Michael Vick tortured and killed dogs and went to
jail for his actions. Eric Ledbetter tortured and
blinded and killed dogs and was praised by his
Cornell University colleagues.
Today (Monday, September 28, 2009) is Yom Kippur,
a day of fasting in which Jews throughout the world
meditate and reflect upon past transgressions. For
a Jew, today's thoughts are reserved for personal
reflection and introspection.
On this day, I dedicate my column to Dr. Eric
Ledbetter of Cornell University. He and his team
of researchers injected herpes virus into the
eyes of (he calls them "naive") dogs, just to
see what would happen. The dogs went blind and
suffered severe pain in the process. Duh.
A link to his June, 2009 study:
http://tinyurl.com/ybqnapxShould you wish to contact Dr. Heshouldknowbetter
Ledbetter:
ecl32@cornell.eduMy day of atonement fantasy for Eric would be to
inject herpes virus into his eyes. I know the
results of my study before the conclusion:
In the future, he would see no evil.
Think of what science taught us from his study.
Poke dogs in the eyes with hypodermic syringes
filled with herpes virus and they will need
seeing eye persons.
Who else should spend today atoning for past sins?
A group of Chinese scientists who inoculated tiger
pups with the AIDS virus, just to see what would
happen. A link to their May, 2009 publication:
http://tinyurl.com/ybpnvzjThese so-called people of science must sense that
their work is more than just deceptive and self-serving.
It is merciless. It is shameful. I've never before
heard of tigers with AIDS, but shall forever in the
future avoid tiger bites when I am on safari.
Can Japanese scientists atone for the worst
example of animal research?
I can never forgive the scientists who published the
most horrible of studies in the December 2002 issue of
New Scientist. Can they forgive themselves?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993135These Japanese researchers decapitated the heads
of 12-day-old rats, and implanted them onto the
thighs of adult rodents.
Think of the possibilities for humans! If we perform
this same technique on Americans, in the event of a
nuclear terrorist attack, we'll be able to kiss our
own asses goodbye.
One scientist, Nobufumi Kawai, at the Jichi Medical
School in Tochigi, claims that the grafted heads
could become "excellent models" for investigating
brain function in human infants.
Today I may atone for my own selfish fantasy
which involves Dr. Kawai's upper thigh and the
transplanted head of one of Michael Vick's
abused pit bulls...
Then again, I may not. Perhaps I'll just fantasize
about developing an AIDS vaccine for a group of
Chinese Nazi doctors.
On this sacred day of atonement, there is neither
penance nor expiation for the things men do to
animals.
Robert Cohen
http://www.notmilk.com............ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... .....
United Poultry Concerns Activists Will Protest Cruelty to Chickens
24 September 2009
For Immediate Release Contact: Karen Davis 757-678-7875
Gary Loewenthal 703-532-0731
United Poultry Concerns Activists Will Protest Cruelty to Chickens
Kapparot Chicken �Swinging� Ritual at Chabad Shul of Potomac, MD
Machipongo, Va. September 24, 2009 - United Poultry Concerns will stage a protest demonstration at the Chabad Shul of Potomac in the front parking lot at 11621 Seven Locks and Gainsborough Road in Potomac, Maryland. This is where a kapparot chicken �swinging� ritual is scheduled for Thursday, September 24 from 7PM to 8:30PM.
Kapparot (atonement) is a ritual preceding Yom Kippur in which many Orthodox Jews swing chickens around their heads while reciting a chant about transferring the punishment God would otherwise confer on them onto the birds. The chickens are then slaughtered, on or off the premises, or simply abandoned or thrown into garbage bags.
Kapparot chicken �swinging� defenders claim the ritual is �compassionate.� This claim is completely refuted by eyewitness accounts, photographs and videotapes documenting the suffering, crying birds and the callous treatment they receive at the hands of the practitioners (
www.upc-online.org/kaparos) .
Kapparot practitioners typically hold the birds with their wings pulled backward. This is a painful experience and potentially injurious to the ligaments and tendons of these birds, who have already sat miserably cramped in transport crates, often for days without food or water, before being �swung.� The abuse of these birds is fully consistent with the fact that kapparot practitioners regard them as mere symbolic receptacles for their personal punishment.
The use of chickens in kapparot rituals is not required by the Torah or the Talmud. Most observers swing coins for charity. In recent years, a groundswell of opposition to the kapparot chicken �swinging� and slaughter has been growing in New York City, Los Angeles, and Jerusalem. People are sick of the animal cruelty and want it stopped.
United Poultry Concerns recently learned that a kapparot ritual was scheduled to be held at the Chabad Shul of Potomac, and we will be there to oppose it Thursday evening.
For more information, please contact Karen Davis at 757-678-7875 or Gary Loewenthal at 703-532-0731.
United Poultry Concerns is a nonprofit organization that promotes the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl.
www.upc-online.orgUnited Poultry Concerns is a nonprofit organization that promotes the compassionate and respectful treatment of domestic fowl.
Don't just switch from beef to chicken. Go Vegan.
www.UPC-online.orgOrder Today: Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs: An Inside Look at the Modern Poultry Industry (2009 Revised Edition)
Email Marketing by
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= =======
LIFE: TO ALL IT IS PRECIOUS
Please take the time to write to religious leaders asking them to help lead the way to greater compassion and a more civilized and non-violent view of our treatment of animals.
It is long past time to address the archaic religious views of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, that support self-serving, absurd traditions and a biblical interpretation of "dominion" over animals that really means "domination" ; even this educated "ethical vegetarian", persists in justifying present day treatment of animals because he apparently believes we can "use if we don't abuse"! There is a basic flaw in that argument, because it is certainly "abuse of privilege" to take an innocent life, no matter how you do it!!!!:
In the words of Jewish vegetarian Professor Richard Schwartz:
"In the Torah, humanity is given dominion over animals (Gen. 1:26), which gives us the right to use animals for legitimate needs. Animal flesh can be consumed for food; animal skins can be used for clothing. The Torah itself must be written on parchment (animal hides), as must mezuzah scrolls, and tefillin must be made out of leather.
However, dominion does not give us the right to cause indiscriminate pain and destruction. We are permitted to use animals in this way only when there is a genuine, legitimate need, and we must do so in the manner that causes the animal the least suffering. Kosher slaughtering is designed to be as fast and painless as possible, and if anything occurs that might cause pain (such as a nick in the slaughtering knife or a delay in the cutting), the flesh may not be consumed. Hunting for sport is strictly prohibited, and hunting and trapping for legitimate needs is permissible only when it is done in the least painful way possible. "
From: Ruth Eisenbud
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 7:52 AM
Subject: LIFE: TO ALL IT IS PRECIOUS
Dear animal activists and rescuers;
The following message was sent to Rabbi Saperstein to address the issue of compassion for animals within the Jewish tradition.
Please feel free to write to him with your questions and concerns:
rac@urj.orgRuth Eisenbud
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Arthur and Sara Jo Kobacker Building
2027 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Dear Rabbi Saperstein,
I have chosen to write to you at this time as it is the high holy day season, culminating in Yom Kippur, a time of atonement, forgiveness and reflection. You have chosen the hebrew word for life as a symbol in your banner and rightfully so, as life is sacred and precious to all. While the Jewish tradition places a great deal of value on human life, it falls short in addressing a meaningful definition of compassion for animals.
You were recently listed in Newsweek as one of the most influential Rabbis in the USA and in the spirit of this sacred season, I am hoping that you will respond to my concerns about the view and treatment of animals in the Jewish tradition.
It is my understanding that Judaism states unequivocally that human life is more valuable than animal life and therefore allows for the harming and even slaughter of animals to meet a human need. As this view has led to unspeakable suffering for boundless numbers of animals it is of concern to those of us who work to alleviate their suffering, as we believe that in their ability to suffer and feel pain animals are equal to humans and a meaningful definition of compassion would not condone any harm.
I would also ask that you consider that there are religious traditions which state unequivocally that ALL life is sacred. This belief system has resulted in greater benefits for animals and less suffering and violence for humanity. The most notable example is Mahatma Gandhi who used the Jain principle of ahimsa, non-violence for ALL beings, to free India from servitude.
The following memo is being distributed to clergy of the monotheistic religions, in the hope that the issue of compassion for animals can be addressed in a way that is beneficial to all. As Yom Kippur approaches please consider the spiritual implications of taking a life, any life:
IN THE NAME OF GOD
Dear Religious leaders of the Judeo/Christian/ Islamic Traditions:
I am writing to you with the hope that you will reconsider the morality of religious views that sanctions the harming/killing of animals to benefit man, as such a view is inhumane. While the taking of human life is a sin in these traditions, the harming or killing of an animal is not.
The Judeo/Christian/ Islamic traditions value an animal�s life in relation to human need and grant permission, that is to say, sanctify the harming/killing of animals in the name of NECESSITY. This is a self-serving, semantic premise based on archaic perceptions, designed to violate animal lives, while alleging compassion. Such reasoning has been used to exploit, dominate and abuse animals for many millennia.
Fortunately for animals this is not the only religious model for teaching compassion towards animals.The following words are from the scriptures of the Jain religion of India.
"For there is nothing inaccessible for death.
All beings are fond of life, hate pain, like pleasure,
shun destruction, like life, long to live. To all life
is dear." Jain Acharanga Sutra.
These words reflect the belief that the lives of all beings are sacred and that an animal's life has intrinsic worth, measured by its value to the animal. It is called ahimsa (no-harm) and is the fundamental principle of the Jain religion of India. In this tradition harm to any living being is to be avoided, minimized whenever possible and is viewed as gratuitous, not necessary. Furthermore Jain scriptures specifically state that it is a serious impropriety to harm another living being:
"He who harms animals has not understood or renounced deeds of sin" Jain Sutra "
For those of us who, after personally observing, as well as studying the evidence in research studies, have concluded that animals are capable of suffering, of experiencing pain the position that animals may be harmed or even killed for human benefit is untenable. Many possess a full array of emotions such as joy, pleasure, fear, anger, jealousy and even greed; they teach, nurture and protect their young; some mate for life and mourn the deaths of relatives, while innumerable others provide service and companionship to mankind.
Many of us have left our birth religions, because we have found the tolerance and teaching of acceptable harm to animals intolerable, We view the preaching of compassion, mercy and forgiveness by our religious leaders as disingenuous, since it does not include the suffering of all sentient creatures. We observe that while they recite lovely words, they also sanctify and endorse violence to animals in the name of �Religion�.
Others have arrived at the conclusion that their religion is incompatible with compassion for animals and therefore no longer feel comfortable attending religious events. Still others leave all religion and embrace secular humanism, or seek out religions which offer a more compassionate view of animals, while some attempt to advocate for change from within.
The model of animal compassion, with human need at its core, is based on biblical interpretations of a hierarchical scheme which grants dominion over animals to man and therefore implies that the lives of humans are more valuable. While dominion ought to imply protection and caring, because of the provision that animals may indeed be harmed/killed to benefit man, as they are unable to defend themselves, the result has been untold suffering for untold numbers of living beings, especially those designated as "food" animals.
Compassion should be measured, not by how we treat our equals, but how we treat the vulnerable and weak among us. Despite claims of compassion, allowing only necessary violence to animals has not resulted in less suffering during the 5000 years this model has been followed. Instead it has been used to justify every manner of cruelty imaginable, from ghoulish experiments which torment, maim and kill them, to terrifying deaths in slaughter houses to the killing of homeless domestic animals in the name of convenience to humans.
At its very root the argument of allowable harm to animals for human benefit is inconsistent and unjustifiable as it is not possible to assess "necessity" and certainly not in terms arrived at thousands of years ago.
Thus, the question not addressed by this premise is how to determine what is "necessary".
Today, we do accept that it is necessary to slaughter an animal to placate an angry God; this is of little consolation to all the animals murdered in the name of pleasing God, when it was deemed "necessary". Even to this day animal sacrifice continues as custom, in some societies. While it is based on superstition and fear, it is still justified in the name of necessity.
Necessity is relative: a furrier, for example, would argue that the survival of his family depends on selling fur. Innumerable cruel industries are justified by the premise of "necessity". In other words, when you set the bar at permissible killing when "necessary', the bar can be adjusted to suit those seeking to benefit from animal misery.
And while the killing of animals has been justified on the grounds that meat consumption is necessary for survival, we are now learning that it is possible to be healthy and strong while following a meat-free diet. What was once deemed "necessary" is not, and in fact, innumerable recent studies have shown that a meat-based diet is unhealthy as well as one of the primary causes of devastation to our planet.
Thus, if we do not have sufficient understanding to determine what is 'necessary' killing, then how can we justify it? In hindsight animal sacrifice and meat consumption are not necessary yet so much suffering has resulted from these so called 'necessary' practices..
Yet another problem inherent in permission to kill is that taking the life of an animal is such a violent act that it overshadows any concept or words of compassion which are reduced to empty rhetoric in the face of such violence. Permissible harming/ killing of animals cannot be included in a system that claims to be compassionate and just - it is a contradiction so strong that any other measures of compassion are negated and neutralized.
The bottom line is that there is no compassionate way to kill an animal. Animals suffer terribly when they are killed. They are frightened and in pain. No form of slaughter is compassionate: both ritualistic and secular slaughter are carried out with total disregard to the suffering inflicted on the victims.
Finally and most significantly, there are human societies which have remained meat free and do not use leather, fur or silk. The ancient, yet timely Jain religion of India, is such a tradition. It is based on the belief of non-violence to all beings. This is not just a noble sentiment, but a life style that has allowed Jains to live healthy and well-balanced lives for many millennia.
If this society has been able to survive and thrive for so long without consuming animal flesh, how then can the killing of animals to meet human needs ever be considered necessary?
It is time to rethink the archaic concept of 'necessary' killing endorsed by the Judeo/Christian/ Islamic traditions as it represents a concept which promotes and results in much UNnecessary misery and suffering.
When such religious views of animals become part of the mainstream culture, the result is every manner of exploitation and gratuitous violence. An epidemic of such acts indicates that the youth in such cultures are prone to seeking thrills from the gratuitous abuse of animals and random acts of violence to humans. In view of such spiritual poverty one has to wonder what has gone wrong.
"No society that feeds its children on tales of
successful violence can expect them not to believe that
violence in the end is rewarded" Margaret Mead.
What then are we teaching our children that allows them to harm and kill animals for sheer pleasure? The answer lies in religious models which sanctify, endorse, and facilitate violence to animals, couched in the language of compassion which does not ring true. What does it say to young people when the number of slaughtered animals escalates during the religious holidays of these faiths? Teaching young people that it is permissible to kill animals to meet a human need, is often mistakenly interpreted as a free license to harm and kill.
The evidence is clear. In the West, the Judeo/Christian/ Islamic traditions have failed to instill a message of compassion for living beings, This failure has resulted in enormous and extensive abuse all within the realm of what is considered "necessary" and has led to a proliferation of acts of sadism and gratuitous violence.
As long as religions continue to perpetuate the argument that violence to animals is allowable to meet a human need, there will be no peace, just more of the same.
"Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all living beings, we are all savages". -- Thomas Edison
If the Judeo/Christian/ Islamic tradition is not able to extend its circle of compassion to include animals, it will continue to become more irrelevant. The conclusion is irrefutable, as compassion for animals begins to take hold in society, religions which endorse abuse will continue the trend of diminishing membership and decline in importance.
It is my deepest hope that you will consider the possibility that animal lives do not have to be sacrificed to improve the lives of humans and that you can begin to embrace and instruct your followers in a broader definition of compassion for all of creation.
.
Respectfully,
Ruth Eisenbud
Cambridge, Ma 01238
Posts
