ETHICS question #3 ... animals

[Heather in Neverland]

A CERTAIN COUNTY HAS OUTLAWED THE ABUSE OF ANIMALS. A QUESTION HAS ARISEN CONCERNING A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS GROUP THAT PRACTICES ANIMAL SACRIFICES, INCLUDING THE SACRIFICES OF CHICKENS, GOATS, AND OTHER ANIMALS. WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THIS GROUP TO PRACTICE ANIMAL SACRIFICES FREELY, LIMIT THEIR PRACTICES IN ANY WAY, OR COMPLETELY OUTLAW THEM?

 

This ought to be interesting.....:D....I could use some deep discussion to wake me up this morning!

[Renee in NC]

A CERTAIN COUNTY HAS OUTLAWED THE ABUSE OF ANIMALS. A QUESTION HAS ARISEN CONCERNING A CERTAIN RELIGIOUS GROUP THAT PRACTICES ANIMAL SACRIFICES, INCLUDING THE SACRIFICES OF CHICKENS, GOATS, AND OTHER ANIMALS. WOULD YOU BE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THIS GROUP TO PRACTICE ANIMAL SACRIFICES FREELY, LIMIT THEIR PRACTICES IN ANY WAY, OR COMPLETELY OUTLAW THEM?

 

This ought to be interesting.....:D....I could use some deep discussion to wake me up this morning!

 

Simply killing an animal is not abuse - if it were then we would all be vegetarian! I don't know of any group that tortures animals before they are killed - are there any?

[Heather in Neverland]

Simply killing an animal is not abuse - if it were then we would all be vegetarian! I don't know of any group that tortures animals before they are killed - are there any?

 

No, it isn't a "torture" issue necessarily but do you think their practices fall under "freedom of religion"?

[hillfarm]

"The views on animal rights were much different when meat used to come packaged in hide instead of plastic."

 

The humane slaughter of animals is not necessarily unethical. Depends on which animals, belonging to whom, killed for what reason. IMO, unethical situations would include killing endangered species that did not belong to the group planning to kill them, and if there was no reason other than we just felt like it or because we like to see things die (motives that indicate psychological problems, precursors to serial murder, etc.).

 

I believe that humane slaughter for food, religious reasons, animal population management, disease control, etc. are acceptable reasons.

[beansprouts]

How are we defining "abuse"?

 

There are organizations that won't adopt a cat to families if the poor creature will be left home alone during the day. :001_rolleyes:

[Renee in NC]

No, it isn't a "torture" issue necessarily but do you think their practices fall under "freedom of religion"?

 

Most definately, at least for the ones I know. Killing for religious reasons is no different than killing for food. Many religious groups that do sacrifice animals eat them as well. No animal should be tortured or abused, but humanely killing them is not unethical.

[shell in SC]

Well Cindy, you wouldn't leave your kids home alone. . .now would you. :tongue_smilie:

 

Wait a minute. . . that might not be a bad idea. . .hmmm

[lionfamily1999]

I agree with everyone else. It's part of religious freedom and it's not necessarily unethical or cruel. Really, even those religions that do the bizarre things with chickens are waaaaaay kinder than the factories that tear them to pieces for food.

[Murphy101]

No, it isn't a "torture" issue necessarily but do you think their practices fall under "freedom of religion"?

 

yes.

 

I believe that humane slaughter for food, religious reasons, animal population management, disease control, etc. are acceptable reasons.

 

:iagree:

[FO4UR]

How is killing an animal as part of a religious ritual different from slaughtering for food?

 

If a person is protected under "religious freedom" in their sacrifice of animals, how do we draw the line when it comes to human sacrifice?

 

..just pondering...

[Heather in Neverland]

If a person is protected under "religious freedom" in their sacrifice of animals, how do we draw the line when it comes to human sacrifice?

 

..just pondering...

 

I thought about this as well. If animal sacrifice is protected under religious freedom, why not polygamy? Not that I would participate in either :D but still, just wondering....

[Haiku]

I would outlaw it. I don't believe that the right to practice one's religion extends to the right to kill other sentient beings.

 

Tara

[pqr]

I would outlaw it. I don't believe that the right to practice one's religion extends to the right to kill other sentient beings.

 

Tara

 

What is the difference between killing a "sentient" being for religious reasons, because one hunts or because mink keeps you really warm and feels great? I would argue that perhaps religious reasons have more justification than the others, and I support all three reasons as fully justified.

[Pamela H in Texas]

The group is protected under the first amendment. Also, killing an animal (for sacrifice or food) is not usually considered abuse.

[Pamela H in Texas]

If animal sacrifice is protected under religious freedom, why not polygamy?

 

This is one I've never understood. Supposedly it's illegal and yet there are many that do it openly without a problem. So I got the idea that it is protected under religious freedom but is otherwise illegal? I have never understood it but I never went and searched out an answer either. But I guess I got that it's legal if for religious reasons.

[lionfamily1999]

I thought about this as well. If animal sacrifice is protected under religious freedom, why not polygamy? Not that I would participate in either :D but still, just wondering....

I have to say that I think polygamy should be legalized. Not that I would participate either ;)

 

I have to say, though, that the idea that human sacrifice would become legalized is a bit of a stretch. Sure, some people consider humans and animals equal, but the vast majority place a higher value on human life. We already sacrifice people to science, though... And there's people that are sacrificed for war. Now that I think of it we sacrifice people all the time. Still, I don't see any human sacrifices for "religious" purposes any time soon.

[lionfamily1999]

This is one I've never understood. Supposedly it's illegal and yet there are many that do it openly without a problem. So I got the idea that it is protected under religious freedom but is otherwise illegal? I have never understood it but I never went and searched out an answer either. But I guess I got that it's legal if for religious reasons.

Okay, I've put a lot of thought into this. Now, if you are married by a religious leader, without a license, then the state does not consider you married, right? Common law marraiges don't keep people from living together for extended periods of time, so I don't imagine you could be found a polygamist for living with a harem for a long time. So, what LAW is being violated if someone were to "marry" many people, without getting a license from the state? That's my argument for polygamy, lol. Simply that, as long as you don't get the license or attempt to claim spouses 2+ on your taxes, you aren't really violating any laws.

[Renee in NC]

How is killing an animal as part of a religious ritual different from slaughtering for food?

 

If a person is protected under "religious freedom" in their sacrifice of animals, how do we draw the line when it comes to human sacrifice?

 

..just pondering...

 

It isn't illegal to kill animals but it is to kill humans?

 

I don't see the conection.

[Danestress]

"The views on animal rights were much different when meat used to come packaged in hide instead of plastic."

 

 

 

 

Millions of people and many cultures have practiced vegetarianism and believed in the inherent value of animal life long before the modern era.

 

I'm not one of them. I'm just saying is all:)

[Melinda in VT]

This is one I've never understood. Supposedly it's illegal and yet there are many that do it openly without a problem. So I got the idea that it is protected under religious freedom but is otherwise illegal? I have never understood it but I never went and searched out an answer either. But I guess I got that it's legal if for religious reasons.

 

Are you talking about animal sacrifice here? Or polygamy?

 

Because polygamy is illegal in the U.S. regardless of your reason for practicing it.

[Heather in Neverland]

Are you talking about animal sacrifice here? Or polygamy?

 

Because polygamy is illegal in the U.S. regardless of your reason for practicing it.

 

I think the underlying idea is practices that are considered "illegal" by the government, being allowed under the idea of "religious freedom". The question is about animal sacrifice but really you could subsitutue about any practice and claim "religious freedom" allows you to do it. But where do we draw the line? How do you say "Sure, animal sacrifice is OK for religious purposes but polygamy is not"? At one point homeschooling was illegal too then some challenged it on the basis of religious freedom and now it is legal (which is a good thing for us). But the whole idea of protecting religious freedom begs the question, where do you draw the line?

 

I doubt the USA would ever allow human sacrifice but what about men marrying underage girls and claiming it as "part of their religion"? Freedom can be a slippery slope.....

[Danestress]

I thought about this as well. If animal sacrifice is protected under religious freedom, why not polygamy? Not that I would participate in either :D but still, just wondering....

 

The government's interest in protecting marriage and the people in it is just much higher than the government interest in protecting animals from cruelty. When courts consider a constitutional challenge to a law restricting individual liberties, both the interests of the individual and the interests of the government are considered. A person has a higher interest in legitimate exercise of religious belief than in entertainment. So the rights of a legitimate religious group to sacrifice an animal will be much higher than the right of an individual to kick a puppy to death for fun.

 

The government is going to struggle to show that is has a legitimate interest in protecting the institution of marriage or the women who enter into polygamous marriages. At this point, polygamy is illegal in the US. I think people will continue to challenge that, and many would say that the government's interest (and ability) to "protect" marriage just isn't as strong as a person's right to enter into a polygamous marraige with a consenting adult. But for now, it's illegal.

[Miss Marple]

I think it all depends on how one looks at the issue. There are 2 ways I see it. If we look at it based on a Christian viewpoint (meaning Biblical World View) it would depend on *who* was being worshiped (in the religious ritual). Because a Biblical world view would definitely eliminate the worship of any but Jehovah God (Commandments 1 & 2). And, therefore, if the worship was outside of Jehovah God, it could not be allowed. And then there is the issue of how one interprets the New Testament and the role of Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice. Are the OT sacrifices complete in Jesus's death?

 

But, my feeling is that this is more of a governmental issue: can multiple religions co-exist under our laws. In the U.S., constitutional interpretation has changed over time. The interpretation of our constitution *at this time* would probably allow for it if the religion was able to show that it was a necessary part of their worship. We have had instances which have gone to the Supreme Court in which certain Native American tribes claim the need to use mind altering drugs in their religious practices. Some of these have been upheld by the SCOTUS, others have been dismissed.

 

Whitehead's book, The Second American Revolution, delves into just these issues. He looks back at earlier interpretations passed down by the SCOTUS and relates them to more recent interpretations. It is very interesting.

 

I think other countries which are under a theocratic rule (religious rule) would have a very different approach to this issue than the US.

 

BTW, I would hope that the religious group raised the animals for this purpose and didn't glean animals from their neighbors :tongue_smilie:

[Pamela H in Texas]

Because polygamy is illegal in the U.S. regardless of your reason for practicing it.

 

Julie explained it to me. I was wondering how come, if it's illegal, they let these groups have 4, 6, 10 wives per man. But it makes sense that these people are not married legally speaking (which, btw, sounds like it could be a legal nightmare in cases of abandonment or spousal death). Having a religious leader deem you married, living together, sleeping together, eating together, family-making together isn't the same as getting marriage licenses with each wife.

[Scarlett]

Julie explained it to me. I was wondering how come, if it's illegal, they let these groups have 4, 6, 10 wives per man. But it makes sense that these people are not married legally speaking (which, btw, sounds like it could be a legal nightmare in cases of abandonment or spousal death). Having a religious leader deem you married, living together, sleeping together, eating together, family-making together isn't the same as getting marriage licenses with each wife.

 

Right. Nightmare indeed. Also, leaves room for major fraud of government social services because all the wives past the first wife aren't legal wives and therefore they are single mothers. What a mess.

 

Just goes to show...you can't legistlate morality. If the government was truly interested in maintaining the family unit, which makes for a stronger society, then adultery would be illegal. Sex outside of marraige would be illegal.

 

Sorry for the threadjack...as for animal sacrifices--I would imagine the US government would allow for it as long as they weren't tortured...or stolen from the neighbors as someone else mentioned....:tongue_smilie:

[Murphy101]

Julie explained it to me. I was wondering how come, if it's illegal, they let these groups have 4, 6, 10 wives per man. But it makes sense that these people are not married legally speaking (which, btw, sounds like it could be a legal nightmare in cases of abandonment or spousal death). Having a religious leader deem you married, living together, sleeping together, eating together, family-making together isn't the same as getting marriage licenses with each wife.

 

see that's the problem the gov't will have in keeping polygamy illegal, imo.

 

bottom line is as long as the man only gets a civil marriage license for ONE of them (or none of them), he can live with, sleep with, have children with, help support financially all the other women he wants to. And even if his wife doesn't like it she can't do anything about it other than leave hims b/c it's not illegal to have s*x with more than one woman or someone other than your wife.

 

the only difference between a man doing that and polygamy is a marriage certificate?

 

well and risking being smited if you oppose polygamy for religious reasons.;)

[Spy Car]

And then there is the issue of how one interprets the New Testament and the role of Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice. Are the OT sacrifices complete in Jesus's death?

 

 

Gosh when you say it that way, it makes me wonder if the whole Christian faith rests on an act of god/human sacrifice?

 

I've never quite understood how killing animals, people or God in any way expiates ones sins.

 

On the animal sacrifice issue, any activity that goes beyond humane ritualistic slaughter and move into animal cruelty ought to be outlawed. Torturing animals is morally unacceptable.

 

Bill

[lionfamily1999]

I think the underlying idea is practices that are considered "illegal" by the government, being allowed under the idea of "religious freedom". The question is about animal sacrifice but really you could subsitutue about any practice and claim "religious freedom" allows you to do it. But where do we draw the line? How do you say "Sure, animal sacrifice is OK for religious purposes but polygamy is not"? At one point homeschooling was illegal too then some challenged it on the basis of religious freedom and now it is legal (which is a good thing for us). But the whole idea of protecting religious freedom begs the question, where do you draw the line?

 

I doubt the USA would ever allow human sacrifice but what about men marrying underage girls and claiming it as "part of their religion"? Freedom can be a slippery slope.....

The line is drawn. The US government cannot make laws infringing upon religion. Of course, they tread all over that, but it is only the Bill of Rights. The entire idea behind the separation of church and state was to protect and promote free thought, free ideas and a free exchange. Jefferson pointed out that "truth" does not need government backing, only lies. If people are allowed an open forum to exercise their religious beliefs, then that openess also allows us to discuss these beliefs.

 

As for folks marrying children, as far as I know, Mass has the most disturbing laws where that is concerned. A child of 12 can be married, homosexual marraige is allowed, first cousins are allowed to wed. NAMBLA is probably opening up a commune there, if they haven't already. Now, is NAMBLA a religion? No, it's not. The true danger is not from religious people, they are only used to make the real freaks less apparent.

[beansprouts]

I would disageree with a law banning abuse of animals.

 

I do think people who torture and neglect their pets are despicable and should face public ridicule. However, when we start making laws, we have to first define what exactly is abuse, and inevitably end up making judgements about people's belief systems.

[beansprouts]

Well Cindy, you wouldn't leave your kids home alone. . .now would you. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

(She's kidding... right?)

[Murphy101]

I would disageree with a law banning abuse of animals.

 

I do think people who torture and neglect their pets are despicable and should face public ridicule. However, when we start making laws, we have to first define what exactly is abuse, and inevitably end up making judgements about people's belief systems.

 

I've got no issue with making judgements - we all get an opinion.;)

 

the problem with a law is that it has to be enforced.

and how do we do that?

shove someone in prison for having an outdoor kitty?

take away their driver's license?

put them on a no pet registry list?

 

that's really my main issue with polygamy.

I think it should be illegal mostly b/c it does go against what I believe marriage should be is.

And really no matter what they call themselves, they CAN"T be polygamist in the eyes of the law b/c the first wife is the only one recognised by the law.

They can shack up and call each other anything they want and in the eyes of the law they still aren't married to more than one person.

So I've never really understood how one can prosecute for polygamy...:confused:

[beansprouts]

I've got no issue with making judgements - we all get an opinion.;)

 

Well, I certainly do have an opinion. Lots of them in fact.

 

I meant to say the state should not have the job of judging one value system over another.

Edited December 18, 2008 by beansprouts

[Zelda]

How is killing an animal as part of a religious ritual different from slaughtering for food?

 

If a person is protected under "religious freedom" in their sacrifice of animals, how do we draw the line when it comes to human sacrifice?

 

..just pondering...

 

Because that would involve killing people. This is pretty clear to me.

[Haiku]

I meant to say the state should not have the job of judging one value system over another.

 

I see what you are saying, but I think the state does this routinely. Indeed, I would argue that we couldn't have any laws if the state weren't judging value systems.

 

Tara

[beansprouts]

I see what you are saying, but I think the state does this routinely. Indeed, I would argue that we couldn't have any laws if the state weren't judging value systems.

 

Tara

 

So by what authority can we make laws at all?

[Haiku]

Well, to me (and keep in mind that I haven't spent weeks or even days pondering this), we elect people who make the laws, so, as a country and a culture, we are selecting the value system we choose to live by. Not that we all agree with every value and every law, but generally, by common consent, our laws reflect our common values. I think that's true of most cultures, and I might (given sufficient time to ponder it) argue that a culture that can't arrive at a common value system would eventually fall apart.

 

Tara

[Murphy101]

Well, to me (and keep in mind that I haven't spent weeks or even days pondering this), we elect people who make the laws, so, as a country and a culture, we are selecting the value system we choose to live by. Not that we all agree with every value and every law, but generally, by common consent, our laws reflect our common values. I think that's true of most cultures, and I might (given sufficient time to ponder it) argue that a culture that can't arrive at a common value system would eventually fall apart.

 

hmm, true to a loose degree I think.

 

I mean, we have to be able to agree that murder is wrong for example, thus most think it should be illegal and that is a law should be enforced.

 

I think where we come into a problem is not the bigger issues, well most of the time.

 

It's when we expect the state to micro manage with laws, such as what we do with our pets. The larger issues, I think we can agree on to at least some loose extent.

 

But when we start entering people's homes and families... that gets mighty tricky.

 

Not that I think we shouldn't go there in some cases, just that it gets tricker and far more debatable and difficult to reach a concensus.

[KidsHappen]

I think it all depends on how one looks at the issue. There are 2 ways I see it. If we look at it based on a Christian viewpoint (meaning Biblical World View) it would depend on *who* was being worshiped (in the religious ritual). Because a Biblical world view would definitely eliminate the worship of any but Jehovah God (Commandments 1 & 2). And, therefore, if the worship was outside of Jehovah God, it could not be allowed. And then there is the issue of how one interprets the New Testament and the role of Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice. Are the OT sacrifices complete in Jesus's death?

 

But, my feeling is that this is more of a governmental issue: can multiple religions co-exist under our laws. In the U.S., constitutional interpretation has changed over time. The interpretation of our constitution *at this time* would probably allow for it if the religion was able to show that it was a necessary part of their worship. We have had instances which have gone to the Supreme Court in which certain Native American tribes claim the need to use mind altering drugs in their religious practices. Some of these have been upheld by the SCOTUS, others have been dismissed.

 

Whitehead's book, The Second American Revolution, delves into just these issues. He looks back at earlier interpretations passed down by the SCOTUS and relates them to more recent interpretations. It is very interesting.

 

I think other countries which are under a theocratic rule (religious rule) would have a very different approach to this issue than the US.

 

BTW, I would hope that the religious group raised the animals for this purpose and didn't glean animals from their neighbors :tongue_smilie:

 

Huh? I am utterly perplexed as to why it would matter what religion is practicing the religious rites. I am not following your logic here. America is not a Christian nation and the Biblical worldview does not ditate our laws. Would you care to expound on what exactly you mean? :confused:

Edited December 18, 2008 by KidsHappen
typos

[lionfamily1999]

I would disageree with a law banning abuse of animals.

 

I do think people who torture and neglect their pets are despicable and should face public ridicule. However, when we start making laws, we have to first define what exactly is abuse, and inevitably end up making judgements about people's belief systems.

Wasn't the original purpose of these laws to protect the rights of fellow citizens? IOW, you have freedom of speech and laws against libel and slander. Freedom of the press and laws concerning plagerism (sorry sp). Laws are meant to protect our freedoms, not constrain them. How do laws protecting animals come into play? Are animals fellow citizens that deserve rights and protection?

[Miss Marple]

America is not a Christian nation and the Biblical worldview does not ditate our laws. Would you care to expound on what exactly you mean?

 

I think there are many who would disagree with this assumption. Reviewing the writings of many of the our founding fathers would lead one to disagree with assertion. However, the reality is that our nation is no longer acting as a Christian nation - whether one believes it was founded this way or not.

 

As I said, I think this is a governmental issue, and since I'm not the head government I can't decide whether the group should be allowed to sacrifice or not - that is up to the interpretation of the constitution by the SCOTUS. I think the answer to this question would be entirely dependent upon the constitution (or whatever foundation of government) ones nation happens to have.

 

John Adams:

“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.â€

• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.â€

–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

 

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

[Miss Marple]

Do you understand the Big Bang (which I would gather you believe? Can you understand and explain love? Can you explain it so everyone can understand it? Is a complete understanding of something necessary to believe it is true?

 

And, yes, Christianity is based on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. That aspect differentiates it from other religions.

 

And, I really didn't see in the OP an issue of animal cruelty? But I believe as you do that torturing animals is cruel and wrong.

[Miss Marple]

Here are some quote that might help you understand why people do see America as a Christian nation.

 

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. It is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." (John Jay. The first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. 1816.)

 

In addition, in a ruling passed down by SCOTUS on February 29, 1892, the justices called America a "Christian Nation"

"These, and many other matters which might be noticed add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." (The Supreme Court. 143 U.S. 470-471. 1892.)

 

"The morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity." (People v. Ruggles. 1811.) p. 325

 

While some may wish to rewrite history, the evidence is too great to ignore - America has a Christian heritage.

[beansprouts]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that

all men are created equal, that they are endowed

by their Creator with certain unalienable

rights, that among these are life, liberty,

and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure

these rights, governments are instituted among

men....â€

[CactusPair]

I'd outlaw it outright.

 

Ritualistic killing of animals is archaic, senseless and cruel. Animals are not things to be used for frivolous--ie. non-food, non-medical--purposes.

 

There are a lot of practices that fall under "but it's religious freedom";it doesn't make them right or acceptable. At one time in parts of the world the sacrifice of virgins fell under "religious freedom" also.

 

I am for a humane civil society. The way a a culture treats animals reflects and influences the way all living beings are viewed, valued and treated.