Sorry, you’re grasping at straws.
How did that article contradict:
11. I believe with complete faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, rewards those who observe His commandments, and punishes those who transgress His commandments.
My statement was “The guiding philosophy of the ethical vegan movement is unabashed kefira”
Don’t take my work for it. Read up on “ethical Veganism” of which the article was extolling the virtues, and the two men were self described as being part of that worldwide community and belief system. Read up on their literature, and on the nuances of the various strains of veganism and how they view the commodity status of animals, and the underpinnings of their philosophy, and then you can came back here and tell me that their belief system is in consonance with #11.
To make it easier for you let me quote from Wikipedia:
“
Ethical veganism is based on opposition to speciesism, the assignment of value to individuals on the basis of species membership alone”
And regarding speciesism:
“Anti-speciesists argue that the extension of moral membership to all humanity, regardless of individual properties such as intelligence, while denying it to nonhumans, also regardless of individual properties, is internally inconsistent. According to the argument from marginal cases, if infants, the senile, the comatose, and the cognitively disabled (marginal-case human beings) have a certain moral status, then nonhuman animals must be awarded that status too, since there is no morally relevant ability that the marginal-case humans have that nonhumans lack.
American legal scholar Steven M. Wise argues that speciesism is a bias as arbitrary as any other. He cites the philosopher R.G. Frey (1941–2012), a leading animal rights critic, who wrote in 1983 that, if forced to choose between abandoning experiments on animals and allowing experiments on "marginal-case" humans, he would choose the latter, "not because I begin a monster and end up choosing the monstrous, but because I cannot think of anything at all compelling that cedes all human life of any quality greater value than animal life of any quality"
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist, argued against speciesism in The Blind Watchmaker(1986), The Great Ape Project (1993), and The God Delusion (2006), elucidating the connection with evolutionary theory. He compares former racist attitudes and assumptions to their present-day speciesist counterparts. In the chapter "The one true tree of life" in The Blind Watchmaker, he argues that it is not only zoological taxonomy that is saved from awkward ambiguity by the extinction of intermediate forms, but also human ethics and law. Dawkins argues that what he calls the "discontinuous mind" is ubiquitous, dividing the world into units that reflect nothing but our use of language, and animals into discontinuous species:
The director of a zoo is entitled to "put down" a chimpanzee that is surplus to requirements, while any suggestion that he might "put down" a redundant keeper or ticket-seller would be greeted with howls of incredulous outrage. The chimpanzee is the property of the zoo. Humans are nowadays not supposed to be anybody's property, yet the rationale for discriminating against chimpanzees is seldom spelled out, and I doubt if there is a defensible rationale at all. Such is the breathtaking speciesism of our Christian-inspired attitudes, the abortion of a single human zygote (most of them are destined to be spontaneously aborted anyway) can arouse more moral solicitude and righteous indignation than the vivisection of any number of intelligent adult chimpanzees! ... The only reason we can be comfortable with such a double standard is that the intermediates between humans and chimps are all dead“ (Tangentially, it is interesting to note that many Nazi leaders were animal rights advocates. In fact, in his private diaries, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a vegetarian whose hatred of the Jewish and Christian religions in part stemmed from the ethical distinction these faiths drew between the value of humans and the value of "other animals".)
Do you think that one can consider man to be just another animal among the others, have no superiority in any way, and as an animal having no right to treat any other animal as his property, yet still believe in #11?
We are not talking about someone who eats vegetarian or vegan for health reasons, or has a hang up with meat or blood etc.- we are talking about the “ethical veganism” the article is specifically describing, although it does not use that term. Please educate yourself regarding the movement .