Kevin-
I was speaking from a "thou shalt not kill" point of view. it always struck me as odd that the commandment was "thou shalt not kill" and it was taken to mean "kill man". Nevermind that we can't even get that one down right - but, isn't it curious that God got "lazy" and didn't bother to put a three letter word after it..."Thou shalt not kill man". So maybe God ran out ink (or stone carving lightning bolt), or maybe he didn't specify because the commandment means don't kill at all. I'm not disrespecting the Judeo/Christian/Muslim bible based faiths - I'm saying that commandment is a lot sweeter and more perfect and ultimately more powerful to me with that interpretation. And living by the "standard" interpretation of just applying to man is probably why "we" have NEVER seemed able to get that "easy" part right.
That depends on how you look at religious history, I think. It's sort of like the debate over strict constructionism of the Constitution. At the time of the writing of the Bible and the creation of the faith, nobody would have ever in a million years dreamed that the commandment applied to animals or that people maybe shouldn't eat animals. Anyone suggesting such would've been laughed out of town. Remember the part about God refusing Cain's offering of fruits of the soil and accepting Abel's offering of a lamb from his flock? God favored animal consumption — or people did, depending on whether you're a believer.
Of course interpretations change and evolve over time, and as society grows larger and more complex, diverse and interconnected, the definition of "neighbor" often broadens and the circle of protection a culture offers frequently widens. The definition of "neighbor" used to be "fellow in-group member", i.e. fellow tribesman, fellow co-religionist, etc. And Jesus was actually a reform Jew who enjoined his followers not to cast the "pearls" of his teachings before the "swine" of non-Jews. The evangelism Sol/Paul undertook after Jesus's death was unquestionably against Jesus's wishes. But religions evolve. Interpretations of scripture evolve. The common modern interpretation of the swine aphorism is that "swine" are actually just people who aren't (yet) receptive to Christian teachings. Many of the faithful say that everyone in the human race is thy neighbor. And if you actually read through the bible, there are TONS of directives that nobody, not even fundamentalists, follow, like the one about not wearing blended fabrics. So just as with the Constitution, strict constructionism is very much a matter of interpretation, and that's the charitable way of putting it.
My tedious and long-winded point is that I don't think it's unimaginable that at some point a common interpretation of the sixth commandment will encompass animals, but that potential interpretation should be put into historical perspective.
You're preaching to the choir on that one, Paul. I would love for every high school senior class to have a "mandatory" trip to a slaughter house. It would do wonders for some of these issues, but as you know, they try to keep those places locked up tight...bad for business, you know.
As pro-meat as I am, I agree — except I also think there should be a field trip to a pasture-based farm in which the cows (or bison or sheep or whatever) are contentedly munching on grass. And I think education should cover the tremendous differences in nutritional quality between factory farm meat and pastured meat. And hey, while I'm fantasy land, how about some hours spent on soil fertility and its effect on health!
Anyway...I think I should shut up since this is really getting off topic.
Well, it's admittedly off the topic of mad cow, but it's certainly germaine to the important larger topic of meat eating.
-Paul
