From: homerific1990@hotmail.com Jason, Thank you for responding to my concerns. I will attempt to elucidate the situation in India with regard to the extensive measures that exist to protect animals as well as address your suggestion that a critical assessment of dominion is an obsession. Legitimate criticism of the judeo.christian tradition model of animal compassion is not an obsession, it is a reality that must be acknowledged. The failure to address its effect on animal abuse is irresponsible, as it is at the root of so much of the allowable violence in the west. I do not understand your reluctance to address this significant factor. You have not explained why you choose to do so. Is it an arbitrary decision, do you consider it too difficult an undertaking or is it based fear of repercussions? Perhaps you are not familiar with some of the grass roots work done in India based on the Gandhian model. There is an excellent organization called the Barefoot College. Poor women from every corner of India are taught to construct and design solar equipment at a campus in Rajastan. They return to their rural villages and bring a renewable source of energy which provides electricity. Such is the influence of ahimsa that crafts sold by this group are made of silk which is procured non-violently. Traditional silk production consists of boiling the cocoon with the live worm inside. Indian scientists have developped a method which allows the moth to emerge and then uses the cocoon to produce silk. This is in sharp contrast to an organization such as Heifer International, which sends animals abroad as livestock to ingratiate itself into developing nations. Along with the animals comes indoctrination, as the recipients are also 'taught' religious doctrine. This willingness to sacrifice animal lives to promote its agenda of proselytizing is not charity. I could easily list numerous organizations which successfully follow the Gandhian method of social change if you would like additional information. India is a large and thriving democracy, therefore groups in India such as Christians, Moslems, Zorastrians and Seikhs which consume meat without hesitation are responsible for much of the increased carnage. Despite the increase in meat production there is still a vital tradition of rescuing cattle. There are gaushalas throughout India which protect cattle from harm. People for Animals runs a gaushala just outside of Delhi which houses 10,000 cows. Gaushalas are run by religious organizations, animal rights organizations and private individuals. The existence of 400 million religious vegetarians is difficult to ignore as it does indicate a greater willingness to refrain from harming animals than is found in the west. It is also noteworthy that in India animal activists are not considered terrorists, but rather are respected by the mainstream as they promote the values of the jain/hindu tradition. Animal activism is a legitimate endeavor in India, not a criminal offence. The following is a brief summary of some of the difference resulting from ahimsa as compared to dominion: The Indian Constitution states that humans have a 'Duty of Compassion to Animals'. Based on this foundation the following animal protection legislation has been enacted in India: Dissection of animals is banned in every state for ALL high school students.
In the United States animals are viewed as property before the law harm done to them is adjudicated according to property law. They are not viewed as living beings with intrinsic rights: It is virtually impossible for high school students to opt out of dissection
in every state. It is unreasonable to ignore these differences, as they are evidence that progress is possible with ahimsa, while in dominion based cultures the status quo of ever increasing animal abuse is assured. I understand your anger towards abusers, but you have not explained why you are unwilling to address the root cause which grants respectability and legitimacy to so much of the abuse that is tolerated in the west. You say you are willing to use many methods, so I am not sure why you exclude one which has shown such stellar results. Ahimsa when it is stated as a religious principle has been most effective in reducing animal abuse. Dominion has not. Ignoring the results achieved by ahimsa will not serve the animals we work so hard to defend. I hope you will consider adding justified criticism of religious leaders and instituitions to your arsenal as you have not explained why you have chosen to ignore such significant evience. The work of Gary Francione has not been successfully deconstructed. as he works closely with the Jain community to promote a message which has proven itself to be effective in attaining compassionate results. He was recently a guest speaker at a national Jain conference. He is respected in the Jain community for the excellence of his scholarship and his promotion of unconditional compassion. I have attached a memo for your consideration which documents the legal ramifications of unconditional compassion as opposed to compassion for animals based on human need. Thank you for considering my thoughts... Ruth ATTACHMENT: A DUTY OF COMPASSION: The Law will not become more compassionate until Religion does. Recently there were two items related to legal issues involving animals. The
first is a bill to provide high school students in Connecticut with the option
to decline to dissect an animal for ethical reasons. The second concerns a
resolution in California to do away with kill-shelters. 1) "HB6565, a bill that will allow students to opt-out of classroom animal dissections (http://cga.ct.gov/asp/cgabillstatus/cgabillstatus.asp? selBillType=Bill&bill_num=HB06565&which_year=2009 ), passed through the House overwhelmingly last month and is currently waiting to be raised in the Senate. The legislative session ends on June 3 and the bill must be voted on before then in order to keep it alive. 2) The California Assembly is considering Assembly Concurrent Resolution 74 which would urge all shelters "to embrace the philosophy of the No Kill movement and implement its programs and services aimed at ending the mass killing of sheltered animals." This could not come at a more needed time for the animals for many reasons: The State’s largest shelter system continues policies that allow, indeed cause, mass killing…" The Law is a reflection of the underlying moral and religious beliefs of a culture. In the USA there are no legal rights for animals, as they exist as property, not independent living beings whose lives have intrinsic worth. A recent ruling in NY state exemplifies this principle: "(Judge) Smith ruled that New York 's warranty statute applies to "goods," not rendered services and that loss of companionship and emotional distress damages cannot be claimed for the loss of personal property, which a dog is considered under New York law." This principle of the law as noted above is a direct result of the monotheistic religious view which permits the harming/killing of animals for human need. Animals have worth in how they benefit humans, not as living beings entitled to remain free from harm. Because of this view it is extremely difficult to legally declare a city or even a particular shelter as no-kill. Due to this 'compassion of convenience' six to seven million healthy, young dogs are put to death every year. Excuses are made about funding, but ultimately it comes down to the bottom line. Often despite multimillion dollar endowments keeping a dog alive is secondary to increasing the financial base of an institution such as the ASPCA. It is the same reasoning which has made it almost impossible to exempt high school students in the USA from dissection. Dissection for high school students in the Connecticut case and throughout the country is mandatory because the benefit to humans is the profit generated for the companies that provide the animals. Although there are mechanical and computer alternatives available, these can be reused and therefore are not as profitable. It is not necessary to change the law as the underlying mainstream religions tolerate the waste of animal lives in the name of profit. In India public morals champion non-violence to all beings as expressed in the mainstream religions. Non-violence to all beings is reflected as a 'duty of compassion’ in the Indian Constitution as every citizen has ‘a duty of compassion’ to animals. That a nation such as India with much less wealth has found a way to respect the life of a dog is a reflection of a view which regards all life as sacred and worthy of respect. With regard to dogs Indian morality exerts its influence on the law as follows: "• It is illegal to kill homeless animals. Citizens may only report what they perceive as a nuisance to the municipal authorities. The municipality is required to maintain an animal pound for animals. Previously, municipalities would kill these animals (mainly dogs) cruelly by electrocution, starvation and burying alive. After 1992, it became illegal for municipalities to kill stray dogs" A primer of Animal Protection Laws. The law is explicit: dogs cannot be killed either if they are street dogs or companion animals who have lost their homes. Only a dog who is terminally ill or injured can be euthanized. Street dogs are captured, vaccinated for rabies, neutered and released to live out their natural lives. Throughout India there are shelter/hospitals with ambulances that serve street dogs. The Indian constitution contains the provision that every citizen has ‘a duty of compassion’ to animals. Dissection for high school students is banned throughout India. The successful legal argument for this decision is based on the reasoning that to compel students to perform dissection would violate their of 'right to conscience' based on religious grounds and their ‘duty of compassion’. This ruling and the noted provisions of the constitution were possible because of religious values that that teach respect for the lives of ALL beings In a recent talk in New Zealand, Indian lawyer Raj Panjwani explained how he was able to successfully argue the case for the elimination of dissection for high school students throughout India. "...the real gems of the Indian animal lawyer's toolkit lie in the Constitution and the power of the Court to issue a direction or order or writ where a legal wrong has been committed by violation of a constitutional or legal right. India's Constitution has provisions upholding not just the duty of compassion but protecting the freedoms of conscience, speech, and life and liberty" Amy Mansfield, New Zealand Lawyer In Indian Law an animals life is worth more than profit: "no person has a right to carry on a trade which results in infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on animals" Amy Mansfield, New Zealand Lawyer In the west, particularly the USA, the right to carry on trade is valued over the right of an animal to live free from harm. Recently a rally was held to end the exploitation and abuse of carriage horses who are forced to carry heavy loads throughout NYC, as a tourist attraction, in dangerous and adverse conditions. A Franciscan Monk spoke out against the horses and in favor of the humans who exploit them, as their right to earn a living superseded the horses right to NOT work in a harmful environment. The following is from an action alert describing the rally to support legislation to end the suffering of the horses: "The industry brought out a Franciscan monk who testified about St. Francis and how he loved animals and how the carriage owners love their horses. "Father Brian Jordan, whose Franciscan order was founded by the Catholic patron saint of animals, Francis of Assisi, said he had surveyed every aspect of the trade and found nothing cruel. I can tell you, if there was any cruelty I wouldn't be here..." He was not concerned that horses are forced to carry heavy loads in dense traffic. Recently a horse was spooked by the traffic, hit by a car and hurt so badly he had to be put down. Such as justification is not possible in India as "no person has a right to carry on a trade which results in infliction of unnecessary pain and suffering on animals…The right to life includes livelihood, but could not extend to a trade which is injurious to public interest or has an insidious effect on public morals. The Indian legal code mandates extensive rules for draught animals which protect them from carrying heavy loads and working in a dangerous environment. Based on these laws the carriage horses of NYC would be relieved from their burden. A list of extensive provisions in Indian law for draught animals is noted in the following website: http://www.peopleforanimalsindia.org/animal-protection-laws.htm#no3 Additional beneficial animal protection laws in India: The Law will not become more compassionate until Religion does: It is not coincidental that much of the extraneous harm done to animals in the west would be illegal in India. " From: willpowerful@everestkc.net Ruth, Several points: I specifically took you off of my email list because I recognized your obsession with dominionism and organized religion. I have no use for either of them myself, as I recognize their extreme detriment to our nonhuman friends. Yet I’ve no interest in engaging in a personal crusade against religions and churches. I also recognized you as a dogmatic pacifist. I support nearly all tactics to evoke profound social change, ranging from writing letters to destroying the tools of oppression/exploitation. So we don’t have much to discuss with respect to philosophy or praxis. India is a country where violence against nonhuman animals is rampant. The Jains, while admirable, represent a relatively small segment of the population. “Meat” consumption in India is soaring as capitalism and consumerism take the country by storm. I have only deconstructed Francione in two essays, and both were in response to public accusations that he waged against my ally and mentor, Steve Best. If Francione didn’t hurl false and public allegations that could cost my friend his career or his freedom, I wouldn’t need to “rant” about him. Also, I recommend you review my body of work, including my essays and my
articles/journal entries about my hands-on activism. You will find that I’m an
equal opportunity hater of animal exploiters as I fulfill my purpose of being a
voice, gadfly, agitator, educator, and demonstrator on behalf of nonhuman
animals and target individuals, corporations, governments, research facilities,
puppy mills, factory farms, meat markets, and the like. Regards, Jason Miller Founder of Bite Club of KC Senior Editor and Founder of Thomas Paine's Corner http://www.myspace.com/anarchovegan NAALPO Press Officer Watch the video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 and go vegan. Do it for
your health, for nonhuman animals and for the Earth! From: Ruth Eisenbud [mailto:homerific1990@hotmail.com] Thank you, Slavica. It seems to me it would be beneficial to hold accountable those who shroud their endorsement of animal abuse in religion...Perhaps then we could begin to make some progress without the frustration that drives some to consider violence as a means of ending violence. Ruth From: epar@yunord.net ----- Original Message ----- Slavica, Thank you for forwarding this to me... You are so right: You have not explained why violence has not worked, how the Judeo.Christian tradition has failed animals with its double-speak message of dominion and why the benefits for animals are broadbased and significant in India, which follows the methods that Gary Francione also espouses. It seems you would rather rant and accuse than discuss serious issues. Do you want to help animals or would you rather villify someone who is giving his best for the same cause. It is easier to attack a lone individual who works with the Jain community that has the best track record of animal compassion of any other society, religion or culture than to directly confront the Pope, Rabbis who endorse slaughter, Ministers who sponsor fund-raising barbecues and hunting for their youth. They are the root of the problem. Yet you consistently remain silent about their complicity. If only you had the courage to address the leaders of the Judeo.Christian tradition, which endorse, sanctify and make respectable, so much of the abuse we all find so intolerable... It seems even to someone who works so hard to end animal suffering, as you do in your own way, these preachers of abuse are off limits....Why? What is sacred about animal abuse? I understand why you are so angry, but attacking a peaceful individual who is also working in his own way towards the same goal of ending abuse will not help the true victims of a religious model that cleverly calls for compassion as it sanctifies abuse. Do not allow your anger to consume you and instead focus your efforts on those responsible for the abuse, the pious preachers of dominion. Ruth Eisenbud From: epar@yunord.net RegardsSlavica----------------------------------------MD Slavica Mazak Beslic Friend-EPAR/OIPA Serbia/Alliance for Animal Rights24000 Subotica,Serbia ---- - Original Message ----- FIRST: Several upcoming conferences are worth noting for their willingness to
represent the diversity of tactics employed in the animal liberation movement.
If you can find the time and money to attend them, they’re well worth it! Animal Liberation Forum 2010
http://ceaseanimaltorture.org/forum.htm CSU-Long Beach , Long Beach CA April 15th - 18th Animal Ethics Conference
http://uvuanimalethicsconference.blogspot.com/ March 29th - April 2nd Let Live Conference
http://www.letlivefoundation.org/conference/ Portland State University , Portland OR June 25th - 27th Animal Rights National Conference 2010 Second: Please take a moment to sign these petitions demanding that JCPRD and
KDWP implement nonlethal means of deer management in Death Park fka Shawnee
Mission Park http://www.change.org/actions/view/ shawnee_mission_park_wants_to_slaughter_more_semi-tame_deer Third: Below is some of the latest content on Thomas Paine's Corner, Bite Club of KC, and the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition blog. Please read it, republish it on your sites/blog, link to it on your social networking sites, and/or forward this email widely! Regards, Senior Editor and Founder of Thomas Paine's Corner
http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress.com/ NAALPO Press Officer http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/ Chief Counter-Propagandist for the Global Anti-Hunting Coalition
http://gahc.wordpress.com/ Watch the video at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4 1. Terror and death unleashed by means of bow and arrow, rifle and bone
crushing traps is no SANE person’s vision of “refuge.” The majority of the public continues to be held hostage by those in official positions which clearly display psychopathic and / or narcissistic tendencies. They function only to make decisions which benefit THEMSELVES — first, last and always. Completely void of a conscience, they are empty and soulless, not only unable to feel pain, but delighting in promoting and inflicting it. Is it any wonder that they choose death and destruction over wise and compassionate decision-making, time after time, when dealing with our wild creatures…. 2. The Loss of a Halo: Francione and the Mask of Jainism By Steve Best Malcolm X often started his talks with this ironic greeting, as his audiences often contained a nest of agents, traitors, and spies. And when I look out at the diverse aspects of the animal advocacy movement, I see the same, including FBI and law enforcement, those who condemn militant direct action while knowing nothing about it, those who monitor my pages on social-networking sites to report to their pacifist leaders, and those sad victims of the Stockholm Syndrome who have more sympathy for the “humanity” of seal killers than for the courageous members of the underground who risk it all for nonhuman animals…..
4. And now you want to kill MORE innocents?
http://biteclubkc.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/
and-now-you-want-to-kill-more-innocents/
6. It will never end unless we band together and do something! 7. From a strict ideological stand-point, Steve Best is less “dangerous” than
me… 8. ANIMAL-RIGHTS TERRORISTS TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY 9. Bite Club leader Jason Miller fights against ‘speciesism’
Yes, I realize nobody has asked for my opinion. I am
fairly neutral (I have quibbles with both sides).
I am an atheist who has had an animal liberation presence on the
internet for more than two decades.
I haven’t heard any new concepts in the last decade.
My comments are interspersed in green font.
Subject: RE: Meaningful Results Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 Jason, Thank you for responding to my concerns. I will attempt to elucidate the situation in India with regard to the extensive measures that exist to protect animals as well as address your suggestion that a critical assessment of dominion is an obsession.
Jason’s reference to your concerns over dominion as
an obsession and you (in the next paragraph) referring to his lack of the same
concern as possibly being based on fear are sophomoric baiting. You both get a D
grade for lame tactics. Your credibility will drop further if either of you
mention it again. Legitimate criticism of the judeo.christian tradition model of animal compassion is not an obsession, it is a reality that must be acknowledged. The failure to address its effect on animal abuse is irresponsible, as it is at the root of so much of the allowable violence in the west. I do not understand your reluctance to address this significant factor. You have not explained why you choose to do so. Is it an arbitrary decision, do you consider it too difficult an undertaking or is it based fear of repercussions?
Jason may be ignoring the religious aspect of
Western beliefs because the effects of religious beliefs are difficult to
separate from culture. For the most part religion in the Western world is a
social club, not a deep philosophical belief. Judeo-Christians use the Bible to
support whatever they believe, which is usually whatever their social circle
believes. This cause-and-effect should not be turned around. They have their
beliefs, and then they use the Bible to support those beliefs. There exist many
Christian groups, such as ENAW (Episcopal Network for Animal Welfare), that
believe “dominion” means simply “to care for”. They have vegan clergy, proving
that the Bible is not the culprit. I have heard Christians say that if the Pope
said tomorrow that eating meat was wrong (like pre-marital sex), they would eat
meat anyway. Perhaps you are not familiar with some of the grass roots work done in India based on the Gandhian model. There is an excellent organization called the Barefoot College. Poor women from every corner of India are taught to construct and design solar equipment at a campus in Rajastan. They return to their rural villages and bring a renewable source of energy which provides electricity. Such is the influence of ahimsa that crafts sold by this group are made of silk which is procured non-violently. Traditional silk production consists of boiling the cocoon with the live worm inside. Indian scientists have developped a method which allows the moth to emerge and then uses the cocoon to produce silk. This is in sharp contrast to an organization such as Heifer International, which sends animals abroad as livestock to ingratiate itself into developing nations. Along with the animals comes indoctrination, as the recipients are also 'taught' religious doctrine. This willingness to sacrifice animal lives to promote its agenda of proselytizing is not charity. I could easily list numerous organizations which successfully follow the Gandhian method of social change if you would like additional information.
The book “Superfreakenomics” demonstrates that
dramatic changes in violence are related to television, and not to religion.
(Michael Moore drew a similar conclusion in “Bowling for Columbine”). In
Superfreakenomics they compiled statistics that showed as TV cables were
installed in India, the crime rates and the women who were unhappy with their
status followed the installation. Install
TV in area 1, months later there were unsatisfied people and increased crime. No
other area showed the same effect. Install TV in area 2, months later the same
effect. Their religion did not change.
Their “culture” changed. Similar correlations have been made in other
places. These are statistical studies with no political agenda. I understand your anger towards abusers, but you have not explained why you are unwilling to address the root cause which grants respectability and legitimacy to so much of the abuse that is tolerated in the west. Buddhism, at its roots, is also animal
friendly. China has a lot of Buddhists and it has one of the worst track records
for animal abuse. While there may be some correlation between religion and
animal rights issues, cause-and-effect has not been statistically demonstrated. The work of Gary Francione has not been successfully deconstructed. as he works closely with the Jain community to promote a message which has proven itself to be effective in attaining compassionate results. He was recently a guest speaker at a national Jain conference. He is respected in the Jain community for the excellence of his scholarship and his promotion of unconditional compassion.
The work done by Francione in bringing the vegan
message to the world is valuable. However, he is a speciesist in that he will
not stop an animal from suffering if it is against the local laws, even if the
laws would allow intervention were the animal to be human. His philosophy
doesn’t go far enough, and Francione is wrong to attack others who use more
theatric techniques to protect animals. In this respect, Francione is hurting
the AR movement. But Francione is not hurting the AR movement as much as those
who write essays would like to think. Francione, like Peter Singer, is unknown
to the masses. And he probably always
will be. Wasting time attacking his ideas is sad.
Change will come. It will come slowly. Groups like
PETA and HSUS are getting out an important basic message: Animals have feelings
that should be taken into account. And TV stars are more important than
religious leaders.
Since each life is important we should all work
hard. We can all have some effect, and it can be good. But religion won’t be a
major factor. Neither will most philosophers.
Our motto is “Deeds, Not Words.” I understand the
irony. But our words in public should be positive. Humans respond better to
positive. And it’s human behavior we want to change.
Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin, annxtberlin@gmail.com |
