Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

I dont go. When there is a potluck, I bring my own lunch anyway and contribute a prasadam sweet to the potluck.

Just say no.

My strategy is to be straightforward about being a Hare Krishna devotee, so everyone knows I am a vegetarian and might have different lifestyle. I, however, maintain very friendly relationships with co-workers and treat them with respect, and this makes it easy for them to accept certain differences we might have and still dont think I am a "weirdo".

respect and understand them with compassion. They will respect you in turn.

You dont have to do it. They have invited me a million times for lunch and i always rejected it.
They will appreciate that you have principles and follow them which is very rare nowadays.

Outings if food is involved is a tricky one (if you dont want to appear weird or offend anyone)....alot of offices will accommodate vegetarians but its still cooked by karmis and not offerable to Krsna even in the mind....work from home?

but bring your own food! what is the difficulty!

I spend my time at work either preaching on the Internet or working while playing Srila Prabhupadas audio recordings on my headphones. I spend the money I earn trying to raise a Krishna conscious family. Also I apply tilak in the morning before going to work and shave my head twice a week while keeping a sikha. Everyone here knows Im in involved in Hare Krishna activities. Recently my bosss boss (a fairly religious Christian) listened to an audio recording of Bhagavad-gita verses, which I loaned to him, and he also has borrowed a copy of B.g. sitting on his file cabinet, though Im not sure if hes opened it yet.

Speaking of food events, I just composed the following e-mail in response to a "hot dog sale," which I intend to send to my office of about 200 people during lunchtime today:

Considering that we are an agency meant to protect the environment and that meat production causes tremendous environmental degradation and resource consumption, it is very disappointing to see year after year that not only is meat-eating promoted at the DEP but there are not even vegetarian equivalents offered.

Presently there is a substantial interest in biofuels production, but the conflict over land resources has been a significant factor bringing a dramatic rise in food prices, which in conjunction with rising fuel prices, increases the hardship felt by the poor. It has long been known that a vegetarian diet requires only 10% of agricultural land needed to produce food for the average American diet. Instead of growing corn to fatten cows for slaughter, this corn could be used to produce abundant ethanol without added resource conflicts.

Also relevant in regard to energy is the fact that it takes 18 times the petroleum to produce beef compared to producing most food grains. This can be analyzed various ways, but one is to say that if 10% of the American people quit eating meat (currently vegetarians represent about 2% of the American population) the United States would not need to import oil. One can imagine how that might affect world politics.

Climate change has been getting a lot of attention in the past few years. In 2006 the United Nations sponsored a report (Livestocks'92 Long Shadow '96 '93LLS'94) that identified agriculture as a greater producer of atmospheric greenhouse gases than transportation. In regard to atmospheric impacts, the report also stated that the livestock sector emits 65% of atmospheric nitrous oxide and 64% of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, both significant contributors to acid rain and the acidification of ecosystems.

Although flooding in the Midwest is presently an issue, water shortages are more common and have a much broader impact. To feed a vegetarian for one day requires 1,200 gallons of water, whereas the average American diet requires 4,000 gallons per day. The math shows an annual savings of about 1 million gallons of water for each person who quits eating meat. Water shortages are expected to become more acute as the Ogallala Aquifer, which underlies several states in the Midwest and is not being replenished, is expected to become dry in 25 years at current rates of consumption. Other statements in LLS related to meat production and water include the facts that livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources.

I realize that people'92s diets are a sensitive topic of discussion and that some may see this as inappropriate for the workplace, but I since I learned of these issues sixteen years ago, my environmental ethics have required that I abstain from eating meat and to help teach these facts to others. I have been surprised to discover that not only have other Department employees been mostly unresponsive to these issues, but also that meat-eating is so prominent here that I have been practically excluded from every Department social function, including the annual awards banquet. Now that these facts have begun to appear in the popular media, perhaps the response will change. I had some recent e-mail exchanges with a SAC representative about this hot dog sale in which it was suggested that I sponsor a vegetarian hot dog alternative, but when I stipulated that my donation should not give profit to support a meat oriented picnic, the discussion stopped. Therefore as an alternative I am offering this brief summary of the environmental impacts of meat production that could be greatly alleviated if we would consistently make vegetarian food choices. The abuse and suffering of farmed animals, 10 billion of which are slaughtered each year in the USA, is also an issue that warrants at least a mention, although it is mostly outside the scope of this e-mail. Please forgive me for any disruption, but also please consider the ways our diets affect all of us. Thank you.

Well, I sent that e-mail as promised. I got about a dozen e-mail responses, about half positive, the other half negative. I thanked those who expressed appreciation or support, and apologized to those who felt offended.

Except one guy objected saying that its not appropriate for me to preach my religion like that, and the Bible says God gave us meat to eat, citing Genesis 9:3. He said, "Whats good enough for God is good enough for me."

I looked up 9:3 and did a few minutes of research on it. I found that at the end of Chapter 8, God is lamenting that people are all evil; then in 9:3 He says basically, "Go ahead and eat whatever you want." 9:4, "Your meat must have the lifeblood drained out of it," and 9:5, "You will be held accountable." (I those are the verse numbers; Im not looking right now.) Theres also something about all the animals being afraid of people from then on.

So I first of all told him that I wrote only about science, and not religion at all; but since he brought up religion I would respond to that. I said that its quite obvious that God was giving meat reluctantly, noting how evil people are; that He gave an impossible requirement (draining the blood out) and said we would be held accountable. Clearly meat-eating is for sinful people, and that He does not prefer it, which one would expect of a God who loves all creatures. I told him that my goal isnt to live "good enough for God," but to actually please God. I referred him to www.all-creatures.org for more info since I dont normally study the Bible.

One notable thing was that my e-mail resulted in a meeting with the Regional Director, who told me of a rule against sending region-wide e-mails without approval, but mostly discussed possible resolutions to the conflict that I have with the meat-eaters. Not much seemed to come out of it, except that I got to tell her how awful it is to be a strict ethical and religious vegetarian surrounded by insensitive meat eaters. Among the favorable e-mail responses, there was a little discussion of organizing some kind of vegetarian event, so maybe something good will happen with that.

Hare Krishna.

He hasnt replied.