One Can Be Vegan, Or One Can Be Christian. But Not Both.

/ January 29, 2015

Vegans believe that animals should not be abused, tortured, and murdered, to serve the interests and appetites of humans.

That belief flies in the face of the three great Abrahamic religions: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

One can be vegan or one can be a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim.

But not both.

Veganism is a rejection of the god of the Old Testament.

Genesis 9:1-3 “The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.”

That is the doctrine of “dominion,” the supposedly god-given right of humans to enslave animals. To abuse, torture, murder, and consume them. It is a foundation of the Abrahamic religions.

Other foundations are equally vile. The same god worshiped by Jews, Muslims, and Christians demanded animal sacrifices to himself. He enjoyed the smell of animals’ burning flesh.

The god of the Old Testament is an animal murdering ogre. He is the enemy of animals. Of vegans. Of animal activists.

He is also the enemy of anyone who respects human rights. Of anyone opposed to slavery or genocide.

Because the god of the Old Testament condoned slavery.

Leviticus 25:44-46 “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”

God also commanded the genocide of the Canaanites, who were living in the Promised Land. He ordered every man, woman, and child, and every animal, to be put to death by the Israelites.

He killed the first born children of the Egyptians.

And in the Great Flood, he murdered millions of people and billions of animals.

Not a pleasant character.

Fortunately, he doesn’t exist. He is a fantasy. A tool for control of people, a weapon to keep people in line, to shore up the status quo, to frighten opposition to the powers that be.

Veganism is atheism. Veganism is the rejection of dominion, of myth, of fantasy, of sky wizards, of fairies, of ghosts and goblins.

Veganism is the recognition that all animals have the right to life, the right to be left alone, the right to be free of exploitation, of slavery, of torture, of murder.

Veganism is the declaration of independence for our fellow Earthlings. It is the battle cry of activists, the justification for direct action, the moral compass for the human race, the yardstick for humanity.

It is the essence of humanity.

And it is the guide for revolution.

Related posts

45 thoughts on “One Can Be Vegan, Or One Can Be Christian. But Not Both.”

      • I do not see it as ‘GOD changing His Mind’. In ‘the Garden of Eden’ before ‘the fall’ GOD Clearly gave to ‘man’ only plant life to eat. After ‘the fall’ GOD accepted that ‘man’ had Sinned and only then did He allow Animals to be eaten. BUT He gave to ‘man’ the CHOICE to STOP, if ‘man’ wanted to STOP.

        In the Book ‘Cry Out’ there are a number of Bible verses quoted that go to prove that JESUS would not be a “meat eater” TODAY. Simple. Please just read the Book. It is a free read. The proof is circumstantial, but that is because one has to apply the Bible verses TODAY as if JESUS were here ‘in the flesh’, and not just in Spirit. If you will do that Roland I am hoping that you will agree with me that TODAY JESUS would not be a “meat eater’, but would 100% be a Vegan.

        The Book is a genuine attempt to approach the Christian Community and to show them that if they Say that they follow JESUS, then they must STOP eating meat because JESUS would not be eating meat TODAY.

        Thank you sincerely for allowing me to explain myself, as best I can, on your Great ‘site’.

        Lord Bless, Michael. http://epublishbyus.com/cry_out_by_jesus_the…/10042317

        Like

  2. Why is this site so messy and hard to use? Even a “like” response leads you to impossible unusable labarynths.

    Like

    Reply

  4. Two thousand years ago, it was eat meat or starve. There were no grocery stores, no choices. You had to eat to survive. Nevertheless, there is a Bible quote that applies to those who care about animals today (below). For me, it is a sin to eat meat; for the less enlightened or less compassionate, it is not. “But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.” Romans 14:23

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  6. NO NO NO! The version of religion void of compassion for animals is the perverted version. From Genesis 1:29 to Jesus and the Money Changers to modern day priests and rabbis who promote veganism for moral and ethical reasons, it IS absolutely in line with ancient religious belief. READ Dr. Richard Schwartz’s book, Who Stole My Religion. Read all the books by Roberta Kalechofsy and Rabbi Gabriel Cousens. Read Rev. Andrew Lindsey’s books. Read Vasu Mutri’s book, Thou Shall Not Destroy. Religion isn’t the culprit, it is perverting and selectively interpreting it that has made such a violent and corrupt human culture. I belong to Jewish Vegetarians of North America, as well as Christian Vegetarian Association. NO WAY are these religions promoting violence to animals. Only the corrupt versions which came from evil power grabbing humans…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  7. You’ve clearly given a lot of thought to the humanism issue. The article you cite states: “Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems.” There is no mention of nonhuman animals.

    My view of humanism is influenced by the late Canadian environmentalist John A. Livingston, who wrote:
    “No man is so far removed from nature as the liberally educated humanist, because the cosmos centres on his mind, and the mind of man is the measure–and the envelope–of all things. This is the man to whom, as Paul Shepherd says, nature is either natural resources or scenery–or else it is that endlessly fascinating garden of delights called ‘human nature.’ The run-of-the-mill humanist is incredibly ignorant of, and thus indifferent to, his biological context; and he is even somewhat reluctant to be reminded of it. The liberal humanist is dangerous to the biosphere, and thus to mankind, because by and large he is the leader, the educator, the opinion-maker. Even in a money-oriented society, his influence exceeds that of the technocrat or the industrialist. His ‘culture’ grants him access to seats of power and influence. He is the key to the entire supernatural pyramid, because he is ancient anthropocentricity in its most highly developed form.”

    Like

    Reply

    • I do not suggest that humanism is synonymous with Animal Rights.

      I posit that Animal Rights cannot thrive, or even exist, within the confines of religious worldviews.

      Unlike the word’s great religions, humanism is not antagonistic to animals.

      While one cannot logically support Animal Rights while subscribing to Christianity, Islam or Judaism, one can do so as a humanist.

      Like

      Reply

    • Of course one can, and should, be a vegan out of compassion. But no religion (except Jainism) teaches us to do so. If you become vegan out of compassion, you are rejecting biblical values and replacing them with much more profound humanist ones.

      Like

      Reply

      • Compassion, whether for humans or other animals, is incompatible with a literal interpretation of Judeo-Christian bible, but this is not applicable to all Jews and Christians. Some religions such as Buddhism emphasize compassion for all species, but still place humans above other animals. Humanism is the problem, not the solution.

        Like

      • Humanism has nothing to do with advocating the superiority of humans over other animals.

        This is an excerpt of the article What Is Humanism, by Fred Edwords, published by the American Humanist Association. The complete article can be viewed at http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanism

        Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of eighteenth century enlightenment rationalism and nineteenth century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the Council for Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy.

        Religious Humanism largely emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense.

        The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the tendency for its advocates to disagree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the beginning of the twentieth century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence.

        Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933, Humanist Manifesto II in 1973, and Humanist Manifesto III in 2003. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree.

        The definition of religion used by Religious Humanists is often a functional one. Religion is that which serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical worldview.

        To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals, methods for dealing with life’s harsher realities, a rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose.

        To serve social needs humanist religious communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and many Unitarian Universalist churches) offer a sense of belonging, an institutional setting for the moral education of children, special holidays shared with like-minded people, a unique ceremonial life, the performance of ideologically consistent rites of passage (weddings, child welcomings, coming-of-age celebrations, memorials, and so forth), an opportunity for affirmation of one’s philosophy of life, and a historical context for one’s ideas.

        Religious Humanists often maintain that most human beings have personal and social needs that can only be met by religion (taken in the functional sense just detailed). They do not feel that one should have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot feel at home in traditional religion should be able to find a home in non-traditional religion.

        I was once asked by a reporter if this functional definition of religion didn’t amount to taking away the substance and leaving only the superficial trappings. My answer was that the true substance of religion is the role it plays in the lives of individuals and the life of the community. Doctrines may differ from denomination to denomination, and new doctrines may replace old ones, but the purpose religion serves for people remains the same. If we define the substance of a thing as that which is most lasting and universal, then the function of religion is the core of it.

        Religious Humanists, in realizing this, make sure that doctrine is never allowed to subvert the higher purpose of meeting human needs in the here and now. This is why humanist child welcoming ceremonies are geared to the community and humanist wedding services are tailored to the specialized needs of the wedding couple and their families. This is why humanist memorial services focus, not on saving the soul of the dear departed but on serving the survivors by giving them a memorable experience related to how the deceased was in life. This is why humanists don’t proselytize people on their death beds. They find it better to allow them to die as they have lived, undisturbed by the agendas of others.

        Finally, Religious Humanism is “faith in action.” In his essay “The Faith of a Humanist,” UU Minister Kenneth Phifer declares –

        Humanism teaches us that it is immoral to wait for God to act for us. We must act to stop the wars and the crimes and the brutality of this and future ages. We have powers of a remarkable kind. We have a high degree of freedom in choosing what we will do. Humanism tells us that whatever our philosophy of the universe may be, ultimately the responsibility for the kind of world in which we live rests with us.

        Now, while Secular Humanists may agree with much of what Religious Humanists do, they deny that this activity is properly called “religious.” This isn’t a mere semantic debate. Secular Humanists maintain that there is so much in religion deserving of criticism that the good name of humanism should not be tainted by connection with it.

        Secular Humanists often refer to Unitarian Universalists as “humanists not yet out of the church habit.” But Unitarian Universalists sometimes counter that a Secular Humanist is simply an “unchurched Unitarian.”

        Probably the most popular exemplar of the Secular Humanist world view in recent years was the controversial author Salman Rushdie. Here is what he said on ABC’s Nightline on February 13, 1989, in regard to his novel The Satanic Verses.

        [My book says] that there is an old, old conflict between the secular view of the world and the religious view of the world, and particularly between texts which claim to be divinely inspired and texts which are imaginatively inspired. . . . I distrust people who claim to know the whole truth and who seek to orchestrate the world in line with that one true truth. I think that’s a very dangerous position in the world. It needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged constantly in all sorts of ways, and that’s what I tried to do.

        In the March 2, 1989, edition of the New York Review, he explained that, in The Satanic Verses he –

        tried to give a secular, humanist vision of the birth of a great world religion. For this, apparently, I should be tried. . . . “Battle lines are being drawn today,” one of my characters remarks. “Secular versus religious, the light verses the dark. Better you choose which side you are on.”

        The Secular Humanist tradition is in part a tradition of defiance, a tradition that dates back to ancient Greece. One can see, even in Greek mythology, humanist themes that are rarely, if ever, manifested in the mythologies of other cultures. And they certainly have not been repeated by modern religions. The best example here is the character Prometheus.

        Prometheus stands out because he was admired by ancient Greeks as the one who defied Zeus. He stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth. For this he was punished. And yet he continued his defiance amid his tortures. This is one source of the humanist challenge to authority.

        The next time we see a truly heroic Promethean character in mythology it is Lucifer in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. But now he is the Devil. He is evil. Whoever would defy God must be wickedness personified. That seems to be a given of traditional religion. But the ancient Greeks didn’t agree. To them, Zeus, for all his power, could still be mistaken.

        Imagine how shocked a friend of mine was when I told her my view of “God’s moral standards.” I said, “If there were such a god, and these were indeed his ideal moral principles, I would be tolerant. After all, God is entitled to his own opinions!”

        Only a humanist is inclined to speak this way. Only a humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is OK to disagree with him, her, or it. In Plato’s Euthyphro, Socrates shows that God is not necessarily the source of good, or even good himself. Socrates asks if something is good because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is already good. Yet, since the time of the ancient Greeks, no mainstream religion has permitted such questioning of God’s will or made a hero out of a disobedient character. It is humanists who claim this tradition.

        After all, much of human progress has been in defiance of religion or of the apparent natural order. When we deflect lightning or evacuate a town before a tornado strikes, we lessen the effects of so called “acts of God.” When we land on the Moon we defy the Earth’s gravitational pull. When we seek a solution to the AIDS crisis, we, as the late Reverend Jerry Falwell argued, thwart “God’s punishment of homosexuals.”

        Politically, the defiance of religious and secular authority has led to democracy, human rights, and the protection of the environment. Humanists make no apologies for this. Humanists twist no biblical doctrine to justify such actions. They recognize the Promethean defiance of their response and take pride in it. For this is part of the tradition.

        Another aspect of the Secular Humanist tradition is skepticism. Skepticism’s historical exemplar is Socrates. Why Socrates? Because after all this time he still stands alone among all the famous saints and sages from antiquity to the present. Every religion has its sage. Judaism has Moses, Zoroastrianism has Zarathustra, Buddhism has the Buddha, Christianity has Jesus, Islam has Mohammad, Mormonism has Joseph Smith, and Bahai has Baha-u-lah. Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute truth. It is Socrates, alone among famous sages, who claimed to know nothing. Each devised a set of rules or laws, save Socrates. Instead, Socrates gave us a method—a method of questioning the rules of others, of cross-examination. And Socrates didn’t die for truth, he died for rights and the rule of law. For these reasons Socrates is the quintessential skeptical humanist. He stands as a symbol, both of Greek rationalism and the humanist tradition that grew out of it. And no equally recognized saint or sage has joined his company since his death.

        Because of the strong Secular Humanist identity with the images of Prometheus and Socrates, and equally strong rejection of traditional religion, the Secular Humanist actually agrees with Tertullian—who said: “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?”

        That is, Secular Humanists identify more closely with the rational heritage symbolized by ancient Athens than with the faith heritage epitomized by ancient Jerusalem.

        But don’t assume from this that Secular Humanism is only negative. The positive side is liberation, best expressed in these words of American agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll:

        When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free-free to think, to express my thoughts-free to live my own ideal, free to live for myself and those I loved, free to use all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope, free to judge and determine for myself . . . I was free! I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

        Enough to make a Secular Humanist shout “hallelujah!”

        The fact that humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether. The dichotomy between reason and faith is often given emphasis in humanism, with humanists taking their stand on the side of reason. Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious.

        These paradoxical features not only require a unique treatment of Religious Humanism in the study of world religions but also help explain the continuing disagreement, both inside and outside the humanist movement, over whether humanism is a religion at all.

        The paradoxes don’t end here. Religious Humanism is without a god, without a belief in the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife, and without a belief in a “higher” source of moral values. Some adherents would even go so far as to suggest that it is a religion without “belief” of any kind—knowledge based on evidence being considered preferable. Furthermore, the common notion of “religious knowledge” as knowledge gathered through nonscientific means is not accepted in Religious Humanist epistemology.

        Because both Religious and Secular Humanism are identified so closely with Cultural Humanism, they readily embrace modern science, democratic principles, human rights, and free inquiry. Humanism’s rejection of the notions of sin and guilt, especially in relation to sexual ethics, puts it in harmony with contemporary sexology and sex education as well as aspects of humanistic psychology. And humanism’s historic advocacy of the secular state makes it another voice in the defense of church-state separation.

        All these features led to the old charge that people are teaching “the religion of secular humanism” in the public schools.

        The most obvious point to clarify in this context is that some religions hold to doctrines that place their adherents at odds with certain features of the modern world. Other religions do not. For example, many Evangelical Christians, especially those filling the ranks of the “religious right,” reject the theory of evolution. Therefore, they see the teaching of evolution in a science course as an affront to their religious sensibilities. In defending their beliefs from exposure to ideas inconsistent with them, such believers label evolution as “humanism” and maintain that exclusive teaching of it in the science classroom constitutes a breach in the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state.

        It is indeed true that Religious Humanists, in embracing modern science, embrace evolution in the bargain. But individuals within mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism also embrace modern science—and hence evolution. Evolution happens to be the state of the art in science today and is appropriately taught in science courses. That evolution has come to be identified with Religious Humanism but not with mainline Christianity or Judaism is a curious quirk of politics in North America. But this is a typical feature of the whole controversy over humanism in the schools.

        Other courses of study have come to be identified with humanism as well, including sex education, values education, global education, and even creative writing. There are Christian fundamentalists who would have us believe that “situation ethics” was invented by 1974 Humanist of the Year Joseph Fletcher. But situational considerations have been an element of Western jurisprudence for at least 2,000 years! Again, Secular and Religious Humanists, being in harmony with current trends, are quite comfortable with all of this, as are adherents of most major religions. There is no justification for seeing these ideas as the exclusive legacy of humanism. Furthermore, there are independent secular reasons why schools offer the curriculum that they do. A bias in favor of “the religion of secular humanism” has never been a factor in their development and implementation.

        The charge of humanist infiltration into the public schools seems to be the product of a confusion of Cultural Humanism and Religious Humanism. Though Religious Humanism embraces Cultural Humanism, this is no justification for separating out Cultural Humanism, labeling it as the exclusive legacy of a nontheistic and naturalistic religion called Religious Humanism, and declaring it alien. To do so would be to turn one’s back on a significant part of one’s culture and enthrone the standards of Christian fundamentalism as the arbiter of what is and is not religious. A deeper understanding of Western culture would go a long way in clarifying the issues surrounding the controversy over humanism in the public schools.

        Once we leave the areas of confusion, it is possible to explain, in straightforward terms, exactly what the Modern Humanist philosophy is about. It is easy to summarize the basic ideas held in common by both Religious and Secular Humanists. These ideas are as follows:

        Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore.

        Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge.

        Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness.

        Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world. These ideas, after they have been assessed rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work, often as alternative approaches for solving problems.

        Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard human values as making sense only in the context of human life rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death.

        Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems-for both the individual and society-and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities.

        Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral decision making.

        Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists therefore recognize that we live in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of time, that there is no compelling evidence for a separable “soul,” and that human beings have certain built-in needs that effectively form the basis for any human-oriented value system.

        Humanism is in tune with today’s enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives.

        Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about, especially in the interest of protecting the environment.

        Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails.

        Though there are some who would suggest that this philosophy has always had a limited and eccentric following, the facts of history show otherwise. Among the modern adherents of humanism have been Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and 1957 Humanist of the Year of the American Humanist Association; humanistic psychology pioneers Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, also Humanists of the Year; Albert Einstein, who identified with humanism in the 1930’s; Bertrand Russell, who joined the American Humanist Association in the 1960s; civil rights pioneer A. Philip Randoph, who was the 1970 Humanist of the Year; and futurist R. Buckminister Fuller, Humanist of the Year in 1969.

        The United Nations is a specific example of humanism at work. The first Director General of UNESCO, the UN organization promoting education, science, and culture, was the 1962 Humanist of the Year Julian Huxley, who practically drafted UNESCO’S charter by himself. The first Director-General of the World Health Organization was the 1959 Humanist of the Year Brock Chisholm. One of this organization’s greatest accomplishments has been the wiping of smallpox from the face of the earth. And the first Director-General of the Food and Agricultural Organization was British Humanist John Boyd Orr.

        Meanwhile, humanists like 1980 Humanist of the Year Andrei Sakharov stood up for human rights wherever such rights were suppressed. Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem fought for women’s rights, Mathilde Krim battled the AIDS epidemic, and Margaret Atwood remains one of the world’s most outspoken advocates of literary freedom—humanists all.

        The list of scientists is legion: Stephen Jay Gould, Donald Johanson, Richard Leakey, E.O. Wilson, Francis Crick, Jonas Salk, Steven Weinberg, Carolyn Porco, and many others—all members of the American Humanist Association, whose president in the 1980s was the late scientist and author Isaac Asimov.

        The membership lists of humanist organizations, both religious and secular, read like Who’s Who. Through these people, and many more of less reknown, the humanist philosophy has an impact on our world far out of proportion to the number of its adherents. That tells us something about the power of ideas that work.

        It may have been what led philosopher George Santayana to declare humanism to be “an accomplishment, not a doctrine.”

        So, with modern humanism one finds a lifestance or worldview that is in tune with modern knowledge; is inspiring, socially conscious, and personally meaningful. It is not only the thinking person’s outlook but that of the feeling person as well, for it has inspired the arts as much as it has the sciences; philanthropy as much as critique. And even in critique it is tolerant, defending the rights of all people to choose other ways, to speak and to write freely, to live their lives according to their own lights.

        So the choice is yours. Are you a humanist?

        You needn’t answer “yes” or “no.” For it isn’t an either-or proposition. Humanism is yours—to adopt or to simply draw from. You may take a little or a lot, sip from the cup or drink it to the dregs.

        It’s up to you.

        Like

  10. Absolutely agree with every word.
    “Ad the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth..” Genesis 9;2
    “And every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you” Genesis 9:3

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  12. If most people were actually concerned with following only one interpretation of their religious doctrine then the case against religion would be much stronger. However, (and I’m sure that there’s some social-psychological research that bears this out) I think what most people do is do what they feel is the right thing to do and then adopt those features of religious thought that conform to those feelings. I think it’s the case that most people don’t so much follow religious teachings but that they choose those religious teachings that follow them. The same thing, by the way, is true of moral systems in general. Moral theorizing does little to guide anyone’s actions – we each adopt the moral system that justifies how we would act anyway.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • But Tim. We are victims of our culture and conditioning. Our culture has evolved within the religious framework over the millennia. Why else would 80% of the population believe (eg) that animals are on the planet for the pleasure of humans.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  13. Secular humanism, aka atheism, can be just as hostile to animal activism as any other religion. Veganism, based on a taboo on consuming animal products, may be more compatible with animal activism, but it is not identical with animal activism. You have pointed out in numerous posts the need to recruit more activists. This is not the same as converting people to veganism.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • well I don’t agree totally… and although I believe in God I am NOT part of the three religions you mention I am a Hindu… but even in the Bible it says you can have this if you “must” God guess that was a choice and turns the other cheek but his statement is very clear… I will forgive you for this but I recommend against it… God has not given me this choice as a Hindu… I am very thankful he holds me in such high regard…

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      • of man i am you Arjune… among the aquatics i am the shark, of the Vedas I am the sound of a om and of all creation am I am the beginning and the end and all those things in between…

        Liked by 1 person

  14. Right you are Roland! The fact that many so-called Christians, Jews and Moslems don’t really understand the doctrines to which they say they subscribe points even more to the importance of your enlightening challenge. I see nothing wrong with bringing these facts to the attention of those claiming to be vegan and an adherent of any of these religions.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      • In other words, God – like people – can never change. That’s exactly why I never try to convince anyone to go vegan, because since it’s impossible for anyone to change, only people born vegan can be vegan. Just like how God can never change.

        Like

      • Well, god used to require animal sacrifices. Now he doesn’t.
        God used to require the observation of the Sabbath. Now he doesn’t.
        God used to require stoning of heretics and unfaithful wives. Seems to have changed his mind.
        God used to maintain that the world was flat. Now he acknowledges it isn’t.
        Curious that all these changes reflect evolving human understanding.
        And they strongly suggest that god is a creation of people.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Roland: “God used to maintain that the world was flat. Now he acknowledges it isn’t.” ? When did this happen? The bible states the world is flat throughout, as this was how the men who wrote it believed the world to be.

      As for the lack of animal sacrifices, the reason for this is that there is no temple to properly sacrifice them in, it was destroyed. But in Jesus’s day, animal sacrifices still were going on, and Jesus made no mention of it being wrong. He didn’t throw the money changers (who were also probably selling animals for ritual sacrifice) out of the temple for taking part in cruelty to animals, he threw them out because they were getting rich off of the ritual sacrifice of animals, which he found offensive. Because it should be about God, a bloody, brutalized animal, and the scent of its burning flesh rising to heaven (which God says is a ‘sweet savor’), not profit. According to the gospels, Mary and Joseph even went to the temple to sacrifice animals to ‘purify’ Mary after giving birth to Jesus-though that giving birth to God should make a person ‘unclean’ is a whole different question. Okay, really it was about women and everything to do with women being unclean, but that’s beside the point. And remember the loaves and fishes Jesus multiplied for people to eat? All these examples are from the NT, which I have read every major translation of several times, and which to my knowledge NEVER condemns eating or killing animals.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  18. My personal opinion on this is to embrace people of faith, as anyone can be vegan- just as race, gender, sexual orientation etc. can be vegan. Most people believe in some higher power, connect with them first about love, respect and peace. Find the common ground on principles in which we resonate. Attacking faith yeilds war, not peace. Have we learned nothing from our past? Many vegans are spiritual and I am thankful for that bridge to connect with others for it.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.