Índice
Geral das Seções
Índice da
Seção Atual
Informação: Este texto foi gentilmente enviado ao Site Anna Kingsford Site pelo Sr. Brian McAllister, que o fotocopiou do álbum de recortes do Sr. Samuel Hart. Lá podemos ler a observação que a primeira parte desta palestra, até o final da citação da obra Towards Democracy (Rumo à Democracia), foi publicada na revista The Vegetarian News (Notícias Vegetarianas), Vol. 5, nº 59, nov. 1925, pp. 274-279.
(p. 1)
WHY
BE A VEGETARIAN? (1)
SOME ARGUMENTS FROM THE RELIGIOUS STANDPOINT.
By SAMUEL HOPGOOD HART.
Before the question “Why be a Vegetarian?” can be answered, it is necessary to
understand what is meant by vegetarian, for there appears to be a doubt in the
minds of some as to what constitutes a vegetarian – that is, if we look to
dictionaries for a definition. I will pass over such definitions as “a
vegetarian is one who lives on vegetables only,” and “one who holds that
vegetables are the only proper food of man,” because I doubt if these
definitions would include any living vegetarian. According to the following
definition, also taken from a dictionary, vegetarians are “those who on
principle abstain from animal food” and “those who maintain that vegetables and
farinaceous substances constitute the only proper food of man.” The first part
of this last-mentioned definition (which is in negative form) is right so far as
it goes, provided that by animal food be understood fish, flesh, and fowl. Every
vegetarian abstains from these three kinds of food, and to abstain from these
alone is sufficient qualification (apart from the payment of subscriptions) for
membership of any vegetarian society in this country. The second part of the
definition (which is in positive form) is not so satisfactory, because, while
all vegetarians would agree that vegetables and farinaceous substances
constitute a proper food for man, no vegetarian would maintain
that man should live exclusively on these two
classes of food. Vegetarians include in their food fruit and nuts – both most
valuable and important foods – and most of them partake also of such animal
products as milk, butter, cheese, and eggs. I say “most,” because there are some
who abstain from dairy products and – playing on the word – nick-name their
fellow non-flesh-eaters who do not so abstain “vegedairians.”
And there are non-flesh-eaters who, not abstaining from dairy products, do not
call themselves vegetarians. I think that for all practical purposes vegetarians
may be defined as those who at all times and on principle abstain from eating
fish, flesh, and fowl, and live on some one or more of the following foods,
viz., fruits, nuts, vegetables, and farinaceous foods, to which, if desired,
may be added such dairy produce as milk, butter, cheese, and eggs. Farinaceous
foods consist or are made up of meal or flour of various species of corn or
grain. All such foods contain a large percentage of starch, and are sometimes
spoken of as “the starch foods.” The word
(p. 2)
farinaceous
is derived from the Latin word farina, which, in a
general sense, means ground corn, meal or flour. Flour is also made from the
seeds of leguminous or pulse plants such as peas, beans, and lentils.
Having defined what I mean by vegetarian, the question “Why be a vegetarian?”
would appear ridiculous did we not live in a country in which the majority of
people are flesh-eaters, for it is for flesh-eaters rather than for vegetarians
to be called upon to justify their conduct and give a reason for the faith that
is in them. Now, it is just his conduct regarding his food that the flesh-eater
cannot morally justify. There is no law against the pure and bloodless diet of
the vegetarian, for he is not only a pure feeder – he is also a humane feeder,
which the flesh-eater is not. In a letter which recently appeared in The Daily Mirror,
(2) the writer, who described himself as “Satisfied Experimenter,”
after referring to the growing body of well-informed opinion as to the
desirability of food reform, said: “In my own case, dislike for the Wembley
Rodeo led to what struck me as a logical step, i.e.,
the dropping of meat from my diet,” and, “after more than a year’s abstention, I
know that I shall never return to it, for I can certainly say that I shall never
felt fitter.” Now, the writer of that letter was first and foremost a moral man, for it was
on moral and humane grounds that he gave up flesh-eating, and after he made the
change he enjoyed the blessing of health. Would that there were more men of his
stamp in the world! In the short extracts from his letter to which I have
referred, two reasons for being a vegetarian are given or implied: first, the
cruelty connected with the cattle traffic, which, so far as the victims are
concerned, ends only in the horror of the slaughter-house; and, secondly, the
improvement in or maintenance of good health which followed the giving up of a
flesh diet. This letter was followed by another (3) in which the
writer said: “‘Satisfied Experimenter’ is undoubtedly right. If the human race
could be weaned of its degrading custom of gorging itself upon the dead bodies
of warm-blooded animals it is certain that the health of body and mind of the
community would experience an astonishing uplift. The idea that this repulsive
provender is necessary for the production and maintenance of mental and
physiological potency is an utter fallacy.” In this further letter another
reason for being a vegetarian is given, viz., that flesh-eating is a
degrading custom affecting not only the bodies but also the minds of those who
indulge in it. So, from these two letters alone, which have only recently
appeared in our daily press, three good reasons are given for being a
vegetarian.
If flesh-eating be not necessary – as most assuredly it is not – then it is
morally wrong. It is a sin against humanity to kill and eat our fellow-animals
who are in the position of our lesser brethren. If any would persuade us to the
contrary, let our reply be as St. Peter’s who, when on a certain occasion he
understood that he was commanded to “kill and eat,” replied “Not so.” We read in
the
(p. 3)
Psalms
that “The Lord abhors the blood-thirsty man.”
Do flesh-eaters believe this? Verily, in more senses than one is the butcher’s
shop a “gate of death,” for it spells blood-guiltiness and spiritual death to
those who support it. It is not merely mental and physical degradation that
follow flesh-eating. There is a killing of the
soul in the practice. All the paths of the Lord are Mercy
and Truth. He who would ascend the “Mount of the Lord” – that Holy Mount in
which they neither hurt nor destroy – must walk innocently and seek peace and
ensue it. It is of no use to cry “Peace, peace” where there can be no peace, and
there can be no peace in partnership with cruelty and bloodshed. God’s mercy is
over all
His works.
Regarding the cruelty of flesh-eating, have you ever considered what cruelty to
our fellow creatures as well as to the animal victims is involved in the
practice? The man who slaughters is unutterably degraded by the practice, and
those who eat meat are responsible for his degradation. Flesh-eaters in effect
pay a man to do wrong that their thirst for blood may be gratified, thereby
making themselves accessory to another’s sin. And those who defend the ill deed
are guilty of the same offence. It was
(p. 4)
Vegetarian
Society, had been advocating the use of the humane killer in the
slaughter-houses, and no stone had been left unturned to make the butchers and
their customers and the local council see through humane eyes. So blunted is the
conscience of the great majority of flesh-eaters that they will not even take
steps to insist that the killing operation be performed with the least possible
suffering and anguish to their food-victims. And our flesh-eating clergy, from
bishops downwards, are as apathetic on the subject as are their congregations.
Thus it has come to pass that the foremost advocates for the compulsory use of
the humane killer in the slaughter houses are to be found among vegetarians who,
while not believing it right to kill animals for food, believe it right to
succour animals in distress, and, when they find them in prison under the
compulsion of flesh-eaters, to visit them. The Duchess of
(p. 5)
those
great teachers Dr. Anna Kingsford and Edward Maitland – a book that cannot fail
to convince all who are open-minded on the subject.
The Hon. Rollo Russell, in Strength and Diet
(p. 604) says: “A child, who had been in the field to feed and fondle his pet
lambs, entered the kitchen to return a plate. The cook was not there. On the
table was an open book. The child read what was before him: ‘Sheep’s head. Clean the head (split in half), take out the eyes,
remove the tongue, remove also the gums and teeth and nostrils, and leave in a
pan of warm water, with half-a-cup of vinegar on it, for an hour . . . Serve
with melted butter, and the brain, which should be boiled separately, chopped
small, together with some parsley.’ The child read no more in that book, but
flew to the sunny woods, and sobbed aloud to Nature.” This is followed by other
recipes equally revolting, recipes says the writer, “calmly recorded by a
Christian for Christians.”
Having read the above recipe for “Sheep’s head” one might think that nobody in
this country would partake of such food. But this is not so.
Only a few days ago (4)
a brush-maker who lived in
It
is not necessary that man’s life on the physical plane be sustained by
bloodshed, and, apart from necessity, there is no divine licence to man to kill
the lower animals – his lesser brethren – for food. The bodies of the animals
were not intended for the food of man, but for the service of the animal. The
higher animals, as we know, have already evolved to a stage approaching the
human, and are too highly sensitive to be made to endure the torture of the
shambles. It is too shocking to contemplate. With lower orders of animals the
suffering may not be so great, but the flesh-eater does not pretend to confine
his acts of outrage to lower orders of animals. The time has come to lift the
burden of slaughter for food from the animal kingdom, and the burden of sin from
those engaged in the business whether as principals or accessories. There is a
great ideal behind the vegetarian movement, an ideal that some day will find
expression in the lives of all mankind, and not merely, as at present, of a
comparatively small number of humanitarians. The forces that are on the side of
God are behind the movement, and they must in the end prevail. Edward Carpenter,
in Towards Democracy
(pp. 174-5) says: “Behold the animals. There is not one but the human soul lurks
(p. 6)
within
it, fulfilling its destiny as surely as within you ... I saw deep in the eyes of
the animals the human soul look out upon me. I saw where it was born deep down
under feathers and fur, or condemned for awhile to roam four-footed among the
brambles. I caught the clinging mute glance of the prisoner, and swore that I
would be faithful. Thee, my brother and sister, I see and mistake not. Do not be
afraid. Dwelling thus and thus for a while, fulfilling thy appointed time – thou
too shalt come to thyself at last. Thy half-warm horns
and long tongue lapping round my wrist do not conceal thy humanity any more than
the learned talk of the pedant conceals his – for all thou art dumb we have
words and plenty between us. Come nigh, little bird, with your half-stretched
quivering wings – within you I behold choirs of angels, and the Lord himself in
vista.”
If
I have not answered the question “Why be a Vegetarian?” or if there be any doubt
as to the existence of a human soul in its early stages behind the animal form,
let me draw your attention to the action of a horse, an account of which
recently appeared in the papers. (5) A horse saved the life of a
woman under the following circumstances: The woman was driving the horse in a
trap, and stopped at the edge of
(p. 7)
Daily Express
he is reported to have said: “When I was there, I was taken
to
Many instances of acts of devotion shewn by animals to those who have been kind
to them could be given, while acts of the greatest inhumanity towards animals
are frequently recorded of man. To take the case of a dog’s heroic action which was reported in the Daily
Mirror of May 4th, 1925. The account says: “Despite fierce
flames that must have caused it excruciating agony, a dog made a vain attempt to
save a baby from being burned to death.” The facts were as follows: A woman had
left her eighteen-months-old child lying on the floor of an upstairs room. She
had gone downstairs, when she heard the dog barking furiously. "She rushed to
the room and found the baby’s clothes blazing, and the dog, with tongues of flame hiding its head,
trying to pull the child away from the fire. Evidently the child had gone too
near the fire, and the dog, after giving the alarm, had rushed to its aid.” We
will now turn to another account and see how a man can treat a dog. The case is
reported in the Daily Express
of January 13th, 1925. It is very sad reading. It is the case of a pottery
worker who was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment for “burning a dog alive!”
The account says: “He threw the dog into the fire-box of a turbine boiler and
closed the door. The cries of the animal brought assistance, but it was so
seriously injured that it had to be destroyed.” I say that acts of inhumanity
such as these towards poor and defenceless animals would be unheard of if people
would cease to eat them, and learn to see and appreciate in them the birth of
those human instincts which in themselves they associate with righteousness.
In
conclusion, I would draw attention to a letter which was published in the Occult Review,
for November, 1924, giving an account of a psychic experience which the writer
of the letter had, and which has a bearing on our subject. The writer of this
letter says that, on waking one morning at daybreak, he momentarily saw in the
sky,
(p. 8)
amidst
golden rays and tinged with exquisite colours of many hues, an archway over
which in spotless white lettering there was written the word TRUTH. Then there
came to him from within the “urge of some unseen force” to write down the
message which was the subject-matter of his letter, and the message was that
“Beyond is the plane of truth supernal, but only along the path of earth’s most
worthy actions can mankind reach its portals,” and, in this connection, man’s
serious attention must be drawn to his thoughtless and cruel attitude towards
the lower animal creation. “The continual exploitation of God’s lowly sentient
creatures” was declared to be both “unnatural and unnecessary,” and “its
cessation is the only sure ground upon which to establish a logical, effective,
and lasting brotherhood.” Man must realise the spiritual significance of the
sacredness of life which implies unity – “the binding together of one great
universal fraternity.” The taking away of God-given life, which man cannot
replace, whether it be through the medium of the abattoir, the chase,
the trap, or the gun – all entailing untold misery, pain and horror – “is a
constant violation of Nature’s laws” which consciously and in various ways
rebound upon the lawbreaker. He that desires mercy from the heavenly plane must
fully and practically show the same to others on the earthly plane. The
writer was further told that “God’s love was not for man alone, but included all
his sentient creatures,” and not until man becomes determined to make the earth
a humanistic planet will he in his mind and body know the “peace of God.”
And the writer was exhorted in the following words: – “When passing over, let
your flight be to the plane of truth – its entrance is dependent on love,
sympathy, and mercy, and a simple method of earthly living.”
May the love of God which extends to all creatures be in your
heart.
NOTES
(1)
A lecture given on October 12th, 1925, to the Croydon
Vegetarian Society.
(2)
September 17th, 1925.
(3) The Daily Mirror,
September 19th, 1925.
(4)
See The Daily Express, October 6th, 1925.
(5) The Daily Express,
October 3rd, 1925.
