In Reference to: Say No to Sanctified Animal Abuse
Dear Rabbi Gershom,
I was troubled by your rush to judge.
You state: “But the kind of angry, vitriolic rhetoric in this article is
not going to have any effect on the “semitic” communities, as you call us.
Especially since you jumped ship and, rather than work within your own
Jewish community to educate people about vegetarian teachings in Judaism
(admittedly a very hard path), you took the easy way out and left, to attack
Judaism from the sidelines.”
RE: This is hardly the kind of angry language I would expect from a
religious leader. It is not necessary for you to speculate on my decision to
leave the Jewish Religion. I made a courageous and wise decision and have
learned so much from Jain teachings and the knowledgeable people in the
community who have answered my questions with respect and humility, not
scorn. It is not a decision that I would urge on anyone else, as Jains do
not proselytize. Rather, I use the Jain experience as factual information,
as it is their principle of ahimsa that I endorse. It alone has shown
significant benefits for our long suffering animal friends.
RE: You seem offended by the term semitic. I first heard it from a very
wise and compassionate man, Swami Tyagnanada of the Rama Krishna Vivekananda
Vedantic Society. He is of Indian origin and used the term to describe a
family of religions that include Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions. He
did not use it as a derogatory term. The vedantic center he runs has guest
speakers from all religions and all religions are respected. Your rush to
assume that this term was harmful is of deep concern, as no harm whatsoever
was intended.
RE: I did not take the easy way out, but feel strengthened by the
teachings and the care with which the Jain community takes to avoid harm to
animals and humans. It gives me a better perspective and a way to view the
teachings of animal compassion with allowable harm and slaughter that so
harmed my sense of well-being. It has given me a chance to heal my soul and
that means a great deal to me.
RE: If we are to have a meaningful dialogue, then I would respectfully
request that you not pass judgment on the reasons I have chosen to learn
about a religion that for thousands of years has understood and respected
the intrinsic worth of an animals life and has lived accordingly. My
decision was not based on self-hate, but on care and concern for my
spiritual well being as well as for the lives of ALL beings.
RE: I am not sure why you have labeled the letter to the clrergy as
‘vitriolic’. I will not speculate on your observation, but would be
interested in your explanation. One has the right to reject and speak out
against values that one finds hurtful to oneself as well as to others. This
is not vitriol, but self preservation, a chance to learn less harmful ways
to view and live in the world.
RE: To clear up some misunderstandings, the letter was posted for leaders
of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, so that every item is not directed
to leaders of the Jewish faith. This letter was intended to be read by
activists in various denominations and faiths so that they could begin a
dialogue with their religious leaders. I would be happy to engage with you
on the specifics of Judaism as it pertains to animal compassion….Perhaps we
can both learn something…
You state: “I do not condemn my ancestors who, because they lived in a
different time and place, were unable to live up to that ideal.”
RE: This is not blame game, but an attempt to find a meaningful model
that will lead to animal compassion…I am concerned about the present and an
animal compassion model that does not grant the same compassion to animals
and humans, but rather places man at the helm and grants him dominion over
the animals. I do not understand why you must follow a model which, despite
all your protests to the contrary is not compassionate, as it does allow for
harm and slaughter of animals to meet a human need. Abuse and slaughter are
not compassionate values…
You state: “There is also nothing in Judaism that says animals don’t feel
pain. Quite the contrary. Maimonides, in the Guide for the Perplexed (12th
century) says the pain felt by animals is the same as humans.”
RE: And therein lies the contradiction, because of allowable slaughter
the compassion doled out to animals is trivial compared to the violence of
slaughter and the pain and terror it inflicts. To state that the pain of
animals is the same as that of animals and not speak out against slaughter
for any reason is a serious oversight. To allow for slaughter in face of the
knowledge of animal suffering is cruel, not compassionate. Incidentally,
this is not to blame Mainonides, but rather to point out that it is not
possible to build compassion on a foundation of sanctified allowable
violence to animals…
RE: I suggest you read ‘Animals as Persons’ by Law Professor Gary
Francione, Columbia University Press. He has a background in philosphy as
well and clearly expains why it is not possible to obtain compassion for
animals based on a model which does not respect the intrinsic worth of their
lives. To allow for their slaughter and harm is to deny the value of their
lives. This is expressed by the following Jain Sutra.
“For there is nothing inaccessible for death.
All beings are fond of life, hate pain, like pleasure,
shun destruction, like life, long to live. To all life
is dear.” Jain Acharanga Sutra.
RE: I am actively involved in the animal rights movement and have been
exposed to the results of teachings in various cultures and by various
religions and noted variations based on these values. When a culture and
religion acknowledges that the lives of ALL beings are equally sacred and
entitled to undconditional compassion, it goes a long way towards protecting
them. When a culture and religion allows for their slaughter, animals are
viewed not as living beings whose lives are to be measured not by value to
man, but by its intrinsic worth not the animals. In such a setting the law
views animals as property and the legislation offers very little protection
for animals…It is unlikely that such a model will ever result in true
compassion. The animals do not have the time for the semitic religions to
evolve to a higher level, so I choose to work with a model that is already
effective and has produced stellar results.
RE: Once you allow for slaughter and harm a line has been drawn and
despite the best of intentions the loopholes provided by such a value system
often lead to escalating forms and amounts of abuse. The contradiction
between allowable harm and slaughter vs a nod to compassion is so great that
it leads to confusion and abuse..
RE: While I admire your decision to become vegetarian because of the
extreme cruelty of factory farming, you did not note that any slaughter of
any animal is never warranted, even to benefit man. Long before I even knew
the Jains existed I believed this and found that my beliefs were not
respected by mainstream american culture or religion, including my birth
religion…
You state: “A few more points: Judaism has never worshipped an “angry
God.” That is a Calvinist Protestant perception which has become part of
American culture but is not part of Jewish culture. The “angry Jehovah” idea
was never part of Judaism, although it is still part of some Christian
groups.”
RE: It is not necessary to blame the Calvinists, but rather to understand
different models of compassion result in different outcomes for animals. One
of sanctified harm results in escalating abuse. One of unconditional
compassion results in ever improving conditions.
RE: I would prefer to not discuss aspects of either Judaism and Jainism
that do not pertain to animals as this is not the proper forum for such
considerations…I will note briefly that I found part of the Passover story
difficult to listen to: where a lamb is killed so its blood can be used to
mark the doors so that God could kill the first born children of the enemy.
Implicit in this story is the message than an animal may be killed for human
benefit. I understand that this is not done today, but the constant
reiteration of a story which involves violence to an animal and children
does not lead to a peaceful, compassionate state of mind. Peace is an
unlikely outcome from the justifiable animal abuse and violence of religious
myths.
RE: Compassion for animals is more than a vegetarian diet, it is view
which appreciates the intrinsic worth of their lives and does not grant
humans special rights and priveleges to ab(use) animals for their own
benefit…It is a view that does not have loopholes which allow for animals to
be harmed under certain conditions.
RE: It has not been my goal to offend you, rather my goal is question
whether a model of compassion based on allowable harm and slaughter is
really the best we can offer the animals. In fact whether it can ever lead
to compassion. Given the evidence it doesnt seem so.
Respectfully,
Ruth Eisenbud
| 