Hi everyone – I am going to open up a can of worms on this blog. Or at least *I* think it's a can of worms...
Those of you who THINK you know me – really don’t – though you may have scratched the surface, a little.
Being a Yoga teacher – every single day, I try to live my life in a manner befitting that title. I try to live with more awareness – I try to treat people with lovingkindness. From the anger you can clearly see me spewing out on this forum – it’s not only difficult – at times it is down right impossible. Anger is part of the human condition and I do not believe it is a wasted or wrong emotion. I believe it is necessary and at times useful. While some of you might think that I go overboard on here with my anger (and I do at times); it is again for me a cleansing ritual. Although, I would dare say if allowed, I would tell people to their faces what I do think. You can ask the people that DO know me about this part of my personality. I AM blunt and I can be aggressive and confrontational – but I also believe life is too short to not state your feelings and to just sit back and let injustice go on is wrong in my humble opinion as well. I am not going to let anyone bull-doze over me, my kids, my friends, etc.
As a Yoga teacher – a ‘true’ Yoga teacher I might add – not one of these people who goes on a weekend course to ‘learn’ Yoga and then thinks they can teach it to others, I am suppose to live by a ‘code’ of ethics. This code typically follows the ‘eight limbs’ of Yoga – some 5,000 years ago, Yoga was codified by Patanjali. The limbs are the various aspects of yoga culminating in (hopefully) transcendence and enlightenment or at-one-ment with God/The Cosmos/The Universal Consciousness. Part of the eight limbs sets forth a set of ‘standards’ which are broken down into ten ‘commandments’ if you will – my teachers refer to them as suggestions for living your life – not commandments. The first set are call the Yamas – they are ‘restraints’ or things you should not do and the very first on of the Yamas pretty loosely translates into ‘Thou shalt not kill’ – but it’s way more than that….please see below:
a·him·sa ( -h m sä )
(Religion, Buddhism, Hinduism)
n.
A Buddhist and Hindu doctrine expressing belief in the sacredness of all living creatures and urging the avoidance of harm and violence
This first Yama to me is the most difficult for humans to live by – because not only does it suggest that we cause no harm to other living things but that we also cause no harm to ourselves….tricky stuff eh?
As a yoga teacher/practitioner/member of the Yoga community – I try to keep myself informed by what’s going on with Yoga. I belong to a very interesting bulletin/message board run by one of the most insightful/intelligent Yoga teachers of my time. This continuing ‘thread’ of various conversation has been going on for a very long time now – if you are a Yoga teacher, I highly recommend subscribing to this board – e-mail me off line and I will send you the info.
At any rate – there is a lot of debate amongst Yoga teachers about many things (as you can imagine). One of the most hotly debated issues is whether or not a Yoga teacher should be a vegan and by extension animal rights. So I want you to read below (that is if I have not completely lost you thus far) - I have included the most recent 'postings' from the board and it included the original article that started this current debate. Let me know what you all think about this thought-provoking argument.
For the record you should know that I am a huge animal lover, however I do believe in research and I do work for a medical institution that does work on animals – However, I DO NOT THINK we need to abuse animals in order to find cures for disease and I think some good points are made below. Also for the record, I do eat animal products – dairy, eggs, and unfortunately even sometimes fish and very little chicken – however I am trying to get back to a strictly lacto-ovum vegetarian diet.
Again I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on this subject. (I know it’s not as compelling/steamy as my one-sided flame war about the woman who ruined my marriage – but it’s still interesting stuff). ^_^
Namaste,
Colette
**************************************************************
From: Leslie Kaminoff
Below, and without any interspersed comments, I am posting the responses to Alex Epstein"s op-ed, "The Terror of Animal Rights," which is reproduced at the bottom of this post.I will have a lengthier comment in the near future, but for now, I'll simply ask a few questions of the animal rights supporters:If animals have rights, do they also have responsibilities? If they do, then how should they be punished when they commit crimes like murder (either of each other, or of humans)? If animals don't have responsibilities, but humans do, what happens to a man's right to defend himself against an animal that he's not allowed to kill?Are animal rights supporters in favor of abortion rights? If the answer is yes, then what sort of rationalization grants rights to animals, but denies them to human fetuses? If the answer is no, then how do you propose to reduce the out-of-control human population?If a PETA employee has insulin dependent diabetes, should she be allowed to take insulin (which is derived from and tested on animals)? If yes, how do you justify the suffering of a few animals even if the PETA employee can work to save thousands? If no, then shouldn't the PETA diabetic just allow herself to die in order to save the insulin-producing animals?Food for thought.If, after chewing on these questions, you come up with any interesting answers, feel free to send them in.Leslie
============================================
From: PETA
For Message Board:
Mr. Epstein's column is mean-spirited and ill-informed. It is not and has never been the goal of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to "subjugate man" in any way or to commit violent acts. On the contrary, PETA is a legal and peaceful organization working to reduce the sum total of violence in the world and to counteract the phenomenal violence committed against animals in the food, leather and fur, entertainment, and experimentation industries. Everything PETA does, from our humane education campaigns, protests, and gimmicky street-theater-type demonstrations to our work with district attorneys and law enforcement officials to stop cruelty and bring criminals to justice, is to protest the suffering of animals and keep our society positive. Not only are we trying to stop real killings and harm, but we believe animal liberation is human liberation too. When we open our hearts and minds to compassionate behavior, we are better for it spiritually and, given the health benefits of a vegan diet, physically.For Mr. Epstein to hold up the victims of disease as his excuse for imprisoning and experimenting on animals is disingenuous and misleading. After years and years of experiments on animals, we have no cure for cancer, no cure for AIDS, no cure for Alzheimer's, Parkinson’s and Huntington’s disease, and little but vague noises of progress to hang our hopes on. Using animals for drug development and testing has been downright dangerous. Phenactin, E-Ferol, Oraflex, Zomax, Suprol and Selacryn are just a few of the drugs that had to be taken off the market for killing or harming thousands of people. Despite rigorous animal tests, prescription drugs kill 100,000 people every year, making this our nations' fourth biggest killer.Whatever your opinion about the use of animals in experiments, PETA urges you to learn the facts. The Animal Welfare Act is the only U.S. federal law that covers the use of animals in experiments, and it deals only with housing and maintenance standards. There are no regulations that limit what an experimenter can do to an animal, no matter how painful or redundant. Inexplicably, the Act entirely excludes rats and mice--who make up the majority of animals used for experimentation--from any protection. To make matters worse, there are fewer than 100 U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors to oversee 1,500 research facilities, as well as nearly 2,000 animal exhibitors and more than 4,000 animal dealers. The policing of laboratories is left largely to the people who run them.In the two decades since PETA was founded, one horror story after another has emerged: laboratory technicians mocking and laughing at brain-damaged baboons whose heads they had smashed; a laboratory monkey with the word "crap" tattooed on his forehead; rats forced to inhale aerosol consumer products until they convulsed in agony; a beagle, force-fed a chemical, lying sick and alone in a cage; animals forced to live in their own filth. Just last year PETA's undercover investigation of the University of North Carolina animal laboratories revealed multiple violations of regulations, including cutting off the heads of conscious baby rats with scissors, denying veterinary care or euthanasia to wounded and sick animals, leaving hemophiliac mice with their tails cut off to bleed to death and more.Ultimately, the question we must ask is this: Is it right to imprison and harm other beings? PETA joins thousands of scientists, physicians, ethicists and everyday people who believe we need to extend compassion to all beings capable of suffering. We have tremendous faith in the ingenuity of today's most forward-thinking researchers who believe that we can--and must--cure and prevent disease in humans without harming animals. Please see StopAnimalTests.com for more about experimentation, and peta.org for more about what PETA does.
Kathy Guillermo
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
501 Front St.Nofolk, VA 23510
============================
I'm not sure what kind of action you hope to stir up posting this to a yoga list(!), but I will respond to what appears to be the core of this argument line by line:On Thursday, August 26, 2004, at 12:01 PM, e-Sutra wrote:This is in exact contradiction to the requirements of human survival and progress, which demand that we kill animals when they endanger us-or isolate ourselves from them. This happened already through our massive development of the planet. Even in extreme cases, it's possible to avoid dangerous animals, as they do in game preserves in Africa today., eat them when we need food,-I have not needed to eat an animal when I needed food in nearly 30 years.run tests on them to fight disease.-Perhaps disease would have been lessened just as well by focus on other aspects of health: prevention, mind-body connection, epidemiology, yoga. Our societal relationship with disease always seems to imply that we will somehow eradicate it. Do we really expect to become physically immortal eventually through scientific research? The testing dilemma is often posed as my life vs. a rat's life, but it's more realistically my chance at an extra few years of lower blood pressure vs. the lives of hundreds of monkeys, dogs, rats, and whatnot.The death and destruction that would result from any serious attempt to respect "animal rights" would be catastrophic--for humans--a prospect the movement's most consistent members embrace. "We need a drastic decrease in human population if we ever hope to create a just and equitable world for animals-And the problem with a decrease in human population is what????PETA suffers from frustration. It is difficult for them to rise above the din of causes when they speak for such an underdog (pun intended). I doubt they would resort to their violent measures if everyone entertained their concerns as much as, say, the concern over the price of gasoline. And before anyone says animal research is needed, it would be apropos to go see some underway. It can be bad for one's digestion...
Peter FerkoNew York City
============================
When I first read Alex Epstein's piece, "The Terror of 'Animal Rights'," Iwas angered at his perspective and lack of compassion for animals. But whenI thought about it further, I was saddened for Epstein. I realized that hehas obviously missed out on one of life's sweetest pleasures and mostastounding insights -- to have an experience or establish a relationshipwith an animal (of a different species) and begin to comprehend the deepconnection we have to other species; to understand that the root of ourbeing is in the animal kingdom.For Epstein to condemn the animal rights movement as a whole is to condemnpeople who understand these connections and who are working to end sufferingfor all the Earth's species in peaceful, non-violent ways, in addition tothose who step outside the bounds of what is rationale and productive. Let'swork together to create a more peaceful world not only for human beings butfor all of our ancestral cousins on whom we rely for many aspects of ourhealth and well-being.
Peace,
Mara Guccione
==============================
From: TA
I do not condone the tactics of PETA - but I feel thatthe conditions for animals at laboratories -especially chimps and other primates is immoral.Please read "Next of Kin" by Roger Fouts and otherbooks about when conditions are like and why they feelit's wrong before you just say that what laboratoriesdo is moral and what PETA does is immoral. What doyou know about the social and physical needs ofanimals and how they are met or not met bylaboratories? Do you believe that animals -especially primates! - have no social or physicalneeds? Look at the gorilla Koko and chimps who havebeen able to communicate with sign language at levelsthat some retarded children cannot. If 'human-ness'is connected to intelligence - than there are somechimps that are more 'human' than those of our ownspecies. Please, before you defend laboratories, lookinto the horrific conditions that many animals mustlive in first. I don't place animals above humans -and am not opposed to all animal testing... HOwever, Ido believe that it should be done as a last resort andwhen done, all efforts must be made to minimizesuffering and provide as 'normal' a life as possiblefor these animals who are, as you said, providinghumans with very important information.Here are some quotes from his book.(P. 362)The reason for demand for chimpanzees has crashed [forlaboratories] is that they turned out to be a lousymodel for AIDS research... we have learned viruallynothing about AIDS from the chimp. Every majoradvance in AIDS research - from our understanding howthe virus causes disease to the development ofcruscial new drugs to identify possible genetic facotsthat may provide resistance - has come from humanstudies....(p. 366)It is a recurring fact of human history that we drawmoral universes to include those who are like us andto exclude those who are unlike us. We grant certainrights and liberties to those inside our moral sphere,and we feel free to exploit those who stand outside.How do we determine who is an "insider" and who is an"outsider"? Historically, these distinctions havebeen based on bigotry, supersition, religiousdoctrine, cultural habit, legal precedent, orscientific 'evidence' - and sometimes all of theabove.Science has been the handmaiden to morality ever sincethe time of Aristotle. His Scala Naturae ranked Greekmales as the most perfect beings, followed byelephants, dolphins, and women - in that order. Ittook another 2,000 years to revoke a husband's rightto beat his wife. In the meantime, generations ofscientists had "proved" that women were witches,demoniacs, or histerics. Women were joined outsidethe Western moral order by blacks, Asians, andaboriginal peoples, and the inferiority of all thosegroups was 'proved' by 19th century Europeanpseudoscience of neuranatomy. Specious laboratoryfindings provided a rationale for enslaving Africans,exterminating Aborigines, and denying legal rights toAsians...(p. 367)With the rise of modern biomedical experimentation,the commerce between science and morality became atwo-way street. Science was used to justify excludingcertain groups from the moral order, and theseoutcases were then thrown back to science forexploitation in the laboratory. African Americans,European Jews, and mentally disabled children weretreated as "laboratory animals".... I have worked with children so profoundly mentallydisabled that they resemble norman children only inappearance. In some cases they are, by their ownparent's observation, less alert and responsive thanthe family pets. Yetwe have finally acknowledged thatour moral universe must include these children who sourgently need our love and our legal protection.... many people still believe that human superiorityover apes is self-evident, and they reject anythingscience says to the contrary.
=====================
From :Wendy GreenWow,
you have opened up a can of worms here. I have many comments on this postingFirst, Leslie writes:"For various reasons, PETA has been getting on my nerves lately."I am of the understanding that Yoga brings us to a state where nothing "gets on our nerves." While the passionate ones may find issues and causes, becoming activists and proselytizers, my experience is that yogis become more and more peaceful and accepting, letting karma make the calls.Second, when did "ahimsa" become an option? When Sri K. Patabhi Jois was questioned whether he agreed with modern western "yogis" eating meat, he responded "Ah, a new method....." Brilliant!Thirdly, re animal testing and finding cures for disease....call me simplistic and naive if you wish, but I believe when we practice a yogic lifestyle 24/7...these "diseases" are eliminated.. Yoga is the cure. OK, you say..."how about genetic diseases"....to that I answer, "Karma". There are mysterious reasons why we are dealt the cards we have, yet I believe they are all for soul growth and emancipation. Blind faith? perhaps.While I have the floor, let me share my disappointment in Yoga Journal for running advertisements for chemical hair dye, pain relievers, wine and for leather yoga bags. Once again, capitalism has ruled the day.
om shantih,
Wendy Green
==========================
from Sandra in Baltimore
okay, here goes, give me a while to compose my scattered thoughts....yes, there are extremists in the animal rights "community" who like to blowthings up. Ifthey didn't have this topic they'd pick something else. Some people just liketo blowthings up. Face it, some animal rights people aren't too bright - in someinstances, theytook cage raised minks and set them 'free" to be run over by highway traffic,eaten by wildcreatures, and basically terrified by a world they never knew existed. Thisiscompassion?On the other side, there are researchers who seem to think that animals aremeat thatmoves - they don't speak English, therefore they don't feel pain. PETA andother animalrights groups have done a great deal to publicize the inhumane treatment thatresearchanimals, farm animals, and others (dog and cock fighting still exists....)often face. Ifhumans faced such treatment it would be called torture and banned by theGenevaConventions.There is always a middle ground. Animals raised for food should be raisedhumanely, asclose to a natural environment as possible, and killed quickly and cleanly(heard ofkosher laws?). A happy animal yields a better "product" anyway, and a cleanerone.Animals used for research should also be treated with compassion. A torturedanimalcould taint the results. Companion animals should always be treated as a partof thefamily. To do otherwise risks endangering your human family members when youranimal child finally has had enough.Anyone who has welcomed such beautiful creatures into their lives cannot saythat theydo not have feelings and emotions (I can't vouch for creepy crawlys, but Idon't likesquishing them either). I have two cats and their personalities are asdifferent as nightand day. If my boyfriend ever gave me an ultimatim "me or them", well theywere herefirst - goodbye.
I am sure that they love me every bit as much as I lovethem.
namaste, hon
==========================
The Terror of "Animal Rights"
Wednesday February 4, 2004
By: Alex Epstein
The goal of the animal-rights movement is to sacrifice and subjugate man to animals.The "animal rights" movement is celebrating its latest victory: an earlier, more painful death for future victims of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and Huntington's disease.Thanks to intimidation by animal rights terrorists, Cambridge University has dropped plans to build a laboratory that would have conducted cutting-edge brain research on primates. According to The Times of London, animal-rights groups "had threatened to target the centre with violent protests ... and Cambridge decided that it could not afford the costs or danger to staff that this would involve."The university had good reason to be afraid. At a nearby animal-testing company, Huntingdon Life Sciences, "protestors" have for several years attempted to shut down the company by threatening employees and associates, damaging their homes, firebombing their cars, even beating them severely.Many commentators and medical professionals in Britain have condemned the animal-rights terrorists and their violent tactics. Unfortunately, most have cast the terrorists as "extremists" who take "too far" the allegedly benevolent cause of animal rights. This is a deadly mistake. The terrorists' inhuman tactics are an embodiment of the movement's inhuman cause.While most animal-rights activists do not inflict beatings on animal testers, they do share the terrorists' goal of ending animal research--including the vital research the Cambridge lab would have conducted.There is no question that animal research is absolutely necessary for the development of life-saving drugs, medical procedures, and biotech treatments. According to Nobel Laureate Joseph Murray, M.D.: "Animal experimentation has been essential to the development of all cardiac surgery, transplantation surgery, joint replacements, and all vaccinations." Explains former American Medical Association president Daniel Johnson, M.D.: "Animal research--followed by human clinical study--is absolutely necessary to find the causes and cures for so many deadly threats, from AIDS to cancer."Millions of humans would suffer and die unnecessarily if animal testing were prohibited. Animal rights activists know this, but are unmoved. Chris DeRose, founder of the group Last Chance for Animals, writes: "If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."The goal of the animal-rights movement is not to stop sadistic animal torturers; it is to sacrifice and subjugate man to animals. This goal is inherent in the very notion of "animal rights." According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the basic principle of "animal rights" is: "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment"--they "deserve consideration of their own best interests regardless of whether they are useful to humans." This is in exact contradiction to the requirements of human survival and progress, which demand that we kill animals when they endanger us, eat them when we need food, run tests on them to fight disease. The death and destruction that would result from any serious attempt to respect "animal rights" would be catastrophic--for humans--a prospect the movement's most consistent members embrace. "We need a drastic decrease in human population if we ever hope to create a just and equitable world for animals," proclaims Freeman Wicklund of Compassionate Action for Animals.To ascribe rights to animals is to contradict the purpose and justification of rights--to protect the interests of humans. Rights are moral principles necessary for men to survive as human beings--to coexist peacefully, to produce and trade, to provide for their own lives, and to pursue their own happiness, all by the guidance of their rational minds. To attribute rights to nonrational, amoral creatures who can neither grasp nor live by them is to turn rights from a tool of human preservation to a tool of human extermination.It should be no surprise that many in the animal-rights movement use violence to pursue their man-destroying goals. While these terrorists should be condemned and imprisoned, that is not enough. We must wage a principled, intellectual war against the very notion of "animal rights"; we must condemn it as logically false and morally repugnant.
Alex Epstein is a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) in Irvine, California. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
