Happy Easter? A question for non-vegan Christians

Nothing says rebirth, renewal, and new life like the mass slaughter of lambs. 

How is slaughtering and eating a helpless, young, farmed creature the acceptable and expected Easter celebration?

I ask this question not only to Christian, but to any other celebrants that partake in ritualized lamb eating.

It doesn't make sense. 

At least, not these days.

Maybe, way back when, sacrificing an animal, and/or indulging in a feast of flesh had some relevance in context to the setting. Unlike now, people did not understand that the seasonal cycle was a cosmic/earthly certainty.* 

People needed reassurance that the sun would return and the harvest would be plentiful. They sacrificed to those beings they deemed to be in control, as a prayer, as a thank you. They ate heartily in celebration and gratitude. But the times have changed.

I am aware that lambs are slaughtered at a later stage than shown in the picture above, nevertheless, they are still babies. Or a baby is the coveted age.

According to this article, older lambs, and even mutton are sold due to the high price of spring lamb, (such a misleadingly cheery name.) 

https://www.irishtimes.com/food/2024/03/29/why-the-lamb-you-bought-for-easter-is-probably-not-spring-lamb/

This article gives a matter of fact account of the practice. For example, the mutton section appears to be written without the author batting an eyelid.**

On one side, this is good. It is, at least, honest. But the author's disconnect to the animals as more than a commodity is disturbing. Also, there's no talk of slaughterhouses, no pictures of bloody lambs. No in-depth details of overworked farmers and slaughterhouse employees (veganism concerns human suffering as well).

So, is the article really that honest? 

To use Christian terminology: in my view, hell is factory farms, slaughterhouses, prisons and war zones. And they are all on earth and created by humans.

*Although, that is highly debatable when Neolithic symbols and structures are taken into account.

**Mutton are sheep older than three. In Ireland these are mostly ewes traded into the meat plants as “cull ewes”. They are culled because they don’t go into lamb, have traits you don’t want to breed from such as lameness or they can’t feed themselves because of teeth problems. These are called “broken mouthed ewes” and this can occur from the age of five.

 

Freedom?

 "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall?" 

That iconic line form the Ronald Regan, Berlin Wall speech, 1987. 

So what does that mean? Well, at face value it means give those people their rightful freedom.

OK. So far, so good. Now let's flesh that out a bit. You have a leader from a democratic country imploring another leader to free the people trapped by his government's political ideology. 

What can one deduce from that other than US, the good guys, Russia the bad. In other words: communism bad, capitalism good. And break that down further: the only alternative to communism is capitalism. And even further: capitalism equals democracy, communism equals authoritarianism/totalitarianism.

But is this really the case?

Not in such a black and white sense. While abuse is certainly associated with Soviet treatment of the people trapped behind the Iron Curtain, as well as other so-called communist regimes, we know, that despite singing their own praises of the land of the free and the bastion of democracy, the US is far from being the good guys, and that goes for all Western countries.

Let's take a look at some examples of government violence against its own people, east and west. The Tiananmen Square protest and massacre in China. Protestors wounded and murdered in Soviet countries. Stalin's Great Purge. The Kent State Massacre of student antiwar protesters in Ohio, USA, the brutal execution of Americans Ethel and Julius Rosenberg accused of espionage, the forcing of Japanese Americans into concentration camps during WWII. *

Now let's look at examples of government violence against other people. The colonization of America, of Africa, of India, the invasion and sinicization of Tibet, the soviet invasion of Afghanistan. *

And government tactics: encourage people to snitch on each other. Make sure there are constant culture wars. Stoke fear, surveil.   

So. No good guys to be seen. Ultimately, just two sides of the same coin, especially in the case of the US and Russia. 

And what about the so-called Western democracies. Is that really the case when the elected officials don't reflect the will of the people or  consistently have their well-being in mind? 

Now, let's ask the question: must a communist ideology always go hand in hand with an authoritarian government? 

The answer is yes and no. 

Yes, if you have to trick the people into it by sweet talking them with populism, wowing them with charisma, deceiving, confusing, and eliciting their worst impulses with propaganda, and/or coercing them with fear and brutality. (Much of the same can be said for western tactics). People don't like to be forced into things. They will always resist and inevitably rebel. So control is needed. 

Yes, if there is still hierarchy present within the system. 

As with all societal change, people must come to the conclusion on their own that there is a way beyond capitalism. For many it will follow a crisis of utter disillusionment, an awareness that opens their eyes and minds to the egregious and unavoidable inequality inherent within the capitalist system: the perpetuated divide between the classes, the races. The culture wars. The confusion, mis- and disinformation.  

The key to a avoiding authoritarianism is to have, absolutely, no hierarchy in the new setup. Of course, natural leaders will emerge, but they are not better or special. Not deserving of more than others. And they must be monitored. Individual power can and usually does lead to negative outcomes. Collective power when heart centered (not mob violence) can lead to positive outcomes. But then the leaders must be kept in check or the oppressed become the oppressors, e.g. the French Revolution, Israel. 

Even parents are meant to be facilitators. They don't own their children. And while they are responsible for them and have a certain level of control over them, the relationship should be based on respect, not overreach.

Individual power is too much to handle and leads to corruption and, ultimately, a type of insanity. Hence the expression: Drunk on power. The energy of power must be dispersed equally throughout a community. Ultimate people power! Yet, it doesn't stop there. That community must then keep itself in check, lest they feel the urgency to force their way of life onto others. We could think of it like one person harnessing all the sun's energy. Everything else would suffer, and the individual would burn up. Which brings to mind the story of Icarus. 

Nuclear weapons are a literal image of power gone crazy.

Despite, the propaganda laden image of equality within communism fed to those trapped behind the iron curtain, the Soviet and East German governments were firmly and comfortably at the top. Corrupt and power tripping they exemplified the "Animal Farm" line of, All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. (As does, and always has, the US government and elites).

Another very important question is: why does Western democracy always go hand in hand with capitalism?

Is it the freedom to be greedy? The freedom to exploit? The freedom to be manipulated by cooperate advertising and lobbying? The freedom to consume and consume and always be wanting? Is capitalism not, in some ways, an illusion of freedom? The better your financial situation, the more freedom you have.

It is true that, generally, East Berliners lived their lives maintaining a low profile. No one wanted to stand out to the Stasi or Wall guards.  But I'd imagine, that's what many African Americans also do. Trying to avoid police harassment, being suspected of shoplifting, scaring the white women on the same side of the street.

So, in a capitalist country, economic inequality is a wall, race is a wall. And yet some white people still insist that there is no white privilege. Of course, the higher you are on the financial ladder the more privilege you have. But when it comes to poor people in the western system, especially in the US, African Americans will always be on the lowest rung.  Low socioeconomic status. A very thick wall indeed. That's not taking into account native tribal peoples who, tragically, really are in their own ignored marginalized category. 

Some might argue that the Church is the authority we should be following and submitting to. In Soviet Poland and the GDR, as well as Ireland in a different context and time, the Church was a haven for the oppressed. Yet the Church, as most, if not all religions, is built on patriarchal hierarchy and cultivates bigotry and division.

Can we not move beyond all this to a true egalitarian society, a true democracy that incorporates the perfect balance of individualism and collectivism? Not self-centered American style individualism, or dreary cold war collectivism, but a society that accepts and cherishes self-expression in all its many forms, and encourages looking out for each other. A world like this would require work, it would be an ongoing process, but I believe that people have it in them. We need to cultivate our inherent compassion and community spirit. 

oscail do chroí  

 *There are many more examples!

Thoughts About America from an Expat

Another True Red, White and Blue

The glossed over atrocities of the United States (historic and current), are woven into the attitude of its government and the many propagandized citizens. It is apparent in the brazen patriotism: a childlike or childish defense of all things American based on, indoctrination, omission and outright lies. Contrary to the stereotype, Americans aren't stupid, just woefully uninformed and insular. And that's just how the government wants them.

As a child growing up in the US I, of course, learned about the violent displacement of the indigenous peoples, but only on a superficial level and right along with the glory of The Founding Fathers, The Pilgrims and The Revolution. I never learned about the horrendous boarding schools, the infected blankets and so on, in short, the genocide. I never learned about the Filipino war or much about the Korean war. If some Hollywood films told the story of corruption and CIA meddling, more films sang the praises of the US, insidiously or outright. This not only made me receptive to American exceptionalism, it also kept me in a state of cognitive dissonance. How was the US so exceptional when also so bad. But that's the key. Ramp up the exceptionalism to the point where no matter what the US does to another culture/country, US citizens believe it was a necessary act. That is, if they even learn about it. 

Now, the US is certainly not alone in using extreme savagery to sort out the so called savages, the British are a prime example of a country adept at this. But that is irrelevant. It also doesn't matter that some of the victims of US imperialism weren't great themselves. These are not excuses for colonization, coups, invasions, bombs, torture and on and on and on. Even worse (if possible), when committed by a country that sells itself as the heroes of the world and tells its own people fairy tales. 

I don't think that the American people of today (and that goes for other colonizing countries as well) need to live in perpetual guilt for what their ancestors did, but they need to learn about the history, ALL OF IT, every last detail. See it for what it was and should never be again. Informed they can decide what they think of their country: do they want to leave, or stay and make it a better place? Face the past, process it and move on. This would free up US citizens of any burden they may carry, as well as making them more compassionate and wiser people. It would also allow the victims of this tyranny to be truly seen, thus initiating healing from intergenerational trauma. Respect Due! *

Sadly, the US has no intention of stepping down from their pedestal. No intention of telling the stark truth. There will be no war crime trials for any politicians. The Republicans will present the past as a necessity that, actually, had some handy advantages for the victims, and the Democrats will pay lip service to some of the US crimes while engaging in current ones. America may not always send troops, but they will send weapons. Hypocrisy and gaslighting continue.   

Despite this, I'm pleased to see many young Americans now aware of this fact, and articulate it well, along with some good, online, alternative news sources and commentary. The lid's off the box and the truth is flying out. Heartening and exciting, but not enough. So many still respond with either visceral defensiveness if their righteous image is challenged, or with a softer, 'but we meant well' attitude. Their own identity is so wound up in the US identity, they must excuse any wrong doing. 

But, as said, there is no excuse. You can't use the other side's bad behavior as a reason to invade, attack, colonize, interfere etc. If that's your criterion then the U.S. would be long gone. 

I read a comment by a German guy stating that after World War II, a part of Germany should have been given to the Jewish people for them to establish a homeland. For a moment, I was like, that would have been a great idea. And then it dawned on me. No, because the US would have just created another Western type country in place of Israel. That's not even taking into account the Christian and Judaic reasons for wanting Israel to remain where it currently is. 

Alas, the trauma of the Jewish people has been exploited to create an unstable and manipulative set up. An enabled cycle of fresh trauma and revenge deeply tragic for all the people living there. A situation that has now escalated into a genocide of Palestinians.**

Thoughts on responses to this type of critique:

If you criticize the US, you're bound to get a comment along the lines of: you spout a lot of hate towards your country without even realizing how great it is that you can speak freely without persecution.

But is this always true? There are examples where it is not. The Red Scare, for one. Malcom X another. And there are more.

Regardless, isn't the whole point of freedom of speech that you can criticize your government without persecution? So, therefore use it. Just because a country has positive aspects, it doesn't give the government carte blanche to do whatever they want. Should they not be held accountable? Very counterproductive to have the freedom to speak out, but then don't because you're so lucky to be able to.

Then there is the counter argument that no country is an angel and would do the same as the US if they could. 

OK. Let's look at invasions of the US. There was 9/11, Pearl Harbor, The Germans and Russians would have liked to. And there was Britain and Mexico. But what about a foreign coup attempt on the US? Or an assassinate attempt? Or lying about weapons of mass destruction as a ploy to invade?  And even if it is true that most countries are fueled by megalomania, greed and conquest, it is no excuse for America's actions. Of course, a country, a people, have every right to defend themselves, but not invade, bomb and meddle. Time and time again! 

Furthermore, I don't accept that the current way of the world is the way it has to be. Are humans not meant to evolve as a species? Do we not pride ourselves on our civilized ways? If so, then why do we not live up to this professed goodness? 

But for those Americans who use that excuse in defense of their beloved country, if bullying is the way of the world, why then does the government whitewash their atrocities and worse hide them?  Could it be that humans are inherently compassionate with a strong moral compass? And knowing this, the powers that be not only trick you into believing violence is good and necessary, they trick you into believing that struggle, strife and scrambling to the top are the fundamentals of human existence.***

Is it not time that governments world-wide start reflecting the will and ethics of the people?

Why defend a country that lies to you, disrespects your intelligence and actively tries to dumb you down? Why defend a country, any country that claims to be civilized and at the same time rationalizes the slaughter of children.

The US presents a false image to its citizens and the world. They are the purveyors of goodness delivered from the moral high ground. Live up to that or fess up!

Oh and one more thing. No, the US is not the freest and most wonderful place to live in. I have lived in the UK, Germany and Ireland and have never felt my freedoms were less. In fact, the standard of living was/is higher in many respects.

The US doesn't even show up in the top searches for best county or place to live in.

Do keep in mind that US interference causes destabilization in the targeted countries, and then Americans have the nerve to not want these people showing up at their borders as migrants and asylum seekers. Equally abhorrent is to then accuse these countries of being backwards and inferior, violent and unable without seeing  or admitting to America's hand in it all. This type of argument is used against African Americans, and, in all cases, is used to excuse state sanctioned violence against people.

*But, of course, those who still benefit from the spoils of slavery, genocide, and colonization (e.g. Germany, The US, The UK) can not fully acknowledge and respect the victims. Or, in the case, of Germany, the gnawing guilt manifests as a terrible allegiance to your former victims. And then  there are the similarities between Israel and US origins. It's no wonder some Americans can't condemn Israel when their own county was founded in a similar style. 

**Every criticism that can be said of the Israeli government's horrific handling of Palestine can be said about any colonizing country. Therefore, the tactic of smearing everyone who speaks out against it as anti-Semitic is not only disingenuous, it also undermines the actual legitimate meaning of anti-Semitism. And though this conflation is touted as the path to safety for the Jewish people, (along with the unrelenting, brutal assault on Palestine), it does a disservice to the people they claim to protect. Those who, hitherto, had never questioned the actions of Israel are now doing just that. And as they question and are then accused of anti-Semitism, the term becomes a weapon to silence and not a definition of active, terrible hate. 

***If religion is meant to be the path of finding human morality and keeping you there, why do so many religious institutions embrace violence using the same excuses as most world governments?