MEAT EATING CAUSES WARS​

[USFREEDOM911]

HEY IT'S NOT JUST ME!

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Meat-eating Christians are like white supremacists! Let me show you what I mean:

In a 1989 interview with the now-defunct Animals' Agenda, Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest and the foremost theologian in the field of animal-human relations, drew a parallel between animal and human slavery, saying that history is repeating itself with regard to animals:

"Now, just think of the difficulties that those early Christian abolitionists had to face. Scripture defended slavery. For instance, in Leviticus 25, you're commanded to take the child of a stranger as a slave...St. Paul simply said that those who were Christian slaves should be better Christians.

"Almost unanimously, apart from St. Gregory, the church fathers defended slavery, and for almost 1800 years, Christians defended and supported slavery."

On the other hand, in a 1991 essay, "The Bible and Killing for Food," Reverend Linzey writes:

"...it often comes as a surprise for Christians to realize that the modern vegetarian movement was strongly biblical in origin. Inspired by the original command in Genesis 1, an Anglican priest, William Cowherd, founded the Bible Christian Church in 1809 and made vegetarianism compulsory among its members.

"The founding of this Church in the United Kingdom and its sister Church in the United States by William Metcalfe, effectively heralded the beginning of the modern vegetarian movement.")

The church of the past never considered human slavery to be a moral evil. The Protestant churches of Virginia, South Carolina, and other southern states, actually passed resolutions in favor of the human slave traffic.

Human slavery was called "by Divine Appointment," "a Divine institution," "a moral relation," "God’s institution," "not immoral," but "founded in right." The slave trade was called "legal," "licit," "in accordance with humane principles" and "the laws of revealed religion."

New Testament verses calling for obedience and subservience on the part of slaves (Titus 2:9-10, Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 3:22-25, I Peter 2:18-25) and respect for the master (I Timothy 6:1-2, Ephesians 6:5-9) were often cited in order to justify human slavery. Some of Jesus’ parables refer to human slaves. Paul’s epistle to Philemon concerns a runaway slave returned to his master.

Quoting Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18, Colossians 3:11 or Galatians 3:28 as verses in favor of abolition in the 18th or 19th century would have been met with the kind of reaction animal activists receive today when citing biblical verses in favor of vegetarianism and the compassionate and humane treatment of animals.

The Quakers were one of the earliest Christian denominations to condemn (human) slavery.

"Paul's outright endorsement of slavery should be an undying embarrassment to Christianity as long as they hold the entire New Testament to be the word of God," wrote Quaker physician Dr. Charles P. Vaclavik in his 1986 book, The Vegetarianism of Jesus Christ: the Pacifism, Communalism, and Vegetarianism of Primitive Christianity.

"Without a doubt, the American slaveholders quoted Paul again and again to substantiate their right to hold slaves.

"The moralist movement to abolish slavery had to go to non-biblical sources to demonstrate the immoral nature of slavery. The abolitionists could not turn to Christian sources to condemn slavery, for Christianity had become the bastion of the evil practice through its endorsement by the Apostle Paul.

"Only the Old Testament gave the abolitionist any Biblical support in his effort to free the slaves. ‘You shall not surrender to his master a slave who has taken refuge with you.’ (Deuteronomy 23-15) What a pittance of material opposing slavery from a book supposedly representing the word of God."

In 1852 Josiah Priest wrote Bible Defense of Slavery. Others claimed blacks were subhuman. Buckner H. Payne, calling himself "Ariel," wrote in 1867, "the tempter in the Garden of Eden...was a beast, a talking beast ... the negro."

Ariel argued that since the negro was not part of Noah’s family, he must have been a beast. Eight souls were saved on the ark, therefore, the negro must be a beast, and "consequently he has no soul to be saved."

I commented in a letter to my local newspaper, The Tri-Valley Herald, in early 1992 that it remains to be seen if organized religion will support animal rights or simply remain an obstacle to social and moral progress.

"Simply!" say conservative Christians.

I point out, that was George Wallace's philosophy, too, proclaiming, "Segregation Now. Segregation Forever," in 1963.

"Forever!" they respond.

But when I put two and two together, and say offhandedly, "Meat-eating Christians are like white supremacists," suddenly their "tough" veneer and thin veneer of religiosity disappear, and their feelings are hurt!

http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/a...remacists.html

[USFREEDOM911]

Some other people advocate similar calculus....

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
MEAT: Root Cause of Endless War, Distinct Threat to Humanity

It takes nearly one gallon of fossil fuel and 2,500 gallons of water to produce just one pound of conventionally fed beef. (Mother Jones)

The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

Thirty-three percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only two percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

One-third of all raw materials in the U.S. are consumed by the livestock industry and it takes thrice as much fossil fuel energy to produce meat than it does to produce plant foods.

A report on the energy crisis in Scientific American warned: "The trends in meat consumption and energy consumption are on a collision course."

Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals.

By comparison, urbanization only affects three percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

--Jeremy Rifkin, pro-life AND pro-animal author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

**

I'm wary of the claim by many on the political left that we'd all be at peace, holding hands, singing "Kumbaya," etc. if it weren't for the terrible world leaders plotting to wage war at every turn, and using innocent citizens as pawns in a global chess game. War and abortion are the karma for killing animals.

The institutionalized killing of billions of animals has led to global hunger, global warming, the energy, environmental, population and water crises. Why is it so hard to accept that there's a slippery slope, a connection between the killing of animals and the killing of human beings?

"Who loves this terrible thing called war?" asked Isadora Duncan. "Probably the meat-eaters, having killed, feel the need to kill... The butcher with his bloody apron incites bloodshed, murder. Why not? From cutting the throat of a young calf to cutting the throats of our brothers and sisters is but a step. While we ourselves are living graves of murdered animals, how can we expect any ideal conditions on the earth?"

"I personally believe," wrote Isaac Bashevis Singer, "that as long as human beings will go on shedding the blood of animals, there will never be any peace. There is only one little step from killing animals to creating gas chambers a' la Hitler and concentration camps a' la Stalin -- all such deeds are done in the name of 'social justice.' There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is."

In his 1979 book, Vegetarianism: A Way of Life, author Dudley Giehl writes:

"Competition for food has inevitably led to conflict and this struggle for survival has been a significant factor in the history of organized warfare. In this respect, meat-eating may be regarded as either the underlying cause of armed conflict or at least one of several factors contributing to the exacerbation of a pre-existing problem. The reason why meat, in particular, has created such problems is that the practice of raising livestock requires a much greater use of resources. The basic problem is simply that people are forced to compete with animals for food--a most precarious situation when food is in short supply."

Many of us believe that hunger exists because there's not enough food to go around. But as Frances Moore Lappe and her anti-hunger organization Food First! have shown, the real cause of hunger is a scarcity of justice, not a scarcity of food.

In country after country the pattern is repeated. Livestock industries are consuming feed to such an extent that now almost all Third World nations must import grain. Seventy-five percent of Third World imports of corn, barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals, not to people. In country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is Squeezing out staple production for the poor.

The same trend can be found in the Middle East and North Africa--increases in grain-fed livestock require more imported feed. Twenty years ago, Egypt was self-sufficient in grain. Then, livestock ate only 10 percent of the nation's grain. Today, livestock consume 36 percent of Egypt's grain. As a result, Egypt must now import eight million tons of grain every year.

Twenty-five years ago, Syria was a barley exporter. But in the intervening years, livestock has consumed increasing amounts of the country's grain. Now, despite a phenomenal 1,000 percent increase in the land area devoted to producing barley, Syria must import the cereal.

Because of its reliance on livestock agriculture, Israel's economy depends heavily on groundwater use. You can't make the desert bloom through sheer hard work; it requires water. Today Israel is heavily dependent on water from the West Bank, and the Israeli press is full of talk of retaining the West Bank in order to protect water supplies from encroaching Arab wells. One analyst gloomily concludes that the water in the West Bank region--which the Israelis captured from the Arabs in the 1967 war--is "fast becoming the most ominous obstacle to any peaceful settlement in the region."

Any economy that relies on meat production is in serious trouble. Any social system which persists in putting an emphasis on meat production will be progressively weakened until it as destroyed or until its policies are changed. The amount of time which will pass before a serious social disaster sets in, of course, will vary from region to region. In the case of the United States, which still has abundant agriculture resources, there are probably many decades left. In the case of Africa, the disaster is there today.

Regardless of social system or ideology, any country that emphasizes meat production is going to make its food situation worse. In the richer nations, food may simply become somewhat more costly. If the livestock industry is subsidized by the government--as is the case in both the United States and the former Soviet Union--then other areas of the economy may suffer, as they are sacrificed go keep agriculture afloat. In the poorer nations, food may become unavailable to many and starvation may result.

In Ethiopia and Mozambique, we have two cases of very poor countries which have relied heavily on livestock agriculture with tragic results. In both countries, thousands have died and tens of thousands more are in danger of dying. In both countries, livestock agriculture has played a key role in crippling the ability of the food system to produce food. Ecological disaster is not new in Africa. Northern Africa, once the granary of the Roman Empire, was reduced to a barren wasteland by the pastoral nomads which entered the area after the Empire's collapse. The march of the Sahara desert southward, preceded by large herds of livestock animals, has been observed for decades. Numerous independent observers have confirmed that soil erosion today is rampant in Africa. The destruction has been savage. Fifty years ago, 40% of Ethiopia was covered with trees, while only 2% to 4% is covered with trees today.

So the famine in Ethiopia during the 1980s should not have been a surprise. Many blamed the drought, the civil war, or governmental incompetence in pushing the country over the edge into starvation; and certainly these factors played a role. but we cannot ignore the ecological realities which are the underlying conditions responsible for Ethiopia's getting to the brink of disaster in the first place. Overgrazing by cattle has played a key role in Ethiopia's decline.

Incredibly, while the people are starving, Ethiopia today has a larger livestock population than any other country in Africa, though it is only ninth in total land area!

Similar problems have affected Mozambique. Here we have a country which recently liberated itself from colonialism. Yet Mozambique then proceeded to import beef from abroad to satisfy the demands of the urban elite for meat. Perhaps even worse, they are intensifying their production of corn--one of the most erosive of all plant foods--and feeding it to their cattle! This is a recipe for disaster and a most depressing pattern throughout many third world countries. They throw out colonialism, but they keep or even intensify the colonial system of food production.

Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union are also experiencing serious problems related to meat production. In Poland, prior to the worker's riots in 1979 over rising meat prices, the per capita meat consumption was nearly as high as it was in the United States. In 1979 the government allowed the price of meat to rise, and the workers expressed their intense dissatisfaction.

Meat consumption has placed a severe strain on the Polish economy; the Polish economy simply cannot sustain the level of meat consumption which approaches the "American" level. The Commonwealth of Independent States' well-publicized agricultural difficulties only arise because it tries to feed its citizens a Western-type diet high in meat and animal products. The former Soviet Union would not have the slightest difficulty in feeding itself from its own resources, but grain has to be imported for their cattle.

Most news reports on shortages and hunger in the former Soviet Union emphasize the lack of meat, which is really an unnecessary luxury and not a necessity. Meat consumption has severely aggravated the country's problems. In 1991, Worldwatch noted: "Since 1950, meat consumption has tripled and feed consumption quadrupled. Use of grain for feed surpassed direct human consumption in 1964 and has been rising ever since. Soviet livestock now eat three times as much grain as Soviet Citizens. Grain imports have soared, going from near zero in 1970 to twenty-four million tons in 1990, and the USSR is now the world's second largest grain importer."

Development funds have irrigated the desert in Senegal so that multinational firms can grow eggplant and mangos for air-freighting to Europe's best tables. In Haiti, the majority of peasants struggle for survival by trying to grow food on mountain slopes of a 45 degree incline or more. They say they are exiles from their birthright--some of the world's richest agricultural land. These lands now belong to a handful of elite; cattle are flown in by U.S. firms for grazing and re-exported to franchised hamburger restaurants.

Throughout Latin America, land availability is a prominent social issue. Revolutionaries as well as reform-minded moderates have made land reform a major issue. Yet in many Latin American countries, forests are being leveled in order to create pastures for cattle grazing land. In a region where land availability is a central social issue, existing land is being gobbled up by livestock agriculture. The resulting social tensions have resulted in civil wars, repression and violence.

And what about the United States? Half the water consumed in the U.S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water are also used to wash away their excrement. In fact, U.S. livestock produce twenty times as much excrement as does the entire human population, creating sewage which is ten to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage. Animal wastes cause ten times more water pollution than does the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes three times more harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined.

Meat producers are the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contributing to half the water pollution in the United States. The water that goes into a thousand-pound steer could float a destroyer. It takes twenty-five gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, but twenty-five hundred gallons to produce a pound of meat. If these costs weren't subsidized by the American taxpayers, hamburger meat would be $35 per pound!

The burden of subsidizing the California meat industry costs taxpayers $24 billion. Livestock producers are California's biggest consumers of water. Every tax dollar the state doles out to livestock producers costs taxpayers over seven dollars in lost wages, higher living costs and reduced business income. Seventeen western states have enough water supplies to support economies and populations twice as large as the present.

Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion, turning once-arable land into desert. We lose four million acres of topsoil each year and eighty-five percent of this loss is directly caused by raising livestock. To replace the soil we've lost, we're destroying our forests. Since 1967, the rate of deforestation in the U. S. has been one acre every five seconds. For each acre cleared in urbanization, seven are cleared for grazing or growing livestock feed.

One-third of all raw materials in the U.S. are consumed by the livestock industry and it takes thrice the fossil fuel energy to produce meat than it does to produce plant foods. A report on the energy crisis in Scientific American warned: "The trends in meat consumption and energy consumption are on a collision course."

According to Howard Lyman, former senior lobbyist for the National Farmers Union, "Family farmers are victims of public policy that gives preference to feeding animals over feeding people. This has encouraged the cheap grain policy of this nation and has made the beef cartel the biggest hog at the trough."

The Bible contains numerous examples of conflict situations that are directly attributable to the practice of raising livestock, including contested water rights, bitter competition for grazing areas, and friction between agriculturalists and nomadic herdsmen. The more settled agricultural communities deeply resented the intrusion of nomadic tribes with their large herds of cattle, sheep, and goats. These animals were considered a menace. Aside from the threat to the crops themselves, large herds of livestock caused much damage to the general quality of the land as a result of over grazing.
Continued....

[USFREEDOM911]

It was ostensibly for this reason that the Philistines, whose primary agricultural pursuits were corn and orchards, sought to discourage nomadic herdsmen from using their territory by filling in many of the wells in the surrounding area. One of the earliest accounts of strife among the herdsmen themselves is found in the story of Lot and Abram:

"And Lot also, which went with Abram, had flocks, and herds, and tents. And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together; for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and the herdmen of Lot's cattle." (Genesis 13:5-7)

Abram moved Westward to a region known as Canaan, while Lot journeyed to the east, finally settling in Sodom. Such peaceful agreements, however, were not always possible. There are several references in the Bible to clashes between the Israelites and Midianites. The Midianites were wealthy Bedouin traders who owned large numbers of livestock, as did the Israelites, who brought their herds with them when they left Egypt.

Livestock require vast areas of land for grazing. They also need water, which has never been abundant in that region of the world. The strain thus placed on the land's resources is mentioned in Judges 6:4: "And they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the earth."

The depletion of resources created by the people arid livestock moving into this territory is described in Judges 6:5 by a singularly appropriate simile: "For they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came as grasshoppers." Another passage informs us that after a particularly vicious battle with the Midianites the Israelites augmented their herds with the livestock of their slain captives. This included 675,000 sheep and more than 72,000 beeves.

A strikingly frank reference to the casual relationship between flesh eating and war, in terms of land use, is found in Deuteronomy 12:20: "When the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border, as he hath promised thee, and thou shalt say, 'I will eat flesh,' because thy soul longeth to eat flesh; thou mayest eat flesh, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after."

A similar straightforward reference to the relationship between flesh eating and war can be found in Plato's Republic. In a dialogue with Glaucon, Socrates extols the peace and happiness what come to people eating a vegetarian diet: "And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them."

Glaucon remains skeptical that people would be satisfied with such fare. He asserts that people will desire the "ordinary conveniences of life," including animal flesh. Socrates then proceeds to stock the once ideal state with swineherds, huntsmen, and "cattle in great number." The dialogue continues:

"...and there will be animal's of many other kinds, if people eat them?"

"Certainly."

"And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before? "

"Much greater."

"And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough?"

"Quite true."

"Then a slice of our neighbor's land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity, and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth?"

"That, Socrates, will be inevitable."

"And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?"

"Most certainly," Glaucon replies.

Critics of Plato, reading the rest of the Republic, have complained that what Plato gives us is a militaristic or proto-fascist state, with censorship and a rigidly controlled economy. Plato would hardly disagree with these critics; what they have overlooked is that the state which he describes is not his idea--it is merely a consequence of Glaucon's requirements which Socrates himself disavows. Greed for meat, among other things, produced the character of the second state Plato describes.

The history of the European spice trade would seem to suggest that there is indeed a relationship between war and large-scale consumer demand for foods not required by what Plato refers to as "natural want." Spices were of vital importance to meat preparation before the process of mechanical refrigeration was developed in the 20th century, meat was usually preserved by the process of salting. Using various combinations of spices to offset the saltiness of meat, thus making it palatable, became a popular practice in medieval Europe.

The demand for spices was a significant factor in European colonial endeavors. Competition intensified, contributing to the exacerbation of serious disputes that already existed among various European nations. Efforts in the 17th and 18th centuries by the Dutch, Portuguese, English and French to expand their spice trade resulted in warfare, as well as the subjugation of native peoples by these imperialist powers.

Shepherds have traditionally been depicted in both art and religious and secular literature as a peaceable lot. However, there were inevitable disputes between farmers and shepherds over territorial rights. This situation was aggravated by the fact that sheep posed an even greater threat to the land than cattle because they clipped grass closer to the ground, sometimes tearing it out by the roots. The Spanish sheepowner's guild known as the Mesta dominated Spain's political affairs for several centuries (AD 1200-1500) and was the source of much internal strife within that country.

The Mesta's sheep not only destroyed pastureland by overgrazing but were also allowed to rampage through cultivated fields. The peasant farmers could hardly expect the monarchy to rectify this injustice since sheep raising dominated medieval Spanish commerce and was the government's principal source of revenue during this period.

There was considerable animosity among shepherds, cattlemen and crop farmers in 19th-century America. The Homestead Act of 1862 encouraged more people to settle in the West. The very nature of livestock raising in the United States at that time required vast areas of land for grazing and moving the animals along designated trails to their final destinations. Hence the proliferation of farming communities became a serious threat to the livestock industry. This situation became worse when the farmers put up barbed-wire fences, a practice that began in the 1880s.

Aside from the conflict between livestock herders and farmers, there were bitter feuds between cattlemen and sheepmen, including such conflicts as the "Tonto Basin War" in Arizona, the "Holbrook War" in Montana, the "Blue Mountain War" in Colorado and the "Big Horn Basin Feud" in Montana.

We are presently confronted with a rather precarious situation in which a few select regions of the world are the principal suppliers of various commodities that are essential to the entire process of food production. The Middle East region, for example, dominates the world petroleum market. Petroleum is needed to power farm machinery in addition to its use as a fertilizer base. Despite the relatively large amount of petroleum produced in the United States, this country is, nonetheless, highly dependent on Middle East oil.

U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger commented in 1975 that military intervention "could not be ruled out" in the event of another Arab oil embargo. His comment indicates the extent of American dependency on Arab oil and the desperate lengths the U. S. government will go to obtain it. The "Carter Doctrine" of 1980, concerning the use of tactics nuclear weapons in the Middle East by the United States and the Persian Gulf War of 1991 reiterate American dependence upon a highly unstable part of the globe.

Morocco is the leading producer of phosphate, an important element in fertilizer production. Within the period of a few years in the early 1970s, Morocco more than quadrupled its price for phosphate. The large world demand for phosphate prompted Morocco to invade the Spanish Sahara when the Spanish relinquished control of the region in 1975. A guerilla force of Saharan nationals found themselves battling the Moroccan aggressors, whose sole interest in the region was its phosphate reserves.

The United States is fond of using its position as a major food exporter to manipulate the policies of foreign governments. The most striking example of this practice is the successful American "destabilization" effort in Chile in the early 1970s. A project initiated by the American Central Intelligence Agency to create dissatisfaction among Chilean truckers resulted in widespread food shortages. The Allende regime was then rebuffed in its attempts to make a cash purchase of vitally needed U S wheat. However, in less than a month after a successful Chilean coup that was abetted by the U S government, the new fascist regime was given a large shipment of American wheat on generous credit terms despite Chile's unstable economy.

A report prepared in August, 1974, by the American Central Intelligence Agency cites several ominous trends in weather conditions and population growth.

The authors of this report indicate there is substantial evidence to support the belief that food shortages will become more acute as the result of a major cooling trend. As a result, such a situation "could give the United States a measure of power it had never had before--possibly an economic and political dominance greater than that of the immediate post-World War II years." The study warns, however, that countries adversely affected by these weather changes may resort to desperate measures, including "nuclear blackmail" and "massive migration backed by force."

The report concludes that we have the potential to compensate for future large-scale famines that may be far worse than the present food crisis. It is duly noted that if the anticipated marked and persistent cooling trend occurs there would not be enough food to feed the world's population "unless the affluent nations make a quick and drastic cut in their consumption of grain-fed animals."

Vegetarian author Laurel Robertson writes that "The relationship between meat consumption and available grain is...more sensitive than we might think... In 1974, when the market for meat did fall, the grain that was so unexpectedly released actually did find its way to poorer countries."

Vegan author John Robbins writes in his 1987 Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America:

"Meat-eating contributes to the fear in the world by putting us in a position in which there is not enough to go around (half the world's grain is fed to livestock). But that's not all. Meat-eaters ingest residues of the animal's biochemical response to the horrors of the slaughterhouse.

"Programmed to fight or flee when in danger for their lives, the animals react to the slaughterhouse in sheer terror. Powerful biochemical agents are secreted that pump through their bloodstreams and onto their flesh, energizing them to fight or flee for their lives. Today's slaughterhouses virtually guarantee that the animals will die in terror."

The Maoris would eat the flesh of a slaughtered enemy in order to possess the enemy's courage and strength. The people of the lower Nubia, likewise, would eat the fox, believing that by so doing, they would be possessed of his cunning. In upper Egypt, the heart of the hoopoe bird was eaten in order to acquire the ability to become a clever scribe. The bird would be caught and its heart would be torn out and eaten while it was still alive.

John Robbins notes, "certain Native American tribes would not eat the flesh of an animal who died in fear, because they did not want to take into themselves the terror of such an animal. When we eat animals who have died violent deaths we literally eat their fear.

"We take in biochemical agents designed by nature to tell an animal that its life is in the gravest danger, and it must either fight or flee for its life. And then, in our wars and our daily lives, we give expression to the panic in which the animals we have eaten died."

Vegan author John Robbins writes in his Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987):

"The way we treat animals is indicative of the way we treat our fellow humans. One Soviet study, published in Ogonyok, found that over 87% of a group of violent criminals has, as children, burned, hanged, or stabbed domestic animals. In our own country, a major study by Dr. Stephen Kellert of Yale University found that children who abuse animals have a much higher likelihood of becoming violent criminals."

A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) reported that children convicted of animal abuse are five times more likely to commit violence against other humans than are their peers, and four times more likely to be involved in acts against property.

Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, which launched the modern day environmental movement, wrote:

"Until we have the courage to recognize cruelty for what it is whether its victim is human or animal we cannot expect things to be much better in this world. We cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature. By every act that glorifies or even tolerates such moronic delight in killing we set back the progress of humanity."

In a December 1990 letter to Eric Mills of Action For Animals, vegan labor leader Cesar Chavez similarly wrote:

"Kindness and compassion towards all living things is a mark of a civilized society. Conversely, cruelty, whether it is directed against human beings or against animals, is not the exclusive province of any one culture or community of people. Racism, economic deprival, dog fighting and cockfighting, bullfighting and rodeos are cut from the same fabric: violence. Only when we have become nonviolent towards all life will we have learned to live well ourselves."

Marjorie Spiegel, author of The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery, writes: "All oppression and violence is intimately and ultimately linked, and to think that we can end prejudice and violence to one group without ending prejudice and violence to another is utter folly."

Apart from the violence against animals involved in meat-eating, foods DO affect one's consciousness! The ill effects of alcohol, opium, morphine, nicotine, etc. upon individual users have been well-documented. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that 60 to 75 percent of all violent crime is alcohol-related. Might there be a similar relationship between meat-eating and aggressive behavior?

In a letter to a friend on the subject of vegetarianism, Albert Einstein wrote, "besides agreeing with your aims for aesthetic and moral reasons, it is my view that a vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind."

U Nu, the former Prime Minister of Burma, made a similar observation: "World peace, or any other kind of peace, depends greatly on the attitude of the mind. Vegetarianism can bring about the right mental attitude for peace... it holds forth a better way of life, which, if practiced universally, can lead to a better, more just, and more peaceful community of nations."
http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/art-meat.html

[bhaktajan]

Circumstantial evidence is used in civil courts to establish or refute liability.
It is usually the most common form of evidence, for example in product liability cases and road traffic accidents.
Forensic analysis of skid marks can frequently allow a reconstruction of the accident.
By measuring the length of such marks and using ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, directevidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference. --Wiki

Practitioners sometimes reflexively think of circumstantial evidence as a lesser form of proof than direct evidence.
But it is not treated that way by law or even necessarily by juries. As the Court of Appeals has recognized,
“[c]ircumstantial proof is … as probative as direct evidence and may even be more ...
https://www.law.com/newyorklawjourna...urce-of-proof/

[bhaktajan]

Some one called me a Militant Vegan.

That's wrong. I am a vegetarian [no meat, fish nor eggs] but I eat cheese and milk---so I am not vegan.

Militant =
Adjective synonyms: aggressive, violent, belligerent, bellicose, vigorous, forceful, active, fierce, combative, pugnacious;
NOUN synonyms: activist, extremist, radical, young turk, zealot

At worse I am yelling fire in a packed barbecue

[bhaktajan]

japan became aggressive after the introduction of meat

***********************************************
How Japan went from being an almost entirely vegetarian country to a huge consumer of meat
Marta Zaraska, "Meathooked"

Mar. 7, 2016

The first East Asian country to develop an appetite for meat, and one that can offer a glimpse into the process of going from almost vegetarian to meat loving in a relatively short period of time, is Japan.

As late as 1939 a typical Japanese person ate just 0.1 ounce of meat per day.

That's a yearly average, of course.

Today, the daily meat portion of a typical Yamada Tarō (the Japanese equivalent of John Smith) is 4.7 ounces, and his favorite animal protein is pork, not tuna in a sushi roll. One reason behind this astounding change was the rise of Western influence.

Medieval Japan was practically vegetarian. ...

The national religions, Buddhism and Shintoism, both promoted plant-based eating, but what was likely more key to keeping the Japanese off meat was the shortage of arable land on the islands.

Growing livestock takes land away from more efficient plant agriculture, and already in medieval Japan, too many forests had been cleared for fields and too many draft animals were being killed for their flesh — which prompted Japan's rulers to issue meat-eating bans.

The first such ban was announced in 675 CE and meant no beef, monkey, chicken, or dog in Japanese pots from late spring until early autumn. Later, more bans followed. For some time, the Japanese could still satisfy their meat cravings with wild game, but as the population increased and forests gave way to cropland, deer and boars disappeared and so did meat from the plates of the Yamada Tarōs.

The winds of change started blowing, at first mildly, in the eighteenth century. It was the Dutch who sowed in Japanese minds the idea that eating meat is good for health. The Japanese came to see the meat-loaded diets of the tall Europeans as a symbol of progress, of breaking with feudal, hierarchical society.

In 1872, Japanese diets took a fast swerve toward meat. That year, on January 24, a feminine-looking, poetry-writing emperor Meiji publicly ate meat for the first time, giving the nation permission to follow his example.

Over just five years, beef consumption in Tokyo shot up more than thirteen times (what made it possible were imports from Korea). Meiji and his government saw meat not only as a way to modernize Japan and boost the health of the average citizen but also as a way to bolster the strength of the Japanese army. Back then, typical conscripts were small and thin—over 16% of candidates failed to meet the minimum height of four feet eleven inches.

The American occupation after the Second World War gave another powerful boost to the Japanese hunger for meat. The Japanese observed the war victors stuffing themselves with hamburgers, steaks, and bacon.

The first such ban was announced in 675 CE and meant no beef, monkey, chicken, or dog in Japanese pots from late spring until early autumn. Later, more bans followed. For some time, the Japanese could still satisfy their meat cravings with wild game, but as the population increased and forests gave way to cropland, deer and boars disappeared and so did meat from the plates of the Yamada Tarōs.

The winds of change started blowing, at first mildly, in the eighteenth century. It was the Dutch who sowed in Japanese minds the idea that eating meat is good for health. The Japanese came to see the meat-loaded diets of the tall Europeans as a symbol of progress, of breaking with feudal, hierarchical society.

In 1872, Japanese diets took a fast swerve toward meat. That year, on January 24, a feminine-looking, poetry-writing emperor Meiji publicly ate meat for the first time, giving the nation permission to follow his example.

Over just five years, beef consumption in Tokyo shot up more than thirteen times (what made it possible were imports from Korea). Meiji and his government saw meat not only as a way to modernize Japan and boost the health of the average citizen but also as a way to bolster the strength of the Japanese army. Back then, typical conscripts were small and thin—over 16% of candidates failed to meet the minimum height of four feet eleven inches.

The American occupation after the Second World War gave another powerful boost to the Japanese hunger for meat. The Japanese observed the war victors stuffing themselves with hamburgers, steaks, and bacon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-j...on-meat-2016-3

And of course the reader here knows the how Admiral Perry forced commercial trade upon Japan in 1853 ---and less than 90 years later the island of Japan [the size of Jamaica] sought to conquer the world.

I am pursuing a the calculus behind world peace ---not my own self-engrandisement.

[RB 60]

They say you are what you eat.
I'd rather be a meat head than a damned vegetable.

[bhaktajan]

They say you are what you eat.
I'd rather be a meat head than a damned vegetable.

You will get your wish.
The meat you are eating is raised on vegetation.

Too bad for your special abilities to bless dead flesh, and
Too bad for your special abilities to damn vegetables.

You are familiar with wood burning stoves?

You are familiar with fire and brimestone barbeque coal?

[bhaktajan]

33 Foods That Make You Ugly


Cereal: Many of today's cereals are made from anemically "enriched" flours and refined grains, plus an excess of sugar and artificial flavors and colors. Ancient man didn't even eat grains: it's a relatively new phenomenon to eat flaky cereals that cause bloating and can contribute to obesity.

Milk: Whether or not you're completely lactose intolerant, milk can still cause gas. Milk can also cause face bloat or puffiness, and cramping.

Coffee: Coffee in moderation isn't harmful, but if you drink too much, it can stain your teeth, makes your breath smell wicked bad, and may even make you a little gassy. Too
much caffeine can also lead to dehydration, which leaves a pallid skin complexion.

Processed food: Processed food lacks natural nutrients, so if you're filling up on these foods, you're most likely not getting nutrients and vitamins you really need. That means your body — including your face — isn't as healthy as it needs to be, and cell repair slows.

Cocaine: Cocaine is obviously a troublemaker for lots of reasons, but it can also make you ugly. Cocaine — especially cocaine that isn't 100% pure — can lead to skin tissue death and a low white-cell count, as well as purple marks on your body.

Alcohol: Even a few drinks might leave you looking a little rough the next day — bloodshot eyes or bags under your eyes, and a weak looking complexion are the result of restless sleep and dehydration. Drinking heavily and often will also help you gain weight and makes you pudgy, as alcohol destroys muscle.

Margarine: Margarine is thought of as a healthier alternative to butter, but check the label. Many margarines contain trans fats, or hydrogenated oils. These are terrible for maintaining hormone balance in your body, and can cause you to break out.

Salt: Eating salty snacks can make your whole body bloat, including your tummy, face and fingers. That tissue-swelling and then deflating makes your skin less elastic over time.

Sugar: Some sugars, like raffinose, lactose, fructose and sorbitol cause gas. And on top of that, high-glycemic foods, like waffles, white breads, Corn Flakes, potatoes, and dates, are what really make you break out.

Soft drinks: Regular 12 oz. sodas have up to 10 teaspoons of sugar, and often contribute to tooth decay and obesity. But even diet sodas with caffeine dehydrate your skin and contain lots of toxins and artificial sweeteners that aren't good for you, either.

Salad dressing: Always check the label before buying salad dressing. Many contain MSG, or include a listing of ingredients that are used to make MSG (a trick used to make you think you're buying something that's MSG-free). The flavor enhancer can cause nausea and headaches, but also sweating, facial tightness and a burning sensation in your face. And even salad dressings without MSG may cause gas, or be mixed with mayonnaise and lots of sugar, which are bad for your skin.

Barbecue sauce: Barbecue sauces are also red flags for MSG. They're also full of sugar and carbs, so check the label.

Trans fats: Cooking oils, microwave popcorn, and packaged or baked goods contain trans fats which clog your arteries and restrict oxygen flow to the brain and your heart.
Check the label, but know that some boxes that say "0 Trans Fats" actually do have some trans fats. Food companies can get away with sneaking a half gram of trans fats into a serving, without disclosing the information to the consumer.

Soy sauce: Just one tablespoon of soy sauce can contain over 40% of your daily value of sodium. Many soy sauces also contain MSG, so you'll be a sweaty, bloated mess after all that dipping.

White bread: White breads and rice can lead to inflammation and break outs, so opt for whole-grain, low-glycemic substitutions if you have to eat bread.

Mystery meats: Sausages and other processed meats are packed with fat and salt which are not conducive to beauty.

Cake: Chocolate probably won't make you break out, but cake will. Made with white flour, it leads to inflammation.

Pasta: Pasta is another food that can lead to inflammation, bloating and break outs. Pick whole grain pastas high in dietary fiber if possible.

Doughnuts: Doughnuts are terrible for your skin and your figure. They're packed with refined sugar, refined oils and refined flour. All those refined ingredients lead to break outs, and the intense sugar high you'll feel will be followed by a major crash, giving you headaches and more cravings.

White rice: Unless you want puffiness and pimples, eliminate white rice from your diet.

Artichokes: A staple in many Mediterranean dishes, artichokes naturally contain fructose, which causes gas.

Gelatin: Gelatin, which is used to make Jell-O, candy corn, cream cheese, yogurt, jams, marshmallows and other foods, is a hidden source of MSG.

Palm oil: Another cooking ingredient that might make your date run away is palm oil, which is high in saturated fat and not a safe substitute for trans fat. It amps up cholesterol and promotes heart disease. Check labels on packaged foods like cookies and crackers to make sure they weren't made with palm oil.
French fries: French fries contain gross levels of salt and either saturated fat or hydrogenated vegetable oil (or both). You might notice your fingers swell just a couple of hours after eating french fries, so don't order them on a date.

Chewing gum: Sugary gum can actually make your breath smell worse, so don't pop a stick in right before a kiss if you're hoping the minty freshness will overpower your dinner. The sugar in gum, mints and candy might make your mouth taste good to you, but the sugar helps bacteria reproduce, making your breath reek.

Soy oil: Soy oil is considered an industrial oil, which can break skin down — and out. Always look for unsaturated fat in oils.
Flavored jerky: Besides containing unbelievable amounts of sodium — oftentimes half your daily value or more — flavored jerky usually contains MSG to keep it, well, tasting good for ridiculous amounts of time.
High protein foods: Foods that are high in protein are good for controlling appetite, but they also contribute to bad breath. It's a common problem for people on low-carb diets who rely on fatty, high-protein foods like meat, fish, eggs, and dairy for nutrition. These foods can also lead to dehydration, and later, keto breath.

Garlic: Garlic gets under your skin in a way few foods do. It can make you sweat and stink, even after taking showers and brushing your teeth.

Cabbage: Cabbage is another food that makes you sweat and can give you bad breath. Members of the cruciferae food family — like cabbage — contain sulfur compounds, which make us sweat — and it's the stinky kind of sweat.

Starchy foods: Starchy carbohydrates are very closely linked with bad breath, so avoid potatoes and other starches.

Broccoli: Also part of the cruciferae family, broccoli can make you sweaty and smelly.
Hot wings: Extra spicy foods make you sweat visibly. What date wants to see you dripping over your messy, saucy meal? If you go out for wings, don't try to impress your date by ordering the hottest sauce: stick with something mild.

There are all kinds of stories and research studies conducted to tell us how to look younger and more beautiful. But instead of scouring the grocery store for every acai berry or skin-saving product you can get your hands on, you can also avoid certain foods that do damage to your appearance. Some of the foods below are bad for your insides and outsides, while others just make you stinky or sweaty. You might be inclined to cut out certain foods and oils altogether, while others can be saved for nights alone at home.
http://www.nursingschools.net/blog/2...make-you-ugly/

[bhaktajan]

Vegans were often on the top of the douchebag list before the Trumpkins came along.

Are your the protector and keeper of the douchebag list?

I'd love to hear what they think Eskimos in northern Alaska should do.

No you wouldn't. I doubt you'd love to hear it.

[bhaktajan]

Your replies give a new definition to the sound of "crying in the wilderness"

[USFREEDOM911]

You will get your wish.
The meat you are eating is raised on vegetation.

Too bad for your special abilities to bless dead flesh, and
Too bad for your special abilities to damn vegetables.

You are familiar with wood burning stoves?

You are familiar with fire and brimestone barbeque coal?

Just needs a grill to cook on and nice big juicy steak.

[bhaktajan]

The cow is sacred because her milk nurses human babies...and her husband is the best beast of burden for agrarian living.


LET'S GO TO ARGENTINA!
Wed 19 Oct 2016

Hundreds of thousands of women in Argentina are expected to join a national protest over violence against women on Wednesday, after a horrifying attack in which a 16-year-old girl was raped and tortured.

Organizers of Wednesday’s “women’s strike” called for every woman in the country to stop work, study and other activities for an hour at 1pm.

“In your office, school, hospital, law court, newsroom, shop, factory, or wherever you are working, stop for an hour to demand ‘no more machista violence’,” wrote the march organizers.

Government statistics show that crimes against women have risen 78% since 2008 in Argentina, a rise that may be partly attributable to growing awareness of the phenomenon, but has prompted a national debate over sexist attitudes....

Every 30 hours a woman is killed in such crimes, according to statistics kept by La Casa del Encuentro, an NGO that helps female victims of violence.

The murder of Lucía Pérez came only a few days after a march by tens of thousands of women protesting about crimes against women in the central city of Rosario ended in violence when police fired rubber bullets and teargas into the crowd gathered outside the city’s cathedral.

The strike starts at 1pm, with the ceasing of all work and private activities, followed by a march congregating on the main Plaza de Mayo square in Buenos Aires.

Three suspects have been arrested in the Pérez case, but her family has since reported receiving death threats.

“We have to gather strength and take to the streets,” wrote Matías Pérez in his open letter. “We all have to shout together, more than ever: “Not one less.”

But Pérez’s murder is just the latest in a harrowing sequence of “femicides”, crimes usually committed by husbands, boyfriends, family members or acquaintances of the victim. In more than one case, the woman has been set on fire by her partner.

“This violence is trying to teach us a lesson, it wants to put us back in a traditional role into which we don’t fit any more,” says Cantabria. “It’s not a specific blow by a specific man against one woman in particular, it’s a message to all women to return to our stereotypical roles.”

Cartabia is a member of the collective Ni Una Menos (Not One Less – meaning not one more woman lost to male violence), which organized Argentina’s first march against gender-related crimes in June last year.

That protest and a second one in June drew hundreds of thousands of
women to the street in a growing movement to fight male violence against women.

In 2012, Argentina passed legislation against “femicide”, a legal term encompassing domestic violence, “honor” killings and other categories of hate crimes against women.

But campaigners warn that machista attitudes have been slow to change: in the last 18 days alone, 19 women have been killed in Argentina.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...olence-protest

[The Ugly Truth]

Meat eating causes wars, illness, un-controllable lust, draught ---but this knowledge is above the head and shoulders of western civilisation's grand-parentage.

The karmic-payback for enmass meat eating is documented generation after generation ---just analyse the last two centuries by counting and comparing pound-for-pound the mutual losses ---cadaver-to-cadaver.

Such societies will incur enemies that may or may not seem befitting the "Good-guys" side.

Vandal vs Romans perennially.

In regards to "be like your father in Heaven" ---do you suppose that "fox-hunting" & factory farming & gentlemen-Farmers all occur in heaven?

How does one Logically compute via,
"By each according to his works",
the cosmic "Price" accured to one-self [or to a mass of patrons],
the "cost" of a beast's carcass for thanksgiving?

How long does it take to tally-up mass karmic pay-back?


HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH
Mis-translated Bible terms infavor of meat eating?

As a long-standing member of the Hare Krishna Movement, I have learnt by some of my Hindu Vaishnav scholars that certain Bible terms are mis-translated:

Indeed, My ulterior motive is to get nations to turn swords to Plowshares ---this is done by ultimately having a "Change of Heart" as to the reality of fostering Flesh eating [meat in German is 'Fleisch']. Flesh eating begets violence and non-compassion and the illogic fantasy of obtaining peace in an enviroment of butcher-based society.

Vegetarianism as a sublime means of eating, is borne of ordhodox yoga disiplines ---therefore the higher goal of "a-himsa" (No-violence) ergo, "shanti" (peace) can be achieved.

Please review the Greek & hebrew terms, and kindly, verify or deny their veracity:

I'd like to cut and paste the whole Bible text, but for here are the Chapter/Verse of mention of NONE-FLESH EATING:

Old Testiment RE-CAP:

gen 1:29 [vs. Gen 9:3 ~immediately after recovery from the flood].

gen 9:4-5

num 11:33

Isaiah 1:11,15

Isaiah 66.3

Leviticus 3:17


Regarding, "Thou shall not Kill" ---reference:

The hebrew words are: 'Lo tirtzach' ---according to Dr Reuben Alcalay's 'Complete Hebrew/English Dictionary', 'tirtzach' refers to any kind of killing.

Christ was vegetarian ---there are 19 Gospel referneces to 'meat' all have been mis-translated from the original Greek Bible text:


Greek (3 of references) - English meaning:
Broma (4) - 'food' Romans 14:15, 20-21; I Corinthians 8:8, 10:3
Brosis (4) - 'the act of eating' Romans 14:17
Brosimos (1) - 'that which may be eaten'
Phago (3) - 'to eat' Luke 8:55
Prosphagon (1) - 'anything to eat'
Trophe (6) - 'nourishment' John 4:8, Acts 9:19, Acts 27:33-36
and,
Trapesa (?) - 'table' "...They set a table before him ..." Acts 16:34

Thus, John 21:5 "Have ye any meat" ---is incorrect. it should have been translated:
"Have ye 'anything to eat'"

Regarding, "FISH" ---reference: The secret & mystical symbol/Password for "Christian" in Roman Prosecution Times, derived from the Greek word for fish, ICHTHUS ---forming the acronym: Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter (Jesus Christ Son of God Saviour)

New Testiment RE-CAP:

Matt 3:4 ~(the word 'locusts' used here means Locust beans, aka, carob, aka, St John's bread)
Luke 8:55 ~the word used here is 'phago' (to eat).
Isaiah 7:14,15 ~prophets predict Jesus's diet: "... Butter & Honey shall he eat ..."
Luke 24:41-43 ~Note the words used, Jesus was offered two things 'Fish and a honeycomb' "... and he took it . . ." indicates that he choose one of the two judging from Isaiah 7:15 [the word used here is 'brosimos' (eatable)].

See the Offence for fleash eating:

Greek word for FLESH is: 'kreas'
I Corinthians 8:13

::::::::::::::::::::::::

Can someone be brave enough to address these words ---for it is the next portal to world peace.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH

a learned person sees all living entities equally panditah sama-darsinah because he sees the same soul within the different varieties of bodies.

'We want brotherhood, but what does it mean to be brothers? It means we have the same father.' Only when we recognize God as the supreme father can we have real brotherhood.

Knowing God to be the supreme father, we can understand that if we deal with God's other children nicely, God will be pleased. But if we try to exploit and commit violence upon one another, how will the supreme father be pleased? And if God is not pleased, how can we expect peace and prosperity in the world?

"Animals are also children of God, although they have less developed intelligence. They resemble human children, who also do not have developed intelligence, or developed speech. Nor can they defend themselves.

But in a family the strong are meant to protect the weak. For a stronger older brother to torture or massacre a baby is a terrible crime. How upset and angry the father would be!

So animals should be treated like our younger brothers or sisters, to be protected, not exploited or slaughtered so we can eat their flesh.

Meat, fish and animal-derived foods, such as milk, are the only foods that naturally provide vitamin B 12. ... Red meat contains a number of B vitamins: thiamin (vitamin B1), riboflavin (vitamin B2), pantothenic acid, folate, niacin (vitamin B3), vitamin B6 and B12.

So, you can be a sickly vegetarian if you like. I like my meat. Sorry if that offends you. Well, actually, I'm not.

[bhaktajan]

Those in the Vitamin industry are sure to provide tracts for distribution.

But sincerely I confide to you here that Meat Eaters [imo the Vegan movement is a fad that will later find its own level in time] cannot become vegetarian [regular lacto-vegetarian].

It can only happen if superior food stuff is obtainable. The meat eaters are 99% un-able to change to vegetarianism due to life-long lethargy. Ironically many folks are forced by national health standards' insurance liability laws aka your doctor told you you "must become vegetarian"! ---but they simply put it thus: Cut out this and this and that from your diet and then they say pay as you leave.