Meat is still murder

I refer to Alfred E. Zammit's letter (January 18) in reply to my letter of December 12.

Mr Zammit objects to the heading Meat Is Murder, since, according to his dictionary, murder is defined as "the unlawful and intentional killing of a human being by another". In my updated online dictionary, murder is shown to mean "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought". Now, since animals are not things, we regard them as persons. Please note that persons do not have to be human - corporations, for instance, are recognised in law as legal persons.

Mr Zammit should also know that language is constantly changing, and part of this change reflects the moral values of the age. To test this, I would suggest one searches the term "speciesism", a term which, though not found in many dictionaries, will be found in most regularly-updated online dictionaries. A search for this term (speciesism) will also enlighten people regarding the topic at hand.

Mr Zammit also says that "animals, however sentient, are not human beings". This statement is half correct. The correct statement would be "non-human animals, however sentient, are not human beings". I have no problem with this, since it is the same as saying that non-dog animals, however sentient, are not dogs. Remember that humans are animals too.

Mr Zammit then proceeds to pen some quotations from the Bible to "prove" that Jesus was a meat-eater. Reading his quotes, I still come to the conclusion that they still neither prove, nor disprove whether or not Jesus ate meat. For instance, being present in a ceremony where meat is served does not make one a meat-eater.

As for sauce, I also use sauce with non-meat dishes.

Regarding the story of the casting of nets (to catch fish), this could have been symbolic, since Jesus also told the apostles to be "fishers of men". The phrase "fishers of men", of course, should not be taken literally.

Similarly, there is no reason to presume that the story of the casting of nets could not also be symbolic as opposed to historical. Furthermore, I already explained in my other letter that in biblical times and, surprisingly even until very recently, fish were considered to be not sentient (and, by implication, not animals).

As for Mr Zammit's rebuttal of my supposed claim that Jesus was an Essene, I would like to make clear that I never made such a claim. I only said that the Last Supper was held at an Essene quarters. Mr Zammit correctly says that some studies dispute this, but others confirm it.

As for twisting Scriptures to create a fictional vegetarian Christ, I never did such a thing. I only said that we simply do not know for sure either way. I can only agree with Mr Zammit where he says that Christians have always eaten, still do, and will continue to eat meat, unless they do so for reasons unconnected with religion. It was Godwin Agius (December 21) who brought religion into a secular moral debate.

Vegetarians and vegans comprise Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, atheists, agnostics and more. Most of these vegetarians of all faiths, or none, become vegetarians for moral reasons (which do not have to be religious). Perhaps it is useful to mention a vegetarian Dominican saint, St Martin de Porres, who, apart from being a vegetarian for moral reasons, even set up an animal hospital for stray cats and dogs, whom he nursed back to health.