In Reference to: Say No to Sanctified Animal Abuse
Professor Schwartz states: “Whatever path works best for you, please use
it because the obstacles we face are very great and we need all people of
good will actively and effectively involved.”
He fails to recognize that we are not faced with choosing from two paths which will both ultimately result in long due compassion for animals. Rather it is a choice between one path which sanctifies their harm and slaughter as it states that man may ab(use) animals to fill a human need. The other path grants unconditional compassion to ALL living beings. It honors the intrinsic worth of animal lives.
The first path has led to ever increasing abuse as man takes full advantage of the biblical mandate that values human life above animal life.
The second path has led to ever increasing compassion and broad based animal protection legislation in cultures that adhere to the value of ahimsa.
The two choices are not mutually beneficial. As the dominion based model undermines and thwarts any effort of the ahimsa model.
So while it may seem that there is a choice, for those whose first priority is end animal suffering there really is no choice.
I question the decision to promote a religious model NOW in the 21st Century when it is clear that this model has not worked for 5000 years. We have fresh vine ripened tomatoes in New England all year long, which are grown in Maine in greenhouses. There is no longer the need to transport food long distances to provide people with cruelty free nutrition. With a model of unconditional compassion and the advantages we have today of bringing vegetarian/vegan food to remote cultures, it no longer makes sense to promote a model that at its core allows for the harm and slaughter of animals.