Published: March 01, 2008 10:00 pm         

We should thank Noah and Peter for our steaks

A friend of mine looks forward to reading our letters to the editor so he can see who is arguing with whom, and about what, and the ingenuity they bring to the table.

“Some of these people are crazy,” he says, “but that doesn’t mean they aren’t clever.”

Because of the passion they invoke, my favorite arguments are those involving religion, politics and vegetarianism. It is when these topics are argued that we are most likely to think that someone who disagrees with us is as loony as a regiment of (rodents who inhabit privies).

I particularly enjoy the letters in which folks argue about who is, and who is not, a Christian. Are they sufficiently familiar with the Scriptures to cite the appropriate passages from memory, or do they just pick a few verses to use in support of their arguments (as I’m going to do later on)? Did they actually read the Bible and decide for themselves, or did they receive their interpretation of it from some genius in a pulpit?

Great-grandfather Goldsworthy memorized the entire Bible and was friends with the preacher, even though he stopped going to church after my great-grandmother died in the flu epidemic of 1918.

When the preacher came to visit, they would argue about the Bible to the point where the rest of the family had to come downstairs and tell them to knock it off so they could get some sleep.

It’s no different with politics. Grandfather Goldsworthy was a diehard Republican, and he enjoyed the same type of relationship with the late Harley O. Staggers Sr., a diehard Democrat who became a long-time Congressman. They argued constantly and were great friends.

Politics and religion aren’t just subjects for debate. They can be useful tools in arguments about other subjects, particularly science.

For example: Is Al Gore living up to the moral obligation God gave him to be a good steward for the Earth by amassing enough Carbon Credits that he can in good conscience fly his private jet around the world to warn people about Global Warming, which burns more earth-polluting carbon-based products in one flight than you and I would use in a year of commuting to work, particularly in light of the fact that it wouldn’t be necessary if the Republicans hadn’t stolen the election from him and persist in lying about the reasons for climate change?

We could add vegetarianism to this debate by saying that if Gore and his passengers eat hamburgers on their flights, they are contributing to deforestation. (Can we qualify for Burger Credits?)

As to vegetarianism, some of its practitioners are almost as belligerent as the anti-smokers among us — although it’s hard to figure out why. It’s understandable that nonsmokers object to second-hand smoke, but how is someone’s life and health to be threatened by second-hand chicken?

Because this is America, nobody can force you to eat chicken, although you can eat chicken if you want. You are equally free to be an advocate or an opponent of eating chicken — or you can refuse to give a damn one way or the other.

When Kentucky state Rep. Charles Siler introduced a bill to make Kentucky Fried Chicken (the original recipe) his state’s official picnic food, animal rights activists immediately protested. (They have been strangely silent about the advertising in which cows urge us to Eat More Chikin.)

According to The Associated Press, PETA alleges that chickens have been tortured by Colonel Sanders’ associates, but how one would waterboard a chicken, I have no idea. What you have to do is clean the board thoroughly, after you’ve chopped up the chicken, so you don’t cross-contaminate the vegetables.

We’ve seen how religion interacts with politics and how politics and vegetarianism relate to one another, but what does vegetarianism have to do with religion?

One could say that some folks treat their vegetarianism like it was a religion, but it’s not that simple.

The religious relationship between food and folks begins in Genesis, where in Chapter 9, God makes a covenant with Noah and his sons after the Flood has receded.

In Verses 2-3 (New Revised Standard Version), God says, “The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.”

It would therefore seem that Noah suffered so you and I can eat a steak or Chikin with a clear conscience ... maybe. One who stops reading too soon risks taking things out of context.

Verse 4 adds this: “Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” This has been interpreted as meaning we are not to eat the animal until its soul has departed, but the soul is in the blood, and it is impossible to remove all of the blood, so we can’t eat that steak after all.

However, there are other biblical events in which humans eat meat without guilt, and a passage in Chapter 10 of the Acts of the Apostles describes how Peter is hungry and has a vision in which he is divinely offered “all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air.”

A voice tells Peter to get up, kill and eat, but Peter answers, “By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” The voice tells him, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.”

Regardless of what subject you pick, you can find seemingly incontrovertible facts to support your argument. If your opponent is proficient, he can do the same.

What you believe, and what you do with your beliefs ... that’s what’s important.