Obviously she is not comprehending the message that cruelty is wrong no matter what species it is inflicted on. Humans are part of the animal species, only we are supposed to be more enlightened... some more then others ! Some are more "Animalistic" then others. It looks that humans indeed are the only species that kills for joy and vanity and get angry when called upon!
We got a long way to go folks to true enlightenment! Very frustrating!
I wrote and an email to an Atlanta News Anchor Named Monica Pearson after seeing her on TV in an ad from London promoting a "Diana" special! In the ad she wore a fancy gold tone leather coat with a large fur collar.
I really did not necessarily expect Monica Pearson to agree with my message and denounce fur on the spot, I was simply hoping to somehow reach her heart.
Well here is the e-mail I send to Monica Pearson and about two hours later I get her response, which I am posting here right underneath.This is what I wrote in it's totality:
Dear Ms. Pearson,
Allow me to express a concern.
I have been a fan of you ever since I moved to Atlanta 20+ years ago.
A few minutes ago today Monday January 25th around 7:10 PM I saw an ad where you speak of a Diana Special from London.
In this ad you are wearing what seems a leather coat with a fox or raccoon dog collar.
I was very, very surprised to see that.
Up until about two years ago I may have worn a fur coat myself, however I am certain you are much more worldly and knowledgeable about many things including the horrific fur industry then I was.
You must know about the cruel barbaric fur industry. If not please research and see with your own eyes. PLEASE!
Two years ago I saw shocking footage that turned my life around when it comes to the fur, leather and meat & dairy industry. After that I could never again wear fur again and I also have become a vegan. It was a matter of conscience. I suddenly understood the meaning of "Once I was Blind. But Now I see!"
The fur industry routinely skins animals alive. I have seen footage in which a raccoon dog is skinned alive and after the poor creature is skinless, his bloody bare body, the animal still alive was thrown on to a hep and you could see his eye blinking. It took about five minutes for the animal to perish. This is common practice and many of these fur farms are in china. Most furs used in these fashions come from china. Some like baby seal comes from Canada where they still bludgeon baby seal to death by the thousands. In China the routinely skin German Sheppard's, and any dog that has pretty fur, like Golden Retrievers who are made in to rugs. It is so barbaric that it leaves you stunned just watching.
Please I urge you to reconsider wearing fur.
You are such a role model for many and you could really affect young women and how they look at wearing fur. I don't know you personally but I cannot imagine that if you saw the footage, of how these animals are treated not only skinned while alive, but also the conditions they endure while waiting for death, I can not imagine that you you would still wear fur.
You are too beautiful to participate in such a bloody inhuman business. It's not wort it. There are so many warm fashionable coats and faux fur collars, these days. Fur is so old fashioned and cruel.
Please join others, like our First Lady who does not wear fur, or Oprah, Carrie Underwood and so many more and denounce fur for it is cruel and inhuman.
Thank you for your time.
Kind Regards
Ginette Callaway
Trying to speak for those without a voice!
PS: Forgive me if this seems like I am in to your business. But I am so disturbed by all these cruel facts that I can not be silent about it. I just don't think you could be either, for you are an outspoken direct person from all the years I have been watching you, I think you are kind as well.
and here is Mrs. Monica Pearson's Response:
"Ms. Callaway, we agree to disagree. I wear fur and I also am a pet owner.
I also eat meat and fish and fowl and wear leather etc. We won't be able to agree on this nor convince the other of our stance. That's the wonderful thing about America, as long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want and we can express our opinions. Thank you for expressing yours. Monica Pearson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I wrote her back.
Your arguments is "as long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want!" shocks me to the bone. Especially coming from an African American person.
There was a time slavery was also legal, but that did not make it right.
Thank God there were people who know in their hearts it was wrong and acted against that law. Harriet Tubman was one of them. Those men and women who ran the underground railroad broke the law every day to do what was right.
One day we WILL look back and shutter at the length we as humans went through to indulge our vices. Killing animal for vanity will be just as unthinkable some day as it is unthinkable today to put humans in chains.
Just as unthinkable as smoking in a hospital room today (which was common when I was a teenager!) The laws have changed, because we learned better ways!
ohhh update... I got a response from Monica Pearson and it was telling!
Ms. Callaway, Conversation over. How dare you compare slavery to wearing fur. Slaves were and are human beings and I'm insulted that you would write that comparison. Animals are animals, but they are not human beings and if you don't know the difference, we truly have a problem.
Let's just leave it with, we disagree and that's enough. By the way, there are some things that are legal that I disagree with on religious reasons but I uphold people's right to do them until the law is changed. And I could go down the Biblical path to dispute your argument, but that wouldn't change your mind and you can't change mine.
Monica Pearson
____________You can email Monica at monica.pearson@wsbtv.com______________________
As to the Bible pathways... that you talk about... disobedient Christians have long used Bible pathways to justify their wrong doings, it is too inconvenient to change. Monica Pearce according to your biography you go to a Catholic Church, so I guess you are catholic. The Pope has declared that animal have souls. Are you familiar with Saint Francis of Assisi? The church has said they condemn cruelty to animals. FUR is derived through cruelty. Check it out Monica if you dare.
You just may learn something
In this video below she says: "As A reporter my job is to ask questions!"
well she sure didn't ask any question after receiving my e-mail.
She doesn't strike me as someone who lives by all these pretty words she speaks.
She says: "I love to ask questions... I Love to get in to people's business!" and then she laughs clownishly enjoying the getting in to people's business part.
She doesn't like if anyone gets in to her business that is for sure. Typical elitist reporter!!!
I still recommend she'll watch Earthlings so she can begin to understand what specicism is.
Here is more of the same phony Bologna. She says about reading blogs... "I like them all??? Liar!
I bet she doesn't like mine or any animal rights or vegan blog... and she says:
"I like to get a different kind of view!" Yeah right... I can just see that in the e-mail response you send me... you did not even try to engage in a conversation. As a matter of fact Your words Monica where: "This conversation is over! You are so full of it!
==================================================
Monica Pearson told me off... didn't she!
Ms. Callaway, Conversation over. How dare you compare slavery to wearing fur. Slaves were and are human beings and I'm insulted that you would write that comparison. Animals are animals, but they are not human beings and if you don't know the difference, we truly have a problem.
Let's just leave it with, we disagree and that's enough. By the way, there are some things that are legal that I disagree with on religious reasons but I uphold people's right to do them until the law is changed. And I could go down the Biblical path to dispute your argument, but that wouldn't change your mind and you can't change mine.
Monica Pearson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did she say she is "insulted" and "How dare I"? How dare you be insulted when you are obviously an unrepentant participant in killing of innocent beings. Is it just me or are we getting tired of people being insulted by this or that. Where is your outrage at real suffering!!! You are supposed to be a role model for the betterment of humanity but all you really are is an elitist pretender!
I get it Monica... I can't change your mind! But time and circumstance may do it someday for you. Just as it did to me! I pray you and millions like you will someday see the error of their ways! I hope to see that in my lifetime! That is the only thing I really want, knowing before I die that the human species stopped killing needlessly!
---------------------------------------------------------
http://veg.ca/content/view/515/113/
|
"She would always admonish us that ... one of the ways you bring about change is, you must change yourself so that you're prepared to lead people in the direction they should go. If your emotions are as bad as those you're fighting, even if your cause is just, you disqualify yourself from being effective," the Rev. Al Sharpton told CNN. Rev. Jesse Jackson recounted that when an assassin's bullet killed her husband in Memphis in 1968, just prior to a planned march, Mrs. King organized her husband's funeral, then "went to Memphis and finished the march. She was a staunch freedom fighter." Mrs. King spoke out "on behalf of racial and economic justice, women's and children's rights, gay and lesbian dignity, religious freedom, the needs of the poor and homeless, full employment, health care, educational opportunities, nuclear disarmament and ecological sanity," says the biography on The King Center's Web site.
Gregory is also no stranger to the fight against injustice. He has been an influential figure in the civil rights movement for more than 40 years and was an outspoken advocate for peace during the Vietnam War. He is also an enthusiastic PETA supporter and has recorded two public service announcements – one urging people to boycott circuses that use animals in what he calls “modern-day slavery”, and the other a narrated expose of KFC's cruelty to chickens [view]. "Veganism has given me a higher level of awareness and spirituality, primary because the energy associated with eating has shifted to other areas," Dextor King told Vegetarian Times in a 1995 interview. The King family name is practically synonymous with the principles of non-violence, and Dexter King believes that vegetarianism is the logical extension of that philosophy. "If you're violent to yourself by putting [harmful] things into your body that violate its spirit, it will be difficult not to perpetuate that [violence] onto someone else," he said.
Sources: A King among men: Martin Luther King Jr.'s son blazes his own trail - Dexter Scott King MLK Day: Vegan Soul Food Coretta Scott King dies
"Under the leadership of Dr. King, I became totally committed to nonviolence, and I was convinced that nonviolence meant opposition to killing in any form. I felt the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other (war, lynching, assassination, murder and the like) but in their practice of killing animals for food and sport. Animals and humans suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain, the same spilling of blood, the same stench of death, the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life." – Dick Gregory, comedian & activist, from his memoir, Callus on my Soul |
![[Coretta Scott King was vegetarian]](http://veg.ca/images/p-CorettaScottKing.jpg)
The widow of slain civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., died on Jan. 30, 2006. She had devoted her life to his legacy. An activist long before she met her husband, she embraced a vegan diet in 1995 due to the influence of her son, Dexter Scott King. Coretta believed that promoting animal rights was the next "logical extension" of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s philosophy of non-violence.![[Dexter Scott King]](http://veg.ca/images/p-dexterking.jpg)
Her son Dexter Scott King , is a prominent civil rights activist in his own right. He is currently Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change, Inc. (The King Center), in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. King has served as a member of the board of directors since 1984. In 1987, he was introduced to vegetarianism by comedian/activist Dick Gregory (more about him below). ![[Martin Luther King Jr. giving his "I have a dream" speech]](http://veg.ca/images/p-mlking.jpg)
During the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King Jr. captured the attention of the American nation with his commitment to the method of nonviolent resistance. According to Dr. King, this was the only solution that could cure society’s evil and create a just society. In 1959, he visited India to study Mohandas Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence.![[image: Dick Gregory]](http://veg.ca/images/p-dickgregory.jpg)
I have to admit the callous response by someone I admired and seen on TV for over 30 years left me discouraged. If some like her can be so dismissive of the violence against animals issue, how can less educated, or less influential people be reached. If those that people look up to are not even thinkers how can anyhting change. It can but slow I am sure. I have to remind myslef that there are prominet vegans and vegetrians in Atlanta and the country and the world. Monica Pearson is really just a speck in this city and on the outside looking in as far as enlightened is concerned.
Monica Pearson does all kinds of interviews with celebrities and it seems she is well educated and I figured she must know about the horrible conditions of the fur industry, if not she should.
For some reason I keep on believing that most people have hearts and the only way they enable cruelty is because they don't know better. I have this naive believe that if everyone saw the cruelty of the fur industry they would change just as I was compelled to change.
I am beginning to notice a disturbing pattern and that is: "Many People do not want to know!" They reject any debate. discussion because "They Don't Want to Know"!
Is it because as soon as you know, as soon as you see with your own eyes you have to make a choice one way or the other? Is it to inconvenient? Could you look in to your child's eyes if your child new that you are part of the cruelty machine? We hide the truth from children and corrupt them in the process, if children knew they would immediately recognize the wrong of it all. We would fall off our pedestals, on which we put ourselves!
How would we justify our behavior to them! A child's mind and heart is simple and pure, not yet corrupted by "Vanity & Greed"! When children see an animal suffer, a normally developed child will have an automatic response of compassion and hurt for the animal, most normal adults will too. Is this why some people do not want to look, because it forces them to chose and thereby decide who they really are?
A visceral response to observed cruelty on any living being, is something we are born with, that keeps us from doing cruel things! Are we absolved from guilt if we are not the ones that do the cruel things, but "ONLY" consume that that comes from cruelty?
We leave the dirty work to those, that have overcome that natural visceral response and whose hearts have turned to stones, so they can now do the most vile acts on pain felling beings, without blinking an eye. They do the bloody work so people just like Monica Pearson can wear fur. Designers like ARMANI can make millions and live in luxury. It is the twilight zone, the underworld of those that wear the skin of another species for pure vanity!
Are our vices more important to us then our virtues? And why is it that when I speak to "staunch" church goers about this they seem to be the most callous of all? They say the most callous things. Animals are there for us to "USE" they insist even angrily. They seem to be able to get angry at the messengers but show no emotion to the message other then dismissal!
"USING ANIMALS is God's will!" Christians say, it includes AbUSING, it seems to encompass everything, including making theme suffer, torture and extinct, indulging all the seven deadly sins! It is the Christan way I suppose? Is that what Jesus would do???
Would Jesus approve of that and would he absolve you becasue you ONLY WEAR the fur???
I can not find statements in the bible that justify any atrocities against any living being. Organized religion is failing humanity... people rushing about engaging in giving to charities, makings themselves feel good... "How good am I? Going to Church on Sunday only to do wrong on Monday! Some people seem to go to church just to sing in the choir! The Modern Church is just another form of social network and entertainment. A place to meet and greet, to make connections like on the golf course, to show your vocal skills, see and be seen.
Show up in leather coat with fur collar, eating a steak and not caring one bit about the suffering of animals. Modern organized religion is a scary machine. Blood on their hands and pride in their hearts!
The response from Monica Pearson said more in between the lines, then her words ever could. That was was not said, speaks volumes. No mentioning of the suffering of animals, only her self interest seemed to matter. "As long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want!"
What she wants is all that matters! No hint of maybe rethinking her ways.
In Monica Pearson's biography it says: "
"Monica is a Life Member of the NAACP, and she secured a Life Membership for her daughter, Claire Patrice, at age 9 months. Claire was born in 1980. Monica is a member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. She is a member of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church where she attends the 8 a.m. services and she also attends the 11 a.m. services at Gospel Tabernacle Church, where her husband is the senior elder and she sings in the Women's Choir. She is a native of Louisville, Kentucky. She was coordinator of the senior citizens program at her church, called “Young at Heart and Filled with Spirit.” She was inducted into the NATAS Silver Circle and in 2007 received the Board of Governors Award from the Southeastern Chapter of the National Academy of Arts and Sciences."As a Catholic, a human, an African American, why would she write such terse and arrogant response? As a member of the NAACP I am sure she is involved in many events celebrating the life and message of Dr. King... his most important message was that of non violence. Non Violence! You can NOT wear fur and eat meat and call yourself a non violent person. It just isn't that easy! You can not spill blood direct or indirect of innocent helpless being and call yourself non violent!!! Especially when these being are doing nothing to you, they are not attacking you, or trying to hurt you. So you can't even claim self defense! There simply is no excuse!
Ms. Callaway, we agree to disagree. I wear fur and I also am a pet owner.
I also eat meat and fish and fowl and wear leather etc. We won't be able to agree on this nor convince the other of our stance. That's the wonderful thing about America, as long as it is not illegal, we can do as we want and we can express our opinions. Thank you for expressing yours. Monica Pearson
I never though she was heartless but this is a heartless response.
"As long as it is legal"! Coming from an African American it is even more shocking. At one time Slavery was legal but that did not make it right! Thank God the abolitionists did not follow the law at the time they did what they knew was right!
I never thought Monica Pearcon to be an elitist arrogant person, but that seem to be who she is. Even if you disagree you don't have to give a cold response like that, especially when you always on TV smiling a big sunny smile and doing all sorts of things for charity and attending Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church where she attends the 8 a.m. services.
Church is just a money making institution and a place where people find absolution for all their wrong doings and then go right back and keep breaking all God's laws!
I am beginning to understand now why some animal rights people insist that there is no debating with people who just don't get it. I guess I am new to this and still believe in fairy tales!
Greed and Vanity rule!
I am glad to hear that the First Lady is one of the more enlightened people who have given up wearing fur. Oprah as well. That's a good thing!
_________________________________You can email Monica at monica.pearson@wsbtv.com__________________
The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was
a laws that was wrong and many people knew in their hearts that these laws were wrong, but you also had those that said... "Nothing wrong with having slaves. As long as it' s not illegal we can do what we want!"
Today people like this anchor person have the same attitude. Selfish wants and needs overrode any human thinking!
Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An April 24, 1851 poster warning colored people in Boston about policemen acting as slave catchers.
The Fugitive Slave Law or Fugitive Slave Act was passed by the United States Congress on September 18, 1850, as part of the Compromise of 1850 between Southern slaveholding interests and Northern Free-Soilers. This was one of the most controversial acts of the 1850 compromise and heightened Northern fears of a 'slave power conspiracy'. It declared that all runaway slaves be brought back to their masters. Abolitionists nicknamed it the "Bloodhound Law" for the dogs that were used to track down runaway slaves.
The earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was a Federal law which was written with the intention of enforcing Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which required the return of runaway slaves. It sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters.Some Northern states passed "personal liberty laws", mandating a jury trial before alleged fugitive slaves could be moved. Otherwise, they feared free blacks could be kidnapped into slavery. Other states forbade the use of local jails or the assistance of state officials in the arrest or return of such fugitives. In some cases, juries simply refused to convict individuals who had been indicted under the Federal law. Moreover, locals in some areas actively fought attempts to seize fugitives and return them to the South. And everywhere that was not tied with slavery, abolitionists spoke against this.
The Missouri Supreme Court routinely held that voluntary transportation of slaves into free states, with the intent of residing there permanently or definitely, automatically made them free.[1] The Fugitive Slave Law dealt with slaves who went into free states without their master's consent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842), that states did not have to offer aid in the hunting or recapture of slaves, greatly weakening the law of 1793.
In the response to the weakening of the original fugitive slave act, the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 made any Federal marshal or other official who did not arrest an alleged runaway slave liable to a fine of $1,000. Law-enforcement officials everywhere now had a duty to arrest anyone suspected of being a runaway slave on no more evidence than a claimant's sworn testimony of ownership. The suspected slave could not ask for a jury trial or testify on his or her own behalf. In addition, any person aiding a runaway slave by providing food or shelter was subject to six months' imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Officers who captured a fugitive slave were entitled to a bonus or promotion for their work. Slave owners only needed to supply an affidavit to a Federal marshal to capture an escaped slave. Since any suspected slave was not eligible for a trial this led to many free blacks being conscripted into slavery as they had no rights in court and could not defend themselves against accusations. [2]In fact the Fugitive Slave Law brought the issue home to anti-slavery citizens in the North, since it made them and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. Even moderate abolitionists were now faced with the immediate choice of defying what they believed an unjust law or breaking with their own consciences and beliefs. The case of Anthony Burns fell under this statute.
The Fugitive Slave Act brought a defiant response from abolitionists. Reverend Luther Lee, pastor of the Wesleyan Methodist Church of Syracuse, New York wrote in 1855:
| “ | I never would obey it. I had assisted thirty slaves to escape to Canada during the last month. If the authorities wanted anything of me, my residence was at 39 Onondaga Street. I would admit that and they could take me and lock me up in the Penitentiary on the hill; but if they did such a foolish thing as that I had friends enough on Onondaga County to level it to the ground before the next morning. The slaves could no longer take control over what they could never imagine. | ” |
This was far from empty rhetoric; several years before, in the famous Jerry Rescue, Syracuse abolitionists did free by force a fugitive slave who was about to be sent back into the South and successfully smuggled him to Canada.
In 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court became the only state high court to declare the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional, as a result of a case involving fugitive slave Joshua Glover, and Sherman Booth, who led efforts that thwarted Glover's recapture. Ultimately, in 1859 in Ableman v. Booth the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the state court.[3][4]
Other opponents, such as African American leader Harriet Tubman, simply treated the law as just another complication in their activities. The most important reaction was making the neighboring country of Canada the main destination of choice for runaway slaves.
With the outbreak of the American Civil War, General Benjamin Butler justified refusing to return runaway slaves in accordance to this law because the Union and the Confederacy were at war: the slaves could be confiscated and set free as contraband of war. The North also argued that the Fugitive Slave Act only applied to the Union; the South had broken away, so the law did not apply to the Confederacy.
