Spirit in Action

Karma, Vegetarianism & Abortion - Vasu Murti - Part 1

Vasu Murti is a powerful liberal voice for "consistant peace", and he supports his concerns by extensive research of eastern religious thought, western religious thought, and the best of secular thought & reasoning. In this 2-part interview he speaks about global warming, war, karma (and many more topics) and their relationship to vegetarianism & abortion.

Broadcast on:: 15 Jan 2012
Audio Format:: other

[music] Let us sing this song for the healing of the world That we may hear as one With every voice, with every song We will move this world along And our lives will feel the echo of our healing [music] Welcome to Spirit in Action. My name is Mark Helpes Me. Each week, I'll be bringing you stories of people living lives of fruitful service, of peace, community, compassion, creative action, and progressive efforts. I'll be tracing the spiritual roots that support and nourish them in their service, hoping to inspire and encourage you to sink deep roots and produce sacred food in your own life. Let us sing this song for the dreaming of the world That we may dream as one With every voice, with every song We will move this world along We've got a really passionate advocate and dynamo of an author and speaker for today's Spirit in Action program. We'll be talking this week and next to Vasu Murti. Vasu was born in the USA from parents who came here from India and himself became involved with the Christian Consciousness Movement as a young adult. So he brings to us observations from a religious spiritual vantage point not often encountered here. Vasu has produced a number of articles, papers, and books addressing two main concerns. Our treatment of and diet of animals and a concern about abortion. He examines and marshals an imposing set of evidence and reasoning in favor of vegetarianism and opposing abortion. And he draws on Eastern religion, on Western religion, and also uses purely secular sources and arguments. Vasu Murti is an authentic and adamant liberal, so these are not the arguments that you've heard from many in the so-called pro-life movement. His first book was "They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy Animal Rights and Vegetarianism in the Western Religious Traditions" and the other published book is "The Liberal Case Against Abortion". Vasu Murti joins us from his home in California. Vasu, I'm delighted to have you here today for Spirit in Action. Thank you for having me. Your books are so impressive for the broad expanse of knowledge they encapsulate and for the rigorous logic that's included in them. And also for the spiritual content. It's very seldom that you find all of those components in a single book. Can you give me a little bit of background as we go into this about yourself and how you came to both have these opinions and where you've accumulated this knowledge from? If you're referring into the two published books thus far, "The Liberal Case Against Abortion" and prior to that "They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy", I became vegetarian while in college, being raised in the Hindu American family when we would travel to India, we would lose vegetarian. So I was exposed to vegetarianism at a young age and the whole moral issue of killing animals for food, clothing, sport, etc. And we had also been exposed to sexual vegetarian literature in the earliest junior high. I mean the people of Almanac in the diet for a small planet, the laurels kitchen and other related materials as well that kind of drove from the point that eating meat is unnecessary. At a time in the 70s when people were speaking about grass-fed beef as an alternative to grain fed to make grain available to feed the hungry, others were asking, certainly within the Indian community, why should people eating beef at all? Why should we be showing cows or any animal for that matter? So I was exposed intellectually to the idea that it's wrong to kill animals at a young age, but it wasn't until I got to college that I became serious about it. The nuclear freeze was happening at the time by becoming a vegetarian. I felt like I was making a statement about peace and non-violence. And it was common even in the 80s to find vegetarian groups on campus. There was an on-campus food co-op that had natural food through there. It wasn't strictly vegan. That wasn't pretty much on anyone's agenda at the time. But it was vegetarian as was a local food run vegetarian restaurant on campus, the Che Cafe named after Latin revolutionary Che Guevara. A friend of mine from high school, Greg Sims, second youngest of seven children raised either throughout Catholic family. His older sister Claire had become born again in the 70s. He was not as interested in both religion and politics. He dealt with Jerry Carter fan. As time grew on, he was not as interested in religion and politics. And we found our only two points of contention were reincarnation and vegetarianism. That was kind of motivated me to look into the religious arguments because some people will bring up the religious arguments in the local. Didn't God give us dominion over the animals? Didn't God command animal sacrifice? What about the miracle of loaves and the fishes? Doesn't Jesus sanction the killing of animals for food? In doing that, etc., etc. And so forth. These arguments would come up repeatedly. And they still do appear on Peter's website, for example, www.JesusVedge.com. There's a question and answer section where Christians and people can ask questions along these lines. While these questions do arise and the staff over Peter tried to answer them as best they can. So these questions would match their rise. And back then, there were actually no books on animals and theology to speak of in during the first half of the 80s and everything. So I began doing the research along these lines and I was inspired by an article that had appeared in the Los Angeles Times in 1985 by Russ Chandler of Los Angeles Times, November 1985. It was entitled, "Church has asked to consider the feelings of animals." And it spoke about the formation of INRA, INRA, the International Network for Religion of Animals, which had recently founded. One of these founders being Dr. Michael Fox of the Humane Society who had a column asked your animal doctor. And one of his columns he spoke about, he wondered if animals have souls. And he was saying the song of the humpback whale could be considered a sign that animals have a soul, intelligence, et cetera. And the response he generated was, no pun intended, a whale of a response, but with that column. And a lot of it was very favorable. And he and another woman listed in the article as Jimmy B. They had together had founded the International Network for Religion of Animals and brought a diverse coalition of religious communities on board. And said, of course, predictably, they were drawing ridicule from agribusiness, factory farmers and so forth. And the animal exploitation industries. But it was interesting because that was one of the things that helped spur me into action, into compiling arguments for why the religious communities ought to be on board with regards to animal issues. The book itself was a result of several years' worth of research. Even after that, it took me years to find a publisher. Finally, Steve Kaufman, who had the Christian Vegetarians Association in Cleveland, Ohio, was kind enough to publish the book. He was raised Jewish and converted to Christianity. He's with the United Church of Christ, a pro-choice Protestant nomination. And the Christian Vegetarian Association is like 4,200 members strong. He was kind enough to finally publish the book, Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA. He was kind enough to write the preface. And he came from the Catholic Worker community and had joined PETA after finishing up his education, his bachelor's degree at Grinnell College in Iowa. So he wrote the preface, the late Janet Regina Highland, author of God's Covenant with Animals, which is also available for PETA. And she wrote the--was kind of directed forward. And I made it a point to distribute copies profusely. If I comment at the court of the end of the liberal case against abortion, I see two parallel movements here, similar to those of like women's rights and civil rights. We have two causes, the animal rights campaign, which a lot of people think of, you know, certainly in Christian circles. Many Christians are unaware of a long history of animal advocacy and concern for animals within the biblical tradition. Not just often neglected passages within scripture, but also the entire tradition of concern for animals. They're unaware like four of the early Church Fathers wrote extensively on the subject of vegetarianism. The ones who immediately come to mind, Tertullian, Clementa Alexandria, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, and their brothers as well, St. Basil, and others who written favorably of the subject and so forth. They're unaware Dr. Holly Roberts, a Jewish scholar with a master's degree in Christian theology, published in 2004, her book, "Vegetarian Christian Saints," which describes the lives of a teaching of over 100 years. The teachings of over 150 canonized vegetarian Christian saints. They're unaware that Protestant reformers spoke faithfully of animals, Martin Luther and John Calvin, for example, and that John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, was a vegetarian. They're unaware of the Quaker poets and pacifists and abolitionists who were veg friendly and supportive of compassion for all creatures. And into the 20th century, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, a giant in Christian theology among theologians, spoke favorably of animals and so forth. And Trenton Animal Liberation Theology, of course. Many Christians are unaware of this. Mainline, Catholic and Protestant theologians are addressing the issue. Peter was pleased when Father John Deere was kind enough to contribute a pamphlet about Christianity and animals for Peter, and they're hoping other Catholic priests would follow his example. And similarly, Baptist theologian, Dr. Richard Allen Young, authored a book in 1999, asking his daughter, "Vegetarian." According to the blog, we'd eat to the answers, "Yes." But without looking into Eastern religions, many Christians are unaware of how mainstream these views are, and that many of the people who make up the animal rights and welfare movement are their brothers and sisters in the Christian faith, as it were. So, it's important that the word get out. Many of you, when you mention animal rights, a lot of people, especially among Christian circles, they're not aware of the whole history of the tradition that, for example, in the 19th century, Reverend Mike Sean Canada pointed out, in the 19th century, it was the Christians who were leading the way with regard to animal rights and vegetarianism. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the RSBCA, was founded in London as a Christian society, sponsoring humane education services and sermons throughout the London area. In 1824, it was founded by Reverend Arthur Broome and Anglican clergyman, and most Christians aren't aware of that. In the 19th century, the Christians were leading the way with regard to vegetarianism and animal rights. Today, the secular people are leading the way, and Christians aren't aware of the long history of animal advocacy in their own tradition. And if you just try and discuss animal rights and vegetarianism apart from religion, just as a purely ethical issue, they often react by going "move." That kind of response, of course, is unfortunately, what do you think of when you think of "move?" You might think, "Well, it sounds kind of soloist or devoid of any kind of religious inspiration." Just kind of secular and impersonal or what have you, et cetera. But actually, many Christians aren't aware of the long history and concern of compassion for animals within their own religious Christian. There's no need for them to take up an Eastern religion or convert to Judaism or whatever kind of apprehensions they might have, but what it means to be a religious vegetarian, or believe in reincarnation for that matter. When I gave a talk on religion and animals before the San Francisco Mediterranean Society in February 2001, I said that I deliberately chose to focus on the Western religious traditions because, for too long, the stereotype of religious vegetarians quote-unquote, is that they're all followers of Eastern religions believing you might be reincarnated as a cow in your next life, if you're not careful. This drew a chuckle from the audience, and I said, "I want to show that the Western religions also support the vegetarian way of life." So for many Christians looking for guidance and inspiration in this regard, without having to think about becoming a vegetarian vegan, it can be a secular thing like supporting an organization like PETA. Even now, the ASPCA, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Humane Society. Mainline animal welfare groups are now advocating a vegetarian diet to the banning of fur, menent to cruel animal research, which is the step in the right direction, but as opposed to saying all animal research is unethical because it's morally wrong to experimental animals. It's comparable to what the Nazis did to the Jews or what white humans once did to black humans. But at least by calling that some animal experimentation is completely unnecessary, cosmetic testing, et cetera, and so forth. At least that's the step in the right direction. There's a wealth of arguments that you could bring up right now, and before you go into those, I want to make sure I'm clear about where you come from. It's clear to me that you're absolutely passionate about this. Do you think that your passion comes from logic, from religious or spiritual devotion, insights, or maybe all of them together? What's it for you? I think it's a combination of all the above. On the one hand, my theological understanding and orientation, if you will, from the Eastern religions, put it down some adoption as the exact Sanskrit and the Bhagavad Gita, chapter 5, verse 18, the learned man, the pundit or the wise man sees with all the enemies with equal vision. The bodies were temporarily residing and had nothing to do with the soul, which transcribed it from body to body. So that understanding is the basis for a real liberation theology, a theology of seeing all the enemies with equal vision. So that is the basis for vegetarianism and non-violence. And even Gandhi said that because of the belief in reincarnation, he said he couldn't conceive any kind of permanent enmity between friends and nations. Because of that, we see even in the material world, on day-to-day basis, just in mundane activities, people or friendships may become enemies at one point and then they're friends again later or what have you. And even in a cynical standpoint, remember 1984, George Orwell was saying, the Oceania has always been at war with East Asia, et cetera. So these things are constantly changing and so that was one of the things that caused Gandhi to observe with the belief in reincarnation that no one could ever be in a permanent state of enmity with anyone. This kind of enlightened theology can inspire you to interaction that way, but also even just in terms of on a passionate level of being an abolitionist, early PETA literature, pamphlets and stuff, from the 80s were saying, join PETA and join history in the making. Gary Francione was saying in Harper's Magazine when interviewed in 1988 as a law professor, he was saying, as more people understand it, it will become the civil rights movement of the 21st century. So as soon as the 21st century hit, right after the Y2K scare, animal rights group were putting out bumper stickers and teachers and everything, it's the 21st century and you're still eating animals like that whole go over the caveman days and everything. It's very easy to be caught up in a passionate cause, and also the simplest cause to take up. It does involve any kind of dramatic change in way of life and everything. And the poem by Roberta Kalachowski of Jews for Animal Rights pointed out that merely by ceasing to eat meat, by practicing restraint, we have the power to end a painful industry. We do not have to go to meetings or demonstrations or give donations, we don't have to go to sit-ins. So many other forms of social progress and change require all kinds of activism as it were, pounding the pavement, what have you and so forth. But here's, you know, just merely by ceasing to eat meat, we have the power to end a painful industry. River Phoenix made a statement along these lines when he was interviewed by the Edgerton Times in the late '80s who was saying, there are other social justice issues as well, political prisoners and so forth. But this makes sure we actually have control over things, you know, by just deciding what we want to eat if we can have a direct impact on things. He asked, how many things do we really have control over? You know, you can say, like, you know, can we really influence government policy in a democracy? You ought to be able to, if you think of wars and justice, you ought to have the freedom to protest it, et cetera. But how many things do we really have, can we affect change up? But this is an area where each of us can make a difference directly. When my brother was attending USC, the University of Southern California is a grad student. He set me an article from like 1988 or '89, and one of it was an article that appeared in the local school paper. It was talking about animal rights and saying, joining this movement is as simple as your next meal. And we see this in other causes as well, Oxfam America as a charity group that's involved in the anti-hunger campaign. Ask the students and people who are involved in their campaigns to skip a meal or until forth to make grain available for the hungry, et cetera. But of course, the Edgerton are doing that all the time because when you consider the waste of grain and resource, they go to a meat center diet. So there are all kinds of social justice issues that have the killing of animals at the root cause of all these other social injustices. And rather than trying to reverse each of these crises separately, you know, global warming, global hunger, the energy, environmental population and water crises, merely by ceasing beat meat, they're all taking care of in one fell swoop. Even if you argue, somebody said it was a bit too fast, a little far faster, et cetera, the statistics show that it would make a world of difference. Francis Morelopege, who authored Diet for Small Planet in 1971, which brought this attention, John Robbins points out that the war was winding down. And Francis Morelopege tapped into widespread public sentiment in this regard during that time period. In a vegetarian video from the early '80s, I can't remember if it was vegetarian world, which was narrated by William Shatner or if it was healthy, wealthy and wise. In one of these videos, she says, "I don't think a vegetarian diet will automatically be a natural cure all and solve all the world's problems, but it will give us determination to be able to be able to be problems much more effectively or something to that effect." But actually, statistics suggest it would make a significant difference in addressing these various crises. So it's an area that can't be ignored. And many who are interested in vegetarianism, I think it would make a world of difference. The purpose of they shot on her to destroy those two-fold, to bring animal rights and vegetarianism into the mainstream, into the church's synagogues and mosques that were. So that when they address social justice issues, they can see the direct relevance. And also to provide animal activists with inspiration for their own activism. Bob Dylan, of course, wrote a song called "With God on Her Side." And some of the worst crimes in history were committed in the name of religion. But if you can actually see that, actually, the world's great scriptures do support the vegetarian way of life. It would make a world of difference for animal activists in this regard. You have the blessings and support of organized religion. I think that would make a world of difference. I remember in the '70s, the People's Almanac, they were saying that there was an article about meditation. And they were saying how prayers when you talk to God and meditations when you listen. And they were saying that meditation is endorsed by all the world's great religions. So it would likely be great if that would happen with vegetarianism as well. So for you personally, Vasu, are you vegetarian or are you vegan? Vegetarian, I would like to be vegan. A lot of times, it seems to make real simple substitutions like, I prefer almond milk. There's hemp milk and rice milk and soy milk and so many other different kinds of non-dairy milks out there. But I use almond milk on my cereal to make simple substitutions like that. Use non-dairy margarines, earth balances a good brand. You can now find them at Trader Joe's and even at the local supermarkets. You can now find non-dairy cheeses, cream cheeses, things that didn't exist before. In mainstream supermarkets, sausage patties, toforky, lunch meats and so many other things that didn't exist before. So it's really easy to make these kind of substitutions. So with that in mind, why are you not vegan? I was for a few years in 1995 and had trouble sticking to it. I find it better to be honest about what you're at than being a hypocrite. And I agree, we should all be vegan unless you're living on a dairy farm somewhere like in a rural village like the Amish or what have you. And you're taking care of the cows personally. For those of us who are living in congested urban metropolis, it really doesn't make any sense not to be because of the commercial dairy products. The animals are exploited like anything. So I agree, we should all be vegan. And I continue to watch because even before I had ever learned about veganism, just by being vegetarian, I felt it was inconsistent during the 80s and everything to be wetting leather. If you're morally opposed to killing animals, and that's the reason for your vegetarianism, why would you be wetting leather? Well, you know, our cow has to die to produce so for you to wear that. And to watch the conclusion of all this is veganism. I did do veganism for a while. I've been vegetarian for, what, 35 years now. Fantastic. But veganism, I found hard because I really value butter and I really value cheese and the alternatives to it just are not the same. A good ghee is far better than any margarine. It is problematic, especially with ghee being used within Hinduism for religious sacrament purposes and everything. It is problematic. And of course India itself, agrarian India, is an animal based culture. And that's one of the criticisms that was leveled with animal activists by Kathleen Markhart. She found it putting people first, which was an anti-animal rights group. And in 1993 she wrote a book called "Animal Scam," "V.D. for the Abuse of Human Rights." She was giving all the usual hand-wringing and fear-mongering about animal rights. Like, you know, the movement will determine whether or not the bad new medication that would determine whether or not we live or die. And she said, "Well, you can make the same accusations about when banning white humans experimenting on black humans or banning the Nazis from experimenting on Jews, et cetera." So she was doing all the, you know, the fanatical hand-wringing about animal rights. But she, at one point she claims animal activists are indifferent to the plight of animal dependent cultures. Now, how true that is, I don't know. It has to be the subject of an entire book in itself. The argument that animal activists don't care about native cultures. And so how many native cultures exist today? The macaw, you know, there's a lot of fuss about them going wailing and everything I remember. But they, you know, hadn't hunted in over a century. And they were calling the return to tradition, you know, had actually ended a century earlier than ever. Whether it was proper for that to happen, whether that was the interference by the white society or whatever that didn't have to happen and so forth. It is, of course, another matter entirely, but it's like, why original practice if it's unnecessary in this day and age is in the name of tradition? And especially with so many injustices have been committed in the past by probably societies around all over the world, my name of tradition. That just strikes me as kind of observed. Jeremy Rifkin in Beyond Beef, and then also Steven Rosen in Holy Cow, where he documents the contribution of the Christian Conscious Movement to the animal rights movement. He posts from Jeremy Rifkin describing agrarian India as an animal-dependent culture. So the argument that animal-like to this are insensitive to animal-dependent culture. I don't know how true that is. If I recall correctly, Rosen himself was interviewed by abolitionist online in Australia. He said that there is no real need for the Christian temples in the West to be using dairy products. That might be true of India, which is agrarian society and so forth. But outside, it really isn't that necessary. And so many other innovations have happened within the Bishan opposition or worship of Lord Vishnu. You know, innovations, you know, to preach the gospel as it were. You know, using automobiles, traveling to the West, et cetera. There's a command within Hinduism that monks, sinyasis, aren't supposed to cross water to travel and so forth and all. But a lot of these things, depending on time, place, and circumstance, can be altered or even ignored depending on the situation, et cetera. We're going to be just going to make this kind of pronouncements, but it seems to me that veganism would certainly be a logical conclusion. Our spiritual master, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, in his purport or commentary on the Bhagavad Gita, he doesn't rule out dairy products. In fact, he is considered pure because the cow is considered sacred. But he also says slaughter is the way of the subhumans. You know, like Pythagoras don't only be satisfied, they're hungry this way. He can't even that isn't true of all animals because sheep and cattle live on grass. Those are Pythagoras' words. And similarly, our spiritual master said slaughter killing animals for food is the way of the subhumans. Cool, it's barbaric. But he also seeks favorably with milk products. So the only conclusion you can come to when he's saying these things practically speaking of the same sentence or in the same breath or whatever, is that the only conclusion you can come to is that if you're going to use dairy products, they have to be obtained humanely. If that's possible to do on a huge scale with, you know, a human population worldwide in the several billions, I don't know. To me, veganism just seems logical. You know, if you're worried about things like pesticide residues accumulating higher on the food chain, that's going to be true of dairy products as well as meat, going to be true of eggs, dairy products, et cetera, any animal byproduct. What's the speaking of the energy consumption involved, the resources involved, water, et cetera, and so forth, soil, just by eating higher off the food chain you're going to have these problems. So it may not be as concentrated or as severe in dairy as in with meat itself. But to me, veganism seems like the only rational course of action in this regard. Of course, I'll defer to people who are knowledgeable in this regard as to how essential it is or how crucial it is, at least within the Hindu tradition. But it seems to me if we're going to be telling others like, you know, well, you shouldn't kill cows, you shouldn't kill animals by wild karma, as long as they're killing the cows and the other animals in slaughterhouses. There'll be wars, there'll be abortions. These are the collective karma for killing animals. And we're telling people other faiths not to kill animals. We say, well, don't kill cows. When you're trying to kill your religion because you believe the cow's sacred, we say don't kill any animal, you know, which is the ideal, don't kill any animal. There's that reason they believe that veganism because unless you can obtain animal byproducts humanely, that inevitably leads to veganism. So as sector organizations are already doing this, so for Christians who are interested in being non-violent to humans and animals like, and who don't want to contribute to animal suffering, but they don't want to be converted to another religion, it's understandable. They're welcome to join any number of sector organizations. PETA, the Humane Society, the ASPCA, Indefensive Animals, Friends of Animals, Last Chance for Animals, Mercy for Animals, Vegan Action, Vegan Outreach, et cetera. There's so many organizations they could join and be supporting. When you consider the long history of animal advocacy and Christianity, to me, and I'm hoping that a book like "The Station on the Herdish Road" facilitate this kind of discussion, bring it up for discussion. Not only for ourselves as Hindus or as Buddhism, James, and Eastern religions where these doctrines of compassion for animals are more pronounced, some scholars believe that's because of the belief in reincarnation. But in any case, to me, it's as reasonable as someone from a pro-life church discussing sanctity of life issues with someone from a pro-choice church. That's how mainstream I see it when you look at the long history of animal advocacy and Christianity. I'd like to take a side trip looking at some of the Eastern religion stuff, because I think that people here in the USA who are listening to this program are likely to be less informed about stuff from the East. I mean, you mentioned karma, and I'm not sure that people here really know what karma is. Would you like to explain how karma might relate to this idea of vegetarianism, or perhaps to abortion? Karma is a law of cause and effect like Newton's law of action and reaction. I think it was the third law that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction. It's tied to the belief in reincarnation that the soul is distinct from the physical body and transmigrates from body to body. And our desires carry us into our particular body out of this one into the next one at the time of death. And depending upon our deeds that we do in this lifetime, whatever we inflict upon others, or whatever we do to others, comes back to us. So, like the biblical admonition, as he says, "There shall you reap." And even in Romans, the Apostle Paul says, "God will rule which each one according to his deeds." So, if you inflict suffering upon others, that will come back to you. If you do good to others, then that will come back to you as well. It automatically provides an explanation as to what will be apparent in justice in the world. Why some people are born into wealth and privilege and others into other handicap, or in poverty, etc. All these injustice in the world, we all have different histories from previous lifetimes, etc. And we're living out the karma not only of just our immediate past life, but of billions of past lives prior to that as well. So, when you have an understanding of carbon reincarnation, and you realize, and you know, anyone who understands how the laws of nature are operating, is automatically vegetarian because they realize that if they inflict that kind of misery upon other living entities, it's going to come back to them in future lifetimes. So, there is heavy karma in not just an abortion, but in also in the killing of animals as well. In fact, it's because of the killing of animals that we have an abortion crisis. To put this into Western theological language, and/or secular arguments that Paul got are familiar with for lifers, pro-lifers speaking of the slippery slope, and the idea that acceptance of abortion leads to an evaluation of life and paves the way towards acceptance of infanticide in euthanasia. We merely say the slippery slope begins with what we do to animals, and that kind of mentality, treating life chiefly that way, it fosters the kind of mentality that makes abortion possible. The idea that life can easily be disposed of, and we can see it because that's the pro-choice mentality. In 1986, when there was debate about abortion on youth net, John Moro of Rutgers University compared abortion slavery, saying just as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 denied rights to an entire class of humans based on the color of their skin, Robie Wade denied rights to an entire class of humans because of their age and developmental status. So, the parallel was drawn between abortion and slavery. Dave Butler of Cutronics in Oregon immediately responded to abortion and slavery, not even close. A fetus is inhuman, if you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else? Now, of course, that begs the question, what if it is wrong to eat meat? He was taken for granted that the killing of animals is natural and inevitable. What if that is the form of prejudice or discrimination or what have you? To me, the argument not even close is like someone in the 19th century trying to justify the subjugation of women by appealing to slavery as those slavery or legitimate institutions. If you first question the premise that killing animals is more acceptable, that change the dynamic throughout the whole equation. You know, you explained to us about how karma works, the law of reaction, but you haven't said what that reaction is in terms of karma. What does that mean if I've built up a lot of bad karma? What happens to me? Good karma or bad karma, depending on the severity of it, there are rewards and punishments in the afterlife. Within the material world, there are higher planets where one can enjoy godly delights, the nectar of the gods, and the pleasures of the heavenly nature. And then similarly, there are planets of torment, you know, hellish where people endure suffering. If they've incurred huge amounts of negative karma, that is where they suffer for some time before being reborn, or as a planet or as an animal or as a human being, etc, depending upon their karma. So the punishment is not eternal. Dr. Martin A. Larson, again, he's an atheist. I don't know if he's still alive. He was old back in the 70s when he was booked for written. He noted that according to Hindu Buddhist and Pythagorean tradition, the hell itself was actually kind of purgatory, a place where living beings are punished before being reborn somewhere else. The idea of eternal punishment doesn't exist within the Eastern religions. Of course, I'm sure you've been confronted with the question I've seen in some of your writings where you've confronted this. You start by saying, "Okay, it's not good to eat meat because you're killing a living thing. There's karma." Then the immediate question that a person has directed to me in the past, in fact, is, well, so then you're going to kill plants. Isn't that wrong? Isn't that karmic? If you're for discussing theology, within Hindu theology, I've gotten different answers. One response was that, yes, there's karma in killing plants, which is why there's the process of offering when food to God in sacrifice, and in Bhagavad-gita the Lord says the kind of food he will accept as an offering. The other response I've gotten is that plants were intended to be our food, etc. And so the real thing lies in not presenting the food as an offering, not acknowledging God as the source of our sustenance. Our spiritual master said, "When Christians pray, give us to stay our daily bread, and in the Lord's prayer, let Jesus talk, they're acknowledging their dependence on God. Man can create microchips and steel, but he can't create food. When you're living in urban metropolis, you might think your food comes from safely or what have you. But actually, we are dependent on God in this regard. Our spiritual master once gave the example about how in the communists would seize power in countries by asking people, "Go to your churches and pray to God for bread." And God gave you any bread, and they'd go, "No." And then they'd come around with a truck around the corner and give them loads of bread and say, "Well, the word of communists, we're giving all this bread, so who's better? Your imaginary God or us as communists?" And then the people would say, "Oh, you comment so much better, etc." and they'd be duped and everything. And a real pop-up I would say, "Well, now wait a minute. You didn't obviously, on thinking properly, it's like in this current age of ours, they're not thinking things through." They didn't ask, "Well, what did you get this bread from?" "Who provided the soil, the rain, and the seeds, and the sustenance, etc." You didn't create these things out of thin air. So similarly, when you're living close to the land in nature, it's very easy to understand that you're dependent upon God. But in this day and age, we've kind of pushed that off to the side. We just think, "Oh, yeah, the food comes from safely or what have you." And even among Christians, there's the idea that living close to the land is a back to the Bible way of life. How easy that would be to implement in this day and age, I don't know. Even in the third world, people are migrating into the cities, looking for work, and becoming unemployed, or living on the streets, and rags, and what have you. But in any case, we can understand that we're dependent upon God for these things. So I've gotten two different answers that there is karma in killing plants, but it's certainly not as severe as in killing animals. There is a hierarchy of sorts with regard to the killing of living entities and all. But at the same time, even in Jainism, they recognize they just think it's going to be one cent beings and five cent beings, etc. So that's the theological answer, is that, you know, if we offer everything that is sacrificed to God and center our lives around God, then we're protected from all of this sin. We can see that practically. If we're vegetarian because in the body we need to Lord Krishna says he accepts these kinds of food and offerings, then everything else follows automatically from that. It's better for the environment, it's better for the animals, for our health. The secular argument, of course, articulated. It was probably made well before that, but Peter Singer was the one who put it succinctly in 1975 in Animal Liberation. He says that if you order up to killing a plant, it's hard to see how plants will be able to feel pain when they lack a brain or a central nervous system. Keith Baker has pointed out years later that nature does not create pain gratuitously, but only when it enables an organism to survive. Plants being immobile would have no evolutionary need to feel pain. But on top of that, Peter Singer points out that if you need to read the higher off the food chain, you're killing ten times more plants than if you're a vegetarian. So that genre is even better for the plants because fewer of them are being killed. And Singer says at this point the argument becomes absurd. I have to agree, even back in the 80s and the 80s in use that I was saying, people who make that argument well, it's wrong to kill plants, they are really looking just for a lame excuse to continue killing animals. But at least they're thinking it through. They're realizing that the reason people become vegetarian is because they're morally opposed to killing animals. It isn't just following a peculiar set of dietary laws. Some foods can't be eaten, they're unclean or whatever other foods can. But rather the idea is that you're morally opposed to taking a life to killing of an animal. Because for them to ask that kind of a question means that they're aware that that's the real reason people become vegetarian. I've got a lot more questions for you in Vasu, but I best let people know that they're listening to an interview with Vasu Murthy. He's the author of a number of books and articles and pamphlets. One of them is they shall not hurt nor destroy animal rights and vegetarianism in the western religious traditions. He is himself from Eastern tradition. He's also the author of the liberal case against abortion, which we'll be talking about later. This is Spirit in Action. I am your host, Mark Helpsmeet, and this is a Northern Spirit Radio Production website, nardenspiritradio.org. Come to our site, find our archives of the past six and a half years. You'll find links to Vasu and other guests that we've had over the past six and a half years. And you'll find a place to leave comments. You can make donations. You can connect to our programs via iTunes, and we are available via the Pacifica Network. Again, we're speaking with Vasu Murthy. He's talking right now about vegetarianism and its roots. And there's just one thing that's a idle piece of curiosity, maybe on my part. But how does one effectively live a life so innocent, so as not to even kill an ant? What does one do when there are mosquitoes and so on? How does that get lived out, Vasu? I just thought it might be impossible. Good question. I don't know if it's impossible per se, as we should do the least amount of harm. Even in everyday ethics among human beings, we recognize that there's the difference between... That's why a lot of many on the left were outraged or at least mildly irked when George W. Bush decided to invade Iraq's preemptive war against the country that hadn't harmed us and everything. Keith Acres, in a vegetarian source book, went and asked about the question of killing insects. He said, "There's difference between ridding oneself of intruders when they pose a threat to the health or comfort or well-being of people in a home environment versus going out of one's way to deliberately harm or kill something that would be completely harmless to you, like cows by the billions." And we see that in terms of just everyday politics, like the Iraq War. We see that some people were saying Iraq was not a threat to us. Why do we go out of a way to invade them and so forth? The quagmire we got stuck in it. So similarly, there's the difference between keeping killing to a minimum when it's not necessary. We can similarly say mosquitoes. You can use repellents or what have you to keep them away. And technology can probably create all kinds of alternative ways to avoid unnecessarily harming insects. Organic farming, for example, is a good way to address the moral issue of unnecessarily killing insects. Gavric Matheny, who's with vegan action about a decade ago in 2000, was August or September 2000. He was saying that trying to recognize the right insects would pretty much make human civilization impossible. The religious community, of course, can address this in different ways. St. Martin de Poris would sometimes allow mosquitoes to bite him and feed upon him and he would say, "They too are God's creatures," et cetera. You know, he wouldn't try and swipe them or kill them and probably find other examples of saints from the Christian tradition whose compassion extended to all creatures in this regard. Similarly, in the Hindu tradition, there are all kinds of ceremonies for groundbreaking ceremonies. One is building a house or a home or a temple or any kind of the resident or what have you because living entities are killed during the construction of such a facility. So there's all kinds of ceremonies to atone for the sin of killing living entities. Jane Monks refrained from agriculture. They're all allowed to participate in agriculture because there's, you know, earthworms and insects are killed during the piling of fields for farming. That process is defective because if you eat meat, you know, you may think, "Well, I didn't kill the animal myself." Well, first of all, I think that's hypocritical. If you can't kill an animal yourself, you're paying someone else to kill. What kind of a predator? What kind of an omnivore is that? You know, who can't kill the animal himself but pay someone else to do the dirty work for them. But even then, you know, if you purchase stolen goods, you're just as guilty as the person who stole them. So, you know, even if you see, well, I'm not, may not be involved in agriculture, but if you're paying someone else for agriculture products, then you're just as much responsible as the person who did the piling of the fields and indirectly killed the insects in the earthworms, et cetera. So I don't see quite due to logic in the Jane Monks' obtaining from agriculture, per se. And within Hinduism, it might be argued that that belongs to a particular class within the Hindu social system, or not from Dharma, the class system. Later, we can't corrupt it as a caste system. The idea that those who are the Vyshirs are the merchants, the businessmen, the landowners, the entrepreneurs, they would be the ones who would be engaging in agriculture, which is considered, by the way, our spiritual masters to agriculture was the noblest of professions. So that's what comes to my mind, is that in this material world, there's no way you're going to have complete perfect harmonies. One living being his food for another, and the material world himself was designed to be a place of suffering. So there's no way you can avoid living without incurring some destruction, even just by breathing your killing bacteria. That is an excuse to kill animals by the billions. You keep violence to minimum. Our spiritual master once gave the example about how Christians say, "Well, the historical Jesus might have eaten fish." You know, like the miracle of the loaves and the fish, et cetera. So he might have eaten fish, but to use that excuse to extrapolate and say, "Oh, well, then we can kill erectile houses and kill cows and other entities by the billions." That's kind of like saying, well, abortion might be acceptable in the hard cases of rape and incense. Abortion on demand throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. For any reason whatsoever, you know, health meaning being vague enough to mean that if a woman just feels slightly depressed, if she can't get an abortion, that would be justification for having her having one. That was what it was handed down in Roe v. Wade, and the companion case, Dover's Bolt. There's a huge extrapolation going from, well, it might be produced one of these extreme hard cases. And that's kind of analogous here. Similarly, to argue that just because we can't avoid killing living entities in the course of our day-to-day existence and then going to saying that that justifies unnecessarily killing, that's quite a bit of a stretch to make that kind of a conclusion. I'd like to go through, Vasu, a number of the arguments that you present and they shall not hurt or destroy. There's a whole number of areas that you look at religiously, ecologically, in terms of pain, in terms of having souls. I want to hit all of them. I want people to buy the book and take a look at it because I think there's a wealth of information there. I think virtually any question that someone's going to have about it, I think you've addressed in there with a very complete set of first sources. So, let's talk about what are some of the more important reasons in the Western religious traditions that we care about animals. Throughout the biblical writings, not just the scripture, but in commentaries, the Talmud, rabbinical commentaries, the writings of the early church fathers, commentaries by Protestant reformers as well, up to the present day. There has been, within the biblical tradition, a concern for animals. In the biblical writings, it's said that humans and animals share a common creation and a shared destiny. This is stated in the Old Testament. Ecclesiastes chapter 3 verse 19 says, "Men have no advantage over the animals." And in the biblical tradition, Saint John Chrysostom says, "Holy people are most gentle in their treatment of the animals. Surely, we should treat the animals with compassion for they come from the same source ourselves." He goes on to say that we, the Christian leaders, practice abstinence from the flesh of animals to do our bodies. That's more along the lines of asceticism than nonviolence, but he goes on to say the eating of animal flesh is polluting. It's a demonical originate. And that was expressly manifest in the early Christian tradition. There is some debate about that. When I gave a presentation on religion and animals at the Red Victorian on H. Street in San Francisco, you have to faintyed Ashbury, a woman, Marina, who is a practice there of the Russian Orthodox faith. She said that the real debate in the early church, you know, when Paul is forced to address vegetarians, wasn't the ethical treatment of animals, but rather whether or not the food was offered to idols. Take an idol. That was the real concern in the early church. There's some debate about that because the early Romans who wrote about the earliest Christians, they wrote about the Christian's meeting and offering a prayer to Christ as though he were a god. Then taking ordinary and innocent food is how it's described. And we also find that the descriptions given by the Romans of the earliest Christians were that they were vegetarian and that they were vegetarian because of the ethical treatment of animals. The first Christian hymn writer Clemens Prudentius, in his one of his first hymns, he exhorts his fellow Christians not to pollute their hands and their hearts by the slaughter of innocent animals, cows and sheep and so forth. And he points to the nourishing and pleasant foods that are available without shedding blood. It would be hard to prove that Christianity was a deterrent. We know Christianity was pacifist up until the time of Constantine. I mean, since then, only a few denominations have been consistently pacifist. The Quakers among them, of course. But we know that historically Christianity was pacifist. It's possible Christianity was also vegetarian. Keith Acres in a vegetarian source book in the 1986 edition and also in Broken Thread, as of yet unpublished manuscript. As a secular scholar, he looks at the history of the early church and he says, "A list of vegetarians in the early church reads like a who's who with early Christianity. You find not only the early church fathers, he mentions like Arias and his opponent Athanasius, you know, they were debating and everything. They were both vegetarians." And so he describes how vegetarianism was, you know, prevalent in the early church. It would be hard to prove, I agree, that Christianity, that it was official church doctrine that Christianity began as a vegetarian religion. These things would be hard to prove and other scholars can, of course, do the research in this area. But certainly, it would be consistent. The whole Masonic tradition, Christianity began as a Masonic movement was in Judaism. And Keith Acres comments, "If the Masonic prophecies describe, you know, the world described by the latter prophets, Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, and so forth, of swords and plow shares, of humans and animals coexisting peacefully." And the lions lying down with the lamb? Yes, like the Garden of Eden. And if Christians say Jesus is the Messiah, Keith Acres says some of the best evidence that Jesus was a vegetarian would be found within the Old Testament prophecies. And he says, "If the Old Testament prophecies are to be taken seriously, it would be hard to imagine Jesus being anything but a vegetarian." Jesus' own brother, James, was a vegetarian. And Orthodox sources within Christianity. And if James, the brother of Jesus was a vegetarian, wouldn't be logical to assume that Jesus himself was a vegetarian? Rinderry, who's a historian for the North American vegetarianist society, and who's written extensively, lentire books on vegetarianism. He said somewhere, and I agree with his statement in this regard, that the evidence, scriptural, theological, historical, et cetera, that Jesus was a vegetarian is circumstantial at best, but nonetheless it is compelling. Media shouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. Can't just kind of glibly take it for granted that the killing of animals is somehow justified. You know, is this the kind of practice God would ordain? Would a holy person kill animals? Would they eat meat? Is it ethical to do so? The biblical writings emphasize God's concern for animals, not just in the Psalms and in the Old Testament, in the New Testament we see concern for animals as well. Jesus justifies his healing on the Sabbath by referring to commandments calling for the humane treatment of animals. So we see a continuing concern in Christianity's concern for animals. Christians are the ones claiming to have the religion of grace. And I doubt it would win over many followers if they were to publicly advertise themselves as the religion of the Inquisition and the Ku Klux Klan. If we can understand it, start with a premise that killing animals is wrong, then we should ask, what kind of religion would condone this? Wouldn't we question a religion that can don't? It's just like nowadays we would question a religion that was still practicing human sacrifice, like the Aztecs or whatever. Shouldn't we question? Is this ethical? You know, if you have a Bible that can own it, well, the Bible can own slavery and the subjugation of women too. There are so many practices that, you know, go out on the Bible, but we kind of gloss over and don't take seriously. Like, that was Rabbi Zalman Shacker's reaction. He said, "We ashamed to admit that Abraham had two wives, because in today's world he would be called a biggivist." He said, " exclaiming as a response to today's world, meat eating, like polygamy, fit into an earlier stage of human history." So there are plenty of reasons why the churches and synagogues and the mosques ought to be addressing the animal rights issues, not only because we continue to concern for animals and animals who are fellow creatures, but also just in terms of social justice issues. Zalman said, "Better is a dinner of herbs with peace than a dinner of fatter dogs with hatred." And we can see that the amount of grain and resources that go in to a meat-centered diet lead to armed conflict and political instability, and take away grain from that could be used to feed the hungry. All these different social justice issues that concern churches, or should concern churches, and not just during the holiday season either, but throughout the year, are pretty much taken care of in one fell swoop by being vegan, by being non-violence, et cetera, et cetera. Isn't that at the heart of Christianity? It seems to me that being vegetarian is a fulfillment of the messianic expectations and prophecies. The Montanis, according to writer Stephen Roseman in his 1987 book, A Food for the Spirit, Vegetarian is one of the world religions. He says that among the earliest Christian sects, the Montanis were vegetarian, and expectation of Christ's second coming, in which they expected which earliest generations of Christians were hoping would happen very soon. I've heard that Tertullian, the early church father, was a Montanis, or influenced by them. I don't know all the details about that. Caffet theologians could probably fill you all in on that much better than I could, but that would explain his writing extensively on vegetarianism and saying how not conducive to spiritual life to debases man, so we can understand, even if you can't prove literally from the strength of some of the biblical tradition, or what the speakably in Protestantism, where many churches just, you know, go solo scriptura as Martin Lutherson is just in the Bible itself, it would be very hard to make the case without referring to a lot of extra canonical material. But if it would be very hard to make the case literally, it's consistent with the compassionate teachings of Christianity. Louis Raganstein wrote a book that was instrumental to my being able to put together the shell of the herd destroy. It came out in 1991, I purchased a copy of "Defestful for the Animals" in 1992 for $7. Peter had a table there, and they had some literature, and they were selling Louis Raganstein's book "Replanished the Earth," which is a history of organized religious treatment of animals from the environment. And that book was instrumental for me, or pivotal, because it moved me in a new direction to be able to discuss not just make theological comments about scripture, but to actually delve into ecclesiastical history, rabbinical commentary, the Talmud, the early church fathers, concerned for animals within Catholic and Protestant Christianity to the present day, to add some no pun intended, to flesh out the material, and they saw the herd destroy, so it became the continuing concern for animals within Christianity. So there's no way you can prove that it's absolutely required by scripture. Even if you say that, that doesn't take us very far, because we see churches taking positions on a number of issues that aren't clearly spelled out in scripture either. Exodus 21 says, "The fetus is not a person. If two men are fighting, and a pregnant woman is injured, and the fetus is killed, they have to recompensate upon the damage and put it upon her, not the fetus. And if the woman is killed, it's punishable by murder." Paul would just say, "Well, the fetus is given some concern, even if there's that personhood." But then the New Testament, Paul claims Mosaic while his garbage is abolished, so whatever concern might have been given to the unborn is gone. And some Christians say they don't even have to follow Paul, because Paul claims the risen Jesus says them three times, migration is efficient for you, so they use that excuse to say they don't even have to follow Paul, which doesn't make any sense. On the one hand in Corinthians 1 Corinthians chapter 6, Paul was warning drunkard thieves, homosexuals, idolaters, fornicators, will not inherit the kingdom of God. On the other hand, he's saying, "Oh, three times, you can do whatever you want. Okay, well then why are you giving all these moral instructions to begin with?" It doesn't make any sense, and the Christian understanding is that Paul had a thorn in his side and asked the reason Jesus what to do about it, and Jesus said, "My grace is efficient for me." It was a response to a specific problem, not a license to do as one pleases, and the late Janet Regina Hyland, who is raised Catholic, who went on to become an evangelical minister in the vegan and offered of God's covenant of animals. She said they're quoting Paul out of context, because Paul, in Corinthian, says elsewhere, he said, "Keep my body under subjection, lest I become a castaway and not practice what I have preached." So it's like, I agree, there's no way you can make an absolute airtight case. Regina Hyland said that herself. She said there's no way you can make an absolute airtight case. We have to argue in terms of religion's highest ideals and social progress. Of course, progressives see things that way. With regressives or conservatives, it's a lot harder to prove that. If this was the 18th century and you were trying to convince people to abolish slavery, that's not spelled out in script, either. So a conservative Christian might say, "Well, we don't have to free our slaves. That's work. You're asking us to do activity that is required of our faith." So we're 100 years ago. We don't have to give women stuff, rich or equality. That's work. You're asking us to engage in activity or effort or whatever that isn't part of our faith. 50 years ago, why aren't the Christians supporting civil rights? They'd be saying, "Well, that's work." Kind of smugly and goodly. I don't know. There are compelling arguments, but it's the progressives who are responding in this direction. We see that. At least that's in my experience. The Christians who are responding favorably to the message of animal rights and vegetarianism, making bread available to feed the hungry grain for the hungry, et cetera, are the liberals, the liberal denominations. Vegetarian interpretation of scripture is possible, but it's the kind of interpretation that appeals to progressives like an anti-capital punishment interpretation of scripture. It would be great to have the conservatives on board with us. You'd think they would understand, just like the CDC abortion is a crime, and that doesn't spell that clearly in script, right? You'd think they'd understand, "Oh, animals have the right to life." Just as we oppose stem cell research, the animal and right people are opposed to experimenting upon animals. We've completed about half of our spirit and action visit with Vasu Murthy, author of "They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy." Animal rights and vegetarianism in the Western religious tradition and of the liberal case against abortion. More about both of these topics next week when we visit again with Vasu Murthy for spirit and action. And I'll send you out with a pro-vegetarian song by Melanie, "I Don't Eat Animals." See you next week. ♪ I was just thinking about the way it's supposed to be ♪ ♪ I'll eat the plants and the fruit from the trees ♪ ♪ A little bit of home y'all some raisins and cheese ♪ ♪ But I don't eat animals and they don't eat me ♪ ♪ Oh no, I don't eat animals cause I love on your scene ♪ ♪ I don't eat animals, I want nothing dead in me ♪ ♪ I don't eat white flour, white sugar makes you rot ♪ ♪ White could be beautiful but mostly it's not ♪ ♪ A little bit of home y'all some raisins and cheese ♪ ♪ But I don't eat animals and they don't eat me ♪ ♪ Oh no, I don't eat animals cause I love on your scene ♪ ♪ I don't eat animals, I want nothing dead in me ♪ ♪ A little bit of home y'all some raisins and cheese ♪ ♪ I'll live one life I wore nothing dead in me ♪ ♪ You know I'll become life so that life will become me ♪ ♪ You know I'll live one life so that life will become me ♪ The theme music for this program is "Turning of the World" performed by Sarah Thompson. This Spirit in Action program is an effort of Northern Spirit Radio. You can listen to our programs and find links and information about us and our guests on our website, northernspiritradio.org. Thank you for listening. I am your host, Mark Helpsmeet, and I welcome your comments and stories of those leading lives of spiritual fruit. May you find deep roots to support you and grow steadily toward the light. This is Spirit in Action. ♪ With every voice, with every song ♪ ♪ We will move this world along ♪ ♪ With every voice, with every song ♪ ♪ We will move this world along ♪ ♪ And our lives will feel the echo of our healing ♪