Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Rteacher]

The current Wikipedia article on "Vegetarianism and Religion" is a pretty good survey, I think... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_and_religion

This other site, "Vegetarianism and the Major World Religions" is more from a vegetarian perspective:
www.serv-online.org/pamphlet2005.htm

Here's it's "Conclusion:"

Vegetarianism has been a common thread among the major world religions, even if only a minority have adopted the diet as an expression of their faith. For many people of faith, vegetarianism reflects the Golden Rule: Christianity � �So, whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them� (Matthew 7:12); Judaism � �Do not do unto others what you would not wish to be done to yourself � that is the entire Torah, the rest is commentary� (Babylonian Talmud); Islam � �No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself�; Bah�'� Faith � �Blessed is he that preferreth his brother to himself�; Taoism � �Regard your neighbor�s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor�s loss as your own loss�; Hinduism � �This is the sum of duty: do naught to others that which if done to thee would cause pain�; Jainism � �A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated�; Buddhism � �Hurt not others with that which pains yourself.�

With factory farming torturing animals on a scale unprecedented in human history and with the growing environmental crisis threatening human civilization, the wisdom of the world�s religions to respect nature and all its inhabitants has become much more than an expression of ideal behavior. It has become a global imperative.

This link presents the Vedic cultural view of meat-eating, including this quote from the introduction of Bhagavad-gita As It Is:

"In this world man is not meant to toil like hogs. He must be intelligent to realize the importance of human life and refuse to act like an ordinary animal. A human being should realize the aim of his life, and this direction is given in all Vedic literatures, and the essence is given in Bhagavad-gita. Vedic literature is meant for human beings, not for animals. Animals can kill other living animals, and there is no question of sin on their part, but if a man kills an animal for the satisfaction of his uncontrolled taste, he must be responsible for breaking the laws of nature. In the Bhagavad-gita it is clearly explained that there are three kinds of activities according to the different modes of nature: the activities of goodness, of passion and of ignorance. Similarly, there are three kinds of eatables also: eatables in goodness, passion and ignorance. All of this is clearly described, and if we properly utilize the instructions of Bhagavad-gita, then our whole life will become purified, and ultimately we will be able to reach the destination which is beyond this material sky. That destination is called the sanatana sky, the eternal spiritual sky."
http://www.harekrsna.com/practice/4regs/vegetarian/dharma.htm

[The Bobster]

[Rteacher]

The term "terrorist" has a very heavy connotation, which can - and specifically has been - exploited politically by groups seeking to maintain the status quo (in their abusive exploitation of animals and the environment...)

According to the Wikipedia article, "terrorism" has over 100 definitions, and one terroism expert noted that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence" .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

That is such a broad definition that a mother warning her unruly child to stop acting-up in a supermarket and applying a firm smack to the kid's behind could be considered a "terrorist" (though another loaded, pejoritave term, "child-abuser" is usually used by those ideologically opposed to any parental use of physical force...)

In the history of U.S. labor-management relations, many union activists have made threats and caused some damage to property and businesses without being labeled terrorists ...

I think that the general public associates the term "terrorist" with groups that make threats of brutal killings and widespread destruction against their political targets and then follow through with deadly force in a horrifying way.

The examples given by "the bobster" to indicate terrorist acts on the part the Animal Liberation Front are relatively mild considering the heavy connotation carried by the term.

Such acts - when illegal - most often could be denoted by another legal term such as "vandalism", "disorderly conduct", or "tortious interference with a business" ...

Business interests whose existence largely depends on morally dubious abuse and slaughter of animals and destruction of the environment have lobbied the government to insidiously broaden the definition of terrorist to include even non-violent methods used by animal rights and environmentalist groups:

Acts of civil disobedience which are nonviolent in nature cannot be properly referred to as "eco-terrorism", even though they might be annoying or disruptive to others. However, some proposed laws are raising civil rights concerns by using an all-encompassing definition that could be interpreted to include virtually all environmental protests, even those that would otherwise be legal. For example, a bill proposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in Texas called the "Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act", begins with the description, "An act relating to criminal offenses involving acts against certain activities involving animals or involving natural resources and to civil consequences arising from convictions of those offenses." The bill defines an "animal rights or ecological terrorist organization" as "two or more persons organized for the purpose of supporting any politically motivated activity intended to obstruct or deter any person from participating in an activity involving animals or an activity involving natural resources."[5]

Environmentalists have argued that "eco-terrorism" should mean the opposite of its current accepted meaning. They say that persons, companies and governments engaging in ecologically irresponsible activities such as clearcutting of forests are committing "terrorism" against the environment.[6] This counter-definition is also sometimes used rhetorically to express the environmentalist point of view, or to justify their actions. Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki, for instance, has described the former Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, as an "eco-terrorist" for failing to abide by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.[6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-terrorism

I personally think that it's inappropriate and shameful for the U.S. government to continue to give special protection and support to the beef industry, factory-farmers, and other business interests that destructively exploit animals and the environment.

[The Bobster]