RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Santeria priestess in Loudoun found guilty of animal cruelty after rit - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Santeria priestess in Loudoun found guilty of animal cruelty after rit Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   lyria 

  • Account not in use
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,254
  • Joined: 23-December 04

Posted 04 August 2016 - 08:23 AM

Santeria priestess in Loudoun found guilty of animal cruelty after ritual sacrifice

By Justin Jouvenal August 3 at 8:53 PM
Washington Post

Mercy Carrion greeted the officers who arrived at her Loudoun County home in April to investigate a report of animal cruelty in a blood-soaked white shirt, according to testimony at her trial Wednesday.

Blood was smeared around the doorway of the home, a large knife was found next to the kitchen sink, and the decapitated bodies of two roosters were discovered in a filing cabinet, officers told a judge.

Despite the grisly scene, Carrion, 43, of Sterling, Va., argued in Loudoun County Court on Wednesday that the animal cruelty charges brought against her violated her First Amendment right to freedom of religion. She is a priestess in the Afro-Caribbean religion of Santeria, whose practitioners sometimes offer animal sacrifices.

“I tried to explain to [the officer] you offered the bodies of the animals to the saints,” Carrion told the court through a Spanish interpreter. “There are elders in my church, and I was instructed to do this.”

A Loudoun County prosecutor sidestepped the religious issue, arguing that Carrion could sacrifice the birds, but she flouted Virginia law by failing to care for them beforehand and then slaughtering them in an inhumane way.

“She has a right to practice her religion,” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Alexandra Hazel said in her closing argument. “She deprived these animals of food, water and shelter and then cruelly killed them.”

A judge ultimately sided with the prosecutor, convicting Carrion of three misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty, but not before an unusual trial played out that featured testimony about a rooster autopsy, or necropsy, and an expert on religions of the African diaspora.

Loudoun County animal control officers testified that they were called to Carrion’s home on April 25 for a report of animal cruelty. They found three roosters in feces- and urine-soaked beer boxes in Carrion’s basement. One officer said the birds could not properly move in the boxes.

Officers returned the next day at 1 a.m. to serve a search warrant on Carrion’s home and found her in the bloody shirt. Carrion testified that she killed the birds just before officers knocked on her door because she wanted to follow through on the sacrifice.

Remainder of article here.

--------------------------

Exactly how far does religious freedom go? I must admit, that I have different feelings about animal sacrifice when talking about a food animal (chicken, pig, deer, etc) than a pet animal (dog, cat, etc). And of course there's overlap there as some people DO eat dogs and cats. Nevertheless, if I find out someone sacrificed a black cat, for instance, I will reach levels of rage that I just don't when I apply the same concepts to roosters.

But not keeping the rooster in a humane environment does get to me. I don't care if you are killing the animal for dinner or to offer to the saints, you take care of that animal first and kill it in a quick, humane fashion. Besides, don't you want the saints/gods/spirits to have the best? Isn't that the point of an offering? Consider a more mainstream Christian practice (not that I am implying Santeria is Christian) of giving up something for Lent. You aren't supposed to give up something easy!

I do actually know one person who has done animal sacrifice - in their faith it is a very rare thing only for momentous occasions - and they cook and eat the animal (a pig, in this case) after killing it humanely in a feast that honors the deity. To me, that does make some degree of sense, though I would not want to be a part of it.

This post has been edited by lyria: 04 August 2016 - 10:20 AM

0

#2 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 06 August 2016 - 12:07 PM

View Postlyria, on 04 August 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

Santeria priestess in Loudoun found guilty of animal cruelty after ritual sacrifice

By Justin Jouvenal August 3 at 8:53 PM
Washington Post

Mercy Carrion greeted the officers who arrived at her Loudoun County home in April to investigate a report of animal cruelty in a blood-soaked white shirt, according to testimony at her trial Wednesday.

Blood was smeared around the doorway of the home, a large knife was found next to the kitchen sink, and the decapitated bodies of two roosters were discovered in a filing cabinet, officers told a judge.

Despite the grisly scene, Carrion, 43, of Sterling, Va., argued in Loudoun County Court on Wednesday that the animal cruelty charges brought against her violated her First Amendment right to freedom of religion. She is a priestess in the Afro-Caribbean religion of Santeria, whose practitioners sometimes offer animal sacrifices.

“I tried to explain to [the officer] you offered the bodies of the animals to the saints,” Carrion told the court through a Spanish interpreter. “There are elders in my church, and I was instructed to do this.”

A Loudoun County prosecutor sidestepped the religious issue, arguing that Carrion could sacrifice the birds, but she flouted Virginia law by failing to care for them beforehand and then slaughtering them in an inhumane way.

“She has a right to practice her religion,” Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Alexandra Hazel said in her closing argument. “She deprived these animals of food, water and shelter and then cruelly killed them.”

A judge ultimately sided with the prosecutor, convicting Carrion of three misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty, but not before an unusual trial played out that featured testimony about a rooster autopsy, or necropsy, and an expert on religions of the African diaspora.

Loudoun County animal control officers testified that they were called to Carrion’s home on April 25 for a report of animal cruelty. They found three roosters in feces- and urine-soaked beer boxes in Carrion’s basement. One officer said the birds could not properly move in the boxes.

Officers returned the next day at 1 a.m. to serve a search warrant on Carrion’s home and found her in the bloody shirt. Carrion testified that she killed the birds just before officers knocked on her door because she wanted to follow through on the sacrifice.

Remainder of article here.

--------------------------

Exactly how far does religious freedom go? I must admit, that I have different feelings about animal sacrifice when talking about a food animal (chicken, pig, deer, etc) than a pet animal (dog, cat, etc). And of course there's overlap there as some people DO eat dogs and cats. Nevertheless, if I find out someone sacrificed a black cat, for instance, I will reach levels of rage that I just don't when I apply the same concepts to roosters.

But not keeping the rooster in a humane environment does get to me. I don't care if you are killing the animal for dinner or to offer to the saints, you take care of that animal first and kill it in a quick, humane fashion. Besides, don't you want the saints/gods/spirits to have the best? Isn't that the point of an offering? Consider a more mainstream Christian practice (not that I am implying Santeria is Christian) of giving up something for Lent. You aren't supposed to give up something easy!

I do actually know one person who has done animal sacrifice - in their faith it is a very rare thing only for momentous occasions - and they cook and eat the animal (a pig, in this case) after killing it humanely in a feast that honors the deity. To me, that does make some degree of sense, though I would not want to be a part of it.


I realize that my reply may not exactly address the gist of the post, nevertheless, I feel compelled to mention that as far as the Christian is concerned, no sacrifice outside of Christ's is either permitted or required, be it animal or otherwise. In God the Father's eyes, Christ's death was the one true,perfect sacrifice and has reconciled God and the elect. To even believe that its efficacy is less than that, or to try to improve upon it with additional sacrifice, is sin.
0

#3 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,631
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 06 August 2016 - 01:58 PM

View Postrogerg, on 06 August 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

I realize that my reply may not exactly address the gist of the post, nevertheless, I feel compelled to mention that as far as the Christian is concerned, no sacrifice outside of Christ's is either permitted or required, be it animal or otherwise. In God the Father's eyes, Christ's death was the one true,perfect sacrifice and has reconciled God and the elect. To even believe that its efficacy is less than that, or to try to improve upon it with additional sacrifice, is sin.


Agreed. Sacrifice, whether human or animal, has no relation whatsoever to any Christian religion.

The only sacrifice God asks of us is to sacrifice our base urges to sin.

B)
0

#4 User is offline   lyria 

  • Account not in use
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,254
  • Joined: 23-December 04

Posted 08 August 2016 - 04:44 AM

View Postrogerg, on 06 August 2016 - 12:07 PM, said:

I realize that my reply may not exactly address the gist of the post, nevertheless, I feel compelled to mention that as far as the Christian is concerned, no sacrifice outside of Christ's is either permitted or required, be it animal or otherwise. In God the Father's eyes, Christ's death was the one true,perfect sacrifice and has reconciled God and the elect. To even believe that its efficacy is less than that, or to try to improve upon it with additional sacrifice, is sin.


Most Christian feel that way, yes. But religious freedom isn't just about Christianity!
0

#5 User is offline   lyria 

  • Account not in use
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,254
  • Joined: 23-December 04

Posted 08 August 2016 - 04:47 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 06 August 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

Agreed. Sacrifice, whether human or animal, has no relation whatsoever to any Christian religion.

The only sacrifice God asks of us is to sacrifice our base urges to sin.

B)


Yes, this issue is unlikely to pop up in Christianity. But religious freedom is about all religions and animal sacrifice is a part of Santeria. It also shows up in Voodoo and in some animist/pagan/heathen traditions.

This post has been edited by lyria: 08 August 2016 - 07:12 AM

0

#6 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:11 AM

View Postlyria, on 08 August 2016 - 04:44 AM, said:

Most Christian feel that way, yes. But religious freedom isn't just about Christianity!


I know, but I wanted to contrast the foundational doctrine of Christianity to that of other belief systems -- that in Christ, absolutely every possible requirement for eternal life has already been satisfied by Christ on behalf of the elect. Compare that to the foundational doctrine of all other belief systems which require a multitude and variety of actions (depending upon religion), in order to be given eternal life, with sacrifices being just one example. And this is the interesting part -- even if the action had spiritual efficacy (which it doesn't), that by the very doing, the doers disqualifies themselves. Why ? Because the action in and of itself is not their goal. Instead, the actual goal is to leverage or earn something from the doing of it: eternal life (hope that makes sense) -- corrupt from the outset.

This post has been edited by rogerg: 08 August 2016 - 10:18 AM

0

#7 User is offline   lyria 

  • Account not in use
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,254
  • Joined: 23-December 04

Posted 08 August 2016 - 10:18 AM

View Postrogerg, on 08 August 2016 - 10:11 AM, said:

I know, but I wanted to contrast the foundational doctrine of Christianity to that of other belief systems -- that in Christ, absolutely every possible requirement for eternal life has already been satisfied by Christ on behalf of the elect. Compare that to the foundational doctrine of all other belief systems which require a multitude and variety of actions (depending upon religion), in order to be given eternal life, with sacrifices being just one example. And this is the interesting part -- even if the action had spiritual efficacy (which it doesn't), that by the very doing, the doers disqualifies themselves. Why ? Because the action in and of itself is not their goal. Instead, the actual goal is to leverage or earn something from the doing of it: eternal life (hope that makes sense).


I understand what you saying, though usually an animal sacrifice is not about eternal life, but it is also completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.

This post has been edited by lyria: 08 August 2016 - 10:20 AM

0

#8 User is offline   MrStain 

  • Gloria in Excelsis Deo
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 3,882
  • Joined: 05-November 04

Posted 12 August 2016 - 09:00 AM

I never liked roosters. My aunt's rooster hated us kids and would attack us as soon as we stepped into her back yard. He was a mean old cuss and BIG!

Regardless of my past experiences I would not support cruelty to animals, but I think it's ridiculous she's being charged with a crime. It's chicken for God's sake.
0

#9 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 14,589
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 12 August 2016 - 10:25 AM

View PostMrStain, on 12 August 2016 - 09:00 AM, said:

I never liked roosters. My aunt's rooster hated us kids and would attack us as soon as we stepped into her back yard. He was a mean old cuss and BIG!

Regardless of my past experiences I would not support cruelty to animals, but I think it's ridiculous she's being charged with a crime. It's chicken for God's sake.

But it's the official bird of the Democrat Party!
0

#10 User is offline   lyria 

  • Account not in use
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,254
  • Joined: 23-December 04

Posted 12 August 2016 - 11:19 AM

View PostMrStain, on 12 August 2016 - 09:00 AM, said:

I never liked roosters. My aunt's rooster hated us kids and would attack us as soon as we stepped into her back yard. He was a mean old cuss and BIG!

Regardless of my past experiences I would not support cruelty to animals, but I think it's ridiculous she's being charged with a crime. It's chicken for God's sake.


Yeah, I'm not a fan of roosters either. That's part of my feelings about this - had this been a kitty killed, I would have been enraged. Roosters? Meh. The crime she was convicted for was animal cruelty; the roosters were being held in poor condition and showed signs of dehydration and poor nutrition. There is also evidence to indicate that the roosters were not killed in a quick and humane fashion.

However, I can't shake the feeling that this trial was really more about animal sacrifice, that if it hadn't been for the reason why Carrion killed the roosters then she might have just gotten a talking-to instead of charged. And that made me wonder about the practice as a whole. How far does religious freedom go?
0

#11 User is offline   rogerg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 874
  • Joined: 06-May 04

Posted 13 August 2016 - 01:57 PM

View PostMontyPython, on 06 August 2016 - 01:58 PM, said:

Agreed. Sacrifice, whether human or animal, has no relation whatsoever to any Christian religion.

The only sacrifice God asks of us is to sacrifice our base urges to sin.

B)


"The only sacrifice God asks of us is to sacrifice our base urges to sin."

For what it's worth, my observation is that God uses a very distinct method of modifying a Christian’s behavior to curb the indulgences of our baser non-biblical urges. My observation is that God progressively makes the result of indulging more and more unpleasant until , finally, it becomes so unpleasant as to be not worth the doing. I've found God’s correction to start off mildly enough, but once having gotten our attention -- and should we choose to ignore Him – it will grow exponentially more unpleasant each time we engage in it, until the unpleasantness and pain far exceeds the pleasure – and even just one correction of many can last over years. God knows precisely well those things which we as individuals really, really don’t like or don’t want to have happen within our lives better than even we do, but will not hesitate a New York second to make them happen to us. I’d be curious to know whether you might have observed the same ?

Yet no matter how much our desires and actions become biblical and moral, that change should never be misconstrued as that which somehow earns salvation. I have personally become persuaded that eternal salvation, as defined by the Bible, can only come about from God's election, mercy and grace thru Christ to the elect, with nothing that we can do to acquire it or reject it.

Hebrews 12:6 – 12:10
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
0

#12 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,631
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 13 August 2016 - 02:19 PM

View Postrogerg, on 13 August 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

"The only sacrifice God asks of us is to sacrifice our base urges to sin."

For what it's worth, my observation is that God uses a very distinct method of modifying a Christian’s behavior to curb the indulgences of our baser non-biblical urges. My observation is that God progressively makes the result of indulging more and more unpleasant until , finally, it becomes so unpleasant as to be not worth the doing. I've found God’s correction to start off mildly enough, but once having gotten our attention -- and should we choose to ignore Him – it will grow exponentially more unpleasant each time we engage in it, until the unpleasantness and pain far exceeds the pleasure – and even just one correction of many can last over years. God knows precisely well those things which we as individuals really, really don’t like or don’t want to have happen within our lives better than even we do, but will not hesitate a New York second to make them happen to us. I’d be curious to know whether you might have observed the same ?


Actually, my own observations are the opposite - The more you indulge your baser non-biblical urges, the harder it gets to deny them, and the easier it gets to make excuses for them. It always requires vigilance and self-denial, and just like alcoholics, one indulgence makes it much easier for the second, which makes it much easier for the third, etc.


View Postrogerg, on 13 August 2016 - 01:57 PM, said:

Yet no matter how much our desires and actions become biblical and moral, that change should never be misconstrued as that which somehow earns salvation. I have personally become persuaded that eternal salvation, as defined by the Bible, can only come about from God's election, mercy and grace thru Christ to the elect, with nothing that we can do to acquire it or reject it.

Hebrews 12:6 – 12:10
For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.


I've never been able to quite make up my mind about this issue of "salvation deserved" vs. "salvation elect" vs. "salvation pre-destined". Seems to me we just ought to try as best we can to live up to God's wishes even though we know we'll ultimately fail. Not because we'll "earn" a place in Heaven (as impossible task), but just for the sake of living right, doing right, etc. And then just hope for the best.

:shrug:
0

#13 User is offline   lyria 

  • Account not in use
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,254
  • Joined: 23-December 04

Posted 14 August 2016 - 10:13 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 13 August 2016 - 02:19 PM, said:

I've never been able to quite make up my mind about this issue of "salvation deserved" vs. "salvation elect" vs. "salvation pre-destined". Seems to me we just ought to try as best we can to live up to God's wishes even though we know we'll ultimately fail. Not because we'll "earn" a place in Heaven (as impossible task), but just for the sake of living right, doing right, etc. And then just hope for the best.


Doing right for the sake of doing right is, IMHO, some pretty advanced morality. Much more so than doing right for the sake of the reward of eternal life, or because someone in power (God) said so.

Getting back to the article, from what I've read the point of animal sacrifice in Santeria isn't to do right or to get eternal life, but rather to open a path of communication to the Orisha (a manifestation of God or a Saint, reports vary). The Orisha feeds on the blood offering, the person/people doing the ritual eats the food. This allows for the two to commune for a mutual purpose. That purpose can be specific or more general life direction. Sometimes it is an exchange - you do this, I give you that. In some rites - such as for healing - the food is not eaten because the ritual moves the sickness from the sick person to the sacrificed animal.
0

#14 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,631
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 14 August 2016 - 03:28 PM

View Postlyria, on 14 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Doing right for the sake of doing right is, IMHO, some pretty advanced morality. Much more so than doing right for the sake of the reward of eternal life, or because someone in power (God) said so.


Thank you! :) That was pretty much my point. Doing right for its own sake should also be its own reward, without needing to "get" something for it.


View Postlyria, on 14 August 2016 - 10:13 AM, said:

Getting back to the article, from what I've read the point of animal sacrifice in Santeria isn't to do right or to get eternal life, but rather to open a path of communication to the Orisha (a manifestation of God or a Saint, reports vary). The Orisha feeds on the blood offering, the person/people doing the ritual eats the food. This allows for the two to commune for a mutual purpose. That purpose can be specific or more general life direction. Sometimes it is an exchange - you do this, I give you that. In some rites - such as for healing - the food is not eaten because the ritual moves the sickness from the sick person to the sacrificed animal.


But none of that excuses cruelty to the sacrificed animal. Yes I know, it was "only" a rooster, but it's still a living creature.

B)
0

#15 User is offline   Mr. E. Monkey 

  • I aim to misbehave.
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 38,448
  • Joined: 04-October 03

Posted 15 August 2016 - 07:16 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 14 August 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

Thank you! :) That was pretty much my point. Doing right for its own sake should also be its own reward, without needing to "get" something for it.




But none of that excuses cruelty to the sacrificed animal. Yes I know, it was "only" a rooster, but it's still a living creature.

B)

:yeahthat: and :yeahthat:
0

#16 User is offline   lyria 

  • Account not in use
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,254
  • Joined: 23-December 04

Posted 15 August 2016 - 07:58 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 14 August 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

But none of that excuses cruelty to the sacrificed animal. Yes I know, it was "only" a rooster, but it's still a living creature.

B)


Oh, absolutely. The conviction was correct. I do wonder, however, if there would have been charges had she not been holding the rooster for purposes of a sacrifice? Though cruelty is cruelty, there's a certain degree of discretion on the part of police, magistrates, and prosecutors. A friend of mine who is very familiar with the court system there thinks that might be the case. No way of telling, of course.

And it does make me wonder how far religious freedom goes. Animal sacrifice, that's protected by Supreme Court decision. So is use of drugs otherwise prohibited, such as peyote. Eagle bodies and feathers, usually protected by the Migratory Bird laws, are processed through National Eagle Repository to be given to Native American tribes for use in their rituals and other religious practices. (But, interestingly, this does not apply to non-Native Americans who practice that same religion or other animist or pagan religions where feathers have significance.) On the other hand, there was a Supreme Court decision that prohibited polygamy as a religious practice. Then you have the Christian Scientists, who have a religious belief that use of medicines for illness is an offense against God. They aren't the only ones, either - Jehovah Witnesses disallow blood transfusions.

IMHO, religious freedom should be as broad as possible, disallowing practices only if they can be demonstrated to be harmful to others. Animal sacrifice is obviously harmful to another - the animal in question - but animals are also not treated like humans under the law. So there, it's about HOW the animal is killed and treated before death, and the obvious answer is that inhumane treatment and methods of killing should be outlawed. I think this concept should also apply to eagles and hawks - the laws were passed to prevent hunting them. That's fine, and I support that, but non-harmful methods of feather and corpse collection should be allowed. Birds shed feathers naturally and can die of causes other than hunting! Fully on board with use of drugs in religious practice; if harm can be shown at all it is to the person taking it, with the understanding that any crime committed while under the influence is not to be excused or mitigated by the drug. Most of the time, those who use drug or alcohol based religious rites do so in a controlled environment anyway. But I would support an age limit since a child cannot determine how much harm they are willing to take on.

Polygamy? Well, in concept I see no issue. Consenting adults and all that. I do see issues in execution, as many of the same subcultures who practice polygamy in the USA as a religious practice are the same ones who have run into issues of consent. The idea of letting consenting adults do what they want fails when you have a person who is not consenting or not an adult (or both)! I also do not know how our laws, which are set up for 2 people only, would apply to 3 or more. Who gets taxed at what rate? Who gets to make medical decisions for who? What if they disagree? So, while I think a case can be made for polygamy as part of religious freedom, I also think it isn't something that can just be decided in a court case and implemented right away.

The part about medical treatment can get dicey. I do consider parents who refuse ALL medical treatment for a severely ill child to be neglectful. But what about preventative treatment like vaccines? What about minor illnesses? What about determining a course of treatment, where the illness is being treated in a way that is perhaps not the absolute best but is what the parents have decided is best? There's a line there, but I'm not sure quite where it is.

This post has been edited by lyria: 15 August 2016 - 08:33 AM

0

#17 User is offline   MontyPython 

  • Pull My Finger.....
  • View gallery
  • Group: Gold
  • Posts: 58,631
  • Joined: 28-February 03

Posted 15 August 2016 - 04:12 PM

View Postlyria, on 15 August 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

Oh, absolutely. The conviction was correct. I do wonder, however, if there would have been charges had she not been holding the rooster for purposes of a sacrifice? Though cruelty is cruelty, there's a certain degree of discretion on the part of police, magistrates, and prosecutors. A friend of mine who is very familiar with the court system there thinks that might be the case. No way of telling, of course.

And it does make me wonder how far religious freedom goes. Animal sacrifice, that's protected by Supreme Court decision. So is use of drugs otherwise prohibited, such as peyote. Eagle bodies and feathers, usually protected by the Migratory Bird laws, are processed through National Eagle Repository to be given to Native American tribes for use in their rituals and other religious practices. (But, interestingly, this does not apply to non-Native Americans who practice that same religion or other animist or pagan religions where feathers have significance.) On the other hand, there was a Supreme Court decision that prohibited polygamy as a religious practice. Then you have the Christian Scientists, who have a religious belief that use of medicines for illness is an offense against God. They aren't the only ones, either - Jehovah Witnesses disallow blood transfusions.

IMHO, religious freedom should be as broad as possible, disallowing practices only if they can be demonstrated to be harmful to others. Animal sacrifice is obviously harmful to another - the animal in question - but animals are also not treated like humans under the law. So there, it's about HOW the animal is killed and treated before death, and the obvious answer is that inhumane treatment and methods of killing should be outlawed. I think this concept should also apply to eagles and hawks - the laws were passed to prevent hunting them. That's fine, and I support that, but non-harmful methods of feather and corpse collection should be allowed. Birds shed feathers naturally and can die of causes other than hunting! Fully on board with use of drugs in religious practice; if harm can be shown at all it is to the person taking it, with the understanding that any crime committed while under the influence is not to be excused or mitigated by the drug. Most of the time, those who use drug or alcohol based religious rites do so in a controlled environment anyway. But I would support an age limit since a child cannot determine how much harm they are willing to take on.

Polygamy? Well, in concept I see no issue. Consenting adults and all that. I do see issues in execution, as many of the same subcultures who practice polygamy in the USA as a religious practice are the same ones who have run into issues of consent. The idea of letting consenting adults do what they want fails when you have a person who is not consenting or not an adult (or both)! I also do not know how our laws, which are set up for 2 people only, would apply to 3 or more. Who gets taxed at what rate? Who gets to make medical decisions for who? What if they disagree? So, while I think a case can be made for polygamy as part of religious freedom, I also think it isn't something that can just be decided in a court case and implemented right away.

The part about medical treatment can get dicey. I do consider parents who refuse ALL medical treatment for a severely ill child to be neglectful. But what about preventative treatment like vaccines? What about minor illnesses? What about determining a course of treatment, where the illness is being treated in a way that is perhaps not the absolute best but is what the parents have decided is best? There's a line there, but I'm not sure quite where it is.


It's a minefield, ain't it? It's all way too complicated for me.

B)
0

#18 User is offline   lyria 

  • Account not in use
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,254
  • Joined: 23-December 04

Posted 16 August 2016 - 08:04 AM

View PostMontyPython, on 15 August 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

It's a minefield, ain't it? It's all way too complicated for me.

B)


It certainly is convoluted.
0

#19 User is offline   Saheim 

  • <no title>
  • Group: Community-Supported
  • Posts: 82
  • Joined: 17-December 15

Posted 20 November 2016 - 08:22 AM

Sacrificing a rooster is animal cruelty? Know what goes on it a poultry farm? Dairy farm? The thing that makes it "wrong", in Santaria, is it doesn't generate enough profit to pay lobbyists.
0

#20 User is offline   lyria 

  • Account not in use
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,254
  • Joined: 23-December 04

Posted 29 November 2016 - 11:57 AM

View PostSaheim, on 20 November 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

Sacrificing a rooster is animal cruelty? Know what goes on it a poultry farm? Dairy farm? The thing that makes it "wrong", in Santaria, is it doesn't generate enough profit to pay lobbyists.


I apologize, I thought this thread was dead!

If you read the article, you can see that the issue itself (in the court case) wasn't the act of sacrifice itself. It was that the rooster was inhumanely kept prior to the sacrifice and not killed in a humane fashion. There is the animal cruelty.

I personally think that the case was accurate, but I suspect that the only reason it became a court case was because the rooster died as an act of sacrifice and because the religion in question was Santeria. I think if it had been butchering gone bad at a Christian home, it would not have made it to court.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users