Defining who we are by what we eat

Once again, I start off by linking to Huffington Post:

Natatlie Portman discusses How Eating Animals Changed Her

Some points to hi-light here:

I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just "This is tasty, and that's why I do it." He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don't believe in rape, but if it's what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).

This touches on a very fundamental part of my belief system. I remember years ago listening to a Buddhist priest talk about why they were offering free food to people at their temple in NYC. He discussed why not only that it was a good thing to do but also the right thing to do if they wanted to be an integral part of the community. Of course it was all vegetarian. When asked why, he said something that made me really think for the first time about food in a way that I'd never thought of before. He said that they believe that the violence inherit in killing the animal was ingested when they ate the meal.

I have not read Mr Foer's book yet, but be assured that it will be on my winter reading list. More to come ...