Do you support the banning of animal sacrifice ?

[Narz]

Catholics still worship the dead king on a cross though, don't they?

That is just a pagan idol, remade for a massed audience.

.

It's kind of funny how people have no problem worshiping this symbol when "God" clearly stated (thru Moses of course) that "his people" should not worship "graven images".

 

[Xen]

I've given burnt offering before, but never actually sacrificed anything, and dotn intend to- but if I wish to sacrifice a cow, then its rather my own perogitive to do so, considering it will be put to a use just as reasonable as using horses for glue, and most cows for meat and so on.

 

[Hitro]

I've given burnt offering before, but never actually sacrificed anything, and dotn intend to- but if I wish to sacrifice a cow, then its rather my own perogitive to do so, considering it will be put to a use just as reasonable as using horses for glue, and most cows for meat and so on.

Using horses for meat is actually much more reasonable. I like horse meat.

But slaughter for sheer fun or ritual idiocy is a whole different thing.

 

[The Last Conformist]

It's kind of funny how people have no problem worshiping this symbol when "God" clearly stated (thru Moses of course) that "his people" should not worship "graven images".

If you don't break God's rules, you wouldn't need forgiveness.

 

[aneeshm]

Now, what happened to our little trollmeiter aneeshm?

What's that ?

I was expecting him to strike back with some more-or-less sensible charge of hypocrisy, but he appears to've gone AWOL ...

The poll results do show a bit of hypocrisy , I admit . How can you define something as barbaric and leave it at that ?

 

[aneeshm]

Humans are just a bit more intelligent animals (though sometimes I wonder if we are really so different).

The question is whether the animals feel the same pain as we do - the answer is yes, they do. We have to eat and we need meat, so OK, some animals have to be killed for food, I accept it. But it should be as painless as possible.

Sacrificing animals to some god is a sign of primitivism, barbarism and lack of reason. It should be banned in all civilized countries.

Well , as humans advance further and further , I predict that even the eating of meat will gradually go out of fashion ( it is a sort of animal killing , after all ) . But the human race has a lot of time . The banning of animal sacrifice is only a first step ( a first step that was taken in India for the first time by Ashok . Funnily enough , within a few generations of Ashok , all "respectable" ( as described by a traveller of the time ) people became vegetarians in India ) , but a necessary first step .

 

[Caprice]

It's kind of funny how people have no problem worshiping this symbol when "God" clearly stated (thru Moses of course) that "his people" should not worship "graven images".

Christians do not techincally worship the graven image. Well, any that do are loons (IMO). Yep, that big wooden cross with a wooden "Jesus" (Wow, Jesus was a white man with blonde hair a blue eyes?) is God.

*confused*

I happen to perfer churches that decline to posess such rediculous imagry...

I do think that, in the end, all forms of animal killing (for food and as ritual sacrifice) will end, but the human race is not read for it at this time. Maybe another few hundred years...

Oh, and yeah I think it is barbaric... even eating it is barbaric. No, I don't think it should be banned, it should die out on it's own.

So far as eating it is concerned: I happen to like my hamburgers, chicken, and fish way too much to let them all go... I'd be a fugitive if meat as food was made illegal (and I think it should be, if sacrifice is... some methods involved in procuring meat as food are as bad as rituralistic sacrifice).

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Killing without purpose - definately wrong IMHO, though I wouldn't ban it.

 

[Winner]

Well , as humans advance further and further , I predict that even the eating of meat will gradually go out of fashion ( it is a sort of animal killing , after all ) . But the human race has a lot of time . The banning of animal sacrifice is only a first step ( a first step that was taken in India for the first time by Ashok . Funnily enough , within a few generations of Ashok , all "respectable" ( as described by a traveller of the time ) people became vegetarians in India ) , but a necessary first step .

If there was a substitute for meat, that tasted exactly like the real meat, I'd happily eat it instead of the real meat.

Anyway, if the animal ise killed for food, it is at least reasonable. Killing it in order to appease some God, that is just primitive and stupid.

 

[The Last Conformist]

What's that ?

Typo for "trollmeister".

The poll results do show a bit of hypocrisy , I admit . How can you define something as barbaric and leave it at that ?

I fail to see the problem.

The idea behind a liberal society is that we allow people to do pretty much what they want, as long as they're not hurting someone else*, no matter how barbaric, tasteless or otherwise deplorable we might find it.

* This implies humans.

 

[Kozmos]

My grandparents live in a village.When I was a small boy my grandpa slew a lamb so we could it eat it(it was most delicious).However the manner in he did it,burned into my brain.He cut its throat and it started a twitching on the ground and bleeding all over the cement for like an hour(i swear i had like hectoliters of blood in it),while he was cuting its guts open.Few days later I was playing on that bloodstained cement like nothing happened.

Ahhh childhood.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

The poll results do show a bit of hypocrisy , I admit . How can you define something as barbaric and leave it at that ?

That's not hypocrisy, that's called liberalism. It's quite consistent to hold certain moral views without seeking to force them onto others. I object to the killing of animals and my response to this is to not kill animals. What other people do is down to them, so long as they don't harm anybody.

 

[Winner]

That's not hypocrisy, that's called liberalism. It's quite consistent to hold certain moral views without seeking to force them onto others. I object to the killing of animals and my response to this is to not kill animals. What other people do is down to them, so long as they don't harm anybody.

Well, few centuries ago, certain groups of people weren't considered people. They were little more than animals. If you killed them, nothing happened because they were your property and you had a full right to do so.

So, the question is if it is ethically OK to kill animals and whether is it OK to kill them in very brutal way. Slowly, the western society is starting to refuse the latter. The first applies for certain kinds of animals - dolphins, shimpanzees, dogs or cats (simply put, nice and somehow intelligent animals). When somebody kills them, most of western people feel revulsion.

Another question is, whether the animals have or don't have any rights. Western society is divided in this too. In most of Western countries, it is not allowed to ill-treat animals (by beating them, keeping them hungry or in very bad conditions). Obviously, the animals here have a right not to be ill-treated.

So, it is perfectly possible to ban animal sacrifice in liberal societies.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If you'll look up my first post in this thread, you'll see I said I wouldn't support a ban on animal sacrifice per se, but it shouldn't be allowed to sidestep normal animal welfare laws.

 

[classical_hero]

If religious sacrifice of animals is banned, then killing animals for food should be banned, and killing/using/sacrificing animals for scientific purposes should also be banned.

Excellent point. Why stop at one method and not go after all?

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

So, it is perfectly possible to ban animal sacrifice in liberal societies.

I absolutely agree that a soceity can ban the ill-treatment of animals without abandoning liberalism, but only by affording animals some small measure of the rights afforded to humans. I don't think I could support this however and I don't see how this could be done without moving against all forms of exploitation of animals. If the principle you are using is that every person is free to make their own moral decisions except in the case that they are harming people or animals, it seems odd to me that the reason for harming an animal would be taken into account. We would then be saying that the law has a problem with the morals of the individual (their business) rather than the harming of the animal itself (our business). I'm not saying you can't do this of course, but you couldn't call it liberal.

 

[Lozzy_Ozzy]

Excellent point. Why stop at one method and not go after all?

Because one is natural to humans (you don't HAVE to eat meat, but it's still natural to us) and the other saves lives.

 

[El_Machinae]

Appeasing the mighty Cthulhu also saves lives, you know!

I suppose minimum humanitarian laws could be enacted regarding the sacrifice of animals, but they should not be more oppressive than laws regarding slaughtering animals for food (since it's not really necessary to eat as much meat as we do) ... and I assure you, the farmers are WAY less humanitarian than most rituals.

 

[Abaddon]

If there was a substitute for meat, that tasted exactly like the real meat, I'd happily eat it instead of the real meat.

Both quorn and Tofu can easily be made to seem like chicken in both taste and texture.. all it takes is a few esters to make it taste like anything you can imagine

 

[Urederra]

Animals are not people.

it is sick to think otherwise.