: : I'm sorry if I misunderstood your motivation. This is why psychological arguments are bad, because they can very easily be totally mistaken and out of line as mine was. It is interesting, though, that in Jeff's post baove he does state that his non-religious stance hellps to justify his opposition to this practice.: As you know, religious rituals have changed over time, and have progressed along with other "progressive" movements. Current examples are the inclusion of women and gays in various priesthoods. As for Hinduism: some years ago, when I was in school, I was part of an interfaith animal rights group. The head of the group was the school's Hindu chaplain (forgive me, I don't know the exact term for the name of the Hindu religious leader). Since he was a committed animal rights activist, I know he would not sanction the killing of goats for religious reasons. Times change, and as our understanding of other, formerly excluded or oppressed groups -- including animals -- broadens, religions can and do change with the new understanding. Please try to bear in mind that one can both honor one's god, and treat animals humanely.
: : I don't think that torturing animals is necessarily a right, but I cannot place animals rights above the freedom of religion. Once you begin infringing some religious practivces, where do you draw the line?
: : Relationship with one';s God makes all of the otehr things in life much less important, including animals rights.
The point that you bring up about Hinduism is a fascinating and very good one. yes, Hinduism has a powerful strain of animal-rights philosophy in it. (To be accurate, however, it's not so much an idea of animals having 'rights' in the legal sense, as it is about exalting the principle of nonviolence). Hence the exaltation of teh vegetarian lifestyle, the scorn for those who deal with dead animals, et cetera. Much of Hinduism has shunned animal sacrifice for millenia.
however, as you say, it was not always this way. This development in Hindusim came about as a direct response to Buddhism. In about 500 BC, the Buddha began promulgating his new religion. Buddhism demanded strict non-violence, although in practice many loopholes were found in the rules- for example, Buddhists are allowed to kill and eat fish, because to kill an animal by suffocation counts as 'passive killing' as opposed to 'active killing' with a gun or knife, therefore it is OK.
In any case, the Buddha condemned animal sacrifice. This new religion won many converts in India, and Hindusim repsonded by trying to absorb it, grafting the best aspects of buddhsim onto Hinduism. This included vegetarianism, deemphasis on caste and ritual, and abolition of animal sacrifice. The Hindus were successful; Hinduism improved as a result of teh borrowing and Buddhism nearly disapperaed from most of India.
However, the older aspects of hinduism, which include animal sacrifice, still persist in parts of India. In particular Calcutta, dedicated to Kali, the Feminine aspect of God, is a center for animal sacrifice.Every day goats are beheaded on the altar of Kali.
Much as I respect your viewpoint, I can't fully agree with it. let me put it thsi way. Suppose an African were to come to New York and say that abortion is an abomination and therefore we must ban abortion. Would you agree with him? Or would you assert your right to work out right and wrong for yourself, in consultation (or not) with God?
