Vegetarian Ideology Hate Mail Part 2

If you think you have heard it all, wait till you have read this page. Believe it or not, all this writing is from one person. The e-mailer claims to be she. As usual, there is no signature at the end of her posts. The e-mailer claims she needs anonymity for safety reasons. She also claims to be a Christian.

For the most part the text is complete. I had trouble keeping the story line together near the end as this e-mailer would send multiple messages to me a day.

I would like to point out a few things of note:

1. The writer's use of vulgarity and slurs (ie. cretan)

2. Missing facts, namely Dr. Shwartz is a Jew (if my memory serves not a follower of Christ. The late Dr. Spock is also not a good example for Chrsitians to follow.)

3. This so called Christian vegetarian neglected to engage my exegesis of Scripture at a number of points.

Here is it is enjoy.

=============================================================

Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 2:28 PM

Subject: Mr. Vantassel

I just came across your website because I was searching for what skunks like to eat, as I am feeding 3 young ones right now. Please don't lecture me on the rabies thing--most of the ones you have killed have had no disease......and you know it. People just like to dispose of nuisance wildlife and not be bothered with them so they make up crap to suit thier own tastes in order to better readily dispose of them.

I find your Anti-Christian Vegetarian sentiment disgusting and would like to tell you so. I would have had more respect for you had you picked someone that wasn't a fanatic with clearly non-biblical principles in their letter to argue with. You had to choose some nutcase though. Does no one argue with you that has any intelligence?

As a Christian who does not distort the Bible I have found many verses that are prone towards vegetarianism, but do not want to engage in LENGTHY PAGAN ARGUMENTS with you. For arguing is pagan and of course that must be one concept you know of that is firmly rooted in the Bible.

I choose to be vegetarian because it improved my health greatly in the last 3 years. It is environmentally damaging to eat meat, that is a fact. It is a healthier lifestyle to not eat meat , that is a fact. You say you have no proof of that, where have you been when all the doctors are stating this, including the deceased Dr. Spock? I don't worship animals and the environment, I worship Jesus every Wednesday at http://www.willowcreek.org

I know it would be wrong to focus on ANYTHING more than Jesus, as that would be idolatry.

I have respect for his animals and earth, that's all, no more, no less, and it causes me to act accordingly.

However, these are his creatures and they were not put here to be tortured. When they ate meat back in Biblical times, they were killed ONE ANIMAL AT A TIME. Perhaps you should read Gail Eisnitz' book "Slaughterhouse" (Amazon.com/Promethius Books Fall 1999--atlease read the reviews there)

and get a good grip on how meat is processed today. The animals are skinned alive alot of times, not killed humanely. The workers are injured alot, and all at deafening speeds to keep the line moving, keep the line moving and keep up with the MASS MEAT PRODUCTION needed by our society.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1573921661/qid=963339897/sr=1-5/002-9999961-6913661

This Meat God mentality in our society is hurting the animals, the environment and our health. God wants us to be healthy, our bodies are his temple. There was not the technology or great assortment of foods back then that there is now. Let's face it, there is PLENTY TO EAT NOWADAYS BESIDES MEAT. Animal based diets are not good for us. John Robbins "Diet for a new America" is good reading.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0915811812/o/qid=963340006/sr=2-1/002-9999961-6913661

My biggest argument towards you is philosophical at best, but still important. God gave you a brain to research the healthiest diet for yourself and he also entrusted this planet to you to protect and nurture, not destroy. If you research the evidence, you will be persuaded one way or the other, as the evidence is overwhelming against an animal based diet by people who are very very competent and many are doctors and scientists. You also have intuition and a heart...and use this to make decisions with--they are God's gift to you.

I'm sorry that you find it impossible to break away from meat after all the propaganda you have been fed and your parents shoving it down your throat every day of your life--but some of us have EVOLVED, realizing this is a very DIFFERENT WORLD than the one of Biblical times when animals were probably killed single file and humanely and food like we now know it wasn't that abundant.

I do not deserve for you to make fun of me by arguing with some fanatic misinformed nutcase on your website that is supposed to be representative of ME. I assure you he/she is not. And I will not go into the detail and great lengths you went to in order to make a point. You have no right to judge me for respecting God's creatures and the planet he gave me to live on. Or for adopting a healthier lifestyle, especially when heart disease runs in my family and my father died of it at the age of 55. I might be around to witness to more people and do his will longer with this lifestyle.

So, why should I do something I don't feel in my heart is right? The evidence against an animal based diet is OVERWHELMING.

===========================================================================

From: Stephen Vantassel Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 2:06 PM Subject: RE: Mr. Vantassel

To be frank, no one has given me Biblical reasons to be a vegetarian. Neither have you. I find it funny you didn't quote one verse. You also don't like to read very much. If you did you would have seen that I don't care whether you are a vegetarian or not. And better yet, neither does God. The kingdom of God as you should know isn't about Food. If you are too weak to eat meat then you shouldn't eat it.

If you also took the time to read some more, you would know that I don't agree with the claim that eating meat=killing the earth. You also would know that factory farming (whatever that is) is not supported by me. I found your arguments as silly as the others.

I also find it interesting that you don't even have the courage to put in your full name unless that is your name in the e-mail. By the way, have your pastor give me a call. I would love to talk to him about your theology. My phone number is below.

By the way, the disciples killed plenty of animals at once when they brought the fish up from the water in nets. Sorry, I think I heard your theology burst. Think of all those fish suffocating. Can you imagine the agony? I wonder why Jesus had them catch so many?

Feel free to write back. It is great to feel such love from a fellow Christian. By the way, arguing isn't pagan. It is Biblical read Jude and Read Galatians.

Knowing that you are worth more than a Billion animals,

P.S. Don't forget, there are more diseases with wildlife than rabies. But of course you knew that. Also I have killed hundreds if not thousands of animals that probably didn't have rabies. But of course you know the laws in Massachusetts. You want me to obey the law don't you? We aren't allowed to relocate problem wildlife. But of course you knew that didn't you?

Stephen Vantassel

Tuesday, July 11, 2000 4:10 PM

To: Stephen Vantassel

Subject: Re: Mr. Vantassel

Wow, you really are a bitter little man. No thanks, I don't get into your way of thinking. I'm not arguing with you at all. Have you ever been mistaken for an asshole?

I don't give out my name for privacy sake. That is the most you are getting from me. Argue with your wife and your dog.

=========================================================================

I replied,

I don't have a dog. I am also tired of so called Christians telling me what the Bible says and yet they never quote it. You still haven't quoted it. If my words are bitter, then you truly have lived a rather sheltered life. Wait until you start witnessing about Jesus. YOu will find bitterness. That is if you are indeed a Christian.

Don't forget. I am still waiting to hear from your pastor. I would love to have a conversation with him.

Also, I still believe that you are worth more than a billions animals. This is despite the fact that you use crude language. As for being called an A hole. Absolutely. I have been called worse too.

Glad you were able to show such Christian Love. It is good to see it here on the internet.

=============================================================================

She replied,

Don't send me anymore e-mail. You are such a shallow person. You assume alot, but know nothing. I spend alot of time witnessing, but I don't wish to discuss ANYTHING further with the likes of you, ok? I'm sorry you don't have a doggie to argue with. I shouldn't have expected respectful conversation from the likes of a person who decapitates perfectly healthy skunks to dissect thier heads for rabies... and, if you don't, please--just keep it to yourself--you like to argue--arguing is something we are not supposed to do. Perhaps you don't experience love from people because of the way you talk to them. Perhaps you should take a business communications course or something at your local college.

Again, please don't respond. I don't care to argue with you. I am not going to bother to show you the verses, because it is OVERWHELMINGLY OBVIOUS from your tone and manner that you wouldn't believe God gave us a brain to make calculated hypothesis about our food choices and the environment if your brain screamed at you that it wanted to learn, but that you and your stubborn stupidity are stifling it from doing so. Don't read the books I suggested........no problem......you are stubborn and stupid.....stubborn and stupid.......stubborn and stupid.......while the world falls apart around you and people in Africa scramble for kernels of corn from a food bank plane--you sit and defend the cattle God in America.............Satan has you just where he wants you. You are in denial and selfishly missing the point..though plenty of loving brothers and sisters in Christ point that out to you.

But, you would rather dwell on thier faults.......when you know that only Jesus is perfect.

I feel sorry for you. Clog your arteries. There are no verses in the Bible that are either FOR OR AGAINST MEAT. And they are all in the old testament. Things are ALOT DIFFERENT now than in those days wouldn't you say? Or will you let your mind acknowledge even that before being defensive? The things that were written in the Old Testament were for the men and women of the day, of that time...except the book of Daniel which is modern day prophecy.

Jesus would not have condoned massive factory farms or cruelty to animals. Dominion does not mean cruelty. Nor would he have condoned a diet that clogs your arteries and leads to heart disease.

COMMON SENSE TELLS US THAT. SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO QUIT QUOTING OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES AND LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING ON AROUND YOU AND RESEARCH IT AND THEN COME TO A HYPOTHESIS AND CONCLUSION WITH THE BRAIN GOD GAVE YOU.

Animal based diets are not healthy. Had Jesus lived today he would have condemned the way things are done nowadays and there is no way he would have rallied for a meat based diet, when it meant the detriment of our environment and people starving and the greed and corruption of the Meat Association is never ending. But, that's okay, spew out your old testament scriptures and live in the 100 A.D. era and ignore what is going on to your brethren in the year 2000 and the planet that the Lord entrusted you to keep well.

My conscience is clear--and I'll bet my arteries are alot healthier than yours. I wouldn't waste my breathe arguing with someone so hell-bent on disproving a compassionate diet.

I haven't ate animals for 3 years and I am alive and healthy and my mind is unclouded and I feel so much better than I did 3 years ago. And now I am on my way to worship the Lord in his house and I don't care if the Pastor of my church believes as I do......people will evolve eventually...... I don't ask the Pastor of my church to take time away from God's will for him to mouth off to people like you. He eats meat. I don't condemn him or you for it. You shouldn't for your own good though and for the good of the environment....but, I won't argue with you about it. I have heard the stupidest statements while arguing with people. Arguing is pagan and if you weren't so busy spending your time doing it--you'd know that.

Try some veat. Its delicious. You cannot even tell the difference between it and chicken except that it doesn't have residues of all the crap they shot the chicken up with or growth hormones, etc. and it is cruelty free. There are wonderful meat substitutes on the market and scientist and dieticians are now knowing the benefits of soy in your diet to prevent heart disease and cancer. http://www.veat.com/products.html

=============================================================================

She responds again,

I am worth more than a billion animals to the Lord, does this mean I should be uncompassionate towards them? Tease, taunt, maim and kill them? What's your point...duh

============================================================================

She responds again,

thought this would just make your day--God's creatures bring such joy to my heart also......oh thats right, you cut off thier heads and dissect them....oops I forgot.(Picture of woman holding and kissing her pet skunk)

========================================================

I responded,

You still haven't answered the question about Jesus murdering fish!

========================================================

She responded,

Please go see a shrink as soon as possible. I eat fish. I'd eat you but I'm afraid I couldn't crap out that much bullshit. Here are some verses from the Bible that do not prove you shouldn't eat meat, but mean something to me............because my brother is stumbling and falling because instead of legumes and vegetables being raised and there being food for everyone, there is only food for some......and here in America it is MEAT GLUTTONY.

=========================================================

I responded,

You still haven't answered the issue about Jesus killing animals. You also have created straw men by arguing against me things I never condoned. You must be angry with someone else.

==========================================================================

She responded,

The Bible doesn't say word for word that Jesus killed animals........if you wish to interpret it that way because you are too WEAK to abstain from eating meat and need an excuse, go right ahead. As for fish, I eat fish. I just don't eat anything that cries out in pain and agony.........because it isn't good for my health and it isn't neccessary...... WOULD YOU MIND TAKING A LONG WALK OFF A SHORT PIER? DO YOU HAVE A MENTAL ILLNESS WHEREBY YOU HAVE TO ARGUE WITH PEOPLE?

I THINK SO. I feel sorry for your wife, you are definitely the CONTROL FREAK

=============================================================

I responded,

AGain you like to create straw men. This shows your lack of integrity and honesty. You are arguing with someone other than me.

==========================================================

She responded,

Aquaint yourself with what is in your "meat".............(Toxicology report on the dust that is sprayed on cattle in feedlots)

========================================================

She responded,

Gee, I thought of you tonight at communion, when the Pastor served a wedge of a veal cutlet for us to remember Jesus by..........NOT~! Give us this day our daily BREAD.......................

She responded,

Dead zone burden placed on farmers

January 28, 1999 Web posted at: 4:15 PM EST

By Environmental News Network staff

Every spring and summer, nitrogen from agricultural fertilizer washes down the Mississippi River and into the northern Gulf of Mexico. The nutrient-rich waters trigger a bloom of algae which strips the water of oxygen Scientists studying the 7,000-square-mile 'dead zone' in the Gulf of Mexico have placed much of the blame on fertilizer runoff from American farms. Only changes in farming practices, they say, will help alleviate the hypoxic area.

Scientists estimate that to eliminate the hypoxic zone in the gulf -- an area that cannot sustain life because it has too little oxygen -- the United States should reduce the amount of excess nitrogen flowing into the Gulf by 20 percent or more. Much of this burden would be placed on farmers.

The dead zone doesn't actually kill any fish, because they are able to swim away from the area. However, other types of sea life, such as starfish and sea anemones, may not be able to escape and may die.

Although other hypoxic zones exist -- in the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, Chesapeake Bay and New York Bight -- the Gulf of Mexico is unique. Because the Gulf of Mexico is open to ocean currents, unlike other enclosed seas, scientists think that the problem can be corrected

Otto Doering, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University, believes that farmers can use a variety of methods to cut the flow of excess nitrogen by 20 percent to 25 percent without hurting food prices or farm exports.

He presented his findings Jan. 23 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim, Calif.

Farmers aren't completely to blame, said Doering. Huge amounts of nitrogen are found naturally in the air, in the soil and in living organisms, and all of these contribute to the nitrogen moving down the Mississippi. "If farmers stopped putting nitrogen on the fields today, we would still get nitrogen leaking out of the system," Doering says.

But he quickly adds that agriculture doesn't get off the hook. "Agriculture still has to be concerned about all of this," he says. "Municipalities and industries release a total of 270,000 metric tons of nitrogen per year into streams and rivers, and the excess nitrogen delivered just to the gulf is 1.5 million tons per year. So agriculture, which uses 6.5 million metric tons of nitrogen a year, is clearly the major player."

Doering believes farmers could reduce nitrogen runoff by 20 percent if they stopped fertilizing in the fall and if major wetlands were restored along the Mississippi River watershed.

Doering says that wetlands have their own economic benefits for those living near them. "There is increased wildlife habitat, more hunting opportunities, water quality improvements, things that are very direct in the basin where the wetlands are," he says. "With wetlands the benefits accrue, if not to the farmer, at least to his immediate neighbors. That makes a certain amount of wetland reconstruction an attractive component of reducing nitrogen loss."

"We found that you can adjust farm practices and reduce nitrogen losses by about 20 percent without causing serious dislocation in agriculture," Doering says. "Beyond that, there is serious disruption in terms of high food prices, an increasing drop in exports, and a loss of farmland."

For more information, contact Otto Doering, Purdue, (765)494-4226, email: doering@agecon.purdue.edu.

============================================================

She responded,

and you claim you don't feel it has an impact on the environment: This is Our Lord's Earth, we were entrusted to take care of it...........

24-Mile Break Occurs in Antarctic Ice Shelf; Global Warming May Be Cause By Curt Suplee

Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, April 19, 1998; Page A17

(Editor's note htis is where she sends me the full article. Copyright laws prevent my publishing it here. )

============================================

She responds again,

H1>Global warming may harm human health</H1>November 16, 1998

Web posted at: 2:10 PM EDTBy Environmental News Network staff

(Editors note, this is another article.)

Climatic changes related to global warming could foster

dangerous outbreaks of cholera, dengue fever and malaria,

according to a report released recently by World Wildlife Fund.

Children and the elderly would be particularly vulnerable.

============================================

She responds again with another article,

Date: Sun, 8 Oct 1995 00:51:46 -0400 From: Larry London To: sustag-public@amani.ces.ncsu.edu

Subject: Stop the Hogs (fwd) Newsgroups: misc.rural Organization: SunSITE at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

Status: RO

------- start of forwarded message -------

Newsgroups: misc.rural From: Eric Carlson Subject: Stop the Hogs Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 22:37:13 GMT

Lines: 315 Please send responses to: ecarlson@midway.uchicago.edu

Hogs versus Humans Internet Emergency Alert!

Please help save our land!

(Editor's note, this is yet another article. This one on the perils of pig farming).

=========================================================

=======================Electronic Edition========================

She reponds again, With yet another article.

. RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY #636 . . ---February 4, 1999--- .

. HEADLINES: .. DIOXINS--THE VIEW FROM EUROPE .. ========== .

. Environmental Research Foundation .

. P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403 .

. Fax (410) 263-8944; E-mail: erf@rachel.org .

. ========== .

She responds again with another article.

(Dozens of meat recalls) have you seen the Meat Inspectors Website? Even they say you should read Gail Eisnitz

Book "Slaughterhouse" thier url is below.....Published Monday, December 14, 1998

http://www.ginetworks.com/~alans/index.html

Meat Inspectors Say New System Flawed

Des Moines (AP) -

Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7:28 See my works, how fine and excellent they are! Now all that I have created, for you have I created. THINK upon this and DO NOT corrupt and desolate MY WORLD, for if you corrupt it, there is no one to set it right after you. http://cnn.com/US/9901/16/calamity/link.book. http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/ncfs/referenc.htm January 16, 1999 Web posted at: 11:11 p.m. EST (0411 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Disaster awaits the planet as it approaches the millennium, the Worldwatch Institute predicts in its annual State of the World report. But the environmental researchers see a possible economic boom for governments and companies that work to head off social and ecological collapse. Avoiding calamity "represents the greatest investment opportunity in history," says Lester R. Brown, who founded the institute in 1974. He points to growing efforts to recycle raw materials in several industries, and development of alternative energy sources, particularly wind power. The former U.S. agricultural official and New Jersey farmer cites an effort by a large Atlanta, Georgia-based corporation, Interface, to lease and recycle industrial carpets. Interface chief Ray Anderson shares Brown's concerns but says, "The marketplace is not really ready for it yet." His book, "Mid-Course Correction," urges new industries that return "every valuable molecule" for possible use again. Without a new economy based on renewable resources, the current rapid deforestation, falling water tables and accelerating climate change could undermine economies around the world during the next century, says Brown. Worldwatch plans to release its annual report Sunday as "a roadmap to a sustainable economy" for the next century. 1998 disasters displaced 300 million, say researchers Millions have been displaced by flooding The past year saw a record increase in the average global temperature, record losses from storms and floods, and 300 million people -- more than the population of North America -- displaced by natural disasters. The worst disasters took place in China, Bangladesh and Central America. "We would not have been surprised if 1998 was warmer," says Brown. "What we didn't expect was that it literally would go off the chart." The global average temperature increased 0.2 degrees Celsius or more than 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit. That sounds small, but if the trend continues into the next century, major global climate disruption is expected. On the bright side, the report notes huge percentage increases in electricity from the wind and the sun. Wind power has increased an average of 25.7 percent a year and solar power 16.8 percent a year since 1990. Renewable energy sources still represent only 19 percent of energy use, however, with the bulk from coal, oil or natural gas. Report: Wind power in 3 states could light the U.S. Wind power now provides 7 percent of Denmark's electricity, 23 percent in northern Spain. The report says just three U.S. states, North and South Dakota and Texas, could harness enough wind to light up the country. A major question, according to one Worldwatch analyst, is which countries will lead in the new technologies. Germany is a leader in developing the $2 billion wind power industry, and Japan leads in use of solar energy, he says. Oil and water consumption cannot continue to grow indefinitely, he says. Worldwatch researcher David Roodman, a senior researcher and co-author of the report, estimated in a preliminary study that world governments waste more than $650 billion each year to subsidize activities that harm the environment. The report cites predictions made by "futurists" in the 1890s for this century. They correctly predicted widespread use of electricity and telephones but thought pollution would end and had no inkling of the birth control pill, the Internet, two world wars, nuclear weapons or the specter of "a billion people struggling just to survive," the report says. World population growth is slowing. But at the current rate, it will surpass 6 billion people this year and 9 billion by the middle of the next century. Critics say modern economic changes have solved human problems, not created them. "If the 20th century is any guide, the 21st century looks quite rosy indeed. Any indices you look at, whether it's human mortality, life expectancy, caloric intake, any tangible measure of human well-being shows that the world is becoming a healthier, safer, better-fed place than it was before," says Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute. 12/98 In an environment charged with election-year politics, the U.S. Congress and Bill Clinton have bestowed on American agriculture one weird $6 billion agricultural aid package. "Weird," you ask? But having $3 billion of the $6 billion package going to every grower who planted feedgrains, wheat, cotton and rice and who signed Freedom To Farm production flexibility contracts raises questions that American agriculture will have a hard time explaining. That $3 billion is delivered in the form of a 50% boost in their 1998 market transition payments. They get the bonus regardless of yields or market price received. The fact that the National Cotton Council successfully lobbied to make sure the bonus was not counted against the $40,000 farm program payment limitation signals that some big farms expect some big checks. --------------------------------------------------- Who's Afraid Of Genetic Engineering? The treaty's main goal is to protect plants and animals from extinction. And their benefits are legion. By increasing crop yields, genetically modified organisms reduce the constant need to clear more land for growing food. Seeds designed to resist drought and pests are especially useful in tropical countries, where crop losses are often severe. Other genetically modified organisms covered by the proposed regulations are essential research tools in medical, agricultural and environmental science. If imports like these are regulated unnecessarily, the real losers will be the developing nations. Their countries could suffer greatly for years to come. It is crucial that they reject the propaganda of extremist groups before it is too late. First published November 1998. ------------------------------------------------------ Scott Baucum, Monsanto's intellectual property protection manager, says when farmers illegally pirate patented biotech seed such as Roundup Ready soybeans and cotton or Bollgard cotton, everyone loses. "Monsanto invests many years and millions of dollars in biotechnology research to bring growers new technologies sooner rather than later," Baucum says. ------------------------------------------------========================================================================

She responds again

Tuesday, July 13, 1999 *Letter to the Editor Re: Book Reviews, "Is God a Vegetarian?" Dear Animals' Agenda, I was delighted to see your book review of "Is God a Vegetarian?" by Alan Young in your July/August 1999 Issue. I went to a seminar on Animal Rights by Tom Regan at Northern Illinois University a few years ago and he insinuated that animal rights activists Were almost all pro-choice. I had to go down to the podium afterwards and tell him that isn't neccessarily true. I find it to be more true that many Christians are opposed to vegetarianism. I am a Christian and a vegetarian. Our Church finds us to be a bit "new age" because of it. My daughter and I have tried to educate the Christian School that she has gone to for nine years on animal issues. I used to blame them for thinking that way...but then I noticed how much "new age" agenda is offered in the Natural Stores along with meat substitutes. Free magazines offering New Age "Churches" with concepts that definitely aren't biblical. I wrote to Peta about thier "Jesus was a vegetarian" campaign and found it offensive. I do not find Mr. Young's approach offensive, though I haven't read his book--I will soon. I whole heartedly agree with his compassion approach. The reason I don't find it offensive to the Bible is because it doesn't make the statement that Christ was a vegetarian as a fact. It asks Christians to do some deep reflections and considerations that things were a little different then, compared to the atrocities of factory farming now...the Earth was a little {ahem} purer and it goes right along with my personal beliefs, which are really quite simple actually, that IF God made this Earth, and IF it all stemmed from the Garden of Eden {where animals and fruit resided} and IF God made these sentient beings and put them along side us--then, IF we call ourselves Christians who believe in God and accept Christ as our savior and accept the fact that we are sinners and that evil prevails in this world, we ought to listen to that little voice inside of our head that is our conscienc--of which the Bible says every man has one--and extend compassion and love to every living thing. Just because you have to read about them and don't actually see the horror in thier lives doesn't mean you can disregard it. God has also given us another wonderful thing to convict us along with our consciences called an imagination. To be able to place yourself in that living creature's body and feel it's pain. I need to condense this letter to leave room for someone else to write, but I would like to add that the Bible says it is never right to do something in a gluttonous manner that will cause a brother to stumble. Animal factories are contributing to methane gasses and depleting the ozone and people in Australia are suffering skin cancer, The Ice Shelves are melting, people are dying of asthma {pollution} related illnesses from "ozone alert" days, not to mention cancer. Scientists have proven that a diet minimized/devoid of animal products is healthier. Our brothers and sisters in Christ do not have enough food to eat around the world due to animal farming practices. Instead they are hurled corn onto a dirt grocery cart by Food Planes in the Sudan and they all fall down to thier knees and grovel for a grain of corn, while cattle are fattened up all over the world on land that could be used to raise something fruitful to supply us with meat that we don't even need to eat. The cow is pumped full of antibiotics to keep it healthy yet some humans lack medical care. $$$. Yes, when we return to Eden someday when Christ consumates history with his return and we are sitting in front of the tree of life in the new Jerusalem......where will all the factory farms and slaughterhouses be in this scenario? Then why would we even think this was a practice condoned/sanctioned by our God? I will conclude this letter by saying I heard a very good minister on a radio program that was advocating vegetarianism and I was looking deeply for some substance with which to convict my beliefs {because the Bible says we are convicted by our beliefs} and I found it--It was as if God had spoke to me personally through her. She said that though there are several verses in the Bible which state that it is acceptable to eat meat...it also says that NOT EVERYTHING THAT IS PERMISSABLE IS GOOD. It is in the NIV Bible in 1 Corinthians 10 verse 23 and 24. "Everything is permissable--but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissable--but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. And there are other verses relating to meat that I cannot list because I have to wrap this up. And then there is that commandment thing: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Does that say just humans? Wake up to a higher consciousness brothers and sisters in Christ--lest you get CJD. Sincerely, P.S. I tried to condense this but I have so much to say on this issue and it all is really a one piece kind of thing. P.S.S. Note to Kim Stallwood, I'm sure Honey will be there over the rainbow bridge! =============================================================================
=======================================================================

She responds again,

I admire this man.......he thinks.......a thinking Christian.......yes, God did give us a brain.

Monday, August 23, 1999

Re: Larry Kaiser review of "Is God a Vegetarian?" by Richard Alan Young in the Animals Agenda Magazine July/August 1999.

From: Letters to the Editor {I wrote one also remarkably similar to this one}

Food of the Gods

I was pleased to see the very thoughtful review by Larry Kaiser of "Is God a Vegetarian?" by Richard Alan Young {Vol. 19, No.4, p. 37}. As the review stressed, the key consideration is not what happened in the past, but what diet God would prefer today under current factory farming conditions.

Based on this valuable insight, I believe that the following questions are paramount and can be used to effectively start respectful dialogues with people and groups that take religious values seriously:

Since religions regard the preservation of health as a religious command of the highest importance, could God possibly want people to eat animal products when such foods have been strongly linked to heart attacks, strokes, various types of cancer, and other diseases?

Since "God's tender mercies are over all of His creatures" {Psalms 145:9} would God favor the consumption of meat when it involves raising animals under cruel conditions in crowded cells, where they are denied fresh air, exercise, and any satisfaction of their instinctual needs?

Since "the earth is the Lord's" {Psalms 24:1}, could God favor modern intensive animal agriculture, which contributes significantly to soil depletion and erosion, air and water pollution related to the widespread production and use of pesticides, fertilizer, and other chemicals, loss of biodiversity, destruction of tropical rain forests and other habitats, and global warming?

Since the Bible teaches that we should not waste or unnecessarily destroy anything of value, could God favor animal-based diets, which require more energy and water, and far more pesticides, fertilizer, and other resources than vegetarian diets?

Since, as Isaiah states {58:7}, we are to share with hungry people, could God favor a diet that involves the feeding of more than 70 percent of U.S. grain to animals destined for slaughter, while 20 million people die annually due to hunger and its effects?

Since we are to "seek peace and pursue it" {Psalms 34:15}, could God support a diet that perpetuates poverty, which leads to instability and war?

In view of the above and much more, how can any person who takes religion seriously not be a vegetarian? And how can we use these concepts to more effectively challenge religious establishments on the many moral issues related to diets?

Written by Richard H. Schwartz, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus, College of Staten Island Staten Island, New York

===========================================================================

She responds again,

Rainforest Destruction: What's Meat Got To Do With It?

"I have no doubt that it is part of the gradual destiny of the human race in its gradual development to leave off the eating

of animals." - Henry David Thoreau

Everyone knows that the rainforests are disappearing, but few realize how rapidly and how their food choices play a key role. Since 1945, half of the world's rainforests have been burned, bulldozed, and mined into oblivion. Each day, 140,000 acres of tropical forest are demolished, 8 acres every few seconds, and 50 to 150 different species become extinct. In fifty years, mining, logging, oil, cattle, and banking interests have destroyed what has taken nature hundreds of millions of years to create. At the current rate of devastation, the rainforests of the world will be completely leveled in another fifty years.

A world without rainforests is unsustainable for complex life forms. The rainforests deliver oxygen to the air, stabilize climates, and they regulate humidity, wind, and convection patterns. Although only 7% of the earth's total area, the rainforests provide a lush abitat for 50% of all animal and plant species, and a home for many indigenous peoples. They yield a rich bounty of fruit, nuts, spices, gums, and medicinal compounds; while rainforest plants have already provided cures for many diseases, only 1% of them have been studied. The rainforests are the oldest and the most diverse ecosystems on this planet.

Left standing, trees absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. Burned or chopped down, they release concentrated amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, undermining the ozone layer. There is a growing consensus among the world's scientists that we are indeed in a new epoch of earth history: the Age of Global Warming.

The evidence of global warming is visible everywhere: unprecedented heat waves and drought, super-ferocious storms, a dramatic rise in skin cancer rates, the breaking up of the Antarctic Ice Shelf, and increased pests and diseases.While corporations like Mitsubishi, Arco, Texaco, and Honshu Paper are the main culprits in deforestation, every person who consumes meat also plays a role. One of the principle reasons for deforestation is to provide grazing ground for cattle. In terms of global warming, this means that enormous amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere. The grazing of cows and other ruminant animals also causes the emission of two other major ozone destroying gases: nitrous oxide (in fertilizer) and over a hundred million tons of methane gas a year -- which some scientists see as becoming the primary global warming gas in the next 50 years.

Americans eat more beef than any other country in the world, consuming 32% of the total production. Meat-eaters are not only destroying their own health by consuming these toxic products, they are contributing to numerous other problems such as world hunger (the land needed to feed cattle is 20 times the amount needed to feed people), the expropriation of people from their lands (used to graze cattle), the destruction of human and animal habitat, and the aggravation of global warming. Experts estimate that every person who switches to a pure vegetarian (vegan) diet saves an acre of trees every year.

Before biting into the next hamburger, one might consider the real cost -- 55 square feet of rainforest, 12 pounds of grain, and 2500 gallons of water. I for one believe that the earth and its teeming life forms are worth much more than fast food chains and Big Macs. The best way to care for the environment is to become a vegetarian; to be consistent in one's beliefs, an environmentalist must also be a vegetarian.

Steve Best, UTEP, Departments of Humanities and Philosophy

============================================================================

WHERE ALL THE FACTORY FARMING RUNOFF RUNS TO?

It can stretch for 7,000 square miles off the coast of Louisiana, a vast expanse of ocean devoid of the region's usual rich bounty of fish and shrimp, its bottom littered with the remains of crabs and worms unable to flee its suffocating grasp. This is the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone," which last summer reached the size of the state of New Jersey.

Alarmed, the White House recently commissioned six teams of scientists to begin the first large-scale study of the area, hoping for a remission or cure. The dead zone, researchers say, is emblematic of the growing ills suffered by the planet's seas. Earlier this month, hundreds of scientists, marking 1998 as the international Year of the Ocean, warned that unless action is taken, overfishing, coastal development, and pollution will multiply the kinds of problems that already plague the gulf. The trouble with the dead zone is that it lacks oxygen, scientists say, apparently because of pollution in the form of excess nutrients flowing into the gulf from the Mississippi River.

Animals in this smothering layer of water near the bottom of the sea must flee or perish. "You can swim and swim and not see any fish," said Dr. Nancy Rabalais, a marine scientist at Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium who has dived in the zone. "Anything that can't move out eventually dies."

While scientists have yet to measure the impact of the zone on fishing yields, fishermen say they already feel its effects as they are forced to travel ever farther to escape the zone's barren limits. "This is a very serious issue," said Jim Giattina, director of the Gulf of Mexico Program office at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. Giattina said the gulf boasts an annual catch of 1.7 billion pounds of fish and shellfish, worth $26 billion. "We've seen what can happen in other places in the world," he said.

"We don't want to see a collapse of this fishery." In fact, researchers say, the problem of rising nutrient loads and accompanying decreases in oxygen, known as hypoxia, is becoming ever more common in the coastal waters of the United States.

"Hypoxia in the gulf is a dramatic case," said Dr. Don Scavia, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coastal Ocean Program and overseer of the ongoing scientific assessment, "but it's symptomatic of what's happening coastally." More than half of the estuaries in the country experience oxygen depletion during the summer, he said, and a third experience a complete loss of oxygen.

Dr. Rabalais and her team have led the research efforts to date on the dead zone, also known as the hypoxic, or low-oxygen, zone. She and others involved in the new research initiative by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy presented their latest findings in December at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in San Francisco.

The scientists trace the trouble to high levels of nutrients, in particular nitrogen, that flow out of the Mississippi and into the gulf. As in other coastal areas, these rich stores of nutrients feed algal populations which explode during the summer, producing oxygen, as all plants do. This oxygen stays near the gulf's surface. However, these blooms eventually fall to the ocean floor. When bacteria begin decomposing the dead algae, they deplete the oxygen from the ocean bottom, sometimes to the point where none is left. At the same time, the lighter fresh water flowing in from the river forms a discrete layer on top of the heavier, salty gulf waters, keeping oxygen in the air from reaching and refreshing the hypoxic zone near the bottom of the sea.

Among the most compelling pieces of evidence are the maps researchers have made since 1985 of the hypoxic zone. Scientists measure the zone each summer, when it reaches its peak. Dr. Rabalais carries out the work along with her colleague and husband Dr. R. Eugene Turner, who is director of the Coastal Ecology Institute at Louisiana State University and who discovered the zone in 1974.

In 1993, the team witnessed a grand natural experiment as the American Midwest was deluged and the Mississippi flooded, pouring huge amounts of nutrient-rich runoff from waterlogged cities and agricultural lands into the gulf. That summer the hypoxic zone doubled in size.

In contrast, 1988 was the year of a great drought in the Midwest, Turner said, and "the hypoxic zone was almost absent," adding: "That clearly shows the influence of the river is dominant." The team of researchers has gathered corroborative evidence from mud cores taken from the seabed of the hypoxic zone, studying algal and animal remains in the cores that are dated using radioisotopes.

From these Turner and colleagues have been able to infer the relative levels of algae and oxygen in the gulf for the past 200 years. They found an increase in the amount of algae deposited, as well as a decrease in the animals that require high levels of oxygen and an increase in those that can tolerate low levels, such as microscopic, one-celled creatures known as foraminifera.

The timing of the changes, said Turner, matches well the times of known increases in nutrients in the river, with levels lowest early in the century and striking increases since the 1950s. The timing also matches large increases in fertilizer use, suggesting farming as a key source of nitrogen in the river. In addition, a U.S. Geological Survey study estimated that more than half of the nitrogen reaching the gulf appears to come from agricultural sources.

But farm fertilizers are not the only likely culprit. A report released in December by the Senate Agriculture Committee estimated that 1.37 billion tons of manure was produced by livestock in the United States last year alone, much of it making its way to the sea. Despite the evidence, scientists remain reluctant to blame the dead zone entirely on farmers. "We're all fairly convinced that it's going to be agriculture that's going to have to kick in and change to some degree to make a big difference," said William Battaglin, hydrologist at the Geological Survey, in Denver, and part of a team tracking the sources of nitrogen in the Mississippi River Basin. "But we don't want to point the finger at the farmer unless we're absolutely sure. He's the one that's going to suffer." Agriculture, researchers are quick to note, is not the only source of nitrogen in the river, which drains 31 states from Montana to New Mexico to New York, including nearly every state between the Rockies and the Appalachians. Sewage treatment waste water, industrial wastes, and atmospheric pollutants all contribute nitrogen to the Mississippi.

At the same time, difficult questions remain. Despite the significantly decreased flow of the Mississippi since the great flood of 1993, the dead zone has grown to essentially the same size every summer. But Dr. Rabalais says there may be explanations for that. Theoretical models predicted a large dead zone in 1994, the first year after the flood, and every year since then the gulf has been hit with either floodwaters or pulses of water from the river at just the right time to boost growth of the algae, making it impossible to say with absolute certainty that the flood of 1993 caused the explosive growth of dead zone. "I haven't had a normal year since 1994," Dr. Rabalais said. "The gulf is an uncontrolled experiment."

In addition, researchers say that while the growth of algae and

the hypoxic zone appear to be controlled largely by nitrogen,

complicating roles are now known to be played by silica from

rocks and phosphorus from municipal waste waters and fertilizers.

But their influence remain less well understood.

Another risk with increasing nutrient loads is an increase in harmful

algal blooms, like those seen with Pfisteria and Pseudo-nitzschia,

the algae causing amnesic shellfish poisoning, an illness that can result

in permanent memory loss. Dr. Quay Dortch, an oceanographer at

the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, said she has already

found blooms of toxic Pseudo-nitzschia in the gulf.

"These are the highest concentrations of this organism registered

anywhere," Dr. Dortch said of the Pseudo-nitzschia found in the

plume of the Mississippi. She said they reach their peak when the

river's flow into the gulf peaks. To her surprise, there has been

no documented harm so far to humans from these blooms,

leaving Pseudo-nitzschia in the gulf "a potential threat."

Though researchers agree that cutting the levels of nutrients in

the river is the way to tame the hypoxic zone, the best method

to do so remains unclear.

For example, Scavia said, though much of the nitrogen appears

to be coming from the middle Mississippi, a region including

Illinois and parts of Iowa, that region may not be the best one to

try to control first. "It's pretty far from the gulf," he said. "It may

be more appropriate and feasible to control lesser loads in other places."

Until researchers know more, Scavia and others say they are working

to find changes that benefit farmers and the gulf. For example,

Giattina said, farmers could turn riverside land into wetland

reserves, receiving compensation at the same time that they

create a buffer that reduces the nutrient load draining out of

the area. Such federal and state programs to protect riverside

land are now being considered in a number of areas that have

water quality problems linked to agriculture.

In the meantime, each summer brings on a new dead zone that

blots out vast stretches of ocean, driving away fish, shrimp, and the people searching for them.

Cynthia Sarthou, campaign director for the Gulf Restoration

Network, in New Orleans, said: "If there was a dead zone 6 to

7,000 square miles in the middle of Iowa, people would sit up

and take notice. This is a problem that needs to be solved." [to the New Orleans Times Picayune's The Dead Sea

article in the Oceans of Trouble series]

This editorial was posted on the World Wide Web at: http://search.nytimes.com/partners/iib/services/bin/fastweb?

getdoc+iib-site+iib-site+76+0+wAAA+Fishing

==========================================================================

Why shouldn't I eat meat????????????????

EnvironMinute Water Scripts

Chicken Farms

May 27, 1996

Most people picture chickens clucking and scratching in the barnyard,

but that's an outdated picture. We'll see why opponents of giant

chicken farms are crying "fowl" on today's EnvironMinute. [:11]

Farm animals were once scattered around the farmyard, and the

wastes they generated were returned to the soil. Today agribusiness

corporations have replaced small farms, and most of the chickens

and eggs we eat are produced in large, windowless buildings,

where thousands of hens are confined. They produce tons of

concentrated nitrogen-rich waste, which ends up choking

waterways with algae, using up oxygen in the water, and killing fish.

According to an EPA report, such factory farms contribute more

to freshwater pollution than either storm sewers or industrial

sources. The toll this takes on the Earth is more than just

chicken feed. [:36]

The EnvironMinute is produced in cooperation with the National

Safety Council and made possible by the Teresa and H. John Heinz III Foundation. [:10]

===================================

This was on Pointcast--The desktop news source for PC users.

KEY REASON Below: Carbon Dioxide, and forest depletion.

{***FACTORY FARMING PRODUCES THESE GASSES}

The rise of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases," produced mainly by developed

industrial states. Watery disaster looms without emissions curbs, leaders warn Watery disaster looms without

emissions curbs, leaders warn June 24, 1997 Web posted at: 10:21 p.m. EDT (0221 GMT)

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- An apocalyptic scenario of flooded islands and submerged cities is on the horizon

unless swift action is taken to curb global warming, some island leaders warned Tuesday at the United

Nations. "Today I leave here with the fear that unless we act now and with a renewed commitment, my country and many

countries like us would neither have their voice nor seat at a future (summit)," Maumoon Abdul Gayoom,

president of Maldives, said. "This affects us first and it affects us in the most profound and dangerous way," said Tuiloma Neroni Slade, Western Samoa's U.N. ambassador and head of the Alliance of Small Island States.

The small island nations, including the Indian Ocean Maldives, Cyprus, Caribbean states and Pacific

archipelagos, say their survival is threatened by the rise of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases,"

produced mainly by developed industrial states. They were speaking at the U.N. Earth Summit, a

five-day, 173-nation conference that includes more than 60 prime ministers and presidents. It is taking

stock of progress since the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.

Sea levels predicted to rise Scientists predict sea levels will rise between 12

inches (30 centimeters) and 40 inches (100 cm) over the next century as the planet grows warmer, if

greenhouse gases are not reduced. The rise of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere

contributes to the melting of polar ice caps, which raises the level of the oceans.

Researchers have detected a slight rise in the Indian Ocean around the Maldives. And Pacific island

states report already losing low-lying atolls to the sea. But scientists have yet to clearly link these

events to global warming. 'Help all of us'

Micronesia's president, Jacob Nena, said some smaller atolls had already been abandoned. His country's main

island, Nukuoro, was inundated with salt water that ruined taro patches, a vital source of local food.

"Help us, help all of us, including yourselves," he said.

Rich countries, responsible for more than half the world's pollution, have not been able to agree on new

targets for reducing greenhouse gases before a December climate conference in Kyoto, Japan.

The U.S. has so far rebuffed European efforts to set clear short-term targets for cutting greenhouse gases.

Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth said Tuesday the U.S.will not announce its targets and timetables for

emissions reductions until late summer or early fall. Meanwhile, islanders say they believe violent ocean

storms have increased in frequency, another predicted effect of global warming.

"Whether there is scientific proof or not, the people know things are changing," said Samoa's Slade. "Their

homes and infrastructure are being damaged." Chretien calls for forest treaty

Also on the agenda at the conference was deforestation.

"The forests of the world continue to decline at an

alarming rate. Sustainable forest management is a high Canadian priority," Canada's prime minister,

Jean Chretien, told members of the summit. "We are convinced that this special session presents

a unique opportunity to achieve an international forest convention through the creation of an intergovernmental

negotiation committee," Chretien said. Canada, which has about 10 percent of the world's

forests, is backed by the European Union in calling for negotiations to produce an international treaty on

preserving forests by the end of the century. Forest is being lost at a rate of 55,000 square miles

(142,450 square km) per year. But the U.S. timber industry and some environmental

groups oppose such a treaty at this time. The American Forest and Paper Association, which

represents the U.S. timber industry, fears that a convention would result in audits by U.N. agencies

and put the industry at a disadvantage against competitors from countries that do not enforce the

treaty. Some major environmental organizations fear the

current political mood in the West would lead to a treaty without effective controls, precluding a

meaningful role for grass-roots conservation organizations in forest management.

Also on Tuesday, Ukraine's president, Leonid Kuchma, complained about an "ecological crisis" caused in his

country by the 1986 nuclear reactor disaster at Chernobyl.

Kuchma said his country has had to spend $1 billion a year to minimize the effects of Chernobyl.

"Eleven years later," he said, "we still feel after-effects."

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Related stories: Earth Summit opens amid harsh words,

hints of compromise - June 23, 1997 Earth Summit set to

begin amid low expectations - June 22, 1997 Castro not

at summit but his views are still heard - June 24, 1997

=================================================================

Doctors warn of deaths from heat waves,malaria, other ills 6.32 a.m. EST (1132 GMT) December 2, 1997

KYOTO, Japan (AP) — Global warming may threaten more than the

climate in the 21st century, international medical experts said today.It may also kill — through heat waves,

violent weather and the spread of tropical disease.

"Political leaders and policy-makers generally do not understand

these consequences,'' said Dr. Eric Chivian, a Harvard University environmental health specialist.

Chivian led a group of doctors from the United States, Russia, Brazil and Japan to the 150-nation

talks here over strengthening the 1992 Climate Change Treaty to cut back emissions of carbon dioxide and other fossil-fuel

byproducts linked to global warming.

A U.N. scientific network has concluded global average temperatures could rise by up to 6 degrees by 2100, touching off

major climate disturbances, if emissions continue to increase at present rates.

The U.N. scientists have identified

various public health threats:

—Increased illnesses and deaths from

heat waves, especially in

urban areas and among the elderly.

—Increased injuries and deaths from

violent storms, floods and

other weather-related events.

—Greater spread of infectious diseases

carried by mosquitoes,

including malaria and dengue fever.

—Decreased availability of drinking

water, because of drought,

flooding and seas whose levels would

rise from heat expansion.

Harvard's Dr. Paul R. Epstein

identified the spread of malaria as a

particular peril, one that apparently

has already struck because of

changing climate.

"Malaria is now occurring high in the

mountains of central Africa

and in the highlands of Papua New Guinea,

'' Epstein told reporters.

"This is exactly in the same areas

where glaciers are retreating and

plants are migrating up mountains.''

Malarial mosquitoes are highly sensitive

to warmth, generally

ranging only where winter temperatures

are no lower than 61

degrees. Epstein said some areas where

malaria has newly appeared

have witnessed temperature rises of 2

degrees since 1970.

The doctors urged governments to take

decisive steps at the Kyoto

conference to reduce fuel emissions

by industrial nations.

Although scientific uncertainties

remain about the extent and impact of global warming in the 21st century, Chivian said, from a medical point of view the world cannot wait.

"The principle of prevention is

central to the practice of medicine,''

he said. "If you wait for all the

information to come in, it may be

too late for the patient.''

Chivian is director and Epstein

associate director of the Harvard

Medical School's Center for Health

and the Global Environment.

===============================================================

(Prov 31:8-9 KJV) Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as

are appointed to destruction. {9} Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy.

I arise today Through God's strength to pilot me: God's might to uphold me,

God's wisdom to guide me, God's eye to look before me, God's ear to hear me, God's word to speak for me, God's hand to guard me, God's way to lie before me, God's shield to protect me, God's host to save me, From snares of devils, From temptations of vices, From every one who shall wish me ill, Afar and anear, Alone and in multitude.

How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked? Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

> Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. Psalm 82:2-4

>======================================================

She responds again,

If you take the time to read this, it is present to past. Perhaps you heard a couple of months ago about the ice shelf in the south pole breaking off. Perhaps you didn't. There was also one in April 1998 besides October 98.

Here you can read about them warning them...after one broke off in 1995.

****************************************************************

This is on the web if you want to search for it.......

*****************************************************************

She gives information here on global warming.

Sci Am Jul 95

Antarctica is heating up, and the evidence is in the ice- New Scientist 96 Is The Frozen North in Hot Water?

New Scientist 8 Feb 97 Vincent Kiernan, Washington DC

==================================================================

The Hidden Dangers of Water

content="More than one third of all waterways are

reported to be unsuitable

for fishing or swimming because of pollution. Most

contaminants are sewage

and bacteria, fertilizer, toxic metals, oil and grease.

Typical sources of

the pollution include runoff from farms, industrial

waste, and city sewer

discharge.">

<META name="keywords" content="water, contamination,

pollution, aluminum,

water contamination, water pollution, bacterial

contamination, tap water,

drinking water contamination, chemical

contamination, toxic contamination,

drinking water, toxic wastes, contaminants,

alternative medicine, holistic,

health, colloidal silver, disease, bacteria, illness,

infection,

cryptosporidium, toxic chemicals, Alzheimer's,

Alzheimer's disease">

An EPA report on the status of

the nation's lakes, rivers, and estuaries says that

while water quality is not getting worse in America,

neither is any progress being made. More than one third

of all waterways are reported to be unsuitable for

fishing or swimming because of pollution. Most

contaminants are sewage and bacteria, fertilizer,

toxic metals, oil and grease. Typical sources of the

pollution include runoff from farms, industrial waste,

and city sewer discharge.

Newsweek: "Several million Americans are

drinking water that is potentially hazardous due to

chemical or bacterial contamination."

L.A. Times: "Communities with drinking water

contamination by chemicals are being hit with strange

patterns of illness."

ABC Network News: "U.S. Industries...generate

some 88,000,000 pounds of toxic wastes a year, 90

percent of which, the E.PA. estimates, are improperly

disposed."

The New York Times, June 2, 1995: "More

than 1 in 5 Americans unknowingly drink tap water

polluted

with feces, radiation or other contaminants...Nearly

1,000 deaths

each year and at least 400,000 cases of waterborne

illness may

be attributed to contaminated water. . "

Houston Chronicle, June 2, 1995: "The

parasite [cryptosporidium] that killed more than 100

people in Milwaukee two years ago has been found in

drinking water

systems that serve 45 million people..."

USA TODAY, March 30, 1995: "Parasite in

water is widespread...can be dangerous, even

fatal, to people with weakened immune systems."

U.S. News & World Report, June 26, 1995:

The Washington Post, June 2, 1995:

<CENTER><H2>Aluminum and Alzheimer's Disease</H2>

Editor's Note, I am not sure what the above article issue has to do with meat eating.

And yet another article:The Worsening Contamination of Water

It has been estimated that 53 million Americans, about 20 percent of the population, have been drinking water that is contaminated with feces, radiation, lead, or other poisons. This is according to data collected by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1993-1994. This was a 7.6 million increase over 199!

The Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported that

it had tested 29 Midwestern cities and towns and found

that all had herbicides present in the drinking water.

In one Illinois city, they found that the level of the

weed killer cyanazine in the public water supply was

34 times above the federal standards. The EWG estimated

that 20 to 25 million Americans are now drinking water

polluted with herbicides. Research in laboratories has

shown a higher incidence of cancer and birth defects in

animals fed with food containing herbicides .

The EWG conservatively attributed at least 1000

deaths each year, and about 400,000 cases of waterborne

illness, to contaminated tap water. Besides hazards for

the unsuspecting general population, experts have noted

the serious health consequences that exist for infants

and children.

===========================================================================

She responds again,

Date: Sat, 05 Dec 1998 09:28:45 GMT

GEEZE you remind me of this guy--I should give you his e-mail address......you two are alot alike......

From: "name deleted by editor"

Subject: Romans 14:1

Hello there: Have you not read Romans 14:1 - Where the Word of God not man declares that a vegetarian is one who is weak in the faith, whereas a meat eater is one who is strong in the faith. If you as a Christian prefer to eat vegetables then that is your decision but to talk again eating meat in which the Lord has provided for man is sinful and anti-biblical.

Dave

========================================================

She responds to Dave,

Dear Dave, I am totally busy right now...but, I have a big reply in response to your e-mail. I am God's Child, I am going to heaven just the same as you, and I am a vegetarian. I believe in this day and age....eating meat is sinful. You must be feeling guilty about supporting a lifestyle that causes your brother to stumble....DID YOU SKIP THAT VERSE IN THE BIBLE?

And just go to the one you gave me? People are starving from our meat eating society. If we ate grains, vegetables and legumes our Planet {God's Earth} would not be so defiled and polluted. People wouldn't be having thier homes wiped off the face of the earth by hurricanes and floods and tornadoes due to global warming. There are more livestock than people and they all produce many greenhouse gasses. People in other countries starve to death because we choose to use every peice of spare land to graze cattle on.

I will type you a letter on this subject when I get home. God's Agenda is first in my heart, then the subject of meat. I have realized through a mature relationship with him that eating meat causes my brother to stumble BIG TIME! It devastates the health of our nation and is cruel and abusive to factory farmed animals. I have been vegetarian for two years and am much healthier now than I was. I feel better and my conscience is clear.

I realize that what you wrote to me was out of your own guilt of conscience. Perhaps you have been wrestling with this subject for a while. I suggest you research it on the web THOROUGHLY before you make a decision that I am unbiblical. I am saved and I go to Church every week. Jesus is an active part of my life and I am his servant. I spend countless hours witnessing and working for him with letters, etc. By what measure ye meet so shall it be meeted unto you.

Don't judge me. I realize that Christians meat eating and not will all be in heaven. But, It is DRASTIC ABOUT TIME WE CLEANED UP OUR PLANET AND OUR LIFE STYLES. And, by the way, meat production lines are not the same as back in the Old Testament!!!!!

=================================================

Instead of answering you with my arguments, how about if you take the

time to read all of this, to get a good picture of where I am coming from...

And when you are done, if you would like to see all of my witnessing

letters, like to Marilyn Manson and the Church of Satan, etc. or just

to pagan websites--by all means let me know. I would rather you read

my letters to others on this subject and pretend they are to you. I don't

have all of them--but here are some. And if you want FACTS instead

of my opinions, there are PLENTY of ARTICLES IN HERE about

the devestating effects of the meat-based lifestyle. Also, some scriptures

you missed when you doled the last one out to me. I just have one

question for you.... What gives you or me or anyone on this earth the

right to gorge themselves on a meat-based diet while others around the

world starve because we aren't living the right way? Not me, not anymore.

It is only one aspect of my growth as a christian.

I will split this up into several letters so it doesn't lock up your e-mail.

===========================================================================

INTRODUCTION

Vegetarianism is a way to live with a minimum of hurt

to other beings, for to consume meat, fish or fowl is

to participate indirectly in acts of cruelty and violence

against the animal kingdom. The abhorrence of injury and

killing of any kind leads quite naturally to a vegetarian

diet. The meat-eater's desire for meat drives

another to kill and provide that meat. The act of the butcher

begins with the desire of the consumer. Meat-eating

contributes to a mentality of violence, for with the

chemically complex meat ingested, one absorbs the slaughtered

creature's fear, pain and terror. These qualities are

nourished within the meat-eater, perpetuating the cycle of

cruelty and confusion. When the individual's consciousness

lifts and expands, he will abhor violence and not be able to

even digest the meat, fish, and fowl he was formerly

consuming. Man's appetite for meat inflicts devastating harm on the earth

itself, stripping its precious forests to make way for

pastures.

Amazingly, I have heard people define vegetarian as a diet

which excludes the meat of animals but does permit fish and

poultry. But what really is vegetarianism? Vegetarian foods

include grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes and dairy

products. Natural, fresh foods, locally grown without

insecticides or chemical fertilizers are preferred. A

vegetarian diet does not include meat, fish, and fowl.

For good health, even certain vegetarian foods are minimized:

frozen and canned foods, highly processed foods, such as

white rice, white sugar and white flour; and "junk" foods and

beverages-those with abundant chemical additives, such as

artificial sweeteners, colorings, flavorings and

preservatives.

It has become quite evident!

that vegetarian families have far fewer problems than those

who are not vegetarian. If children are raised as

vegetarians, every day they are exposed to nonviolence as a

principle of peace and compassion. Every day they are growing

up they are remembering and being reminded to not kill. They

won't even kill another creature to eat, to feed themselves.

And if they won't kill another creature to feed themselves,

they will be much less likely to do acts of violence against

people.

--------------------------------------------------------------

II. Some Reasons to Be a Vegetarian

In the past fifty years millions of meat-eaters have made the

personal decision to stop eating the flesh of other

creatures.

1) The Health reason

Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is easier to

digest, provides a wider range of nutrients and imposes fewer

burdens and impurities on the body. Vegetarians are less

susceptible to all the major diseases that afflict

contemporary humanity, and thus live longer, healthier, more

productive lives. They have fewer physical complaints, less

frequent visits to the doctor, fewer dental problems and

smaller medical bills. Their immune system is stronger, their

bodies are purer, more refined and skin more beautiful.

2) The Ecological reason

Planet earth is suffering. In large measure, the escalating

loss of species, destruction of ancient rainforests to create

pasture lands for livestock, loss of top soils and the

consequent increase of water impurities and air pollution

have all been traced to the single fact of meat in the human

diet. No single decision that we can make as individuals or

as a race can have such a dramatic effect on the improvement

of our planetary ecology as the decision to not eat meat.

Many seeking to save the planet for future generations have

made this decision for this reason and this reason alone.

--------------------------------------------------------------

III. How to Win an Argument with a Meat-Eater

While their numbers are rapidly growing, vegetarians are

still a minority, and it is not unusual to be confronted with

a meat-eater who not only protects his own right to eat

flesh, but argues aggressively that vegetarians should join

him in his carnivorous diet. Carnivores may regard

non meat-eaters as a strange lot who munch on "rabbit food,"

and whose diet doesn't have the substance to make them

strong, productive human beings. The following presentation

is designed to turn the tables on such discussions by showing

the devastating effects of meat-eating both on individuals

and on our planet. It is based on a richly informative poster

entitled, "How to win an argument with a meat-eater,"

published by Earthsave, an organization based in Felton,

California, giving facts from Pulitzer Prize nominee John

Robbins' book Diet for a New America. Below are eight

separate arguments against meat-eating and in favor of a

vegetarian diet.

1. The Hunger Argument against meat-eating

Much of the world's massive hunger problems could be solved

by the reduction or elimination of meat eating. The reasons:

1) livestock pasture needs cut drastically into land which

could otherwise be used to grow food; 2) vast quantities of

food, which could feed humans, is fed to livestock raised to

produce meat.

a)This year alone, twenty million people worldwide will die as

a result of malnutrition. One child dies of malnutrition

every 2.3 seconds. One hundred million people could be

adequately fed using the land freed if Americans reduced

their intake of meat by a mere 10%.

b)Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by

people. Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown

in the U.S. is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein

wasted by cycling grain through livestock is calculated by

experts as 90%.

c)One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or

250 pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is

devoted to beef production, and to produce each pound of beef

requires 16 pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could

be used to feed the hungry.

2. The Environmental Argument against meat-eating

Many of the world's massive environmental problems could be

solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating,

including global warming, loss of topsoil, loss of

rainforests and species extinction.

The temperature of the earth is rising. This global warming,

known as "the greenhouse effect," results primarily from

carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as

oil and natural gas. Three times more fossil fuels must be

burned to produce a meat-centered diet than for a meat-free

diet. If people stopped eating meat, the threat of higher

world temperatures would be vastly diminished.

Trees, and especially the old-growth forests, are essential

to the survival of the planet. Their destruction is a major

cause of global warming and topsoil loss. Both of these

effects lead to diminished food production. Meat eating is

the number one driving force for the destruction of these

forests. Two hundred and sixty million acres of U.S.

forestland has been cleared for cropland to produce the

meat-centered diet. Fifty-five square feet of tropical

rainforest is consumed to produce every quarter-pound of

rainforest beef. An alarming 75% of all U.S. topsoil has been

lost to date. Eighty-five percent of this loss is directly

related to livestock raising.

Another devastating result of deforestation is the loss of

plant and animal species. Each year 1,000 species are

eliminated due to destruction of tropical rainforests for

meat grazing and other uses. The rate is growing yearly.

To keep up with U.S. consumption, 300 million pounds of meat

are imported annually from Central and South America. This

economic incentive impels these nations to cut down their

forests to make more pastureland. The short-term gain ignores

the long-term, irreparable harm to the earth's ecosystem. In

effect these countries are being drained of their resources

to put meat on the table of Americans while 75% of all

Central American children under the age of five are

undernourished.

3. The Cancer Argument against meat-eating

Those who eat flesh are far more likely to contract cancer

than those following a vegetarian diet.

The risk of contracting breast cancer is 3.8 times greater

for women who eat meat daily compared to less than once a

week; 2.8 times greater for women who eat eggs daily compared

to once a week; and 3.25 greater for women who eat butter and

cheese 2 to 4 times a week as compared to once a week.

The risk of fatal ovarian cancer is three times greater for

women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week as compared with

less than once a week.

The risk of fatal prostate cancer is 3.6 times greater for

men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily as compared

with sparingly or not at all.

4. The Cholesterol Argument against meat-eating

Here are facts showing that: 1) U.S. physicians are not

sufficiently trained in the importance of the relation of

diet to health; 2) meat-eaters ingest excessive amounts of

cholesterol, making them dangerously susceptible to heart

attacks.

It is strange, but true that U.S. physicians are as a rule

ill-educated in the single most important factor of health,

namely diet and nutrition. Of the 125 medical schools in the

U.S., only 30 require their students to take a course in

nutrition. The average nutrition training received by the

average U.S. physician during four years in school is only

2.5 hours. Thus doctors in the U.S. are ill equipped to

advise their patients in minimizing foods, such as meat, that

contain excessive amounts of cholesterol and are known causes

of heart attack.

Heart attack is the most common cause of death in the U.S.,

killing one person every 45 seconds. The male meat-eater's

risk of death from heart attack is 50%. The risk to men who

eats no meat is 15%. Reducing one's consumption of meat,

dairy and eggs by 10% reduces the risk of heart attack by

10%. Completely eliminating these products from one's diet

reduces the risk of heart attack by 90%.

The average cholesterol consumption of a meat-centered diet

is 210 milligrams per day. The chance of dying from heart

disease if you are male and your blood cholesterol is 210

milligrams daily is greater than 50%.

5. The Natural Resources Argument against meat-eating

The world's natural resources are being rapidly depleted as a

result of meat eating.

Raising livestock for their meat is a very inefficient way of

generating food. Pound for pound, far more resources must be

expended to produce meat than to produce grains, fruits and

vegetables. For example, more than half of all water used for

all purposes in the U.S. is consumed in livestock production.

The amount of water used in production of the average cow is

sufficient to float a destroyer (a large naval ship). While

25 gallons of water are needed to produce a pound of wheat,

5,000 gallons are needed to produce a pound of California

beef. That same 5,000 gallons of water can produce 200 pounds

of wheat. If this water cost were not subsidized by the

government, the cheapest hamburger meat would cost more than

$35 per pound.

Meat eating is devouring oil reserves at an alarming rate. It

takes nearly 78 calories of fossil fuel (oil, natural gas,

etc.) energy to produce one calorie of beef protein and only 2

calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of

soybean. If every human ate a meat-centered diet, the world's

known oil reserves would last a mere 13 years. They would

last 260 years if humans stopped eating meat altogether. That

is 20 times longer, giving humanity ample time to develop

alternative energy sources.

Thirty-three percent of all raw materials (base products of

farming, forestry and mining, including fossil fuels)

consumed by the U.S. are devoted to the production of

livestock, as compared with 2% to produce a complete

vegetarian diet.

6. The Antibiotic Argument against meat-eating

Here are facts showing the dangers of eating meat because of

the large amounts of antibiotics fed to livestock to control

staphylococci (commonly called staph infections), which are

becoming immune to these drugs at an alarming rate.

The animals that are being raised for meat in the United

States are diseased. The livestock industry attempts to

control this disease by feeding the animals antibiotics. Huge

quantities of drugs go for this purpose. Of all antibiotics

used in the U.S., 55% are fed to livestock.

But this is only partially effective because the bacteria

that cause disease are becoming immune to the antibiotics.

The percentage of staphylococci infections resistant to

penicillin, for example, has grown from 13% in 1960 to 91% in

1988. These antibiotics and-or the bacteria they are intended

to destroy reside in the meat that goes to market.

It is not healthy for humans to consume this meat. The

response of the European Economic Community to the routine

feeding of antibiotics to U.S. livestock was to ban the

importation of U.S. meat. European buyers do not want to

expose consumers to this serious health hazard. By

comparison, U.S. meat and pharmaceutical industries gave

their full and complete support to the routine feeding of

antibiotics to livestock, turning a blind eye to the threat

of disease to the consumer.

7. The Pesticide Argument against meat-eating

Unknown to most meat-eaters, U.S.-produced meat contains

dangerously high quantities of deadly pesticides.

The common belief is that the U.S. Department of Agriculture

protects consumers' health through regular and thorough meat

inspection. In reality, fewer than one out of every 250,000

slaughtered animals is tested for toxic chemical residues.

That these chemicals are indeed ingested by the meat-eater is

proven by the following facts:

* Ninety-nine percent of U.S. mother's milk contains

significant levels of DDT. In stark contrast, only 8% of

U.S. vegetarian mother's milk containing significant

levels of DDT. This shows that the primary source of DDT

is the meat ingested by the mothers.

* Contamination of breast milk due to chlorinated

hydrocarbon pesticides in animal products found in

meat-eating mothers versus non meat-eating mothers is 35

times higher.

* The amount of the pesticide Dieldrin ingested by the

average breast-fed American infant is 9 times the

permissible level.

8. The Ethical Argument against meat-eating

Many of those who have adopted a vegetarian diet have done so

because of the ethical argument, either from reading about or

personally experiencing what goes on daily at any one of the

thousands of slaughterhouses in the U.S. and other countries,

where animals suffer the cruel process of forced confinement,

manipulation and violent death. Their pain and terror is

beyond calculation.

The slaughterhouse is the final stop for animals raised for

their flesh. These ghastly places, while little known to most

meat-eaters, process enormous numbers of animals each years.

In the U.S. alone, 660,000 animals are killed for meat every

hour. A surprising quantity of meat is consumed by the

meat-eater. The average per capita consumption of meat in the

U.S., Canada and Australia is 200 pounds per year! The

average American consumes in a 72-year lifetime approximately

11 cattle, 3 lambs and sheep, 23 hogs, 45 turkeys, 1,100

chickens and 862 pounds of fish! Bon appetite!

People who come in contact with slaughterhouses cannot help

but be affected by what they see and hear. Those living

nearby must daily experience the screams of terror and anger

of the animals led to slaughter. Those working inside must

also see and participate in the crimes of mayhem and murder.

Most who choose this line of work are not on the job for

long. Of all occupations in the U.S., slaughterhouse worker

has the highest turnover rate. It also has the highest rate

of on-the-job injury.

--------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Humans have neither Fangs nor Claws

A ninth and most compelling argument against meat-eating is

that humans are physiologically not suited for a carnivorous

diet. The book Food for the Spirit, Vegetarianism in the

World Religions, summarizes this point of view as follows.

"Many nutritionists, biologists and physiologists offer

convincing evidence that humans are in fact not meant to eat

flesh." Here are seven facts in support of this view:

"Physiologically, people are more akin to

plant-eaters, foragers and grazers, such as

monkeys, elephants and cows, than to carnivores such

as snakes, tigers and leopards."

"For example, carnivores do not sweat through their

skin; body heat is controlled by rapid breathing

and extrusion of the tongue. Vegetarian animals, on

the other hand, have sweat pores for heat control

and the elimination of impurities."

"Carnivores have long teeth and claws for holding

and killing prey; vegetarian animals have short

teeth and no claws."

"The saliva of carnivores contains no ptyalin and

cannot predigest starches; that of vegetarian

animals contains ptyalin for the pre digestion of

starches."

"Flesh-eating animals secrete large quantities of

hydrochloric acid to help dissolve bones;

vegetarian animals secrete little hydrochloric

acid."

"The jaws of carnivore only open in an up and down

motion; those of vegetarian animals also move

sideways for additional kinds of chewing."

"Carnivores must lap liquids (like a cat);

vegetarian animals take liquids in by suction

through the teeth."

"There are many such comparisons, and in each case

humans fit the vegetarian physiognomy. From a

strictly physiological perspective, then, there are

strong arguments that humans are not suited to a

fleshy diet."

--------------------------------------------------------------

V. The Health Benefits of Vegetarianism

It was only recently that smoking only recently became

recognized as a health and environmental hazard. As a result

of research and education on a habit once believed to be not

only harmless but stylish, most major U.S. cities have banned

smoking of cigarettes, cigars or pipes in all public places.

Smoking has also been outlawed in government offices and

completely eliminated from all domestic U.S. air flights.

Now, another, even more devastating problem is under scrutiny.

Its threat to health and the environment is being realized

based on overwhelming evidence amassed by recognized

authorities over the past fifty years. Recently a group of

eminent doctors called the Physicians Committee for

Responsible Medicine (PCRM), themselves members of the

American Medical Association (AMA), have gathered to change

the U.S. consciousness on human nutrition, particularly among

the medical community. The PCRM is a nonprofit organization

based in Washington, D.C., consisting of doctors and

laypersons working together for compassionate and effective

medical practice, research and health promotion. Founded in

1985, the PCRM is supported by over 3,000 physicians and

50,000 laypersons. PCRM president Newal D. Barnard, M.D., is

a popular speaker and the author of The Power of Your Plate.

As stated by the PCRM in their 1991 literature, "A vegetarian

diet has been advocated by everyone from philosophers, such

as Plato and Nietzsche, to political leaders, such as

Benjamin Franklin and Gandhi, to modern pop icons such as

Paul McCartney and Bob Marley. Science is also on the side of

vegetarian foods. A multitude of studies have proven the

health benefits of a vegetarian diet to be remarkable.

"Vegetarian is defined as avoiding all animal flesh,

including fish and poultry. Vegetarians who avoid flesh, but

do eat animal products such as cheese, milk and eggs are

ovo-lacto-vegetarians (ovo = egg; lacto = milk, cheese,

etc.). The ranks of those who eschew all animal products are

rapidly growing; these people are referred to as pure

vegetarians or vegans (vee'guns). Scientific research shows

that ovo-lacto-vegetarians are healthier than meat-eaters,

and vegans are healthier than ovo-lacto-vegetarians

The PCRM literature lists a host of health benefits of a

vegetarian diet, including the following:

* Preventing cancer: "Numerous epidemiological and

clinical studies have shown that vegetarians are nearly

50% less likely to die from cancer than nonvegetarians."

* Preventing heart disease and lowering blood pressure.

* Preventing and reversing diabetes.

* Preventing and alleviating gallstones, kidney stones and

osteoporosis.

* Preventing and alleviating asthma.

--------------------------------------------------------------

VI. The New Four Food Groups

In 1991 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

submitted a proposal to change the official "four food

groups" which have been promoted by U.S. nutritionists in the

U.S. for the past 35 years. Their proposal reflects the fact

that the long-held belief in meat as an essential dietary

element is being displaced with new findings on the harmful

effects of a meat-centered diet. The PCRM Update, May-June

1991, explains, "On April 8, 1991, PCRM unveiled a proposal

to replace the Four Basic Food Groups. The Four Food Groups

have been part of U.S. government recommendations since 1956,

but promote dietary habits, which are largely responsible for

the epidemics of heart disease, cancer, stroke and other

serious illnesses in this country. The old four groups were

meat, dairy, grains and fruits/vegetables. The 'New Four Food

Groups' are grains, legumes, vegetables and fruits. Meat and

dairy will lose their food group status [by this proposal].

The 'New Four Food Groups' represents a nutrition plan that

is based on healthy, fiber-rich plant foods rather than the

former emphasis on cholesterol-and-fat-laden foods. 'The meat

and dairy groups were the principal sources of cholesterol

and saturated fat, which is the biggest culprit in raising

blood cholesterol,' says PCRM Nutritionist Virginia Messina,

M.P.H., R.D. 'These foods are simply not necessary in the

human diet.' " PCRM poster offers the following description

of the four new food groups.

1. Whole grains includes breads, pastas, rice, corn and all

other grains. Note the emphasis on whole grains rather

than refined grains. Build each of your meals around a

hearty grain dish-grains are rich in fiber and other

complex carbohydrates, as well as protein, B vitamins

and zinc.

2. Vegetables are packed with nutrients; they provide

vitamin C, beta-carotene, riboflavin and other vitamins,

iron, calcium and fiber. Dark green, leafy vegetables

such as broccoli, collards, kale, mustard and turnip

greens, chicory or bok choy are especially good sources

of these important nutrients. Dark yellow and orange

vegetables such as carrots, winter squash, sweet

potatoes and pumpkin provide extra beta-carotene.

Include generous portions of a variety of vegetables in

your diet.

3. Legumes, which is another name for beans, peas and

lentils, are all good sources of fiber, protein, iron,

calcium, zinc and B vitamins. This group also includes

chickpeas, baked and refried beans, soy milk, tofu,

tempeh and texturized vegetable protein.

4. Fruits are rich in fiber, vitamin C and beta-carotene.

Be sure to include at least one serving each day of

fruits that are high in vitamin C-citrus fruits, melons

and strawberries are all good choices. Choose whole

fruit over fruit juices, which don't contain as much

healthy fiber.

--------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Common Dietary Concerns

Those considering a vegetarian diet generally worry about

getting enough nutrients, since the belief that meat is a

necessary part of keeping strong and healthy is still

extremely widespread. Armed with decades of nutritional

research data, the PCRM addresses this issue head-on:

"The fact is, it is very easy to have a

well-balanced diet with vegetarian foods.

Vegetarian foods provide plenty of protein. Careful

combining of foods is not necessary. Any normal

variety of plant foods provides more than enough

protein for the body's needs. Although there is

somewhat less protein in a vegetarian diet than a

meat-eater's diet, this actually an advantage.

Excess protein has been linked to kidney stones,

osteoporosis, and possibly heart disease and some

cancers. A diet focused on beans, whole grains and

vegetables contains adequate amounts of protein

without the 'overdose' most meat-eaters get."

Other concerns are allayed as follows:

"Calcium is easy to find in a vegetarian diet. Many

dark, green leafy vegetables and beans are loaded

with calcium, and some orange juices and cereals

are calcium-fortified. Iron is plentiful in whole

grains, beans and fruits."

Vitamin B12: There is a misconception that without

eating meat one cannot obtain sufficient v. B12,

which is an essential nutrient. This simply not

true. The PCRM advises: "Although cases of B12

deficiency are very uncommon, it is important to

make sure that one has a reliable source of the

vitamin. Good sources include all common multiple

vitamins (including vegetarian vitamins), fortified

cereals and fortified soy milk."

"During pregnancy one's nutritional needs increase.

The American Dietetic Association has found vegan

diets adequate for fulfilling nutritional needs

during pregnancy, but pregnant women and nursing

mothers should supplement their diets with vitamins

B12 and D."

"vegetarian children also have high nutritional

needs, but these, too, are met within a vegetarian

diet. A vegetarian menu is 'life-extending.' As

young children, vegetarians may grow more

gradually, reach puberty somewhat later, and live

substantially longer than do meat-eaters. Do be

sure to include a reliable source of vitamin B12."

Besides the fortified cereals and soymilk mentioned above

vitamin B12 sources that are widely available are multiple

vitamins, brewers yeast and other potent dietary supplements.

Those interested in supporting or learning more about the

work of the PCRM should write to PCRM, P.O. Box 6322,

Washington, D.C., 20015.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography

BgM: Juan Mascaro, The Bhagavad Gita (Baltimore, Penguin

Books, 1966).

VE: Raimundo Panikkar, The Vedic Experience (New Delhi,

Motilal Banarsidass, 1989).

RM: Arthur Osborne, ed., The Collected Works of Ramana

Maharshi (London, Rider, 1959).

YP: Rammurti S. Mishra, The Textbook of Yoga Psychology (New

York, Julian Press, 1963).

TW: Tiruvalluvar, Tirukural: The Weaver (English translation

by Himalayan Academy, Concord, California, manuscript).

FS: Steven Rosen, Food for the Spirit, Vegetarianism and the

World Religions (New York, 1990). Bala Books Inc. 74 Old

Westbury Road, Old Westbury, N.Y, 11568

John Robbins, Diet For a New America (Walpole, New Hampshire,

1987). Stillpoint Publishing, Box 640, Walpole, NH 03608

--------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================

http://www.purefood.org/meatlink.html

http://emagazine.com/trial_issue.html

============================================================

I respond

AFTER ALL THAT MIND-NUMBING LITERATURE ALL'S HE CAN THINK OF TO

SAY IS: Did your pastor get my number yet? Did you get in touch with your pastor yet?

Have you found who you are arguing with yet? In case you didn't know, I am not a farmer. I am an animal damage controller.

We don't have factory farms where I live. Perhaps you should try to help the farmers make a living without factory farming.

AGain, I am an animal damage controller. You also have read my two published articles very carefully. But that isn't unusual. Most of my hate mailers haven't either.

If memory serves, Dr. Shwartz is not a christian he is a JEW and a liberal one at that.

thanks for the link. (referring to the Meat Inspectors link, of course)

I know how to cook meat. If you read my articles you would know that existence has an impact on the environment.

thats funny. I will add that one to the hate mail list. Thanks.

(referring to my communion remark)

again, who are you arguing with?

Now there is finally some truth. meat can be a sign of gluttony. But eating it by definition isn't. Otherwise, Jesus was a glutton. Remember his enemies accused him of that? Ask your pastor.

==========================================================

She answers:

Right, but you eat meat raised by farmers, duh, that is the point. And I have read all about ANIMAL

DAMAGE CONTROL now Wildlife "Services" where you throw barb wire in coyote's dens and maim

and kill them and throw cyanide cartridges in there and gas them, you trap everything in site, kill wildlife

so it doesn't "damage" the farmers that are raising MEAT. blah blah blah--and get off the thing with my

pastor, if you could read and you did read, you'd know he eats meat and he doesn't run a cult church

like you ASSume.

Even though you aren't a farmer, because you eat the product that contributes to this, you are

directly a conscious part of it. A co-conspirator.

YES, BUT YOU EAT MEAT RAISED ON FACTORY FARMS SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE

RETARD? ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY YOU CAN EAT MEAT RAISED FROM FACTORY FARMING AND YOU ARE NOT INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?

You are.AGAIN ("I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin')

TINMAN FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE POINT IS NOT THAT YOU ARE A FARMER, BUT THAT YOU EAT THE FARMER'S PRODUCT--FACTORY RAISED MEAT............DUH.

OMG ~<:0) I have never met someone so in denial.

I read your articles, you're still a beer short of a six pack for saying "I'm not a farmer"

I don't care if the man is SANTA CLAUS, he thinks, therefore he is......and he thinks quite well I might

add. And alot of Jews these days are turning into Jewish Christians because of our ministries witnessing over there--ah yes, he is in the U.S.

ITS FUNNY HOW THAT IS THE ONLY POINT YOU CARE TO MAKE WHEN READING HIS

LETTER--AGAIN DENIAL. This man has compassion. You need to evolve.

No problem, i wasteth not my breath...........in one instance.

He wants to keep up with how contaminated his meat is.........

Read "Slaughterhouse" .........note it is on thier website.

Okay, I didn't know that, couldn't have figured it out, but then THAT'S NOT THE POINT

..............................AGAIN.................

THE POINT IS People are dying from this product you are eating, and they are suffering. So it hasn't

happened to you personally, not yet anyway. Remarkable. Brilliant. I know how to cook meat.

I wouldn't have guessed. If you read the book "Slaughterhouse" you'll find out how the parents of children that died felt and what

they went through. They ate it at a fast food restaurant.

Cooking doesn't kill the cancerous meat that gets past the inspectors that cannot blow the whistle because of harrassment and fear of losing thier jobs.......or the abcesses, the rats, the maggots.

Read the book. The feces, the urine.

For the 10th time I read your articles, IT IS THE WAY WE EXIST

THAT HAS THE IMPACT. YOU ARE IN DENIAL. YOU ARE A MEAT

EATING glutton who eats at the demise of the environment and your brothers and sisters in Christ that are starving in other countries and right here in the U.S. http://www.feedthechildren.org

http://www.plenty.org

htttp://www.foodfirst.org

Raising meat is selfish and unsustainable. Vegetables, Grains, Fruits and Legumes, Hemp......that is sustainable.

Don't flatter your ego any further----------with adding to your hate mail list.............I don't hate you.

I feel sorry for you. You are tooooooo weak to do something to help others and the planet.

I am not arguing with anyone.........especially you....I thought you might like to know what is in the

tissues of the flesh you are eating.....but alas stubborn and stupid.

I READ THE BIBLE AND DON'T NEED TO ASK THE PASTOR.

THE GREATEST GIFT GOD GAVE ME IS MY BRAIN. TO REALIZE

THAT THIS IS 2000 A.D. AND THINGS ARE QUITE DIFFERENT NOW.

For the last time Tin Man from the Wizard of OZ, I did not USE Jesus as

a weapon in the fight for vegetarianism UNLIKE PETA.

I don't believe in lying and saying Jesus was a vegetarian, which

disgusts me that they would do that. That is thier latest campaign.

The Bible HELLO 100 A.D. the OLD testament says clearly whatever

you choose do so to yourself.

However, this is 2000 A.D. and your name isn't Hepzibar and you

don't kill meat single file, one at a time, and probably once or twice

a month. Let's not forget only the rich, fat gluttons could afford

the "LUXURY" of meat.

And Finally Mr. "Tin Man" Vanhassel,

If you are going to go so far as to feed your weasel like EGO by putting a small portion of

my letters to you in your hate mail section......why NOT TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH

AND PUT THE WHOLE THING ON THERE?

I'll tell you why.......because you are a sneaky snake that likes to pick and choose what to

believe...........just like you pick and choose bits of the Bible.

A wee little man.

She Responds again:
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 3:04 AM
To: Stephen Vantassel
Subject: "I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin'"

Rainforest Destruction: What's Meat Got To Do With It?

"I have no doubt that it is part of the gradual destiny of the human race in its gradual development to leave off the eating

of animals." - Henry David Thoreau Everyone knows that the rainforests are disappearing, but few realize

how rapidly and how their food choices play a key role. Since 1945,

half of the world's rainforests have been burned, bulldozed, and

mined into oblivion. Each day, 140,000 acres of tropical forest are

demolished, 8 acres every few seconds, and 50 to 150 different

species become extinct. In fifty years, mining, logging, oil, cattle,

and banking interests have destroyed what has taken nature

hundreds of millions of years to create. At the current rate of

devastation, the rainforests of the world will be completely

leveled in another fifty years.

A world without rainforests is unsustainable for complex life forms.

The rainforests deliver oxygen to the air, stabilize climates, and

they regulate humidity, wind, and convection patterns. Although

only 7% of the earth's total area, the rainforests provide a lush

abitat for 50% of all animal and plant species, and a home for

many indigenous peoples. They yield a rich bounty of fruit, nuts,

spices, gums, and medicinal compounds; while rainforest plants

have already provided cures for many diseases, only 1% of them

have been studied. The rainforests are the oldest and the most

diverse ecosystems on this planet.

Left standing, trees absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen.

Burned or chopped down, they release concentrated amounts of

carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, undermining the ozone layer.

There is a growing consensus among the world's scientists that we

are indeed in a new epoch of earth history: the Age of Global

Warming. The evidence of global warming is visible everywhere:

unprecedented heat waves and drought, super-ferocious storms, a

dramatic rise in skin cancer rates, the breaking up of the Antarctic

Ice Shelf, and increased pests and diseases.

While corporations like Mitsubishi, Arco, Texaco, and Honshu Paper

are the main culprits in deforestation, every person who consumes

meat also plays a role. One of the principle reasons for deforestation

is to provide grazing ground for cattle. In terms of global warming, this

means that enormous amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the

atmosphere. The grazing of cows and other ruminant animals also

causes the emission of two other major ozone destroying gases:

nitrous oxide (in fertilizer) and over a hundred million tons of methane

gas a year -- which some scientists see as becoming the primary

global warming gas in the next 50 years.

Americans eat more beef than any other country in the world,

consuming 32% of the total production. Meat-eaters are not only

destroying their own health by consuming these toxic products,

they are contributing to numerous other problems such as world

hunger (the land needed to feed cattle is 20 times the amount needed

to feed people), the expropriation of people from their lands (used to

graze cattle), the destruction of human and animal habitat, and the

aggravation of global warming. Experts estimate that every person

who switches to a pure vegetarian (vegan) diet saves an acre of

trees every year.

Before biting into the next hamburger, one might consider the

real cost -- 55 square feet of rainforest, 12 pounds of grain,

and 2500 gallons of water. I for one believe that the earth

and its teeming life forms are worth much more than fast food

chains and Big Macs. The best way to care for the environment

is to become a vegetarian; to be consistent in one's beliefs, an

environmentalist must also be a vegetarian.

Steve Best, UTEP, Departments of Humanities and Philosophy

She responds again,

You must be one beer short of a six pack.

I respond, :
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 2:43 PM
Subject: RE: "I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin'"

Actually, I am six beers short of a six pack as I don't drink.

Stephen Vantassel

She responds,

I suggest you drink once in awhile, maybe smoke a joint now and then--whatever--get laid more often
you are very narrow minded.

----- Original Message -----

She REsponds,

I suggest before you believe all the propaganda you swallow--you check who sponsors Prevention Magazines.........or Rodan Publishing...........do you ever consider the sponsors or the source from which you are getting your information? Animal Based Diets cause heart disease and clogged arteries, etc etc. I am not wasting my breath on you any further. Go ahead and quote books whose sponsors are the very industries they are telling you are safe to eat products from. duh. -----

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Vantassel
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 6:16 AM
Subject: RE: "I would not be just a nothin', my head all full of stuffin'"

AGain, I am an animal damage controller. You also have read my two published articles very carefully. But that isn't unusual. Most of my hate mailers haven't either.

Stephen Vantassel
Wildlife Damage Control "supplying information and products for DIY'ers"
PMB 102 340 Cooley St.
Springfield, MA 01128
Phone: 413-796-9916
Fax:413-796-7819
admin@wildlifedamagecontrol.com
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com
Suite 101.com Living with Wildlife editor
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/living_wildlife

I am. It isn't good for you and harms our planet and causes starvation in other countries. But, alas is there something else you want me to say. You have the articles to read you have the proof, yet you still scoff and promote something a magazine said that was probably paid by the Meat Association to do so. What a stubborn ignoramous you are. Whatever. Too bad you aren't only hurting yourself when
you eat meat, you are hurting others as well.

----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Vantassel
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: EVER HEARD OF THE DEAD ZONE? DOWN IN THE GULF

I work to reduce taxes. Reduce the punitive ways farmers are punished financially, and you will resolve many of those factory farming issues.
However, I must confess that I don't consider your disagreement with me to be about factory farming. YOu seem to be against meat period no matter how it is harvested.

Stephen Vantassel

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 12:50 PM
To: Stephen Vantassel
Subject: Re: EVER HEARD OF THE DEAD ZONE? DOWN IN THE GULF

YES, BUT YOU EAT MEAT RAISED ON FACTORY FARMS SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE
RETARD? ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY YOU CAN EAT MEAT RAISED FROM FACTORY FARMING AND YOU ARE NOT INDIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?
You are.
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen Vantassel
To:
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 6:16 AM
Subject: RE: EVER HEARD OF THE DEAD ZONE? DOWN IN THE GULF

We don't have factory farms where I live. Perhaps you should try to help the farmers make a living without factory farming.

Stephen Vantassel

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2000 3:07 AM
To: Stephen Vantassel
Subject: EVER HEARD OF THE DEAD ZONE? DOWN IN THE GULF

WHERE ALL THE FACTORY FARMING RUNOFF RUNS TO?

It can stretch for 7,000 square miles off the coast of

Louisiana, a vast expanse of ocean devoid of the region's

usual rich bounty of fish and shrimp, its bottom littered

with the remains of crabs and worms unable to flee its

suffocating grasp. This is the Gulf of Mexico's "dead zone,"

which last summer reached the size of the state of New Jersey.

Alarmed, the White House recently commissioned six

teams of scientists to begin the first large-scale study of the

area, hoping for a remission or cure.

The dead zone, researchers say, is emblematic of the

growing ills suffered by the planet's seas. Earlier this month,

hundreds of scientists, marking 1998 as the international

Year of the Ocean, warned that unless action is taken,

overfishing, coastal development, and pollution will multiply

the kinds of problems that already plague the gulf.

The trouble with the dead zone is that it lacks oxygen,

scientists say, apparently because of pollution in the form of

excess nutrients flowing into the gulf from the Mississippi River.

Animals in this smothering layer of water near the bottom

of the sea must flee or perish.

"You can swim and swim and not see any fish," said Dr. Nancy

Rabalais, a marine scientist at Louisiana Universities Marine

Consortium who has dived in the zone. "Anything that can't move

out eventually dies."

While scientists have yet to measure the impact of the zone on

fishing yields, fishermen say they already feel its effects as they

are forced to travel ever farther to escape the zone's barren limits.

"This is a very serious issue," said Jim Giattina, director of the

Gulf of Mexico Program office at the Stennis Space Center in

Mississippi. Giattina said the gulf boasts an annual catch of 1.7

billion pounds of fish and shellfish, worth $26 billion. "We've

seen what can happen in other places in the world," he said.

"We don't want to see a collapse of this fishery."

In fact, researchers say, the problem of rising nutrient loads

and accompanying decreases in oxygen, known as hypoxia,

is becoming ever more common in the coastal waters of the

United States.

"Hypoxia in the gulf is a dramatic case," said Dr. Don Scavia,

director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration's Coastal Ocean Program and overseer of the

ongoing scientific assessment, "but it's symptomatic of what's

happening coastally." More than half of the estuaries in the

country experience oxygen depletion during the summer,

he said, and a third experience a complete loss of oxygen.

Dr. Rabalais and her team have led the research efforts to

date on the dead zone, also known as the hypoxic, or low-oxygen,

zone. She and others involved in the new research initiative by

the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

presented their latest findings in December at a meeting of the

American Geophysical Union, in San Francisco.

The scientists trace the trouble to high levels of nutrients, in

particular nitrogen, that flow out of the Mississippi and into

the gulf. As in other coastal areas, these rich stores of nutrients

feed algal populations which explode during the summer,

producing oxygen, as all plants do. This oxygen stays near

the gulf's surface. However, these blooms eventually fall to

the ocean floor. When bacteria begin decomposing the

dead algae, they deplete the oxygen from the ocean bottom,

sometimes to the point where none is left.

At the same time, the lighter fresh water flowing in from the

river forms a discrete layer on top of the heavier, salty gulf

waters, keeping oxygen in the air from reaching and refreshing

the hypoxic zone near the bottom of the sea.

Among the most compelling pieces of evidence are the maps

researchers have made since 1985 of the hypoxic zone. Scientists

measure the zone each summer, when it reaches its peak. Dr.

Rabalais carries out the work along with her colleague and husband

Dr. R. Eugene Turner, who is director of the Coastal Ecology

Institute at Louisiana State University and who discovered the zone

in 1974.

In 1993, the team witnessed a grand natural experiment as the

American Midwest was deluged and the Mississippi flooded, pouring

huge amounts of nutrient-rich runoff from waterlogged cities and

agricultural lands into the gulf. That summer the hypoxic zone doubled in size.

In contrast, 1988 was the year of a great drought in the Midwest,

Turner said, and "the hypoxic zone was almost absent," adding: "That

clearly shows the influence of the river is dominant."

The team of researchers has gathered corroborative evidence from

mud cores taken from the seabed of the hypoxic zone, studying algal

and animal remains in the cores that are dated using radioisotopes.

From these Turner and colleagues have been able to infer the relative

levels of algae and oxygen in the gulf for the past 200 years. They

found an increase in the amount of algae deposited, as well as a

decrease in the animals that require high levels of oxygen and an

increase in those that can tolerate low levels, such as microscopic,

one-celled creatures known as foraminifera.

The timing of the changes, said Turner, matches well the times

of known increases in nutrients in the river, with levels lowest

early in the century and striking increases since the 1950s.

The timing also matches large increases in fertilizer use,

suggesting farming as a key source of nitrogen in the river. In

addition, a U.S. Geological Survey study estimated that more

than half of the nitrogen reaching the gulf appears to come from

agricultural sources.

But farm fertilizers are not the only likely culprit. A report

released in December by the Senate Agriculture Committee

estimated that 1.37 billion tons of manure was produced by

livestock in the United States last year alone, much of it

making its way to the sea.

Despite the evidence, scientists remain reluctant to blame

the dead zone entirely on farmers.

"We're all fairly convinced that it's going to be agriculture

that's going to have to kick in and change to some degree

to make a big difference," said William Battaglin, hydrologist

at the Geological Survey, in Denver, and part of a team tracking

the sources of nitrogen in the Mississippi River Basin. "But we

don't want to point the finger at the farmer unless we're

absolutely sure. He's the one that's going to suffer."

Agriculture, researchers are quick to note, is not the only source

of nitrogen in the river, which drains 31 states from Montana to

New Mexico to New York, including nearly every state between

the Rockies and the Appalachians. Sewage treatment waste water,

industrial wastes, and atmospheric pollutants all contribute nitrogen

to the Mississippi.

At the same time, difficult questions remain.

Despite the significantly decreased flow of the Mississippi since the

great flood of 1993, the dead zone has grown to essentially the same

size every summer. But Dr. Rabalais says there may be explanations

for that. Theoretical models predicted a large dead zone in 1994,

the first year after the flood, and every year since then the gulf has

been hit with either floodwaters or pulses of water from the river

at just the right time to boost growth of the algae, making it impossible

to say with absolute certainty that the flood of 1993 caused the

explosive growth of dead zone.

"I haven't had a normal year since 1994," Dr. Rabalais said. "The

gulf is an uncontrolled experiment."