I'm not so sure that ALF is necessarily a 'religious' group.  It seems to me that they use the idea of religion because they've found a way for it support their beliefs in veganism/vegetarism - not the other way around.  They do have a link to a bible page but it also includes stuff about the Dalai Lama as well.  Also, there is a link leading to a page about abortion and, even though I read through it quickly, it didn't strike me that they were against human abortion. 

They are still a terrorist threat and they still attempt to enforce their beliefs on other people, regardless of whether those beliefs are religiously based or not.  While I tend to sit the fence regarding animal testing and the like I think the actions of ALF are unacceptable and illegal. 

Good blog post, baby!

I didn't mean for it to come off as they are strictly a 'religious' group.  Sorry if it sounded that way; that was just my main problem with them *today*. 

About them using religion because of it supporting their beliefs: since they are such an non-centralized group, it can go either way depending on which member or sub-group you are talking about.  Not that any one person can represent an organization as a whole, but lets face it, they have killed people and damaged property so there is not much to help fix their reputation.

If I were to go into all of the problems that I have with the ALF, PETA and similar groups, I could write you a 300 page book.  I am tired of feeling like I need to lie about my career and I am tired of these crazy people with their excuses.

I see all of the benefits of biomedical research first-hand; one of my co-workers helped develop a supportive care drug to be delivered with chemotherapy, which was given to my mom while she was dying of cancer to help battle the negative effects of chemo.  My pets get yearly vaccinations which never would have been developed otherwise.  One rat can save thousands of animal and human lives.  And I love all of our research animals for what they do.  They get lots of extra cuddles from me. =)

I could go on and on, but it's too late.

I imagine I probably feel the same way you do about groups such as ALF and PETA (shit, I hope my friends don't read this).  PETA has it's own dirty history and ALF truly is a terrorist group. 

I once thought PETA was a pretty decent animal rights group until I delved a little further into their beliefs but ALF was pretty much always on the extreme fringe.  I was swept up with PETA and the like when I was teenager a long time ago and listened to bands like Earth Crisis, etc (sheesh, what a poser).  I still think animals need to be protected and abhor any abuse to animals.  Frankly, I think I like animals more than I like people.

As I've said - I'm on the fence about animal testing.  I don't vilify the scientists that use these animals and I acknowledge that these tests can save thousands of people.  Yet, there is something still incredibly unsettling about the idea. 

I almost got wrapped up in PETA as well.  My first full-time animal job was in a no-kill animal shelter where most of our help was from volunteers.  A lot of really good people joined PETA, just for one of the programs (some kind of low cost spay/neuter for feral cats I think in once case), maybe not knowing everything about them, and therefore supporting all of their programs, good and bad. 

And I totally understand being on the fence about animal testing; during that time period I actually thought I was against the idea, but I hadn't actually given it much thought.  It wasn't until it started hitting home and then I ended up with a job at a pharmaceutical company that I opened up to the idea.  I was so scared my first day, I think I was shaking and probably didn't say much at all.  That didn't last long - I got my first pet rat at work about a week later and my entire mindset changed completely.  I can't wait for the day that it is no longer required.  When we finally have the technology to analyze this using human cells and/or computerized studies alone.  Until then, I just hope people like me can help make it as good as it can possibly get for our critters.

Talk about religious scapegoating. When did ALF become a Christian terrorist group? not to mention a religious one? 

Is this because they have quotes from religious people on the page? like one quote from Jesus? Does cognitive dissonance prevent you from ignoring the quotes on the page from nonbelievers, such George Bernard Shaw, Moby? 

Did you read the AFL credo, is there anything in there that leads you to assume they are a Religious organization, much less a Christian one?

AFL is secular organization, they have no religious affiliation whatsoever. 

But I'm guessing the rational response squad doesn't know how to tell its ass from its elbows. 

I'm sure they use religion like many organizations to help legitemize their image. Hitler did...... Bush did it...... Terrorists do it. As long as god is on your side it seems easier to get some that might not be willing participants to become involved. I don't believe for a minute that only religious facets drive terrorism in the Middle-East, but it's easier getting someone to blow themselves up if you add a little religion to the equation.

That being said, the unintended consequences of many of these groups are still unknown. I remember not that long ago PETA released a bunch of mink from a mink farm to save them from being slaughtered, only to affect a massive change in the natural order as what one would expect releasing hundreds or thousands of meat eating animals into the environment. Most died of starvation but those that survived wrecked havoc on local bird and mammal populations.

I don't normally do this, but I am standing up with the theists on this because the use of religion doesn't make it a religious group. EHHHHHHHHH now I feel all icky for some reason. Thanks for the post, because I didn't realize the extent to how well animals used in research were treated (as a whole).

See I just got done defending theists now I have to smack you down TheIdiot. I don't think the post from one individual constitutes the entire RRS. No one member can claim to speak for everyone here just like Jerry Falwell doesn't speak for the entire christian community.

Of course AFL is a secular organization, but if you want a christian terrorist groups they are still around plotting to kill abortion doctors. Groups like Christian Identity have been responsible for the killings of 3 in a series of clinic bombings. See there is a difference in their motivation so yes...... christian terrorists exist, but AFL I don't think has killed anyone so they have that going for them at least.   

Sooooooooo which are you an ass or an elbow bitch? I'm guessing ASS.

I never stated that the ALF was a religious organization, nor do I think they are.  However, they have many members that are religious and try to use their religion to promote their own, screwed up messages. 

And, although the ALF has not ever been officially blamed for killing anyone, they harm the progress of medical research, therefore preventing and delaying urgently needed medical advances.  The way the ALF is an unorganized group, and anyone who fits into their criteria may be a member, could allow members to commit crimes, including murder, without implicating the organization.

Thank you for noting that, as others have done, however I do not claim that the ALF is a religious group.  I only meant to speak about those members that do use religion.  The group does not have a written formal standard on whether they require you to be religious or not; they have a short criteria that you must fit into in order to call yourself a member.  Here is a link to their credo: http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm

I am fortunate to have the ability to speak out about how well most animals are treated in research from my experiences in animal research.  If it weren't true, I would be the first person to report a company to the authorities, because I love those little critters!

You didn't? This is what you titled you post:

"More Good Christian [Terrorist] Morals - The Animal Liberation Front"

Let's reword this title a bit, let's see if you can face up to your cognitive dissonance:

"More Good Atheist [Evil Men] Morals - Nazi Party"

Would you assume by this title that I was implying that the Nazi Party was an atheistic organization? I sure would? 

Do you care to back this up? Can you show me the evidence for the many members who are "religious and use their religion to promote their own, screwed up messages"?

Your title claimed "more Good Christian [Terrorist]", you narrowed it down to Christian? What lead you to this assumption? or would you like to admit that you were wrong here?

If you realize that you based this implication on pretty much nothing, could you at least admit that you were wrong for making this inference? 

[quote]

You're right, I apologize I assumed that  K9sByte was a high ranking member of the RRS, but I was wrong in this assumption. There for, it was incorrect for me to take her views as representative  of the RRS. 

Here: "Jerry Vlasak, spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, told the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that killing medical researchers was "morally justified" to save laboratory animals (worldnetdaily.com)."

"I don't think you'd have to kill -- assassinate -- too many," Vlasak opined. "I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million or 10 million nonhuman lives(sfgate.com)."

The reason why the Animal have not killed anyone yet, is because there "threats of violence and intimidation work. Last year, UCLA researcher Dario Ringach sent an e-mail to Vlasak in which he proclaimed, "You win" -- he would stop research with animals. Vlasak sent out a triumphant press release (sfgate.com)."

But regardless we're not taking about Christian Terrorist, or Islamic Terrorist, or Secular Terrorist, we're talking about the mislabeling the AFL, as religious terrorist, when in fact they are Secular Terrorist, who come from all walks of life, "all beliefs and none (wikipedia)." 

Let's hope you meant that in a humorous way. 

Gotcha.

You didn't see this part

"In one article, the ALF cite quotes which are supposedly from early Christians, including “Christ’s teachings”, in an attempt to push their vegan/vegetarian ideals on people. "

I'm not going to say that they didn't make up/corrupt Christian teachings to make their point (that would make the ALF a church) but I can see where a reader could narrow it down to Christian from that snippet.

Yea, from that same Logic we can narrow it down to Atheism, being that AFL quotes atheist such as George Bernard show quite often, since they use an atheists teachings to make their point. (it should be noted that AFL uses quotes from everybody and anybody to support their cause, from Buddhism, to Hinduism, to Deist such as Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, Albert Einstein etc..)

From that same logic we can infer from Richard Dawkins article "Atheist for Jesus", and narrow it down that Richard Dawkins is a Christian. 

The AFL is a secular group, reaching out to all beliefs, and no belief for a common cause. 

I believe K9 is referring to the article "Were Jesus of Nazareth & Early Christians Vegetarians". K9 incorrectly claims the AFL cites early Christians and Christ, when in fact the AFL did no such thing. They just attached at article from the Pamphlet: "Where the Early Christians Vegetarian?", by the Universal Life - Inner Religion, not AFL.

In fact you'll find other linked articles such as "Islam & Animal rights", "Buddhism and Animals", "Jewish Vegetarians", Hinduism and animal rights, and etc. All of these articles are not their own. They are not even written by individuals who are associated with the AFL, they are just articles by religious individuals of various faiths that support veganism, and compassion for animals.

In fact if you go over to their Philosophy section, you'll find a number of links to articles by atheist in support of the same things, such as Peter Singer's "All animals are Equal", Carl Sagans "Pale Blue Dot", and etc...

By your logic after reading Peter Singer's "All animals are Equal", a reader can narrow it down to Atheist from that "snippet".

These articles have as much to do with AFL, as my next door neighbor who loves his dog does, or my best friend who is an atheist and a vegan does. 

Please, this is just another classic example of the irrationality that appears time and time again on this forum, by unbelievers who are so deluded by their passionate distaste for religion, that they can't even think straight. Even after being confronted by their error, they still remain in delusional denial. 

Where did I say it was a correct assertion? I simply said I could see where the assertion could be made. Just as you took different snippets and made your assertions.

As for your insistence for "the passionate distate" atheists have for religion - nah, not me. There are some of its practitioners I find distasteful but the religion itself doesn't bother me anymore than any other mythology.

After all, the Bible (and I'm sure other religious books) makes an issue of zealotry being a positive. Haven't seen anything about being zealous for atheism yet.

K9sByte explained this in her second post. There's no excuse for you in making this post.

I am considering this as an act of harassment. Be warned.

concering this

K9sByte explained this in her second post. There's no excuse for you in making this post.

Uhm, no she didn't really clarify, in fact in the third post she goes on to claim:

"However, they have many members that are religious and try to use their religion to promote their own, screwed up messages. "

I asked her where the evidence is for many AFL members who "are religious and use their religion to promote their own screwed up messages."

I asked her if she had evidence to back up this claim, and if she didn't if she would apologize for her erroneous assumption. 

I'm a religious individual, and I'm offended by religious scapegoating, particularly when it's the result of individuals twisting the facts for their own agendas.  Pointing this out to someone is not harassment. 

An act of harassment? Criticizing an erroneous and offense claim by an unbeliever on this forum, you want to label that harassment? Well you go ahead and do that. I don't know what that's suppose to mean. Are you trying to threaten me with censorship? by banning my account or something? If that's what you or someone who has the power to do, or desires to do then go ahead. It's a private forum, the owners and mods can censor and remove whatever individuals the want, including me, but that's up to them, and if that is their choice, than Jake speed. But trying to threaten me isn't going to get you too far. 

No silly it wasn't a threat. Someone can call me a "bitch" all they want, while they hide behind a computer, call it online courage, but it's not going to really elicit a reaction out of me. I said I hope him calling me a bitch, as well as you, was done in humor, because if it was done in anger, than I suggest he figure out what's wrong with him. There was nothing to get angry about, or start calling individuals a "bitch". If he was angry I'd believe that he has some issue that he himself needs to confront. 

And of course you, who earlier warned me of harassment, go and call me a bitch? Yea, I wonder what's worse, anything that I've said in my posts, or you going around calling people bitches? But whatever floats your boat buddy. 

But we warned, I'm considering this as an act of harassment.

If I saw that blog title, it would get me to go read it, because it would catch my eye and seem interesting, isn't that what titles are supposed to do?  What would you have the title of the blog be?  "The Christian members of the Animal Liberation Front upset me because they use their religiosity to help advocate violence?"  Please, go ahead and rename my blog for me if you think you can fit the entirety of what I am trying to say in less than ten words. 

I did not feel the need to because I think you know how to use the internet.  In case you forgot, here just click a few of these links.  Some of the stories I was talking about are listed here.  There are only a few examples; I could go on but please excuse me for having better things to do than cater to you, who calls me wrong for claims I never made.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Early%20Christian%20Vegetarians.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/XtiansandAnimalTesting.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Authors/Novels/JesusWasVegan.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/FaithGoesGreen.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/10CommandforAnimals.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/ReligiousQuotes.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Morality/Speciesism/ElephantsSuicide.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Christianity%20and%20the%20Rights%20of%20Animals.htm

I would list more but I am tired and I think you get the point. 

I believe you said this before, did you not?  I've answered your questions and now you are just trying to upset me.  Could you just leave me alone if you don't have anything else to discuss, please?

Correct, you could do that, but you hopefully would have read the entire blog and understood what I was trying to say.  Obviously, many people did not understand what I was saying and I apologize for that.  I do not blog often so I am not the best at expressing my thoughts.

I did not claim they were a strictly religious organization and I absolutely never claimed to represent the rational response squad or their views.  I can see how if you take offense to something I say, you can easily break it apart and find ways to argue that I made those statements.  However, I have expressed repeatedly that this was not my intention. 

I understand and meant no offense.

So I cannot speak to some of its members and state that I am upset by their use of religion? 

No, here are two of the articles I read.  http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Philosophy/Religion/Early%20Christian%20Vegetarians.htm http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Shop--ToDo/Religion/XtiansandAnimalTesting.htm

I never thought anyone would interpret my blog quite this way.  I guess it is an example of how easy it is to take one sentence out of context and use it to argue that someone said something they didn't. 

Uh, no I did call you a bitch. If you come in screaming like a bitch, I'll treat you like a bitch. This is not the "kill em with kindness board" so if you come in crying about one post scapegoating christians expect to run up against some less than PC atheists. I've read the christian boards on other sites so don't even think about comparing what I've seen atheists called. If you come in generalizing don't expect me to sit back and take it, online or on the street. I'm sick of religion getting a free pass and I don't mind saying so. I don't speak for anyone else here but I owe an apologize to K9sByte if I stirred up a hornets' nest. Sorry K9sByte.

However, if you had read the post more carefully and not gotten hung up on the heading you would have seen that it was not a blanket statement saying christians are bad. That's why I pointed out that organizations will use religion to legitamize acts of terrorism. "Many" is a subjective term so interpret it as you want to. I don't think most reasonable people will ask for stats unless you say a majority.

I even defended christians because I knew someone would mis-construe the heading and see it as an attack on christianity. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones if you apologize for your original post and I will do the same. If I recall you instigated the whole problem by saying the RRS was unable to tell their ass from their elbows.

If you have a problem with one post maybe you should direct your anger at the individual posting what you find offensive and leave the rest out of it. Don't expect most of the members here to stand by while atheists are derided as a whole and not stick up for our own. I am more than willing to stand up for the rights of individuals or groups I disagree with, but not for someone who is hypocritical. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your post.

I actually came to the original post expecting a defense of Animal Rights and the use of religion to justify the misuse of the natural world.   Silly me.   Sounds like you agree with all the 'holey' books that all animals were put here by god for mankind to slaughter, abuse and use as we see fit.

To try and justify the torture of one species for the benefit of another by wrapping it in some noble cause does not diminish the fact that it is still torture.  Doesn't matter how many kisses and hugs you give them before testing.   If you put lipstick on a pig its still a pig.  There is only one species whose extinction will benefit the planet and hopefully that will happen without the death of all the others.

After billions spent on the "War on Terror" the best the FBI can do is make ALF their #1 most wanted terrorist organization even though they have killed no one.  Probably burnt down one of John McCain's houses that was encroaching on Federal Land.  Since the government needs to justify all that money going down the toilet lets all buy into their slight of hand PR job by chasing the radical tree huggers (which they can't seem to actually catch) instead of the bomb-toting, bearded muslim hiding under the bed with the 1950s communists.   Maybe is they claim that Bin Laden stole a bunny we could put more resources into catching him.

Christians are "blind", ignorant and generally innocent to realizing the terrorising and child abuse they do. "Hey, little child, see this picture of this beaten man nailed to a cross , because God loves you .... and god is watching you ...."  Religion dogma sucks.

It's a deep problematic emotional issue, animal rights, abortion, the death penalty, war, etc .... of no escape soon. Can we think our way out of this mess? What other logical choice have we ?  Think.

A very well written blog post, and a good read.

Absolutely not.

Have you ever taken any medication, prescription or over the counter?  Would you receive life saving therapy if you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow?  Would you seek it out for a pet or a child of yours?  Then you are going to live longer because of animal research.  Personally, I wish it did not have to happen.  But until it is no longer necessary, I would like to be able to be there to ensure it is done in the most humane way possible.  I don't feel that animals belong to humans in any way.  They help humans and animals in countless ways every day.

I don't know if you read what I have written about animal research but if you did, you would understand that it is not torture and is only done in a humane manner.  Anything outside of that is illegal and is shut down not to mention completely wrong.

I'm sorry, was this a political conversation or an animal rights conversation? 

Ok....

I think they can harm and kill without implicating the ALF, since the group consists of many small groups who may or may not publicize their affiliation.  There are stories of the ALF killing people, but again due to the nature of the group, no charges can be pressed on ALF.

Their actions may severely harm the lives of the animals they "free" in many ways, including severe stress during transport, lack of consideration after release, and not providing for the animals after their release.  I know a friend who brought home a research cat after the study was over, without permission, and the cat ten years later is still fearful of everything in her home.  The cat was given the best of care during her time in the lab, and when removed from the lab, the cat was completely stripped of anything remotely familiar and never adapted.  This kind of reaction can be overcome in some cases, but given the amount of animals being "liberated" by ALF, I doubt they have the time to work with all of the animals to make them comfortable.

Also, every time they burn down or otherwise shut down a lab or animal facility, they severely impact the progress of medical research, having serious implications on human and animal lives in the long run.  I didn't even begin to think about all of the energy, money and jobs that can be lost from this as well.  My company alone must spend millions of dollars each year on security and not all of our buildings even have animal facilities. 

Then add the emotional impact on everyone to have to worry about security constantly, not to mention the effects of going back to work after your company has suffered a terrorist attack.

Tree-huggers???  I wish they were that docile!   Terrorists within the United States deserve the same as those outside of the country.  I wish I could have such a great sense of humor about this right now but forgive me for caring about animals and humans.

I've heard the "you've benefited from animal testing" line before.  I've also reaped the rewards of the genocidal destruction of indigenous people by white Europeans; the exploitation of impoverished people for the economic gain of richer, more powerful nations; war on behalf of the self-proclaimed righteous, and most likely even from religious institutions.     All this would imply that the end justifies the means; speciesism, racism, sexism, patriotism, nationalism.

"Ok....."   Does that mean you agree with me that the extinction of the human race would be good for the planet or are simply left speechless by the very idea?

I'm actually not a radical animal rights advocate but would be interested in links to the articles on ALF, or ALF-like affiliates, being implicated in the death of anyone.  My cursory searches came up blank.   Perhaps it was written up in Animal Dissector's Quarterly and I missed the article.

That was 'radical' tree-huggers.   One of the things that has died in America is a sense of humor.   Yes, I would laugh at an old lady slipping on a banana peel.   Maybe not appropriate or politically correct but funny just the same.   The South Park episode "Jared Has Aides" gives a good perspective.   When is it appropriate to have a good guffaw or mild snicker about something?

Despite your claim of a glorious, cuddly lifestyle I think very few research animals end up dieing from natural causes but more likely from their brains or livers being placed in a Cuisinart.   

This is all off-topic from your initial discussion of religion infiltrating the Animal Rights movement however which seems a bit of a stretch for me.  I might have agreed if you had compared the zealotry of ALF members to religious fundamentalist but that could be done of any organization operating on the fringes of a society.   Atheism seems to be viewed and treated in the same way by many members of the American public so it could also be used in the analogy.

I am curious (godless_too) if you draw in the sand a "phylogenetic line". Let me explain.

Somewhere in the vast taxonomy of the animalia, one of the five kingdoms of biological life, the process of meaningful "experience" of the world stops. We know that the animalia kingdom is the only taxa to possess the property that certain organisms under it have the capacity for experience. Thus, we do not feel particular ethical injuctions towards grass that we trod on, or bacteria that we destroy with antibiotics, or the mushrooms we harvest for truffle. These entities just mentioned do not have any meaningful capacity for experience of the world. It is meaningless to ask what it is like to be a plant, or to be a prized truffle. These things do not appear to have any biological structure which would allow any basis for experience, emotion, or pain of any sort.

Let me give you some background before I continue. Like the OP, I am a biomedical researcher. And like the OP, I employ animal testing as part of my job.

n molecular and cellular biology (my discipline), we use several organisms as study models for various taxonomies. We pick these "ideal organisms" because they are easy to study, and using homology and evolutionary biology, we can make inferences about other organisms which are harder to study. Thus, we have a "model organism" representing prokaryota, a model organism representing protozoa, several representing fungi (for mycologists), plants and animals. One should not draw the conclusion that these are necessarily the only organisms studied, just the most commonly studied organisms.

Thus, we use E. coli as the primary model of a prokaryotic organism, hence earning it the distinction of the most studied organism, and that which has the most known about it. For eukaryotic protozoa, we study the baker's yeast. For plants, the model organism used is the mustard weed. When we talk about "animal testing" we therefore refer to the three models used in study of the animal kingdom:

1. Mice

2. Fruit flies (Drosophila)

3. Humans

Let's return to the previous point. I could not imagine testing on, say, a chimpanzee or a dog. However, I have and continue to carefully breed fruit flies with eyes on their legs, or with non-functioning wings, or with developmental modules rotated along the long axis of their body. Why? A fruit fly has a brain no larger than a crumb of bread. It has absolutely no capacity for anything remotely resembling a meaningful, cognitive understanding of pain, suffering or emotion of any sort. I feel no more emotion at constructing these mutant fruit flies than I do carefully breeding plants with different colored leaves. Between the extreme of my examples of the dog and chimpanzee, which clearly have these things just mentioned, and the fruit fly, which clearly does not, lies a point (or perhaps a stretch, where the properties blur) in the animal taxonomy where these properties dissolve. This is what I mean when I ask the "phylogenetic line" you might draw. And please don't say you would draw no line among the animalia kingdom at all, unless you are prepared to articulate for me precisely what distinction you could make that would make it permissible to test a weed but not a sea sponge.

First off.   Thanks for making me look up the word phylogenetic.    Any day you learn something new is good day.

Any philosophical lines I have drawn in my life have only been to supply a personal reference point and never used to try and impose my ideas on anyone.   Also, the sharp, clear perspective that I had at 14 or 24 has, along with my eyesight, become blurry and more irresolute at 54.   I've gone from a vegetarian, atheist, optimistic teenager who knew everything and believed good would conquer evil to a vegetarian, atheist, cynical curmudgeon who realizes he knows very little and holds little hope for mankind as a whole.  

I've actually wrestled at times with the moral dilemma of personal responsibility in the death of bugs on my windshield or the reactionary swatting of a hungry mosquito.   Seemed too weird a concept to actually discuss with anyone outside of a Jain and I don't personally know any.  To even consider it a moral dilemma at all probably puts me out there with the people wearing aluminum foil hats.

In your blog you said: "and the simple fact that Christ was probably an invention formed from human imagination and similar hero stories." It has been proven that the man "Christ" actually DID exist by historians of that time period. Thats not the issue, the issue is whether Christ was the Son of God or not.

Another problem I saw, was that the AFL was using the Bible to justify their own seperate beliefs. NO where in the Bible does it say its a sin to eat meat. In the Old Testiment of the Bible, the Jews had rules and regulations against eating the flesh of an animal, but those were more set up to protect them from diseases since medicine was not as advanced as it is today. But it was considered a sin to disobey these rules, not by eating the meat though.

No it has not been proved!

There is no evidence of the thing you call god, hence whether christ was the 'Son of God' or not is moot.

But the point is who in their right mind would give a shit what 'rules' some goat herders 1000's of years ago set for all of humanity to follow?

"There is no evidence of the thing you call god, hence whether christ was the 'Son of God' or not is moot." ~  aiia

Yeah, as I put in others words with the question, WTF isn't gawed? (oxymorons) As far as some wise man existing makes no difference as to what gawed physics is, because everything is gawed, and therefore the god of abraham and all such theology separatism idol worship is retarded bogus bunk. Who ever the heck said "I am one with the cosmos father/mother" was simplistically correct, but religion dogma poison sure messed that dirt simple message up .....

Sue the Pope, tax the fuck out of the church conspirators. Charge the evangelists with terrorism and hate crimes ..... errrrrrrrr  .... umm who was that ancient, "my way or the highway" dude that called the praying worshipers hypocrites, blind, sick, ugly, vipers, snakes, satan's helpers, and verbally slammed hot headed peter, calling him satan as well  ..... ??? Sounds like a pretty atheistic ranter to me, myth or not. His name and actual existence is only important because of it's huge, mostly religiously negative impact on us. Amend your mentor(s).

I never respond to these forums; I am a reader not a writer.   I only wrote to this one to try and bring it back on-topic while you people have again managed to turn it into a rant on the existence of Christ.    There are a myriad of strings and forums out  there for you to express your opinions on the matter so why try and turn this into another one.

The point of her piece was in essence that the religious have infiltrated and taken over ALF and the radical elements of the Animal Rights Movement.   I am truly interested in the views of philosophers, atheists and the religious on animal rights, animal testing and speciesism.    Lets try and keep the topic in the ballpark.

Agreed, these threads wildly roam, but hey, so is the nature of communication .... you say , I say ....

Some people are saying that the internet and modern communication are interfering with our ability to focus.  Hold on my cell phone is ringing.  Perhaps concentrating on a single subject is simply beyond our abilities.   Wait, there is a break news announcement on TV.   Now, back to the subject of Spock, in episode 3, saying that Captain Kirk ....   What were we talking about again?

Spock -  http://tvsothertenpercent.tripod.com/startrek/spock.html

Hi K9sByte,

  First, I should note that I am an ethicist, and that one of my primary concerns within ethics is animal rights. So I'm heartened to see that you care about animals, and take care to ensure good lives for the ones in your care. But I find it very difficult to believe that you are unaware of the cruel treatment that most animals in the food, clothing, scientific, and entertainment industries face. Your level of naivete is actually rather incredible.

 You are, inarguably, kind to your animals - but you are an exceptional case. Kindness to animals is strictly a rarity in any industry that treats animals as things to be used. It is irresponsible to suggest that the majority of industry animals enjoy wonderful homes and lives, when so many are currently enduring inhumane treatment and conditions. You claim to care about animals; yet you do them a disservice by claiming that animal abuse is largely nonexistent. Such outright dismissal of an important moral issue is unacceptable, for the problem can only be fixed once it is acknowledged.

  I am amazed that you are willing to defend breeding facilities as a whole. Are you aware of the conditions at puppy mills? If not, read the news, for such horrors are well-publicized these days. These dogs go without medical care, sufficiently large cages, and adequate food and water. Many die before they even reach the pet stores for which they are bred. Further, there are currently tens of millions of stray dogs and cats roaming the United States, because there are simply not enough homes for them. It is absurd to continue to breed animals that are nearly guaranteed to end up homeless, starving, and vulnerable.

  When you mention "farms," I hope that you not are including factory farms in that category. They are notorious for refusing to follow even the most minimal standards of humane treatment for their animals. I have done extensive research on practices in factory farms - and even books that are not particularly sympathetic to animals do confirm that abuses occur (search through Cutting Into the Meatpacking Line by Deborah Fink). Factory farms utterly ignore the Humane Slaughter Act; they have no incentive to uphold it since the USDA refuses to penalize violations of the HSA. They are interested only in profit maximation; therefore, they accelerate the processing line to such a degree that animals do not always have time to die before they are skinned and dismembered. Sows are kept in breeding crates that are too small to allow for much movement; consequently, their leg muscles atrophy. Sows are often unable to walk by the time they are ready for slaughter - so they are sometimes dragged to the kill floor with a meathook through the cheek. When cows are unfortunate enough to get a leg stuck in the knocking box, the leg is simply sawed off of the terrified animal. Gail Eisnitz has done a comprehensive study - you can view her work in the book Slaughterhouse.

  If you doubt any of this, then I suggest that you undertake some research. That is, if you sincerely care about animals - as you claim to do.

  I take issue with your suggestion that genuine animal rights ethics is based on religion. Morality, as we both know, is totally independent of religion - and animal rights ethicists know this as well as anyone. In fact, religions such as Christianity set the stage for animal abuse by promoting the idea that animals are on Earth solely for the use of humankind - that they are unfeeling automatons to be treated as slaves and pieces of machinery. Which is exactly why animal rights activists often target Christians by, in effect, throwing the Bible at them. They are a crucial target audience because they are such a large and imposing group, and so widely influential in their views. Your assumption that the ALF is a Christian group is laughable - they are obviously using Christianity as a ploy to attract Christians.

  I myself target religious people in my activism. As an activist (in any field), you want to make sure that you are connecting with your audience, who will generally hold views very different from your own. You will use any means at your disposal - you will capitalize on any opportunity to exploit your audience's views to your advantage. This is part and parcel of shrewd strategization. If you were familiar with true activism - which is the act of working to promote a just cause - you would know this.

  Lastly, I must say that I (and my fellow animal rightists) resent any suggestion that the ALF or other extremist groups are representative of the animal rights movement as a whole. Your use of the term "animal rights terrorists" is appallingly disrespectful and bigoted since you intend it as a blanket term that describes the entirety of this large and diverse field. True animal rights ethicists condemn violent activism (such as those committed by the ALF) because it gives the movement a bad reputation and results in alienation, which is counterproductive to our cause. Animal rights ethics is an incredibly sophisticated, convoluted, and misunderstood field that should not be depicted in such simplistic terms. If you are interested in learning about the true nature of animal rights ethics, please read the literature by philosophers who are highly respected in this field - Peter Singer is an excellent place to start.

  From your faulty method of argumentation, I can see that you are not familiar with the principles of logic and reason that should govern a sound argument. It is therefore ironic that you are posting on a blog that extols the virtues of rational thought. Your post also reveals a distinct ignorance on both the subject of animal rights ethics and the subject of real-world conditions for industry animals. Please do your research before you post - especially when discussing an important moral issue that has implications for the lives and welfare of our fellow living beings.

  You were right about one thing: we are their voice. And we should use that voice responsibly.