Humanitarian Philosophy

Previous

By Emil Edward Kusel

No doubt some of the conscience-stricken readers will brand the author of the sentiments herein as an extremist rather than a humane enthusiast, but bethink yourself it is far better to be "an extremist" on a logical, noble basis than to be inconsistent under false pretense.


The author is presenting truths from an absolutely rational standpoint standing firmly on a real philosophical basis that cannot be overthrown by a cyclone of protests from the "religious" flesh-eating faction.

The idea is to show that man, when he gets "right with God," drifts away from the customs of ancient times and reasons from the Golden Rule foundation which is consistent with a higher life and makes him religiously humane as well as "pious."


You may allow your quasi-religious principle to prevail against reason; you may pout and cry against the Humanitarian's noble philosophy; you may dream of the imps of hell awaiting his quietus; you may consult your Bible to bless your inhumanity and yet mercy for our dumb fellow-creatures is unselfish, pure and gentle, resultant from a proper conception of man's superiority and his God.

If a man's religion is pure and good and undefiled it would be wrong to present facts to blast his belief (be it ever so superstitious); however, when he insists upon inhumanity toward any sentient creature, he should be severely criticised.


The scriptural passages that are well flavored with indecency and the scriptural inhumanity written in God's name are not one whit more inspired than are the objectionable lines of sensational literature.


The Bible has caused more bloodshed, more hatred; made more hypocrites and caused more suffering than all else combined. It is a book containing some lofty ideas and moral laws by good men, but the many inconsistencies therein have caused superstition, imagination, insanity, contemptibility and horrible cruelty that haunts the brain of the honorable thinking masses.


It is proper to impress indelibly in the minds of the pretenders of the several creeds "Thou shalt not kill;" neither shalt thou be accessory in the killing by encouraging the slaughter through patronage.

You may erect your massive temples and dedicate them to Jehovah; you may pray to your heart's content and sing psalms until doomsday, yet the earthquake, the cyclone, the tornado, the volcano overthrows the synagogue, the cathedral, the church, the brothel and the saloon without distinction. Evidently the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not omnipresent to protect an institution that stands for inhumanity.


One of the most noticeable inconsistencies ever presented to thinking people is the representation of "Divine Love" portrayed under the title "Peace," symbolized by a child leading the cow, the calf, the lion, the leopard and the lamb. This taken from the Bible, is supposed to represent, "And a little child shall lead them."

Just think of symbolizing "Peace" with an innocent child leading animals we actually murder! No doubt every religionist looks upon that painting as a masterpiece—an inspiration. Yet most of them sanction the slaughter of innocence by relishing a lamb chop or a veal cutlet.

"And a little child shall lead them!" Whither? To the slaughter? Is not that a miserable symbolization of "Divine Love" and "Peace?"

Such inconsistency painted in the name of religion is an abomination and deserves strenuous criticism.

Not the least in the realm of inconsistency are the Jewish people who fast on their day of atonement and break the Sabbath fifty-two times a year by bartering. Now where is the consistency in such an atonement when the Bible says explicitly: "Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy."

Such incongruity is practised universally among the orthodox as well as the reformed element. Like the Gentile, the Jewish religionist, notwithstanding that he admits the horror of viewing the death throes of a butchered animal, eats his flesh food "kosher" to satisfy his palate rather than live up to the promptings of conscience.


Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Christian Sciencism alike disregard the sacredness of all animal kingdom, and yet, after admitting the horror of the slaughter pen, they all encourage the merciless killing under the cloak of the Bible.


"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose" may well be applied to the religionist who upholds the killing of our dumb fellow creatures.


The fact that the Bible encourages the murder of an animal proves it is not entirely from the pen of holy men.

The individual who professes religion and says it is right to slay and eat when he can live without taking sentient life, on the vegetation which nature so bountifully provides, is a liar, a murderer and a hypocrite in his own higher conscience.


The so-called devout man wants to live and enjoy life, but he eats of the innocent animal that has been battered to death by the blow of the ax; he contends that a body which suffers pain was created for slaughter to satisfy his beastly palate. Such a man is destitute of the very essence of God-life be he minister, church-goer or layman.


Above all things the minister of the Gospel and the church attendant should be kind and considerate toward all animal creation and should construe the Scriptures and preach to prove the sacredness of their Holy Bible. They should do God's will one earth as it is in Heaven, absolutely abstaining from the fleshpots of Egypt, thereby discouraging the blotting out of animal life, proving conclusively by their lives that their God is just and kind and merciful.


The man who opposes the spilling of life blood of Nature's creatures is on the higher plane of life.

After searching for a mode of living through which we might find perfect peace on earth and good will toward our fellow-men, we become partially interested in the different religions, but we cannot conscientiously close our eyes and believe a meat-eating, gormandizing religionist is undefiled and passing on to spiritual perfection to ultimately, at dissolution, burst into a glorious immortality.


Read the memorable Sermon on the Mount, supposed to have been delivered by Christ Jesus, and note the humility, the tenderness, the love and all therein that is grand and noble—then decide that such a meek and lowly Nazarene could have eaten of the fleshpots or even have sanctioned the killing of any living creature, and you deprive that character of the very essence of divinity.


Flesh eating man's religion cannot emanate from a kindly heart because with all his intellectuality and knowledge of right and wrong, his animalistic tendencies are in excess. His horror for the slaughter pen is conclusive and positive evidence that the higher consciousness is dormant proving that carnivorous man hath no pre-eminence above the beast.

We fail to see any Christianity in the present-day Sunday churchianity, and we positively know there is nothing sacred in the person upholding the merciless slaughter of animals. Through all this we are made to fully realize the inconsistency of nearly all religious professions. We finally study the Laws of Nature, and we live from that time on according to the dictates of conscience and reason, with some little faith in addition. The first thought that impresses us is the inhuman custom of taking life blood, knowing that every man, woman and child, who possesses an atom of feeling, would shudder to look upon the butchery of our dumb fellow-creatures, and we know if the horror of the slaughter pen is admitted, it surely is a heinous crime to slaughter. Then we begin to delve deep into the real scientific subjects of real scientific men and really discover the real body builders are proper food, proper mastication, proper air and proper breathing, and occasional proper fasting, etc. We live the life as recommended by these noble logicians and benefactors. Now we look from the heights to the vast expanse of empty faith cure, cults and isms, creeds and dogmas, and theories, and realize how narrow they all are by not embodying humanitarianism and the laws of health and hygiene in their teachings.


From a spiritual conception, it is just as reasonable to recommend human cannibalism as the eating of butcher shop carrion.

The 25th day of December is the day set aside to present gifts to our sweethearts, wives and friends; the day Santa Claus brings toys to our little ones to overflow their little hearts with gladness, but mainly to commemorate the birth of one of the kindliest characters the world has ever known.

That holy day is horribly desecrated by the quasi-pious element throughout our Christian land in the killing of countless numbers of Nature's sentient creation.

Thanksgiving Day, likewise set aside for a sacred purpose—to thank God for the many blessings bestowed upon our great nation—is also desecrated by religious people as well as by the laity. On the day we should send our thanks to that invisible something (The First Great Cause) we praise an imaginary personal deity by killing things to satiate the craving of the palate.


The Bible condemns the eating of swine flesh (Deut. 14: 8; Is. 65: 4), but what care the pharisee so long as he intends pleasing the palate rather than obey the law of his God and conscience?


When we reach the Holy Mountain (consistent religion) we will abstain from eating flesh food and have a heartfelt desire for all creatures to live and enjoy life as we wish to live (Golden Rule.)

Selfish civilized intellectual human takes his gun and repairs to the forest and wantonly slaughters wild game. Perhaps he kills outright; perhaps he wounds; perhaps the animal he has wounded is dying a slow, painful death; perhaps he wounds or kills a mother and the young are starving in nest or lair, and perhaps a professed Jew, Catholic, Protestant or Christian Scientist is relishing the seasoned carrion while the little ones are dying for the want of that mother's care. God forbid the belief in such a god!


The huntsman, who wounds the wild game, goes to his couch and rests peacefully while the poor dumb, wounded animal is dying in the forest, suffering most excruciating pain.

The deer, the dove, the quail and all of Nature's blood creation must suffer with horrifying wounds at the hands of the thoughtless, cruel hunter; upheld by so-called religious people who contend that such inhumanity is permissible in God's sight.

This very day thousands upon thousands of our dumb fellow-creatures are suffering agonizing deaths caused through wounds inflicted by the merciless hunter; and thousands upon thousands of professed Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Christian Scientists worship the god that tolerates such cruelty. Hypocrisy! Inconsistency! Shame!

Sift mankind down to his noblest thought, and he must admit the life of an animal is just as sacred as his own.


Knowing that all humanity feels the horrors of taking the life blood of defenseless animals, you are compelled to condemn every religious institution that does not embody within its creed the vegetarian diet.


Animals instinctively flee from danger, and suffer pain, which proves the brute creation has a right to an appointed time upon the earth. When man slaughters these helpless creatures under the selfish idea that they were created for that purpose, he is destitute of divine principle.


The almighty dollar is the god of the civilized people—mankind takes the sacred life blood of God's creatures and barters the carcass in exchange for money. Nearly all clergymen and the laity eat of the murdered animal. Shame!


Let us be at least considerate and reason on the side of mercy. If your religion sanctions the killing of innocent animals, well then, in the name of all that is pure and good, lay aside your religion and get your soul in tune with the Infinite, and then use your faculties of reason to develop up to the highest ideal.

Condemn the killing of innocent, defenseless animals, and do away with the fleshpots of Egypt, and praise Deity for endowing you with reason sufficient to realize the wrong of shedding life blood, and then sing hosannas for the nobility of living according to the promptings of higher conscience.


Do not think of the savory beef and mutton as it hangs in the market place, but turn your mind and heart to the abattoirs and see the horror of slaughter and then acknowledge that if God is not in the slaughter house to hinder the killing of a dumb brute he is surely not in the churches reserving crowns and halos for a sanctimonious element whose palate takes precedence of principle.


The church folk encourage the killing of quadruped, fish and fowl and then have the audacity to say grace at meal time, thanking God and imploring Him to shower blessings upon them.


You believe in all that elevates man to the highest standard of excellence and yet in the eating of a slaughtered animal you are an accessory to the crime of murder—a crime that is far more morally wrong and horrible than any so-called venial sin.

The man who "believes" and has "faith" solely for his soul's safety through fear rather than through love; the man who affiliates with the church with mercenary motive; the man who testifies with lying tongue to the virtue of his carnivorous unfeeling religion; the man who shifts the blame of his cussedness to the mythical Satan; the man who is weak and bent toward religious emotionalism; the man who sees the mote in every eye but his own; the man who stands on the street corner preaching hell and damnation, "fighting the devil," are the sorts of men who decry that all beings have an equal right to live.


If perchance a fellow human becomes tired and weary of the vicissitudes of this world and cancels his own captivity (suicide), we frantically throw up our hands realizing the enormity of such a crime.

His life is his own and he may do as he pleases; his sin of self-destruction is between himself and his God, and yet we grieve at such a sad exit. The very same man who shudders at the uncanny thought of another's self-murder will uphold the killing of a dumb brute to satiate the "human" palate. The animal does not want to die yet the intelligent man who has a "merciful loving God" makes murder permissible taking his authority from the book he calls "The Sacred Bible."

The Proverbs, the Psalms, the Sermon on the Mount, and many other portions of the Good Book are beautiful, and no doubt the writers of the select passages were inspired, but the evil spirit was surely predominant in the man who depicted the Prince of Peace, in all his humility, as a flesh eater.


A pitiful story to be told about a little girl whose father was supposed to be very devout, and in whose residence the motto,

"GODI S NOW HERE I NOUR HOME"

adorned the wall, confusedly printed by her illiterate parent.

One beautiful day, as all nature seemed in perfect harmony, the child strolled to the barnyard where the hired man was killing the petted calf preparatory to having a great feast in honor of the son, returning from a western college of theology.

A thought struck the child as she saw the life blood of an innocent animal ebbing away, through a horrible knife wound.

She hastened back to her father's home, sad but wiser, and appropriately divided the motto on the wall:

GOD IS NO WHERE IN OUR HOME.

or as Daniel interpreted King Belshazzar's dream, the thinking child weighed her papa in the balances and found him very much wanting in God principle.

Many so-called pious people throughout the land condemn theaters, dancing, sociable drinking, prize-fighting, card playing, pastime smoking, Sunday recreation, the innocent custom of Santa Claus and the comic supplements of our Sunday newspapers, yet none of these pleasures and pastimes could be half so abominable and sinful as the encouragement of slaughter.


Every church member construes the Scriptures to please his own individuality; sometimes he construes literally but when the passage does not coincide with his appetite or manner of living he invariably finds a figurative meaning.


We justify almost any sort of life by the Holy Bible, but we cannot pull the blinds over the eyes of conscience.


The Women's Christian Temperance Union cannot influence towards reformation effectively; the women of this religious order are trying to defeat liquor and cigarette traffic, yet loth to realize under their profession of Christianity, they are sinners greater than either the unfortunate cigarette fiend or the drunkard, because they all admit the horror of killing, at the same time relishing a mess of carrion, thereby virtually encouraging the killer to kill more.

The tiger pounces upon the giraffe and rides it to death, all the while tearing the flesh from the bleeding animal; the puma pounces upon the mountain goat; the hyena tears the entrails from its living prey and the cat pounces upon the beautiful song bird and takes its innocent life—where is your merciful, loving, personal God?


The religionist who lives on hallucination or believes that faith alone "is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," and will not reason, is living in the dark ages still.


If one desires going into absolute truth concerning the killing of helpless animals, he may justly condemn the wearing of leather shoes, gloves, etc., all of which are worn contrary to Nature's Law.


The self-styled religious element send missionaries to foreign lands to spread the gospel of love when they, themselves, as well as those they send, are insufficiently human to recognize the brutality of slaughter.


Take man to the slaughter house to view the butchery, and then if he contends God created helpless, dumb brutes for the slaughter pen, he is positively heartless. If he shudders to witness the hideous butchery, that proves conclusively that God is not omnipresent.

If man wishes to disregard spirituality and remain an agnostic, infidel or an atheist, that is his privilege and he may continue eating carrion and encouraging slaughter, from the lower animal plane, but when he steps over the threshold into religion and affiliates with the churches and talks of man's pre-eminence above the beast he must of necessity be in sympathy with his dumb fellow creatures and abstain from flesh-eating to discourage all things not in harmony with God. (Higher self).


Does it not hurt the innocent lamb when you cut its little throat? Does it not hurt the little calf when you take its tender life? Does it not hurt the cow when you wield the axe with tremendous force against its forehead? Does it not hurt the sheep when in the agonies of death? Does it not hurt when the goat pitifully gurgles the sound "Oh Lord," as its life-blood is passing the butcher's knife? If pain does attend this horrible inhumanity of man, what right then has he to establish for himself a God in Heaven when in reality he hath no more feeling in his miserable carcass than hath the cannibal of the uncivilized isles.


All things may be possible to God, but the idea of placing the breath of life into our fellow-beings to be snuffed out by a superior intellectual animal is the absurdest of all absurdities.

Dancing, theater-going, rag-time music, and all other pleasures to kill the monotony of daily routine, are under the ban of the churches. We carry ourselves aloof from these awful (?) sins and walk in the attitude of solemnity to impress Almighty God with our piety. We preach against liquor and tobacco while we ourselves are addicted to the use of tea and coffee (stimulants). We condemn everything we ourselves do not care for and we jealously admonish others to be just like us. Now if dancing, theater-going, rag-time music, etc., and the immoralities of life are sins of venial proportion, of what colossal magnitude must be the sin of taking life we cannot restore and how immeasurably hellish are the churches that uphold the killing in the name of a merciful God!


The dumb animals were created by Nature same as man (except that we are a little above the animal in intellect), and have a divine right to live out their respective allotted time same as man (minister, church-goer or layman.)


The Buddhist who regards all animal life sacred is on the right path to spirituality, while the carnivorous Jew, Catholic and Protestant are drifting in the rut of dark age fantasy and fanaticism.


QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Q. Are you not a little bit radical on the subject of Humanitarianism?

A. To you I may be "a little bit radical" because I oppose all religions (yours inclusive) which make mankind selfish and unfeeling.

Q. If the Bible teaches me to slay and eat have I not a right to eat flesh?

A. Yes, a legal right and your Bible right, but not a moral right.

Q. Do not some people believe it is right to slay and eat lower animals?

A. Yes, from their palate, but all honorable conscientious men see a wrong in taking life.

Q. Has not environment throughout one's life something to do with our eating of flesh?

A. Yes, but come out of it and be in line with a grander, nobler and consistent life. Lay aside your palate and let your conscience rule.

Q. Is not the devil in your philosophy?

A. It seems so to you because it is an exposÉ of churchianity, proving beyond question the nothingness of the flesh eating religionist's piety.

Q. Suppose man lives in a country where he cannot find vegetarian food?

A. Then he might be justified in eating flesh to preserve his life.

Q. If there is no personal God, who created this world?

A. It is a scientific proposition, and so acknowledged by all thinking men.

Q. Do church people get angry at your philosophy?

A. Yes, sometimes, as when their conscience is seared by a hot iron.

Q. Have not vegetables life?

A. Not life which suffers an evident pain nor do they flee when you threaten to pluck them. Such a question is invariably asked by a carnivorous wiseacre.

Q. Why are all Vegetarians lank, lean and skinny?

A. Because you like the taste of meat and intend to continue eating it.

Q. I know animals have fear and pain, but supposing God did place them on earth for man to slay and eat, what then?

A. "God" is no better then than your "devil."

Q. What were animals created for?

A. What were YOU created for?

Q. What is your conception of God?

A. Nature. Higher self—Conscience.

Q. Do you not kill insects when you drink water; and do you not cripple and trample harmless bugs to death with every step you take?

A. Yes, but involuntarily and not with premeditation and not selfishly to satisfy an inhuman desire or appetite.

Q. Would you "swat" a fly or kill a flea or a snake?

A. If a pest or venomous reptile disturbed my peace and quiet I would be justified in protecting myself.

Q. Is not the survival of the fittest a natural law; consequently being superior I may slay and eat?

A. That's your idea because the "fittest" is yourself—in your own estimation and power; but there's no godliness in such a contention. It is your selfish conclusion that might is right at the expense of sentient life.

Q. Do I not work hard and do I not know that I need meat to sustain me in my manual labor? Do I not know what my system needs.

A. Your system does not require food which must come from a murdered animal! When you contend that you must subsist on flesh, you know not whereof you speak. You are talking to uphold your inhuman appetite.

Q. Where would medical research be were it not for vivisection (torture) and killing animals for experiment in the interest of science?

A. I do not know, but I do know scientific men have not a moral right to torture and kill harmless, helpless animals. Experimenting in surgery, etc., should be done on humans who believe in the advancement of medical science at the expense of life.

Q. Do you object to the infidel eating flesh food?

A. I do not object to anyone eating flesh food—eat whatever you like, but I do point out the wrong of taking life and I emphatically say the religious institution upholding slaughter is a farce and a pharisaical monument to a man-made deity.

Q. Do you actually consider flesh eating the most abominable of sins?

A. Yes, absolutely the most abominable.

Q. What do you think of religious emotionalism and ecstasy?

A. If from the mouth of a carnivorous worshipper it is sham and pretense—a mockery.

Q. Is not your feeling toward animals mawkish sentimentality?

A. There is no such thing as mawkish sentimentality in decrying inhumanity.

Q. Do not the lower animals prey upon one another, and do not the big fish eat the little fish?

A. You profess to be above the inferior animals and you profess to have a soul; you also have a Golden Rule supposed to have been handed down by a kind and merciful Creator.

Q. What shall we do with all the animals if we do not kill them?

A. Is that why you eat flesh?

Q. Do you really think carnivorous churchites are not of God?

A. I don't think it, I know it absolutely, because I know it is wrong to kill and I know they know it and I know they search the Scriptures for "proof" to satisfy palate while Conscience rebels.

Q. What do you think of a religionist who says, "I am living under a new dispensation since Christ came and went, and I now eat anything the Lord sets before me?"

A. If he means he can eat at the expense of sentient life he is not a Godly man; he is not living in harmony with the Golden Rule; he is not living according to the promptings of a higher self, consequently the God spirit is dormant.


The church carnivora's favorite Bible quotations to justify his inhumanity are invariably quoted from a petrified conscience and the region of the palate. Here are several of the passages:

"There is nothing from without a man, entering into him can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man."


"For one believeth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, eateth herbs. But to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean to him it is unclean."


"Now the spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils. Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them, which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving; for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."


"In a trance I saw a vision; a certain vessel descend as it had been a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners. I considered and saw four-footed beasts of the earth and beasts and creeping things and fowls of the air; and a voice said unto me, Arise, Peter, slay and eat."


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page