Should animal sacrifice be banned?
This example seemed to be a version of Satanism, but major religions including all Islamic and some Hindu groups still have animal sacrifices.
Personally, I don't have any tolerance for religions that still demand animal sacrifice. I feel that such practices should be strictly banned and that the religions have to reform themselves where necessary.
But this is a discussion question so let's hear your analysis (rational arguments and citations please, not just yes or no).
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20091228_SPCA_finds_animal_remains_from_rituals_in_house_on_N__Front_St_.html
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/80190137.html includes the following description:
"Police are investigating a case of possible animal cruelty after the remains of 75 animals and a large altar composed of primate skulls were found yesterday inside a house in the city's Feltonville section.
The animals are believed to have been sacrificed as part of satanic worship and Santeria rituals, investigators said. Pentagrams were also seen in the house.
The remains included bones of a variety of animals, including sheep, goats, and chickens, police said. Authorities also removed the decomposing remains of what appeared to be two small primates, probably monkeys."
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$11 Answers
To me, I believe the Gods will not be pleased by the killings. In the modern world, we are not depending on hunting to feed ourselves. Then why not stop this rituals?
Think of the ''ashura festival'' of the Muslims!! It is self imposed cruelty. It is to make the almighty God happy.
There were many traditions which a normal person cannot stand was done in temples of India. Some states banished the sacrifices. In Canada, when I went to see a temple festival, I saw a person pierced his cheeks with a long thin iron rode and was holding the ends. There was another with iron hooks all over his back with chains attached to them. The chains were pulled by another person. Many of the devotees were watching it without any emotion.
I personally cannot stand this kind of rituals, decided not to watch any more temple festivals.
The rituals will continue till people decide it is not the way they wanted to do the worships. Do you see any Church doing the animal sacrifice now a days?
There should be constant attempts to create awareness to stop the cruel rituals.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$Given the wide (though certainly not universal) acceptance of killing animals for food, there are two questions that come up:
1. Should this killing of animals be restricted to certain species of animals and if so, which ones?
2. Should this killing of animals be restricted to killing for food as opposed to other purposes?
Both of the above are very difficult, and emotion-laden questions. It is likely that a majority of people, especially in the West, will agree that killing and eating primates and/or whales/dolphins is utterly unacceptable. A smaller majority would extend that to such animals as cats, dogs, and horses. The question then becomes, which animals are unacceptable as food sources, and why?
In my opinion, any animal that may be even partially self-aware (e.g. primates and marine mammals) must be excluded from our food sources for the same reason cannibalism has been ruled out. Other mammals such as cats and dogs should be excluded because we have made these species into our pets, providing us with companionship, love, as well as various non-food-related services. However, species that have been specifically raised for the purpose of providing food, who are not self-aware, and who do not have a place as pets (for the majority of us) are not required to be excluded. Humans are omnivores, which means that we (except the small minority of us who are vegetarian or vegan) will eat meat. This leaves us with the question of what animals serve that purpose, and while I cannot provide a moral argument why a cow or buffalo should be eaten and say a horse or zebra should not, I prefer a situation in which we minimize the number of species serving as food sources rather than make the list more expansive.
We now arrive at the second question, as to the morality of killing animals for purposes other than food. Here we tread on rather slippery moral grounds. Personally, I'm not at all convinced of the moral case for hunting animals we don't eat (e.g. lions, bears, etc.). If someone else wants to make such a case, I'd be willing to listen, but would ask them if they'd be so open to it if the hunted was given a 50% chance of eating them e.g. by restricting their weapons to what they can fashion with their own hands using rocks, sticks, etc.
The trickiest part though is the one of religion. Here the problem is that we're not talking just about the morality of killing animals, but also about the morality of imposing our societal morals and values on followers of a different religion than ours. While I'd have no hesitation banning human sacrifice no matter the religious or other imperative, and would similarly support bans on sacrificing higher mammals, I'd be much more leery of banning all animal sacrifice, including that of food animals. Here, I'd err on the side of not imposing my morals and beliefs on others, as these animals are already being killed en masse to supply food.
After all, most of us would not be too happy if suddenly someone passed laws banning practices required of Christians, Jews, and/or Muslims, such as praying to G-d. We'd actively fight against such bans, and would tell anyone trying to force us to reform our religions to not requiring such prayers to mind his or her own religious business.
My bottom line thus is that (a) I do not believe it would be moral to outright ban any religious practices that require animal sacrifice (though personally I find such to be repugnant), and (b) I would support banning any religious sacrifice of humans, higher mammals, or any other animal we believe or suspect may have some level of self-awareness.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
In the USA, the Mormons were told to reform or be outlawed, in effect, to end polygamy. Which they did (with a few hold outs)If a religious belief is antisocial enough, and in modern times animal sacrifice seems a likely candidate, couldn't it be similarly outlawed?
The best current scientific measure of self awareness is the mirror test. Other than apes and some wales/dolphins the aware animals include elephants, certain birds (crow family, mostly) and pigs. It could also be noted that humans less than a few months old fail it. Would this test suit you?
There are many examples of governmental practices in US history that would not pass moral muster in any reasonably objective analysis. Slavery, the internment of Japanese Americans in WW-II, the carpet-bombing of German cities in WW-II, the fire-bombing of Tokyo in WW-II, the treatment of Native Americans (broken treaties, reservations, etc.), etc. are some of the most prominent that come to mind.
The fact that the Church of Latter Day Saints was forced into ending polygamy is not proof that this is a moral thing. Again, polygamy is beyond the scope of this question, so I will not go there beyond saying that one can make a moral argument that as long as all parties involved in a relationship are adults, and freely choose to be in a relationship with other adults, society, and the government should stay out of the matter and not legislate what is or is not an acceptable marriage. This does not mean that I personally support polygamy, or believe that it is healthy, but rather that I don't want to claim the right to tell others they're not allowed to choose it for themselves.
I'm not sure what the best test of self-awareness would be, except that if an immature individual (e.g. baby) fails it, that is not sufficient basis to deem that individual as not being self-aware. At issue is the potential, not just the current actuality of self-awareness, and before you go there, I'm aware this is also a murky area (just consider the controversy over abortion rights, and the problem of defining when life begins).
Animal killing is no way humane and it cannot be done "Humanely", be it as sacrifices in the name of religion or be it in the butch-houses to feed the masses. So, speaking of humanity or ethical treatment of animals is just irrelevant here, because ultimately the animal is going to be killed and that is not going to happen in a painless way. They are just beheaded with sharp blades, be in butcher-houses with a few people witnessing it or be it in sacrifices, with many people watching it.
Further, when people watching it have no problem with it, then why should the others have any? If somebody cannot withstand a sacrifice, he/she should just keep away.
Again, some opinions say that sacrifices should be witnessed by masses. This strengthens their nerves and prepares them mentally to face wars or fights. This opinion cannot be ignored.
Finally, if anything should be stopped, then any form of animal killing (even fishing) should be stopped at all.
There is much more to say on this issue and books have been written on this. But next time. Thanks
Personal opinion
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You seem to be saying laws against killing animals should be all or nothing. That doesn't work well in other areas, does it?
With regard to toughening up the masses, wouldn't it be more effective to revive gladiatorial combat in the arena, and maybe feeding Christians to the lions? Or would that make them too tough? How would you know what was just right?
Hi @albanian! Thanks for your feedback.
While talking of animals (since the question was about animals), I did not mean the law to be implied in other areas.
As far as the toughening of the masses is concerned, I never said that it is right or wrong. I just said that there are people who are of this opinion. For your kind information, Gladiatorial combats, feeding Christians to the lions etc. are no more possible because our laws do not permit killing human beings. But there are no such laws restricting killing of animals. Had such laws been there, you or I would not be relishing KFC. Isn't it? Further, people in most part of the world (I don't know where you belong to) do not need Gladiatorial combats or whatever you said, because they everyday see much more bloodshed when terrorists bomb masses or civil wars break out.
I just meant to say "What is the difference between killing of animals in the name of sacrifices and killing them for food?" and "If the one be banned, the other should be banned too".
Did I ask for too much?
And how does my opinion count anyway? It is just my opinion and you are free to give yours. They do not count anyway in forming or altering laws. Do they?
Thanks anyway.
This would allow people to have a symbolic sacrifice, while allowing for this to happen in a manner consistant with food gathering practices.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
That has generally been the way most animal sacrifice has worked. Most of the animal gets eaten and maybe a little burned to the god(s). The same goes for human sacrifice, actually.
But, in modern times (and in ancient times in Jewish culture) only trained people kill animals and they do it in what is believed to be the most humane way. This does not seem to be the case with modern animal sacrifice.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
These sacrifices in Philidelphia most likely serve a different purpose however than simply pledging your allegiance to satan. I would be hesitant to assume that just because there were pentagrams that it was satanic, generally people who are involved in the more esoteric magical arts, reject the ideas of Christianity, satan is a Christian construct and has little place in the occult outside of Hollywood movies. The idea of sacrifice in this context is used for a different purpose. It is believed by practitioners of this new wave of magical rituals, re-popularized by Aleister Crowley, that if the ritual is done properly you can bring more power to the practitioner, you gain the extra power boost of the life force of a particular animal, and as would be expected different animals life forces are thought to have different qualities that a human practitioner may want to gain. There are very few devotional practices in esoteric magic, unlike Christianity, the main purpose for rituals are to increase the power of the practitioner to better control the world and become more god-like, or animal like.
Regardless of the reason, since there is no evidence that any religious worship of any type has ever proven effective to help modern society, in fact just the opposite can be argued, the outlaw of outdated methods that are harmful to any life be it human or animal should be outlawed and prosecuted as 1st degree animal murder. Michael Vic is out of jail already....anyone who has no problem taking a life should be locked up for a very very long time.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Yes, that is pretty much what I'm saying.
Yes in my perfect idealistic world I believe there should be an amendment to the constitution giving all animals with a central nervous system (as this is the best way I know to include all levels of self awareness) the right to live out it's natural life unharmed by humans, as I am also a rational human being I would never expect such a thing to ever happen. I do try my hardest to not be that annoying preachy vegan (everyone must do what is right for them), all I can do is use my life as an example, I try to live my life with as little violence towards other lives (animal or human) as possible. Although I am atheist that does not mean that I do not have a deep respect for the sacredness of life. I do not feel that it is simply human nature to take lives and be violent, while it is true that the "western" religions of Judeo/Christian origin has a long history of sacrafice, we must also remember one of the largest religions in the world is Budhism which is a good example of humanity's natural inclination to not harm lives, one of the basic doctrines of buddhism is that all life is sacred (the reason why most Buddhist monks and many lay Buddhists do not eat meat)
Another main concern, as you allude to, is not just the lives of the animals, when you have a culture that tolerates violence towards any living creature you risk bringing people one step closer to not feeling remorse when they harm a human being.
Am I right in understanding what you are saying? First, that you don't think any animals should be killed period. Second, that killing animals for religious purposes is particularly bad because it does not help society and does corrupt human nature causing a propensity for more and more killing.
I'm not supporting Islamic rituals or anything, but in my country, the meat of the sacrificed animals are given to the poor people, so they are not wasted and it is no different than buying one whole cow to be eaten.
As for the SAtanic rituals, there are laws already that prohibit animal torture, right? So when persecuting those people, the prosecutors can use those law to punish them.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
When it comes to killing people, motivation makes a big difference. Self defense, patriotism, theft, jealousy, cannibalism, they are all considered pretty different in the eyes of the law and society in general.
Why wouldn't motivation matter in killing animals? So far we have killing animals for food, killing them for their fur, and killing them to please hypothetical god(s). Can't one excuse be good enough and not another?
If human sacrifice is banned then animal sacrifice should also be banned.
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Yet.... in the USA alone several million (at least 4 million) animals are killed in shelters every year for lack of homes. They are killed humanely by shelters and vets - but their bodies are burned or disposed of in special areas of the landfil. Other unwanted kittens and pups are killed in far less humane ways -drowned or put in bags and tossed out on the road - or left in dumpsters.
Although you site Satanism it was Christianity that first sited animal sacrifice in the Bible. Pagans NEVER did sacrifice animals - they often slaughtered old and sick animals before winter but never as sacrifice - if killed their meat was always used.
Satanism basically spawned from Christianity as the devil is a product of that religion... But here we enter into a religious debate rather than one on sacrifice.
Animal sacrifice - killing for no other reason than killing is wrong, but as long as more animals are born than there are loving homes for - it is something we will have to live with - because even if you say people cannot do it for religious reasons - how are you going to stop shelters from doing it when they are full of pets and more come in (it can be argued that just because they dont call it sacrifice that the end result is no different)
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Satanists or Santarianists were suspected in the news report from Philadelphia. Satanists mostly claim not to believe in animal sacrifice; Santarianists definitely do. You are wrong about pagans; animal sacrifice was and remains common in many pagan religions, the Santarians in the Carribbean and Mexico and numerous sects in African areas being current examples.
As you say, however, excess dogs and cats are another problem that results in killing animals. In that case it is simply that there is nothing else to do with so many. I'm not sure how widespread that problem is outside of the USA. But animal sacrifice of dogs and cats seems to be illegal already, at least in Philadelphia.
Let's deal with, or at least discuss, one problem at a time. Should animal sacrifice be banned or not?
Hmmm...YES!
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Finally an answer with some research and citations.
Some points; although Jewish religion allowed animal sacrifice it was ended in the year 70 CE now about 2000 years ago. They were ahead of their time. Christians did not do animal sacrifice for a long time; but, recently they have begun to allow it in South Africa as a way to blend in local culture. They are going backwards for the sake of making converts.
Glorifying human suffering in the name of religion, as you point out, is another terrible thing. But, it is a different subject. It does show that religion can be a very bad thing.
You make a good point that education and awareness is key to stopping these wrongs.
I think, there should be constant and continuous efforts to make people realize these kinds of religious practices are wrong. The Christians should stop the animal sacrifice to get converts. Some one should start speaking out. With this question and the lively discussion, you stimulate the minds of many people. Thank you!