![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
[Pagan Prompt] Should you be vegetarian and pagan?
Many characterize paganism as an umbrella term "earth-centered" religions. Following from that there is an idea that pagans should be dedicated to honoring all life and be caretakers of the earth. The next jump made by many is that pagans should therefore refrain from eating meat. What do you think? Do pagans have a responsibility to honor all life and thus be vegetarians?
Following from that there is an idea that pagans should be dedicated to honoring all life and be caretakers of the earth. The next jump made by many is that pagans should therefore refrain from eating meat. What do you think? Do pagans have a responsibility to honor all life and thus be vegetarians?
This is, to me, such a flawed premise.
The thing is, it firstly assumes that pagans can only honour nature by 'letting it live' all the time. It completely denies the importance, and sacredness of death; and it ignorantly forgets that there is a natural life/death cycle with everything we do. I actually find it quite anti-nature, and anti-pagan, to forget that there is a natural life and death cycle that we are constantly a part of.
I mean we kill and eat plants while they're still living, even vegetarians need to own their part in killing to eat. Plants aren't exempt from being alive, sacred, or even potentially sentient just because they lack a central nervous system or can't scream in pain. We know that plants don't like being damaged and eaten, because many plants have evolved sophisticated and sometimes energy-consuming techniques to prevent it from happening.
I think that all life is equal, regardless of whether I can anthropomorphise it or not. I think that plants are equal to animals, and therefore it is hypocritical of me to value the lives of animals over the lives of plants just because we don't hear plants scream or see them struggle. I also find it kind of amusing that some vegetarians feel more superior than non-vegetarians, yet they are actually consuming a living being while it is still alive. Those fresh, raw vegetables are all living beings that still have a chance of living a full life in the ground - it is our call to strip it of its life in our digestive tract; often without thinking about it or even saying thank you for the sacrifice of the plants.
You would also hope that all vegetarians didn't ever kill any insects or trap mice or basically hurt anything that was 'animal like,' if that is their primary reason for eating vegies - 'respecting nature.' You can't logically have it both ways. If you refuse to eat meat because you see the sacredness in life, then how can you justify not being heart-broken every time you step on an ant, or inhale a dust mite?
The thing is, I feel that if people are using the 'respecting life / sacredness of life' reason as a justification for vegetarianism (as opposed to health reasons, or even just not wanting to eat battery meat / factory farmed animals (who does?)) then they are simply refusing to give the same sense of equality to all animals, let alone all living things. It's convenient, but I'm not sure if it's a really respectable way of being as a pagan.
I think there are a lot of flawed assumptions amongst those who think that eating vegetables only is more respectful than ever eating meat. Assumptions based on misunderstandings of the life/death cycle and the sacredness of death, assumptions based on the value of animals over plants, assumptions even based on cuter animals over the less cute ones (like insects or dust mites or mosquitoes)... so my answer is actually No. There is no reason that a pagan should be a vegetarian because they are pagan. There are plenty of reasons to be vegetarian, but 'respecting life,' is one of the flawed reasons, imho.
Following from that there is an idea that pagans should be dedicated to honoring all life and be caretakers of the earth. The next jump made by many is that pagans should therefore refrain from eating meat. What do you think? Do pagans have a responsibility to honor all life and thus be vegetarians?
This is, to me, such a flawed premise.
The thing is, it firstly assumes that pagans can only honour nature by 'letting it live' all the time. It completely denies the importance, and sacredness of death; and it ignorantly forgets that there is a natural life/death cycle with everything we do. I actually find it quite anti-nature, and anti-pagan, to forget that there is a natural life and death cycle that we are constantly a part of.
I mean we kill and eat plants while they're still living, even vegetarians need to own their part in killing to eat. Plants aren't exempt from being alive, sacred, or even potentially sentient just because they lack a central nervous system or can't scream in pain. We know that plants don't like being damaged and eaten, because many plants have evolved sophisticated and sometimes energy-consuming techniques to prevent it from happening.
I think that all life is equal, regardless of whether I can anthropomorphise it or not. I think that plants are equal to animals, and therefore it is hypocritical of me to value the lives of animals over the lives of plants just because we don't hear plants scream or see them struggle. I also find it kind of amusing that some vegetarians feel more superior than non-vegetarians, yet they are actually consuming a living being while it is still alive. Those fresh, raw vegetables are all living beings that still have a chance of living a full life in the ground - it is our call to strip it of its life in our digestive tract; often without thinking about it or even saying thank you for the sacrifice of the plants.
You would also hope that all vegetarians didn't ever kill any insects or trap mice or basically hurt anything that was 'animal like,' if that is their primary reason for eating vegies - 'respecting nature.' You can't logically have it both ways. If you refuse to eat meat because you see the sacredness in life, then how can you justify not being heart-broken every time you step on an ant, or inhale a dust mite?
The thing is, I feel that if people are using the 'respecting life / sacredness of life' reason as a justification for vegetarianism (as opposed to health reasons, or even just not wanting to eat battery meat / factory farmed animals (who does?)) then they are simply refusing to give the same sense of equality to all animals, let alone all living things. It's convenient, but I'm not sure if it's a really respectable way of being as a pagan.
I think there are a lot of flawed assumptions amongst those who think that eating vegetables only is more respectful than ever eating meat. Assumptions based on misunderstandings of the life/death cycle and the sacredness of death, assumptions based on the value of animals over plants, assumptions even based on cuter animals over the less cute ones (like insects or dust mites or mosquitoes)... so my answer is actually No. There is no reason that a pagan should be a vegetarian because they are pagan. There are plenty of reasons to be vegetarian, but 'respecting life,' is one of the flawed reasons, imho.
Re: Forgive my harshness part 1
Can you show me one study, done with real people and NOT funded by the diet or anti-obesity industries, that shows this? I'll take even one. I can show you at least three that show it does not. Heck, I'll even give you this link from the National Center for Health Statistics (using information given by the Centers for Disease Control) that state that death rates DECREASED. Yes, even in our "obesity epidemic" where all the obese people are slated to die prematurely from "obese related illnesses", well, we're actually living longer as a species. That does mean even the obese people are (because it would really scew the statistics if obese people were dying pretty young). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/08newsreleases/mortality2006.htm The most interesting findings (to me) were declining deaths in all of the following areas: Other declines were observed for chronic lower respiratory diseases (6.5 percent), stroke (6.4 percent), heart disease (5.5 percent), diabetes (5.3 percent), hypertension (5 percent), chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (3.3 percent), suicide (2.8 percent), septicemia or blood poisoning (2.7 percent), cancer (1.6 percent) and accidents (1.5 percent). Heart disease, stroke, diabetes, hyptertension (high blood pressure) are all considered "fat diseases". If it's really true that their is a higher risk of getting and dying from these things, then why, while obesity is increasing, death from so-called obesity related diseases are decresing?
From me:Obesity is also not necessarily a 'lifestyle choice'.
From you:Not saying it is. Just as I don't think anorexia is necessarily a lifestyle choice. Or alcoholism.
Actually, you did say that. In your first post on this subject, you said:
and just because anorexics (and particularly bulimics) are very likely to suffer similar problems as obese people doesn't make obesity a healthy lifestyle choice. At least with most of the people I've talked to, when you point out a skinny person that's an idol and have them confront/contemplate the idea of anorexia as a lifestyle choice, skinny is not so appealing anymore.
Your first reply to Pia said:
I mean, it really is all someone's choice, and it's fine if they make that decision. While you didn't use the term "lifestyle" in there, by saying it's a choice implies (especially after what you said previously about obesity being a lifestyle choice) that it's a lifestyle.
Re: Forgive my harshness part 2
Family is not the criteria that most people use, or should use, to decide what's best for their health. My mother starved me from the time I was 8 until 14, telling me that at 90 lbs and 5'2" I was obese and unhealthy. A lot of doctors are prejudiced against the overweight (much less the obese). I've already pointed out how flawed the so-called data is that the doctors are using to scare people into losing weight... Headlines that read that OMG TEH FATTIES are causing global warming, world economies to go down, etc, that didn't have one piece of datum that came from an actual living human being. And surgeons will take one look at a person who is overweight or obese and tell them that their issues are all due to their obesity and if they just lost x amount of weight, they'd feel so much better. (Go here to read first hand accounts of doctors who've done just that: http://fathealth.wordpress.com/)
I've never heard anybody who is overweight encourage anybody else to be overweight. The FA (Fat Acceptance) and HAES (Health At Every Size) movements are not about getting everybody to be obese. It's about 1) acccepting yourself for who you are, at the size you are, to stop trying to starve yourself to hit a societal ideal that you may never fit into (because different bodies come in different sizes or because (general) your obesity is actually caused by a health problem), and 2) to promote the idea that just because I'm fat, that doesn't make me unhealthy. Nobody can tell by looking at me if I'm healthy or not, yet, everybody thinks they can. If cholesterol and blood pressure check okay, and stress tests have been done, and I work out 6 hours a week as well as lead an active life besides that, and am STILL fat, how can I still be unhealthy?
hate the way the BMI works, as it has so many flaws. Biggest one: what about the weight of muscles? I like the waist to hip ratio more, but it has its flaws as well. If we use the latter, I would (loosely - based on a picture in my head) consider obese to be 1.4 in women (healthy considered to be .8). I'm not sure about men, since their waist and hips are a bit different... (healthy is .9 - 1?).
We agree on the BMI. But I brought that up to show how the standards changed. In 1997 as much as 33 million people were not overweight (by today's standards). In 1998, overnight, those same people became overweight. The people who in 1997 were merely overweight became obese in 1998. There isn't an "Obesity epidemic" going on. What is going on is a scewing of the data that's out there, including redefining what is even the criteria to consider somebody obese. There is something very wrong with this.
And can you please tell me how a hip to waist ration defines "health"? Again, assuming that there are measures of health which require doctors visits to check (blood pressure, cholesterol, stress tests, glucose tests, etc all come out normal or good), which one cannot see. So, how is that person with a 1.8 or 2 ratio unhealthy if every medical indicator says shi isn't unhealthy?
This is what is going on in the world today. Straw man arguements (well, the obese want everybody to be obese), diagnosis determined by size, governments trying to marginalize us. Then when the obese people stand up and say, "Um, no, we're not taking the bs anymore" we get accused and ridiculed even more.
Re: Forgive my harshness part end
And yeah, you said your wording was "inconsiderate, horrible, and not what you meant", but you keep using the same words. Maybe you don't realize how deep the popular culture's ideal has gotten into your mindset? (this is not meant in a mean way, just an observation)
Re: Forgive my harshness part end
I didn't go to the effort of trying to find a study... I couldn't figure out what kind of study to look for. Even statistics on death rates doesn't say too much... I mean, we're dying less from diseases that many obese people are supposed to have. But maybe that's more of a reflection on the medical community than on our weight. And how is a study going to distinguish overweight individuals that are most likely overweight due to medications or hereditary or glandular problems... before any health complications (heart disease, etc...) develop? And how is that study supposed to definitively say that these people came down with the disease due to their weight? I'm just not convinced it's possible to prove, without a doubt, that overweight individuals are more prone to disease just because they're overweight. I mean... you convinced me by asking me to find a study.
So, how is that person with a 1.8 or 2 ratio unhealthy if every medical indicator says shi isn't unhealthy?
That's not what I meant. You asked which obesity I meant, and I've never used the BMI calculator seriously, so pre-1998 or post, I don't enter that into the picture.
What I meant by a waist to hip ratio was to give a clearer visual as to what I personally consider obese. And even then, it's only a visual description.
I mean, if I was on the fence about obesity being unhealthy before, you and
Maybe you don't realize how deep the popular culture's ideal has gotten into your mindset?
You're probably right... although it's my own fault; I can't blame popular culture.
Here's a bit of my background:
I worry about my father... he's probably "morbidly obese" and so he finds exercising and being too active really unpleasant. And his health suffers. :( I mean, the only obese person I know (face-to-face) without a health complication is my boyfriend... even my blood pressure has started a major incline since gaining a lot of weight.
I mean, now I can apply what I've learned and observe that it's not because of the weight gain - but most of it is probably due to lack of activity (others being food choices, genetics, and whatnot).
And... you know, before I bury my head further up my ass... I'm sorry. I just... I'm not a good person to debate with, and I'm not very comfortable continuing this thread.
Re: Forgive my harshness part 2
I have put on a lot of weight over the past two years, and constantly thought that many of my health problems were because of it. But my blood sugar has been perfect, my cholesterol is low, my blood pressure is normal (it used to be low, actually, and has stabilised so I no longer get vertigo when I stand up).
And when I asked my doctor 'don't I need to lose 10 kilos for my surgery or something?' she laughed and said, 'studies so far actually show that it doesn't make that much of a difference on survival rates or how you go in physiotherapy (PT), it's your commitment to getting fit again that will make a difference.'
I exercise between 4-8 hours a week. It's not as much as I'd like, but it's more than many of my friends do. I eat healthy - I mean sure I do eat ice cream and chocolate, but the bulk of my meals are high in vegies and proteins, and moderate to small sized servings.
Watching Joy Nash' YouTube Fat Rants made me realise that I AM getting fitter, and I DO lead a healthier lifestyle than my rake-thin friend Mat who consumes two tubs of Yogo (chocolate custard) for breakfast every morning, and thinks that a kilo bag of M&Ms is okay to consume in one sitting.
It's made me realise that I am fat, not overweight, not 'slightly obese.' I'm fat. And I'm physically quite healthy (most of my health problems are side effects of PTSD). I'm also getting fitter by the day.
I am starting to, and struggling to realise now that I don't need to lose weight to be a good, healthy, fit person. As much as I love curves in other women, I have hated them in myself for so long... because of the prejudice of the media and others. And like you, I'm tired of feeling guilty or pressured for something I should never have been made to feel guilty or pressured about in the first place.
It's interesting what the studies reveal, isn't it?