carr) most of their fat in the abdominalrnarea, and so do many post-menopausalrnwomen. Gaesser is essentially saying thatrnbnllets are harmless —so long as theyrndon’t strike you.rnThe evidence is incontrovertible.rnMore fat equals shorter life and more illness.rnThere’s plenty of room to arguernabout what should be done to curtail thernobesity epidemic, but it is very real andrnvery deadly.rn—Michael FumentornArlington, VArnOn ChristianrnVegetarianismrnMany of us eat without giving a thoughtrnto the miserable lives and violent, bloodyrndeaths of the animals on our plates.rnChrishans have a choice. We can add tornthe level of violence, suffering, and deathrnin the world, or we can attempt to withdrawrnour support for violence and bloodshedrnwherever and whenever we find it.rnMore than eight billion animals arernkilled every year for food in this country.rnThe vast majority are raised on “factoryrnfarms.” Every one has the capacity forrnpain and suffering, just as our own cats,rndogs, and other companion animals do.rnI have been to slaughterhouses and farmsrnand can tell you that conditions are ruthlesslyrnviolent and inhumane —the antithesisrnof Christian charity. Christiansrncan easily follow the compassionaternChrist by adopting a vegetarian diet.rnWhen considering Jesus’ vegetarianism,rnremember that Jesus spoke in Aramaic,rnthe Gospels were written in Hebrewrngenerations after the Resurrection,rnand the earliest translations we have arernGreek translations from the fourth centuryrn(more than 300 years, two translations,rnand many transcriptions post-Resurrection).rnWhen discerning the truernnature of the historical Jesus, one mustrnrely on more than strictly biblical accounts.rnThose who cite biblical justificationrnfor eating the flesh of animals should rememberrnthat Paul’s letters and the HebrewrnScriptures have been used sincerntime immemorial to justify many merciless,rncruel, and unchristian activities, includingrnchild and spousal abuse, slavery,rnwitch burnings, and the persecution ofrnscientists such as Copernicus andrnGalileo. It is unfortunate that Christiansrncontinue to misappropriate the Bible tornjustify actions and activities so antitheticalrnto Christ’s call to mercy and compassion.rnChristians must transcend our bias onrnthe basis of species, in the same way wernhave transcended earlier biases based onrnrace and gender. Human beings are notrnthe only of God’s creatures who deservernconsideration.rnFor more information on Christianrnvegetarianism, readers can visit our websiternat www.jesus-online.com. As we do tornthe least, we do to Him.rn—Bruce G. FriedrichrnVegetarian Campaign CoordinatorrnPeople for the Ethical Treatmentrnof AnimalsrnNorfolk, VArnMr. Richert Replies:rnI’m not surprised that Mr. Friedrichrndidn’t respond to any of the points in myrnarticle (“Of Steak and Suicide,” August).rnAfter all, his is a fypical bad faith argument:rnhe knows that Christianify’ doesrnnot require vegetarianism, but he’s willingrnto invoke the moral authorify of thernChurch in a crusade that would ultimatelyrnundermine Christianity itself.rnPETA’s “Jesus Was a Vegetarian” websiternquotes extensively from the Bible,rnbut when confronted with biblical referencesrnthat run counter to his argument,rnMr. Friedrich declares that “one mustrnrely on more than strictly biblicalrnaccounts.” For Catholics such as Mr.rnFriedrich and myself, chief among thernextra-biblical sources should be SacredrnTradition and the teaching authorify- ofrnthe Church, both of which sanction thernhumane use of animals for food, clothing,rnlabor, and mutual pleasure. But instead,rnMr. Friedrich tijrns to texts writtenrnby Gnostics and Jewish ascetics, whichrnare clearly contradicted by St. Peter’s visionrnin Acts 10.rnLong-time readers of Chronicles willrnremember Stephen R.L. Clark’s “Conservationrnand Animal Welfare” (Junern1996), an intelligent exposition of ourrn”bargain with domestic creatures” and ofrnthe dufy- that we owe to animals, wild andrntame. vMone among conser’ative publications,rnChronicles has consistently upheldrnthe traditional Christian view ofrnstewardship of the land and its creatures.rnI share Mr. Friedrich’s dislike of factoryrnfarms and modern slaughterhouses, andrnat the conclusion of our interview, werndiscussed the numerous problems withrntreating animals as an “industrial product.”rnBut while I would prefer to returnrnto the family farm, the local slaughterhouse,rnand the animal husbandry practicedrnby my ancestors, Mr. Friedrichrnmade it clear that he would oppose thoserninstitutions as vigorouslv as he opposesrnfactory farms. His understanding ofrn”Christ’s call to mercy and compassion”rnis a monumental impiefy which substitutesrnhis peculiar view of the equality ofrnspecies for 2,000 years of Christian doctrine,rnand condemns all who came beforernhim —including, perhaps, ChristrnHimself, whom Mr. Friedrich admitsrnmay have eaten meat—to the liberal hellrnof insensitivity.rnRobert Nisbet, The Sociological Traditionrn(Transaction). This classic work examines thernorigins of sociology in French counterrevolutionaryrnthought.rnDumas Malone, Jefferson and His Time (Little,rnBrown). Jefferson becomes more conservative inrneach successive volume of Malone’s monumentalrnsix-volume biography.rnDorothy Day, The Long Loneliness (HarperrnSan Francisco). The autobiography of thernfounder of the Catholic Worker movement revealsrnhow wrong conservatives have been aboutrnDay, and how much the Catholic Worker movementrnhas changed since her death.rnNOVEMBER 1998/5rnrnrn