The Christian Argument for Vegetarianism

Subject:      Christian Argument for Vegetarianism
From:         jai@mantra.com (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
Date:         January 17, 1996
Message-Id:   
Newsgroups:   alt.fan.jai-maharaj,rec.food.veg,soc.culture.indian


The Christian Argument for Vegetarianism

Excerpted from the book:
Christianity and the Rights of Animals, (Crossroad Publ. Co., NY)

by

Rev. Dr. Andrew Linzey
Director of Studies
Center for the Study of Theology
University of Essex

   It is well known that during the last thirty years or more, farmers
have  been  under  increasing pressure  to  tailor traditional farming
methods to  the needs of  cost-effective production.   Farming animals
intensively has become the norm.
   It seems to me the only  satisfactory basis on  which we can oppose
systems of close confinement is by recourse to the argument drawn from
theos-rights.  To put it at  its most basic: animals have the right to
be animals.  The natural life of  a Spirit-filled creature is  a  gift
from God.  When we take over the life  of  an animal to the  extent of
distorting its natural life for no other purpose than our own gain, we
fall into  sin.   There  is no clearer blasphemy before  God than  the
perversion of his creatures.
   To  the question: 'Why is it wrong to deny chickens the rudimentary
requirements  of their natural life, such  as  freedom of  movement or
association?' there is, therefore, only one satisfactory answer: Since
an animal's natural  life is a gift from  God,  it follows that  God's
right is violated when the natural life of his creatures is perverted.
Those  who, in  contrast,  opt for the welfarist approach to intensive
farming are inevitably involved  in speculating how far  such and such
may or may not suffer  in  what are plainly unnatural conditions.  But
unless animals are judged  to have some right to  their natural  life,
from  what standpoint  can  we  judge  abnormalities,  mutilations  or
adjustments?  Confining a de-beaked hen in a battery cage is more than
a moral  crime;  it is a living sign of our failure  to  recognize the
blessing of God in creation.
   What   makes  this   situation  all  the  more  lamentable  is  the
realization that the use to which animals are put in intensive farming
goes far  beyond  even the  most generous  interpretation of need.  It
will  be  obvious  that  humans  can  live  healthy,  stimulating  and
rewarding  lives  without white  veal,  pate'  de foie  gras,  or  the
ever-increasing quantities of  cheap  eggs.  The truth is that  we can
afford to be much more generous to farm animals than is frequently the
case today.
   Churches  need  to reflect in  their  own  collective  actions  the
sensitivity they frequently hope  for  in others.  [In England], under
present  legislation, animals can be subject to intensive farming  and
are so on Church  land.  It  is anomalous that  the Church of  England
should   allow  on  its  land  farming  practices  which  many  senior
ecclesiastics  oppose  and which  one bishop  recently  likened to  an
Auschwitz for animals.
   The  Christian  argument for  vegetarianism  then is  simple: since
animals belong to  God, have value to God and live for God, then their
needless destruction is sinful.  In short: animals have some  right to
their  life,  all  circumstances  being  equal.   That  it  has  taken
Christians  so  long  to grasp  this need not  worry  us.  There  were
doubtless good reasons, partly theological, partly cultural and partly
economic,  why   Christians  in  the  past  have  found  vegetarianism
unfeasible.  We  do well  not  to  judge too  hastily, if at all.   We
cannot relive others' lives,  or think  their thoughts, or enter their
consciences.   But what we can  be  sure about is that living  without
what Clark calls "avoidable ill" has a strong moral claim upon us now.
   Some will surely question the  limits  of the vegetarian world here
envisaged.   Will  large-scale  vegetarianism  work  in  practice?   I
confess I am agnostic, surely legitimately, about the possibility of a
world-transforming   vegetarianism.    But   clairvoyance  is  not  an
essential  prerequisite of the vegetarian option, and what  the future
may  hold, and its consequences, cannot easily  be determined from any
perspective.  What I  think is important  to hold on to  is the notion
that  the God  who provides  moral  opportunities is  the same God who
enables the  world,  slowly but surely,  to  respond to them.  >From a
theological perspective,  no  moral  endeavor is wasted so long as  it
coheres with God's purpose for his cosmos.

An appendix :

Genesis also says only eat plants

Also the following extracts are relevant

'Not by shedding innocent blood, but  by living a righteous life shall
ye find the peace of God  ... Blessed  are they who keep this law; for
God is manifested in all creatures. All creatures live in God, and God
is hid in them...

'The  fruit  of the trees and the seeds and of  the  herbs  alone do I
partake, and  these are changed by the spirit into my flesh and blood.
Of these alone and their like shall ye  eat  who believe in me and are
my disciples; for of these, in the spirit,  come life  and  health and
healing unto man...'

   (From The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, trans. by G. J. Ouseley.)
        
'And  the flesh  of slain beasts  in his own body  will become his own
tomb.  For I tell  you truly, he who kills, kills  himself,  and whoso
eats the flesh of slain beasts, eats the body of death.

  (From The Gospel of Peace of Jesus Christ by the Disciple John,
        Trans. by E. B. Szekely, C. W. Daniel, London 1937.)

End of Forwarded Article.

Jai Maharaj
jai@mantra.com>
Om Shanti