Comments for our Members:
Many our sustaining members were outraged after reading Monday’s
article where agriculture professor Wes Jamison uses religion to
encourage and support the ag industry. These are a couple of the
comments we received:
Thanks for sending this article. The professor is actually a
Communication prof at the U of Florida, which is odd enough. Worse still
is his complete lack of understanding of the communication dynamic in
the struggle for ethical treatment of animals. It is the animal
agriculture industry that uses (misuses) religion, ritual, tradition,
and outright make-believe to encourage the consumption of their
products. Just spend an hour watching commercial TV and anyone will see
an unending stream of commercials extolling the virtues of animal
products, without one mention of the reality of their production or the
drawbacks of their consumption.
The animal rights/vegans are the ones who speak out with the truth
and reality of the animal agriculture system. We rarely use religion
because almost every religions advocates the consumption of animal
products. So I don't know what texts the Communication professor has
been researching, but he's clearly drawn the most inaccurate conclusion
possible. It's because we speak the truth and present reality that our
argument is compelling and gaining ground. And we hope someday, god
willing, religions, rituals, traditions and make-believe with catch up.
Julia
Apparently Wes Jamison's argument (if you can call it one) turns on
maintaining a distinction between 'companion animals' and 'cuisine
animals.' "Agriculture must give permission for consumers to distinguish
between animals that are companions and animals that are cuisine," he
said.
Whence came such a distinction? Do mammals possess any intrinsic
properties that would warrant such a distinction? Has Jamison ever read
the Biblical injunctions to give working animals a sabbath/rest?
Outrageous, indeed.
Paul.
Your question and comments are welcome