Whether radical Islamic terrorists are distinguishable from mainstream Muslims depends upon your species.
A sheep, goat, or a camel whose throat is being cut in Halal slaughter or Islamic sacrifice is just as terrified, in just as much pain, and just as murdered as is an American journalist or a Syrian refugee having his throat cut by Jihadi John or any ISIS thug.
Mainstream Islam is a terrorist plague on animals. The sick religion requires animals to be murdered as sacrifices to Allah and slaughter to be done to fully conscious, frightened creatures.
I abhor all slaughter. I abhor all religions which require and practice animal sacrifice. Santeria, orthodox Judaism, Armenian Orthodoxy, Hinduism. Any religion which teaches such barbarism is my enemy. Islam murders more animals than all the world’s religions combined, by orders of magnitude.
Personally, I would ban all religions. They are anathema to science, reason, empathy, human and animal rights.
While that is an unlikely prospect, we do the animals no service by distinguishing between religious lunatics who murder people and religious lunatics who murder animals.
Some are demonizing Islam. I do not have a problem with demonizing any belief system that advocates killing animals. Most critics of Islam, however, do not give a damn about animals. In my opinion, Islam is deserving of being demonized, it is a demonic religion. But so are most.
Whether ISIS attacks innocent people in Paris or suspected Islamic terrorists shoot innocent people in San Bernardino, CA, or murder folks in an Orlando nightclub, political opportunists are quick to use the tragedies to advance their own careers and agendas.
We heard Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Hillary Clinton, and others posturing to convince voters that they are best able to fight terrorism and protect the American public.
As an animal rights advocate, I recognize that all sentient life is equally valuable, all have the same right to be on Earth, the same right to live, to be free of exploitation, slavery, torture, abuse, and murder. Speciesism, which elevates humans over all other life, is the cause of the greatest horrors in history.
Which makes me Islamophobic. To be otherwise I would be a speciesist.
These are mainstream, regular Muslims. How exactly are they different from ISIS?
Author’s Notes:
• I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.
If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.
• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!
• Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.
• If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.
There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.
• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot
You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!
• Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty.
If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.
Just $3 per month will allow us to advertise!
Armory of the Revolution 
Here you go again, Marcia, formerly “ahimsa.” You either are truly a racist, or you are very confused–or perhaps you are both. Your page on the terrible Bison Slaughter happens right here in the USA. USA, USA. This blog, where you have definitely fit in, is a racist, right-wing, anti-animal blog. It is a sham, a lie. And you are a tragic part of it, if you continue with it.
Now, I’m sure Vincent will utter his usual delusional junk….”Rosemary, you haven’t read my comments…or you would understand,” etc, etc. Your compatriot is doing no good for animals. Vincent’s agenda is not at all about non-humans. Actually, Vincent & Trump are very much alike, not only in their right-wing leanings, but in their bloated egos and narcissism.
This “Revolution” (if it happens), will do more harm to Nature and Animals than one can even imagine at this time. Vincent, your delusional partner in Crimes Against Nature, will not be out in those bloody street confrontations, or trying to personally help innocent animals. He’ll be sitting up in his California “Ivory Tower” feeling very superior. I had thought you were dumping your racist remarks. Apparently I was wrong. What a shame.
foranimals.org
LikeLike
It pains me greatly to see two staunch advocates for animals like RL and MM come to blows! And even more unfortunate when criticism becomes personal and ad hominem. Divisions like this over non-animal related issues is one reason why the AR movement seems never able to “get its act together” and accomplish anything meaningful.
Me, I’m an equal-opportunity misanthropist. I’ll embrace anyone of whatever race, creed, gender or political persuasion if they are sincere advocates for animals. You take your allies where you can and if you are working for wildlife on public lands you don’t reject the help of like-minded environmentalists just because they eat meat. If you are trying to reduce the abuse of farm animals you accept the aid of ethical vegetarians even if they read Stormfront. I don’t know or care if Islam is better or worse than Christendom, they’re both mighty bad and seemingly irreconcilable with the idea that non-human animals have rights and are of equal importance to humans in the eyes of a universal and just God, assuming such an entity exists. Worrying about political correctitude and not “offending” or being “insensitive” to this or that religion, ethnic group or sexual orientation when advocating for animal rights constitutes a serious misalignment of priorities for someone serious about helping animals. Shaming Orientals about eating dogs, Muslims about halal, Jews about shechita, Hispanic Christians about bullfighting or Scandinavian Christians about killing whales is perfectly acceptable in my book. Putting the needs of animals first, over and above what petty squabbles and vanities divide humankind, is supposedly what this movement is about, isn’t it?
LikeLike
I agree! That is my point too. I could not consider myself an advocate for animals if I let political correctness determine what abuses I could condemn and what groups could or could not be criticized. That would be unfair and pretty senseless all the way around
By the way, I agree with Roland about your statement on Dr. Palmer and the problems of the AR movement. It is spot on.
LikeLike
Woah. I thought it was just me.
LikeLike
Geoff, I certainly agree with putting the needs of non-humans first, and I am impressed with your stand for them. I will, however, continue to speak out against racism, and other “isms” particularly when those who are practicing such either in written or spoken word. Marcia says we “are not in agreement about racism.” She is absolutely right. Racism is racism, and I take it seriously. Marcia can continue to deny she is racist in her writings, as she appears to have found a home on this racist blog, which has nothing to do with “animal rights.” It is a front for Roland Vincent’s
History often repeats itself, and we are already witnessing parallels between Germany in the 1930’s and what is taking place in this growing “nationalist” empire. Often, well-meaning people said nothing, did nothing, as innocent beings were slaughtered, human and non-human. I will continue to speak out. I will not be silent, not with such racism and pretense of caring about animals. I often admired Marcia’s statements on other blogs.
LikeLike
Rosemary, I will not sit idly while you accuse me of racism. Your propensity to label people with offensive acronyms is growing tiresome. While on subliminal levels we all likely bare some imprimatur of our tribal forebears, the racism of which you accuse me is the beam in your own eye. You apologize for animal abuse and excuse animal abusers with some concocted world view that any who raise the issues are racists. Your political correctness is paralytic. It makes you incapable of any action except criticism of others. It makes you incapable of analytic thought or reasoned review of what others are doing.
What, exactly do you do to promote animal welfare, animal protection, or animal rights? Do you recruit activists? Enlighten others? Educate the public? Do you engage in direct action? Do you write? Leaflet? Demo? Rescue? Are you more than a naysayer?
LikeLike
Obviously, Rosemary, we are not in agreement about the meaning of racism. What I really am is an anti-speciesist. I will call out cruelty where I see it–equally. To make excuses for some cultures or groups but to condemn others would in itself be discriminatory.
I wonder what you think when you look at the cow in the picture accompanying this discussion. Does what happened to her bother you? Would it seem better if her death took place in one kind of slaughterhouse than another? Would you condemn her suffering in a nonhalal slaughterhouse but excuse it in a halal slaughterhouse? If so, why? Or let’s try this. What if that cow were a bull killed in the ring? Or what if she were a spent dairy cow discarded after an auction because she was too sick or injured to get on a transport truck? I’m trying to discover where you draw your lines and how you define cruelty and assign responsibility. You seem to be defining it by who is doing the abusing rather than the abuse itself. A Muslim slaughterer would be justified but a matador would not? Or do you claim exceptions for some animals whom it would be okay to harm and kill, such as the cow in the picture? You’re right when you say I’m confused.
Two of my degrees are in anthropology, and I’m familiar with our species’ history. We have killed and abused animals since our hominid days. There have been very few exceptions, such as the Jains, to our global reign of terror. If virtually all of humanity have been guilty, then none are exempt from blame.
The Amory is a forum for discussion. No one will agree all of the time. Some hyperbolic language may occur, but that often livens the dialog I do not always agree with ANYONE. But they have a right to their opinion, as I have a right to mine. That is called freedom of speech. Sometimes it seems as if you want to be the arbiter of what is acceptable to discuss, and that considerably narrows a worldwide problem. This is not a hate group. But it is consistently pro-animal and just as consistently anti-abuser—no matter who the abuser is.
If the forces of political correctness have made you uncomfortable with any discussions or criticism that involves different religions or multiple cultures and traditions, then maybe narrower focus groups would help. I believe you have been fighting wolf hunting, as I have also, and the good old boy hunters and “rednecks” are safe targets of shaming, as they should be. There are no safe spaces here. But I have never seen any name calling or racial slurs allowed, ever!
As I said, we will probably never agree. But my fight is not about race but about cultures and traditions that abuse animals, and in that we are all guilty.
I wish you well with whatever work you do for animals. They’re the ones that need help.
LikeLike
Excellent!
LikeLike
Rosemary, you follow me around accusing me of racism, but you will not even answer my questions. How do you define racism? How do you justify the abuse of animals by some groups but condemn abuse by others? The cow in the picture suffered and died. Did making her suffer and die in the name of religion somehow make her death meritorious, somehow justifiable?
Do you approve of bullfighting? If you disapprove of the work of the matador, why would you approve of the work of the slaughterer? Or do you approve of both? If so, how can you consider yourself a defender of animals and their lives.
Yelling “racism” is easy. Fully explaining your reasoning is apparently harder for you. I have written on this blog condemning Big Ag and its slaughter business, from factory farms, to transport trucks, to the slaughter line. I have complained about the useless USDA and its lack of enforcing the Animal Welfare Act. You didn’t seem to notice that. And, yes, I criticized halal too, and for condemning all forms of slaughter you say I am a racist. It sounds as if you are more concerned about political correctness than you are about animal abuse.
LikeLike
On August 27, 1958, the Humane Slaughter Act was passed, designed to decease the suffering of animals slaughtered for food. The HSA demanded that cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock be rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or by electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. However, the law made an exception for ritual/kosher slaughter, which demands that animals not be stunned or rendered unconscious.
The growing concern for animal suffering and the undercover investigations of slaughterhouses reveal the terror and pain that still accompany death. It is also raising more questions about the cruelty of slaughter without any stunning. The questions become more urgent as the amount of ritual killing grows and the number of animal victims increases with it. Attention thus is turned to halal slaughter required by Islam.
Halal slaughter requires that animals be killed while fully conscious. Thus no electric shock, stun gun, or other means can be used to ease pain because the animal could potentially die before being bled out.
The animal’s throat must be slit with one swipe of the knife, cutting the carotid arteries and jugular veins and cutting deeply enough to sever the trachea (windpipe) and esophagus.
According to the ritual, the animals must not see the knife before the slaughter process nor should animals waiting to die see what fate lies ahead of them. Thus there is an attempt to reduce fear.
Halal slaughterers maintain that the killing is humane if done correctly. Others have asserted that severing the great blood vessels of the neck causes hemorrhagic shock and rapid loss of consciousness. The cerebrospinal fluid level falls quickly, also contributing to deep shock, which is magnified by the loss of oxygen and plummeting blood sugar levels.
http://www.therevival.co.uk/article/islamic-method-slaughtering-animals-scientific-not-inhumane
However, many people disagree. In the United Kingdom, the Royal society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals studied research done by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee (FAWC). Their conclusion was that animals feel “significant pain” for as long as two minutes after havig their throats slashed and that all animals should be stunned before being killed.
https://www.quora.com/Animal-Slaughter-Is-halal-killing-painless-Is-it-more-painful-than-conventional-butchering
Animal rights groups have done undercover investigations that reveal the nature of the killing. GAIA, Voice for the Voiceless, released a video from a halal slaughterhouse in Belgium documenting shocking and sickening conditions:
Upon viewing the Belgian video, Logan Scherer of PETA said the following:
“Animals killed halal (according to Islamic law) cannot be stunned before their throats are cut, which means that many animals—including the cow shown in this video—fight and gasp for their last breath, struggling to stand while the blood drains from their necks.”
http://www.peta.org/blog/cruelty-behind-muslim-ritual-slaughter/
Animal Aid, a United Kingdom organization, documented horrific conditions at the Bowood lamb slaughterhouse in Yorkshire. The video shows workers hacking at the throats of the lambs/sheep. The slaughterers kicked sheep in the face and threw them into “solid structures.” One worker was seen “bouncing up and down” on the neck of a sheep that was still conscious. Some animals were apparently burned with cigarettes.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/outcry-after-undercover-film-exposes-brutality-of-halal-industry-10019467.html
A British government worked placed secret cameras in a halal slaughter house in Norfolk. The shocking abuses below were found on the video:
“In a slaughterhouse awash with blood, a frightened bullock ’s eyes widen in fear as the machinery it is trapped in raises its head so a knife-wielding butcher can hack open its neck. Seconds later, as the animal kicks out in pain and panic, a bolt is shot through its brain to stop it injuring workers who yank it up upside down onto a hook, blood gushing from its twitching carcass. In another area of the killing floor, cameras capture sheep being ferried along a metal pen where a worker casually lifts their heads and slashes their throats. They are so distressed as they begin bleeding to death they wriggle over the sides and have to be hauled back in, legs flailing, and piled up at the end as they slowly die.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/halal-horror-house-undercover-video-7871779
http://no2halal.blogspot.com/p/the-true-realty.html
http://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/news_home/Global/2016/05/UK_vets_call_for_mandatory_cam.aspx?ID=%7B1A658B9A-30CE-4971-A9E2-E06EF59C25A0%7D
Several Australian groups are trying to stop live exports for sacrifice and halal slaughter. They have a video of a halal slaughterhouse in Egypt showing animals trying to escape, bleeding and dying, after their throats were cut.
http://www.banliveexport.com/egypt
These are not documentations from anti-religious organizations. They are respected animal welfare groups who are trying to prevent animal suffering. Animal Aid, the organization that documented the lamb abattoir in Yorkshire, felt compelled to explain why they were releasing their information. They feared being accused of inflaming religious hatred, but they rightfully felt that exposing the cruelty they discovered needed to be made public and ended. Withholding the results of their investigation to protect the abusers would have been an additional outrage.
Shocked Britons quickly gathered 100,000 petitions to stop halal slaughter without stunning, but Prime Minister David Cameron adamantly refused to consider any bans.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/28/petition-to-ban-religious-animal-slaughter-reaches-100000-signatories_n_6567484.html
Most European countries had laws requiring stunning before slaughter, but with complaints from growing religious communities and fears of impinging on the freedom of religion, exceptions are being made for ritual slaughter. Poland did outlaw kosher killing, saying it was inhumane, but after accusations of anti-Semitism (with even the Vatican expressing it’s “concern”), the law was revoked. Denmark passed a law against ritual slaughter, but it is under attack.
Complaints about the cruelty of halal slaughter are growing here and are seen in comments condemning it. But I have not found any specific organizations in America dedicated its abolition. The most logical ones to take up the cause would be PETA, Mercy For Animals, and Compassion Over Killing. However, criticizing ritual killing would probably result in a broad backlash of religions. The whole issue could become one of restricting freedom of religion in general.
However, other constitutional freedoms have restrictions. There are limitations on the first amendment and freedom of speech and on the second amendment and the rules governing buying and carrying guns.
Freedom of religion allows people the right to believe want they want, but it does not mean what they want to believe is right, including the need for continuing rituals ordained in another time.
Requiring stunning is simply a demand that animals who are destined to be killed and who have already have had difficult and painful lives be spared from having their throats slashed while fully conscious and having to die as they gasp for air and choke on their own blood.
Any attempt at a ban would probably result in the usual accusations of racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia, although it would be none of them.
It is not racism. It has nothing to do with skin color or genetic profile. It is not xenophobia. It is not fear or hatred of a whole “foreign” country or group. It is not Islamophobia or an attack on Islam itself.
It is merely an attempt to stop ONE centuries-old custom that causes enormous animal suffering. That is not too much to ask in the 21st century.
LikeLike
Marcia, your earlier comment on this thread seemed to show a recognition that animal cruelty can be found in most religions. But now I see you have gone back to supporting Roland’s racist, xenophobic campaign to identify Muslims as worse than followers of other religions. I expect these comments from Roland, who has detailed how his long history of support for right-wing politicians has led him to an enthusiastic embracing of everything that Trump stands for. Are you supporting the Trump campaign, too?
LikeLike
For the record, Marc, I do not embrace”everything that Trump stands for.” My differences with Donald Trump are profound, as I have noted frequently. You obviously are unfamiliar with those differences, so permit me to elucidate.
Trump is a capitalist, I am a socialist.
Trump is a Christian, I am an atheist.
Trump wants to build border walls, I support open borders.
Trump wants to ban Muslims, I believe we should welcome refugees.
Trump wants to increase the military, I want to dismantle the military.
Trump is anti-abortion, I am pro-choice.
Trump and I are fairly close on trade agreements, universal healthcare, legalizing marijuana, auditing the Fed, ending lobbyist influence, and ending the revolving door, and on military adventurism.
LikeLike
No Marc, I am not. I am voting for the Humane Party. But if you read Armory of the Revolution, you’ll notice multiple discussions of animal abuse. I have also written about slaughter in this country with equal revulsion of our treatment of the animals. However, while we should not be unfair, we should not ignore extreme brutality wherever we find it just to serve political correctness. That goes for every religion, tradition, and culture.
LikeLike
Marc. I have written with equal disapproval of the horrific torture of animals during festivals of the saints in Spain. I have criticized the Church for not speaking out and condemning the cruelty. I have directly challenged the clergy over the issue and then became an ex-Catholic. It seems as if political correctness is forcing us to choose between fighting for animals or offending the abusers and being accused of racism. I fight for animals.
LikeLike
which way of slaughtering would be more humane in your opinion?
LikeLike
what is wrong with eating meat? we are omnivores. animals eat each other, birds eat worms, insects eat other insects, fish eat other fish…
And ritual slaughter recognizes that all life is SACRED, and even though we might EAT meat, we recognize innate sanctity of ALL LIVING CREATURES.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Whether one should eat meat is a question of power. If you have the power to cause an animal to suffer, do you do so? It is really the very same question that the rapist and the pedophile must be asked. If you have the power to exploit someone else’s body, do you do so? Both the meat eater and the rapist answer in the affirmative. Each believes his sensory gratification is more important than the right of the victim not to be raped or murdered.
Ritual slaughter is murder. Basing one’s morality on the teachings of Bronze Age goatherders results in embracing the values and limited knowledge of Bronze Age goatherders. As has been observed, the god of the Old Testament is one of the most unpleasant characters in all of literature.
LikeLike
If we agree there is nothing wrong with eating meat would you advocate we eat each other? After all we are omnivores. We could still recognize how SACRED it is to slaughter each other so that would be okay, no?
LikeLike
I disagree that “there is nothing wrong with eating meat.” In our hominid past it was a necessity, but is no longer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can’t say I disagree. But in playing devil’s advocate I was interested in the previous commenters answer based on their comment, ‘What is wrong with eating meat?’ I wanted to know if all the reasons they gave that made it okay to eat animal flesh equally extended to humans.
LikeLike
i follow Go’ds Torah, which specifies what and how to eat, making it a sacred act of obedience to the One who gives us life.
LikeLike
The God of the Torah is the most despicable character in all of literature. He ordered genocides, the murders of children, animal sacrifice, etc. He was the creation of Bronze Age goat herders who placed little value on human or animal life.
LikeLike
i understand your point. Yet without monotheism there would be a ‘free for all’ without any boundaries.
LikeLike
The monotheist religions extol genocide, rape, murder, slavery, bigotry, xenophobia, hatred, racism, and cruelty. Religions which worship a Parthenon of gods are much more likely to promote peace, tolerance, empathy, and compassion. Jains, Hindus, Sikhs, and aboriginal belief systems all promote tolerance and acceptance of others, animals, and the environment which is significantly absent in the Abrahamic cults.
LikeLike
hinduism is far from a unified theology. It really is a mixture of various local cults and loose customs. The cult of Kal’i is one example. The opression of the ‘untouchables’ and the caste system is another example.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, right! What better way to honor the sanctity of a life than by killing it.
LikeLike
life and death are a constant cycle. fish are eaten and eating other fish. Birds eat other birds. bugs eat bugs. Even plants eat other plants. It is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid killing. But it IS possible to HONOR life.
Religious jews recite a blessing over food and drink, recognizing its innate sanctity.
LikeLike
The distinction being that humans do not need to enslave, torture, and murder animals to survive. And the biggest obstacles to empathy and avoiding cruelty are the barbaric teachings of the Abrahamic religions.
LikeLike
I agree that eating meat is inherently cruel. i agree that it is POSSIBLE, albeit hard, to subsist without meat. (i’m currently trying out vegetarianism, will see how it goes.)
BUT -if one must eat meat- let it be with respect and gratitude. Judaism teaches that hunting for sport or bringing unnecessary pain is forbidden.
i know of no better way to elevate human spirit as the Torah. true, xtian Jzs cult is guilty of centuries of bloodshed and genocide. true, islamist extremism gave us centuries of bloody jihad.
But judaism? judaism gave humanity most noble prize winners per capita, teachers, writers, doctors, comedians and artists.
LikeLike
“While I am an anti-speciesist, the anti-speciesist argument that cruelty to one species is cruelty to all species is a paralytic and flawed position.”
This assertion may be true, but I don’t believe anyone truly embraces it, even if he or she says otherwise. No one assumes this position. From my experience, even the most ardent anti-speciesist is speciesist. We all rank species. Some of us advocate for particular species we are able to possess in our homes. The rabid canine advocate doesn’t think twice about the fate of many other species. The supposed anti-speciesist really is an ideal. For all the non-human animal activism that occurs in this country, most of it is performed by speciesists. The sooner we eliminate the abominated, domesticated animals we continue to possess, whether for companionship or consumption, the sooner we truly become anti-speciesists.
Even if we stopped eating animals, egregious speciesism would still occur, because there would be an ongoing battle over the optimal population numbers of those species we most prefer! I am always amused by people who save seals and nurse them back to health with captured fish.
It isn’t about the animals. It is about us. We have to surround ourselves with a sense of doing right by our conception of a nebulous nature, whereby our distorted sense of reality is placated.
I leave animals alone. I don’t own them. I don’t eat them. I don’t go out of my way to hurt them or help them. I try to remain impartial toward them and assume a non-interferenctial position with them. I’m not here to propagate any one species to the detriment or exclusion of any other species (this is what pet ownership is about). I consider myself a leaver rather than a taker, which means my existence is materially spartan.
Still, I realize humankind, as a species, will always determine the fate and numbers of other species as long as he walks the face of the earth.
LikeLike
Go’d appointed us as stewards and keepers of the earth. By making use of Go’ds creation we are honoring it. Judaism teaches that everything is NOT equal. Everything is holy, in a sense that Go’ds spark sustains us all. But holiness only exists as contrast to the UNholy.
Without degrees there would be no goodness, no holiness, no EXISTENCE.
LikeLike
Had to watch Halal slaughter in my backyard in Istanbul. It was a goat. First they prayed to Allah and then the sacrifice. Then take slices of the meat around the neighborhood on a plate. One of the sickening memories which helped quicken my journey to veganism. I see little difference between the radical Muslims and the everyday Muslims. It’s just Islam. Always a pool of blood somewhere. Hate to be a hater. I feel ignorant. I love God. I am a Catholic vegan now. And yes I know…
LikeLike
Halal slaughter is ugly and inhumane and should be outlawed. However, Islam is not the only religion that has a pattern of animal abuse. There is Jewish kosher killing and the Kaporos torture of chickens. There is Santeria sacrifice as well as the many festivals of the saints in traditional Catholic countries where animals are sadistically tortured. It is time for Religion to question the contradictions underlying its myths and rituals and condemn brutal practices, such as halal, that have no place in the 21st century.
People should be asking why would a loving and righteous God, as many believe their deity to be, demand such human savagery and animal suffering in His worship. Is it because, contrary to the Biblical version, it is more likely that “man” created God in his own bloodthirsty image instead of the other way around? Is that the real Original Sin?
We should be less reverential about religion and less politically correct in dealing with it? Religious freedom should have restrictions and limitations like the first and second amendments have for freedom of speech and for the ownership and use of guns. I suggest the following: Religious freedom should end where animal suffering and death begin.
But if we take the abuse of animals by Religion out of the mix, we are still left with Big Ag, Science, Entertainment, and Fashion, etc., and their animal abuse.
We would still have slaughterhouses with crippled animals beaten to death because they cannot move fast enough through the slaughter line, and others with their eyes knocked out and bones broken by misplaced blows, and pigs sent to the scalding tanks before they are dead. We would still have hens stacked in endless rows in tiny cages and male chickens thrown alive into macerators and newborn male calves torn from their mothers and turned into veal.
We would still have rabbits blinded by chemical testing and other animals poisoned and mutilated for research.
We would still have horses in dragged out of rodeo arenas with broken backs and legs and bull tortured in the ring.
We would still have minks and other animals trapped or electrocuted for fur coats.
And we would still have deer and elk filled with arrows every fall.
So how is it that in every time and in every culture human beings have tortured and killed other animals? Why is one human enterprise after another built upon the suffering and death of the creatures we share this planet with? Where does the source of all this evil ultimately lie?
Maybe the answer is in the simple wisdom of Pogo: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”
Or in the conclusion of Farley Mowat: “I don’t like saying this, but I think we’re a bad species and the sooner we get off the planet, the better.”
LikeLike
Single issue campaigns are the only way we can make progress in reducing animal suffering and recruiting activists and revolutionaries. People of a culture are less likely to be incensed or offended by cruelty practiced by their peers than they are by the cruelty of another culture which shocks their sensibilities. Americans are less outraged by boiling lobsters alive by fellow Americans than they are that Asians boil dogs alive. We are more offended by cruel slaughter practices accompanied by religious mumbo-jumbo than we are at the institutionalized executions of billions of animals annually in slaughterhouses.
Our opposition to cruelty and barbarism must be as narrowly targeted as possible, and must avoid demonizing those whose own practices are also cruel.
While I am an anti-speciesist, the anti-speciesist argument that cruelty to one species is cruelty to all species is a paralytic and flawed position. It is raised constantly in defense of foreign cultures attacked for barbaric practices. We see it primarily in defense of Asians who kill and eat dogs and cats. The anti-speciesist argument that Americans are equally cruel to cows and pigs makes effective recruitment in America more difficult. That such arguments are frequently couched in claims of racism by those opposed to the dog and cat meat trades reveals the pernicious political correctness that seems to permeate the anti-speciesist community.
When I first launched the anti-dog meat page Koreans Eat Puppies, I was met with particularly virulent opposition by anti-speciesists. I confronted each critic I could locate and pressed the question “What are you doing to end animal cruety and suffering?” Not one of them seemed to have done anything substantive except to criticize others. No campaigns run by any of them. No blogs, no articles. No strategizing, recruiting, educating or influencing anyone at all. The entire cult of anti-speciesism seems to be a exercise in mutual mental masturbation.
LikeLike
Why are humans the only bad species? Is it because we think we are above all other species owing to our (potential) sense of morality?
LikeLike
Maybe it’s because the magnitude of the destruction in our wake is orders of magnitude greater than that of any other living or extinct species of animal. Or maybe it’s because we are the only species (that we know of) that has evolved the capacity to recognize moral depravity but still refuses to mend its way.
LikeLike
Geoff,
Perhaps any positive expectation you may have for our species is misguided. A final “mending” of our collective moral sense with all facets of nature may be cognitively beyond our reach. I don’t expect every human to think the way I do. Until the circumstances of human life are the same everywhere, there will hardly be any agreement as to what ought to be. There are people in this world who have never heard of animal liberation or species-ism. Even the most devoted vegans believe we ought to continue breeding (or designing) canines for our possession and companionship (I am disturbed by some of the canines I now see tethered to humans, because they–the canines–are “freaks of nature”).
LikeLike
what’s wrong with eating meat? i’m a religious jew. judaism teaches that all life is sacred, yet we eat meat. we are omnivores. birds eat worms. fish eat other fish. insects eat each other. and… plants are life too. They have cells, DNA (or RNA, i’m not a scientist), they can feel pain. Atheism would eather hold that all life is just random clumps of atoms, without any significance, or- in the OPPOSITE extreme- that all life is ”equally” sacred, placing bacteria and rodents on the same level with humans.
Religion at least has a sense of rootedness, a sense of place and purpose, while atheism might espouse ‘values’ but they are entirely subject to…individual subjectivity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
holiness only exists because of the unholy. Goodness only exists because of evil. Light only exists because of darkness. Without contrast the world couldnt exist. If we’d make EVERYTHING ‘holy’, it would lose meaning.
Yes, we need to respect and honor the creation. But the creation is to be experienced and utilised. That’s what Torah is: a path to keep. We need to CHOOSE what belongs on our path, and what doesn’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Species and Class.
LikeLiked by 1 person