Amazon.com Widgets

Should the sacrifice of animals for religious purposes be banned?

  • All animals have the right to live.

    In Hinduism, cows are regarded as divine animals because they give us milk that can provide us nutrition. Whenever they do puja to the cows, they do not sacrifice them for this reason. But how is it that when they do puja for goats and sheep, they sacrifice them? Goats and sheep also give us milk; so they should be worshipped the same way that cows are worshipped in Hinduism. And besides, there is no need to give any animals to God. God is the one who gives live and takes life. We humans should have no control over the life spans of any creatures.

  • Yes they do not belong to us

    Any sacrifice should be done where we feel the loss, and by sacrificing a living being which does-not pain us we cannot call it a sacrifice itself. Moreover a sacrifice to please someone cannot be meaningful if we sacrifice what belongs to that someone. Animals are God given gift to mankind and the same when sacrificed to please God contradicts the meaning of sacrifice.
    JOSSY PETER

  • Should that be a question in the first place?

    What kind of a god would solicit for the sacrifice of his own creations? As someone already remarked, slaughtering of animals for genuine purposes such for obtaining nutrition is fine, but sacrifice of animals for pleasing an imaginary entity is simple saying, stupid. Such questions shouldn't be asked in the first place.

  • Yes the sacrificing of animals should be banned because it is not fair to the animals.

    The animals do not choose to worship any specific deity so they should not be killed to support that deity. In addition it is cruel to the animals and encourages murderous behaviors in people.

    Posted by: SamDude
  • Any cruelty to animals and religion included, should be banned and people who practice animal sacrifice, harshly punished.

    What kind of a sick religion would practice animal sacrifice. I truly believe that there is a special place in hell for those who are cruel and make innocent animals suffer. To do cruel things to living creatures in the name of God, makes a mockery of religion.

    Posted by: F Clayton
  • Religion is no exception from the law

    Of course. Animal abuse is illegal, we can agree on that. It's in the law. Why in the world should religion be above that law? Why should religion have special rights? They don't deserve it. Everyone has to live by the rules, no matter what wacko religion you support. Rules are rules, God or no God.

  • Inhumane religious sacrifice of animals should not be exempt under Free Exercise Clause

    Laws not directed at a particular religion, that are neutral laws of general applicability, are what states should use to ban animal sacrifice. Religions should not be exempt from anti-cruelty laws because animal sacrifice is morally wrong. Just like Mormons cannot practice polygamy, other faiths, like Santeria, should not be allowed to sacrifice animals when it causes the animals pain and suffering. Religious slaughter, where the animal is conscious when killed, is also less humane than regular slaughter, where the animal is stunned first, and should not get exempted either in my opinion.

  • Sacrificing animals is cruel and there's no value in it.

    It's cruel and immoral to kill an animal as part of a ritual. It's unnecessary and serves no real purpose. Animals are killed for food, but that serves a real purpose. Killing animals as part of a religious rite is not only cruel to the animal, but perpetuates nonsensical superstitions that aren't beneficial to people.

    Posted by: N Schroeder 60
  • Yes, since it's simply superstition.

    Sacrificing animals for religious purpose must be banned since it doesn't convey anything. Why the hell would God like its men to kill innocent animals? And what's the gain in reality after sacrificing the poor animal? Religious ceremonies can well be performed without these rituals. Nowhere in any religious books is it specified as a necessity.

    Posted by: TownMaso
  • Inhumane religious sacrifice of animals should not be exempt under Free Exercise Clause

    Laws not directed at a particular religion, that are neutral laws of general applicability, are what states should use to ban animal sacrifice. Religions should not be exempt from anti-cruelty laws because animal sacrifice is morally wrong. Just like Mormons cannot practice polygamy, other faiths, like Santeria, should not be allowed to sacrifice animals when it causes the animals pain and suffering. Religious slaughter, where the animal is conscious when killed, is also less humane than regular slaughter, where the animal is stunned first, and should not get exempted either in my opinion.

  • Animals are not people. They do not have any rights that we do not assign to them.

    It doesn't matter what purpose you have in mind - it will always be legitimate. If you get pleasure out of sadistically torturing dogs or cats, power to you. Personally I think you might be a bit wrong in the head, but I won't stand by and watch as people get all upset over what someone does with their organic machine.

    Posted by: Kali
  • Sacrifice is an essential ritual of Devi Puja

    When eating of meat is allowed and otherwise killing of animals is allowed for food etc. Sacrifice is the way of eating meat of animal through offering it for the appeasement of the deity. Meat is a very good source of energy and protein. Hindu believe that the high energy levels attained from meat should be consumed in spiritual growth of the person and not to waist in useless karmas. Therefore meat is offered to the deity and thereafter taken as a Prasadam.

  • No Killing for Religion

    Religion should be about mercy, kindness, and compassion, not about killing. What kind of a god would demand the suffering and death of the animals he created? Not the kind of god I would ever worship. The idea of sacrificing animals began with human beings who were either wanting to eat most of the sacrifice or bribe the gods for favors. No civilized society should tolerate such sacrifices. Personally, I don't believe in killing for food either. Causing suffering and death to sentient creatures is morally wrong in my opinion.

  • Every kill is OK as long as you eat it. This is nature's law.

    Every kill is OK as long as you eat it. This is nature's law. Every living being flourishes on consuming another animal or plant (it is a living thing too... Only difference is it does not scream or cry ). These animals after they are killed (sacrificed) are taken as food by people. This is the same thing happening in butcher's shop. So, if you need to stop sacrifice, stop eating meat and close down the butcher's shop.

  • Animals would die either way!

    I do not have a third option, so I am going with this. It is sheer hypocrisy to say sacrifice of animals for religious purposes must be banned, but kill or encourage killing of animals for meat. I would say animals would die either way. What difference does it make to those poor animals who are sacrificed for religious purpose or as meat to pamper the taste buds of the meat-eaters? Ultimately, they end would end up in the "Bernard Shaw Graveyard"! If you say stop killing animals, then I am for it.

  • Do not interfere with the pracgtice of a religion unless it is breaking the law of the land

    Every religion has its own customs which may not be pleasing to every body. Believing and practicing a religion is coming in the basic freedom of a person. Sacrifice of animals in one's own place of worship should not be objected by others who do not follow it. However, a new practice which is newly introduced and likely to cause disturbance in the society may be objected by peaceful approach.

  • Sacrificing for a deity bears the same moral equivalent as sacrificing for food.

    Everyday, governments, scientists, farmers, and butches are doing inhumane things to animals. They send them to the slaughter house to die a gruesome death, they preform multiple medical tests on animals which many times hold dire consequences for the animals. What we are currently doing to animals is, as I would like to call it, ANIMAL ABUSE. So why restrict our freedom of religion because it doesn't coincide with your dogmatic believes on what is right and wrong? If someone believes that that religions do not have the right to animal sacrifices, then fine, by all means, stand your ground AFTER you've agreed to get rid of all the animal farms, the animal experimentation centers, everything that uses animals for human gain. This is hypocrisy. Ban a religion from pursuing their beliefs but allowing the government to commit animal abuse? Either allow both or ban both. C'mon.

  • Really?

    People kill animals all the time for food, especially in those horrible slaughterhouse thingies where they pack like, three cows into a 2 meter x 2 meter x 1 meter prism before grinding them up alive and feeding a mix of the bones and blood to the calves who are being raised in an adjoining 1 meter x 1 meter x .5 meter prism. I think sacrificing animals isn't too bad in comparison.

  • Why? It's nonsensical to do so.

    If we're going to allow the slaughter and consumption of animals, and if we are going to allow seasons of hunting, where individuals go out and kill animals for sport, then there is no reason why we should not also allow animals to be sacrificed. It's hypocritical. The taking of something's life is the greatest violation possible to it's being, so any claim of "animal cruelty" while we allow the killing of said animal is utter bollocks. Again, hypocrisy. Why should it be okay to commit the greatest moral crime against an animal, but disallow a substantially less morally corrupt crime?

  • This should turn into a resolution!!!!!!!!!!!

    Sacrifice of animals for any kind of religious practices is a part of outdated traditions &useless superstitions. Killing or slaughtering of animals is an act against rules of nature. Moreover, practicing these activities are directly a way to abuse god,since it is god who have created these animals. If the religion allows the sacrifice of an animal,then why could not sacrifice a men, since men is also an social animal.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-09-01T20:31:05.057
Animal sacrifice is an absolutely disgusting obsolete practice. The whole moral idea behind this pratice doesn't even hold relevant in this century. People in the primitive times followed this ritual to please the gods by sacrificing what was most important to their survival which was their livestock. But this doesn't hold true for any of us nowdays. So how can we even think of justifying something so gruesome and inhuman in the 21st century especially when the whole morale behind this practice is outdated. Killing innocent creatures in the name of religion is absolutely shocking. For those who are theists, let me put forward a simple argument. Since god himself gave life to every creature, it is only plausible to assume that he wants these creatures to live a natural life on the face of the earth. And instead of letting them be, we take away their lives and dump the bodies in front of a temple to please the gods and with the selfish hope of some reward or blessing. It's sad that science thinks of us as beings that are more evolved and more practical. Clearly, we're not.
>