion.  "Oh, you are right.  Animals aren't equal to humans. I am so glad you reminded me of that, now pass the steak".  But I think it is important that we push back on this one.  Again, like the previous statement, it won't do for us to say, "Yes they are" and move on.  That would be taking the same route as the person giving the above statement.  The fact is, according to the Bible and the Christian faith, they are right.

Man was created in the image of God (Read Genesis 1 and 2 again).  No where are we told that animals were created in God's image.  There is no point in trying to argue differently.  Man holds a very special place in God's universe.  This is God goes to such great lengths to save him from himself.  This is why Jesus came as a human.  This is why animals were sacrificed for humans.  This is why humans were given permission to eat animals and to have dominion over them.  If we are going to enter into this discussion within a Christian framework, we are going to have to deal with those facts as facts and not as optional beliefs.  Anything other than those being facts will change Christianity into something other than what it is and make any sort continuing argument useless.

But my answer to this is simple.  So what?   O.K., so animals are not equal to humans.  So what? Maybe it means that if we have the choice to save a human or an animal, we choose to save the human.  Maybe it means that you focus on the needs of humans first and then animals.  But how does this translate to a universal permission to torture, kill, eat and experiment on them?  Experimentation rarely needs to be done (I won't say never, but it is certainly very rare in this day and age).  We've already established that they are not needed for food, at least not in any industrialized nation.  They certainly are not needed as sacrifice for human sin. Jesus took care of that. So what is the point of making such a statement?

Some would argue for meat eating using aborigines living in the desert where human eatable vegetation is hard to come by. But since the person asking the question is probably not such an aborigine, what is the point?

Some would argue asking, "If you knew that sacrificing an animal would cure cancer, would you do it?".  But as this very unlikely, what is the point?

Some would ask, "If you were stranded on a desert island with only animals, would you eat one?  But we aren't stranded on such an island, so what is the point?  I always want to ask such a person, "If you lived in a land where eatable plants were in abundance, would you stop eating meat?"  Or, answer as my daughter once did, "I would just eat the food the animals were eating".

The "point" really is a red herring.  I realize there is somewhat a point in that if you were willing to eat meat in these circumstances, why not eat meat all the other times.  But this is just a justification on the part of the inquisitor. And an "all or nothing" answer is just another logical fallacy along with that of a red herring. We aren't on a dessert island.  We aren't living in a desert.  We don't have the cure for cancer.  But we do have lots of plants.  We do live in a land of plenty.  We don't need to eat animals.  So really the point is no point at all.  Just like the statement, "Animals aren't equal to humans".

However, I like to reformulate this statement as well.  I think it is being stated incorrectly.  I don't believe "equals" is the right word.  Of course animals and humans are not equal (again, no point).  The word should be changed to the phrase "same as", because that is really what is being said.  Humans aren't the same as animals.  But this goes without saying.  Maybe humans are a type of animal.  But they aren't the same animal any more than a fish is the same as a bear or a giraffe is the same as a bird. It should go without saying (even though some feel the need to say it in defense of their diet).

Perhaps the phrase is meant to convey the idea that animals do not deserve or require equal consideration with humans.  But that is a presumption.  Scriptures certainly doesn't say this.  And even if it did, "equal" is still the wrong word.  "Same" would be better and that still begs the question: "your point?".  To say animals deserve the right to vote along with humans is to state nonsense.  This would be like stating that men deserve the right to an abortion.  But all this is not to say that animals do not deserve equal consideration as humans when it comes to areas of similarity to both their natures.  I.e., not to suffer, happiness, health, etc. 

Yes, man was created in God's image and animals were not.  So what?  If anything this should inform our actions towards the animals much differently than what they are.  Instead of eating them, torturing them, abusing them, we should, as creatures bearing the image of God, look for ways to love them, save them, help them.  Instead of reading the passages in the Bible that give us permission to eat meat (not commanded, but permissive - some meat eaters seem to be confused on this point)  we should instead look for those passages that tell us animals are no longer needed for food or to give up their lives in place of ours.  That would seem to me to be more in keeping with the image of God.  But it shouldn't be surprising that humankind's propensity towards overt and horrific violence towards fellow humans and innocent creatures, all in the name of God, would win out most of the time.  It has been this way from the beginning.

I realize that much of what I have written is a bit scattered and I hope to firm up some of my views on this matter in other posts.  But for now, hopefully it gives you something to think about.

Challenging Social Norms

Social norms. Sometimes they can be good, sometimes not so good.  For this discussion I want to break society down into two components which I will call "society" and "government".  The government is suppose to represent the majority views of a society but, as history has taught us, it doesn't always.  This is assuming that a society's majority views are the basis for a government's laws and regulations.  For Christians and for America's particular government, Judaeo-Christian values should be seen as the basis of government, but as this is changing (or has mostly changed) and because these values themselves can be influenced by a society's views, I am going to assume that the majority view as the usual standard. 

There is a deep problem with accepting a society's majority opinion as the basis for a government and its laws and regulations that should be fairly obvious.  Sometimes a majority view, or the moral set of values held by the majority, is simply wrong.  This was the case, to name two examples, with Nazi Germany during WWII and the Africa-American slave industry in the United States (as well as France, Britain and other countries).  These two examples are different only in that one mostly operated from the top down, from the government to society and the other bottom up, from the society to the government.  This is a simplistic view, I admit, and maybe not entirely accurate, but I think it is accurate enough for this discussion.

 Judaeo-Christian values bring its own set of problems to the table is that both of these examples were upheld or justified using the Judeo-Christian Bible, demonstrating that even a supposed outside, non-biased source such as "God said" can be heavily influenced or commandeered by society and the government, mostly (or entirely) because what God said must be interpreted by the vary society and government it is suppose to be the basis for.  This is true of any such source, religious or otherwise.

The fact is, whatever we base our society's values on will result in a messy, sometimes unpredictable and difficult process that will take continual reevaluation by its participants for the duration of its history.  Sometimes outside sources will destroy a society (i.e., a country) or sometimes a societie's own choices in what it values as moral absolutes will result in its eventual downfall.  I'll let true historians and anthropologists battle that one out.  Suffice it to say, what a society values most will have actual, serious and sometimes dire consequences.

This is why it is important for a constant reevaluation. But it is also why it is important for those in a society or its government to initiate change when a moral value or ethic is seen to be "off".  Regardless of how we come to our values, we can all admit there are some that are not subjective nor should be left to the opinions of society or the government.  Values that are inalienable, sometimes called "rights".  A few of those might be: The right to happiness, a right to be free and a right to life. Few people would serious challenge these rights and would consider these good moral values.  The question comes in when we begin to discuss how they are granted.  For example, should a criminal have the right to personal freedom?  What about conscription during a time of war?  Should a murderer be forced to forfeit his right to life?  What about abortion and (again) war?  I can't answer these questions directly, but these are were a society and/or government will need to find answers that it values.  And these questions are where most members of a society find the need to reevaluate and question. 

Just because a whole or majority of a society does or believes something does not make it right, as I've already mentioned.  This goes for the government as well.  Where would our society in America be if no one challenged the correctness of things like slavery and a woman's right to vote?  It was excepted by the majority (both in society and government) that both were right morally and ethically.  But thanks to individuals who challenged these views and helped others to see the need to change them, slavery was abolished and the suffrage movement won the day.  Most people do not realize that at one time conscription during time of war was mandatory for everyone.  That is, conscientious objection was illegal.  If you refused to fight you would go to prison or possibly forfeit your life. But thanks to the efforts of some, mostly religious, groups this changed. 

What this all means is that although a society and its government hold a majority view, regardless of how fast or the reasons why it is held, it must be open to challenge and change.  Some views, such as those we consider inalienable rights, will never change (and for good reasons).  But how we apply those rights and to whom they will and how they will be applied, sometimes must change.  And it is the responsibility of the society and/or the government to do this.  For a society to simply follow the majority view or the government or the government to refuse its responsibilities to do what is right and acquiesces to a mob is a perfect way to doom a society to some of its worst propensities.  Society needs people who will initiate change and a government that will both listen and, when needed, change for the good. 

Such is the case with animal rights.  A majority view, tradition, the government, social mores, morals and ethics have left animals to be consider property, tools and commodities. But is this right?  Is this majority and governmental view right?  This is the battle that is going on right now.  And the next big step for our own society hinges upon the outcome.  My personal view is that animals have just as much right to some, if not all, those things we call inalienable as they can be applied to animals and their capacity (i.e., society may consider the right to vote as inalienable, but an animal cannot vote, so there is no reason to apply this right not animals).  As such I and a minority number of people in our society and those around the world, have reevaluated our society's stance on the matter and have taken it upon ourselves to challenge, in anyway possible, the current majority view.  And as the government is clearly on the side of the majority view, we are also forced to challenge and, as the need arise, stand against our government.   My hope is that just as other big challenges to the pervading views resulted in widespread acceptance of another view, so too the fight for the rights of animals and an understanding of their sentience will also result in widespread change.  The important thing is that we challenge the social norms and, if we think these challenges important, stick to our guns no matter how long the fight drags on.  History has shown us that change, big change, is possible.