I'm a pro-choice vegetarian. That may sound amusing, but what I mean is that although I don't believe I have the right to eat meat as long as I have other food sufficient to sustain my life, I also don't believe I should force that view on others. If vegetarians were a majority in this country, I would not vote to make meat eating illegal.

Why?

Like the issue of abortion that it parallels, vegetarianism is a practice often linked to religious or ethical beliefs. As with all such beliefs, there is no proof that it is "wrong" (other than a few scriptures from world religions). I can believe it passionately, but I cannot offer straightforward, scientific proof.

It certainly seems wrong to cause suffering to members of another species simply to gratify my palate. There are abundant food sources at this time that can meet my nutritional needs without resorting to animal slaughter. While I may concede that there are times and places this is not true, and that faced with starvation a person may reasonably resort to meat eating to stay alive if that's the only option, presently it is a rare situation indeed.

I am often tempted to buy the bumper sticker: "meat is murder" but I fear it would be too inflammatory.

Still, I would not, as I've said, legislate my beliefs.

There is another overriding principle that I think is equally important.

Freedom. Freedom of religion. In America, we all benefit from this freedom. It has prevented the kinds of legalized intolerance that European countries once practiced on some of their citizens. We have forgotten this past, we have forgotten why so many people came to America in its infancy. We have grown comfortable and complacent about our religious freedoms, and some of us seem to have forgotten that our own freedom depends on our willingness to allow others the same.

In Europe, in England, in Mexico, Africa, and Asia, people were coerced to give up their religion, died for their religion, had their children removed from their care to be indoctrinated into another religion, and perpetrated wars in the name of religion. America was to be a place free of such intolerance. Alas, in America we ripped children from their Native American parents to be raised in bording schools that tried to eradicate any trace of their original belief system.

Still, America was founded with that ideal, and for that reason the framers of the Constitution made religious freedom a part of the fabric of America. Some may consider that they were Christian so of course, America is a Christian country. Some may think no one could argue with the Ten Commandments (they seem so sensible, even if you don't believe in their source) or prayer in the schools. Some may think it obvious that you shouldn't kill an unborn child. Yet others of us think it obvious that you shouldn't eat animals. Some of us think the only law is not to harm others. Some of us have extensive laws about how to live, how to prepare our food, what foods are acceptable, and everyone has different holy days and symbols. One religion's symbol, the svastika (actually used by Hindus and American Indians) was appropriated by a mad man and used as a banner under which he slaughtered millions. While some would outlaw its use, one must consider how it would feel if your own most sacred symbol were ill used, and you were expected or asked to surrender it forever.

Even among Christians there is not universal agreement about rules, doctrines, the meaning of scripture, even the meaning of the last supper. Is it symbolic? Is it literal? Just what did Jesus mean?

Nor do all Jewish people agree on the traditional laws once followed by all. I heard Dr. Laura say that the laws of God should not be voted on (referring to modern congregations that have chosen not to condemn gay clergy, etc.) and yet there are practices of ancient Judaism that I imagine Dr. Laura no longer follows. An amusing letter has been circulated that refers to animal sacrifice and selling one's daughter into slavery, both mentioned in the old testament. It is a valid question to ask Dr. Laura, since she has stated that one should not change God's law as written.

If this is going to be a Christian nation (or a Judeo-Christian one), then one might ask-whose version of Christianity? For Christians have killed other Christians as heretics, have kidnapped their children, and confiscated their property. Christians are still killing other Christians in other parts of the world, and in Israel secular Jews argue with religious Jews over the future of their nation.

This freedom of religion issue seems to be at the heart of many issues in America right now. Abortion. Prayer in schools. Gay rights. Family Values.

I watched speakers from the religious conservative political movement speak out about the domestic unions in Vermont, trying to strategize how to overcome what they saw as a serious blow to their own way of life and beliefs. I tried to set aside my own defensiveness and really understand what their feelings were. They were deeply disturbed, one might say wounded, by this challenge to their way of life. And they truly perceived it as being a danger to their own rights, their own beliefs. At one point they stated that they had the moral authority on this issue and they should use it. They also said that clearly this legislation was a cry for help, for legitimacy, on the part of homosexuals who deep down in their hearts, knew they were immoral or sick.

As I listened, here is my understanding of what they had to say.

They didn't mind, they said, when we queer folks "came out" as gay. They didn't understand why we felt we had to announce it or share it, but they said they didn't see that as a big deal. They were fine with that, they all agreed.

They also agreed no one should perpetrating violence against us. (Though I wondered if they considered shock therapy to be a form of violence-as we do.)

There was a lot of talk about hating the sin but loving the sinner.

But then we got down to rights. Ours versus theirs, it seems.

Somehow, when we express that we should have rights to be employed wherever we are qualified to be, live where we wish to live (and can afford) or marry whoever we wish to marry, it boils down to telling them how to live, or so they believe.

By claiming our rights, they feel, we are telling them they must employ us, rent to us, tell their kids it's ok to be us, or to marry us.

Now, I don't know anyone personally who feels that conservative Christians must tell their kids that queerness is morally right if that's not what they believe.

I faced my own version of that problem as I raised my children to be vegetarian (yes, I am coming back to that). I explained to my children that while most people eat meat, I believed it was wrong. I encouraged them to have a high degree of empathy for animals, and even plants. (No plant should simply be harmed for no reason, treated as an object. It too is a living being.) I told them that it was my responsibility to raise them in the way I believed was moral, and that when they became adults they could make their own decision. One of the two is a militant vegetarian, one eats some meat but will never be a heavy meat eater. (With our family history of heart disease, this is probably a good thing.)

I never had the option of blocking others from living by different rules than I do; I was in the minority.

I would have said to these Christians, if I had been there, that it is very possible to raise your children with different spiritual rules than those around them live by. I would have said to them that I don't expect them to tell their children that homosexuality is right for them; I would have said, please just teach your children they aren't allowed to harm us or tell us how to live. I don't expect you, I would have said, to become a queer pagan vegetarian goddess worshipper.

There is room for all kinds of people in America.

I just don' t understand how your right to be Christian should prevent me from following my own spiritual beliefs-in which it is not important which gender I marry, but how I treat my marital partner. I don't understand how the Christian version of marriage should be the only version of marriage allowed in a country that says I am free to practice my religion. I don't understand how being free to practice my religion, that the government is not allowed to make any laws to limit, is consistent with being told that marriage, a religious sacrament and civil contract, should be limited to 2 heterosexual people.

I would have told them, if I had been present, that I do not feel a need for legitimacy and I know I'm not immoral. All I want is the same freedom that they have.

Conservatives often accuse liberals of being intolerant. And sometimes we are. But I have never had a desire to force conservatives, religious or otherwise, to start living the way I live.

I don't want to rip the meat from your tables. I don't want to take your daughters to a Michigan Women's Music festival and turn them into dykes. I could really care less if your children grow up straight or gay or bisexual, if they worship Jesus or Zeus.

All I ask is that they leave me alone to live my life the way I see fit, act polite if they see me on the street, hire me for a job if I am the most qualified candidate, allow me a photo of my significant other on my desk when they do, and let me rent their apartment when it becomes vacant if they are satisfied with my references. All I ask is that to be allowed to marry whoever I wish and live in peace. If they wish to settle down in heterosexual bliss, more power to them. If they eat meat every night, that should be their right. If they don't believe in abortion, let them bear their children.

We shall all find out, upon our deaths, which of us followed the right rules-or if rules were even important. If there is a deity, I think He or She or They are capable of meting out justice.

It is not our place to limit each others' lives over rules we cannot ever agree on. Those we do, such as murder, theft, rape-mostly violent crimes and property crimes, we can certainly enforce to preserve the right of everyone to live unmolested and safe. Even there, I maintain, we have only the right to prevent further harm. We do not have the right to punish with excessively unpleasant prison accommodations, violence from guards, or other mistreatment.

It's been a long time since I read the Bible, but isn't there a place where the Lord says, "Vengeance is mine"?

I promise, if a plague wipes out most meat eaters (you've heard of mad cow disease, right?) I will not attempt to pass a law against meat eating.

I will always be a pro-choice vegetarian.

SINCE August 20, 2000 YOU ARE UPPITY VISITOR NUMBER 1354