The Hindustan Times - Letter to the Editor re. God meant us to eat meat

[Guest guest]

----- Original Nachricht ----

Von: Rishi Dev <rishidev000

An: innervoice,letters

Datum: 15.10.2007 08:23

Betreff: The Hindustan Times - Letters to the Editor, October 15, 2007

 

The Editor,

HIndustan Times,

New Delhi

 

*Subject :* Letters to the editor

*Reference :* Your article on page 13 of HT edition dated October 15, 2007 ;

title " God meant us to eat meat " . see attachment.

 

Dear Sir,

Reference to the article as mentioned above, I wish to present my counter

arguments against the same. I hope you will carry the same in some form

through the esteemed columns of your newspaper.

 

The arguments presented by Mr. Kamran Shahid Ansari, in his article, in

favour of meat eating may be summarised as follows :

a) It is logical to kill and eat meat as it provides nutritious acids and

vitamins.

b) Man has a teeth structure which permits both veg and non veg food, unlike

other species.

c) Even plants feel pain like animals, so killing both is equally cruel.

d) Pain does not reduce even if plants have 2 sense and animals have 5.

e) Islam permits meat eating.

Hence according to Mr ansari, it is merely a matter of choice that one eats

plants or animals and not an issue of ethics.

 

My Counter arguments :

 

*1)* Human meat is highly nutritious. It has more nutritions and vitamins

than any other meat. So by the same logic, we should be eating each other.

The world does not go around by simple and straight logics. Logic of meat

eating is not governed by the fact that " which feels the pain ad which does

not " . It is goverend by the " degree of pain " that is inflicted upon a

creature or plant and whether the final act, outcome and purpose is

justified enough to accept the initial act of cruelty. For example if a

doctor inflicts pain on a patient then it is justified as the purpose and

cause is nobel and in the best interest of the person.

Coming back to the " Degree or extent of pain " which justifies or questions

an act can be restructured as follows. A paradigm can be used to explain the

same. The paradigm of Yoge in Hindu system of thought, where the yogis in

their peak of spiritual attainment give up every form of food to practice

" non violence " . *So non violence and its counter can not be divided by a

thin or thick line*. Its like the band length of a wave or like the colors

in a pallette. Similarly, cruelty and non violence can be presented in the

same form as :-

 

EXTREME VIOLENCE/DEVILISH

VIOLENCE

MODERATE NON VIOLENCE

EXTREME NON VIOLENCE/SAINTHOOD

______________________________\

_____________________

Skinning alive, torture, eating alive eating dead

animals eating plants eating dead

plants, fruits eating minimal dead leaves & water

 

Even though it is always the personal choice of a person, which path to

follow, yet purely from a spiritual point of view, a person who wishes to

relate to that power called God, nature or The omnipresent, then ones life

must move from left ot right in the above band and not vice versa. One may

choose not to find that Power and do as he/she wishes to. *One has to

justify/ convince ones own self rather than presenting a LOGICAL DISCOURSE

to her/his actions*. There is logic in both extremes, if one has only to

argue. The key is not in finding logic behind acts, but in choosing the

spiritual path one leads to follow and the sacrifies one has to make to

achieve the same.

 

*2)* No religion allows killing, not even Islam. It is incorrect to say

Islam allows. There is absolute proof of that in Quran-E-Sharif only. Just

as there are fallacies and distortions in Hinduism, relating and justifying

killing of animals to please Gods & Goddess, there are similar in Islam and

the ancillary texts. it is simply a distortion, intermingling and

misinterpretation of a system of thought any religion presented to its

followers at the peak of that culture. Religions evolve and distort when new

religions are born yet again to be distorted again with time and the process

goes on. No religion can become stagnant and a landmark. Only the

basic preachings can be taken forward, which are more or less the same in

all religions. Non violence and compassion towards animals was most

prominent in Islam than any other religion, as it is mentioned in the

orignal version of Quran-E-Sharif also. Quran-E-Sharif condemns any form of

violence, be it physical, emotional, spiritual, ethical or moral.

 

*3)* The basic difference in eating plants and animals is the same as eating

eggs and fruits. Going back to point one, then the most of the veggie food

that one eats comprises of fruits and other forms which becomes a dead part

in plants, thus causing lesser pain or no pain to the plant, than completely

destroying the plant or animals. Please also bear in mind that some non

violence followers do not eat grains of any kind for similar reason. And

they live a long life without deficiencies of any kind. In fact the

Gladiators of Europe were all vegetarians.

 

*4)* *The MOST IMPORTANT argument* that justifies my stand against the

concept of non vegetarianism is not to do with simple logics of killing or

not killing, but something else. When we raise plants to eat them then we

let them grow and develop naturally in the environment which they need. We

have little say on that as we cant forceablly grow plants. Then we kill them

or simply take the fruit and let the plant flourish. Unlike that, in ANIMAL

FARMING, we make the *animal suffer, hence making the whole life and ORDEAL*.

The killing part may be justified by any logic, *but how would one justify

the emmense cruelty one inflicts to " reach thats stage " in life when the

animal is finally taken for slaughter. Slaughtering an animal may be a few

minutes of pain, but the entire life it spends under extreme conditions in

the name of this " DEMAND & SUPPLY " game is full of horrors which are

indescribable and can not be justified with its purpose of satisfying

the taste buds only. It has to be more than that.*

The least the non vegetarians can do is to DEMAND & Stop eating non veg

food, till this cruelty stops. But practically it will never, unless there

is no demand, hence the appeal to turn into vegans. One can not justify or

shrug off her/his involvments in this cruelty by eating dead animals and not

participating in the whole process of making that meat or slaughtering.

 

The fast, furious and cruel animal farming to meet the large meat demand is

reason enough for non vegans to stop eating meat.

 

*5) The biggest reasons for Global warming is the meat industry. Since this

aspect has been proven and discussed time and again by many, so i will not

go into details here.*

 

*In retrospect, the consumption of meat can not be justifed in any way

without accepting extreme cruelty a part and parcle of it, forget justifying

it with religious system of thoughts or spiritualism.*

 

I hope The Hindustan Times will hence forth carry a counter argument in

their paper, *so they do not end up just promoting non vegetarianism by not

presenting the other side of the story to its readers.*

 

Thanking you.

Regards

Rish Dev