Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Getting His Goat
Religious freedom in Texas
Jose Merced wants to cut a few throats, but the city of Euless, Texas, won’t let him. Merced, a Santeria priest, is challenging a local ordinance that prohibits the slaughter of goats, an essential part of the sacrifices required by his Afro-Caribbean religion.
In April, after U.S. District Judge John McBryde upheld the slaughter ban, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed an appeal on Merced’s behalf, contending that the ordinance violates his constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Its argument relies heavily on Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, a 1993 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a city ban on animal sacrifice. That law was ostensibly a public health measure, but the court decided it violated the First Amendment because it singled out religious slaughter and was passed in response to the establishment of a Santeria church.
The Euless ordinance allows the butchering of deer and the slaughter of “domesticated fowl considered as general tablefare” but not the killing of goats, even though Santerians eat them as part of their ritual. Because of this selectiveness, Merced’s attorneys argue, the ordinance should not be deemed a “neutral law of general applicability,” which the Supreme Court has said passes First Amendment muster even if it bans an activity central to someone’s religion. “The issue of Santeria and animal sacrifice has already been decided by the United States Supreme Court,” says Becket Fund attorney Lori Windham. “I’m pretty sure the Constitution of the United States still applies."
|7.30.08 @ 12:17PM|#
This shouldn't even be a Freedom of Religion case. A deer is OK but not a goat? WTF? I don't sacrifice animals to the great JuJu in the sky, but I have been known to eat a little BBQ goat. What does Euless, Texas have against smoking a shoulder?
SIV|7.30.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Need I weigh in on this?
The domestication of fowl was originally for religious
purposes.
Elemenope|7.30.08 @ 12:33PM|#
The guy wants to kill his own meals...that he wants to mutter
some words significant to him over the carcass is quite beside the
point.
Man kill animals to eat their flesh and wear their skins. So long
as he is not torturing them to death, I can't care so much.
Nigel Watt|7.30.08 @ 12:37PM|#
I'd donate to their campaign fund, but I had a million dollars and I...lost it all.
|7.30.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Religions are not exempt from generally applicable laws. If this
guy wants to do something that his neighbors aren't allowed to do,
his religion does not give him a special privilege to do so.
The flip side is, if this guy wants to do something that his
neighbors are allowed to do, he can't be stopped just because it
has religious significance to him.
the innominate one|7.30.08 @ 12:52PM|#
RC, the freedom of religion act disagrees with you.
the larger question is, should this act be illegal?
Elemenope|7.30.08 @ 12:55PM|#
the freedom of religion act disagrees with you.
Wasn't the RFRA of '93 struck down? Boerne v. Flores, IIRC.
Lou|7.30.08 @ 12:56PM|#
Why should the act be illegal? If it creates a health hazard, give citations to individuals who aren't up to code or whatever. I never understood why the treatment of animals was part of the law.
Sulla|7.30.08 @ 12:56PM|#
If I could locate my Brazilian girlfriend and the lover she has on the side, I would shoot him and slap her.
Rhywun|7.30.08 @ 12:57PM|#
If this guy wants to do something that his neighbors aren't allowed to do, his religion does not give him a special privilege to do so.
I agree. And whose word are we supposed to take that slaughtering
goats is an "essential" part of this person's religion, anyway?
|7.30.08 @ 1:16PM|#
What annoys me about this is not the religious freedom angle,
it's dumbass self absorbed local politicians passing bullshit laws
for NO FUCKING GOOD REASON.
Not that the morons in DC are any better. Eat a cow - OK. Eat a
horse - OMG, we need legislation on this ASAP. Somebody wants to
butcher Flicka! Call a press conference so I can impress the rubes
with my love of horses!
Naga Sadow|7.30.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Don't adherents of Christianity already do this? Prayer before the meal, give blessings all round, etc.
Naga Sadow|7.30.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Whoops! I should have read more carefully. Sorry for the stupid comment above.
|7.30.08 @ 1:22PM|#
For the record, I find Santeria to be as credible as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism. Why pick on them?
Naga Sadow|7.30.08 @ 1:23PM|#
J sub D,
I totally agree. I pick fights with people at work by classifying
all religions as cults.
Naga Sadow|7.30.08 @ 1:24PM|#
To commemorate this post I will sacrifice a squirrel. I participate in Reasonteria and them's the rules!
|7.30.08 @ 1:26PM|#
"Religions are not exempt from generally applicable laws. If
this guy wants to do something that his neighbors aren't allowed to
do, his religion does not give him a special privilege to do
so.
The flip side is, if this guy wants to do something that his
neighbors are allowed to do, he can't be stopped just because it
has religious significance to him."
This sort of makes freedom of religion meaningless. If I passed a
law banning the display of crucifixes, but it bans it for everybody
and not just for Christians, I'd say I'm violating religious
freedom. I think that if a generally applicable law doesn't achieve
a legitimate purpose and does block someone's religious practice,
it's unconstitutional.
Elemenope|7.30.08 @ 1:26PM|#
I never understood why the treatment of animals was part of
the law.
A few reasons off the top of my head. First, while animal and human
experiences are not entirely analogous, we can be fairly certain
due to similarities of nervous system and brain structure that
animals sense pain and can experience suffering. Since they are a
unprivileged constituent of society with no ability to sue or act
on their own behalves, (much like children) some pro forma legal
protection for them is not ridiculous.
The storage and treatment of animals can affect humans directly.
Several diseases are zoonotic, and so a poorly kept animal can
endanger human lives. Also, a mistreated or abused animal is likely
to revert to violent behaviors in future interactions, thus making
it more likely that a human being will be the victim of a violent
incident. So, there is a strong consequentialist rationalization
for regulations prohibiting the poor feeding and storage or torture
and abuse of animals kept in human captivity.
shecky|7.30.08 @ 1:32PM|#
RC, is there any rational reason a deer can be butchered and not a goat? This is particularly goofy, as my family has been known to butcher and cook a goat at family gatherings. Just because they're yummy. Unless one can argue that the slaughter of goats is a significantly more burdensome process to the town, it seems difficult to reason why goats should be banned from the practice.
Mad Max|7.30.08 @ 2:21PM|#
If you want to exercise your religious freedom, goat to it. Don't ewe agree?
|7.30.08 @ 2:23PM|#
RC, is there any rational reason a deer can be butchered and
not a goat?
Not that I can think of, no.
If I passed a law banning the display of crucifixes, but it
bans it for everybody and not just for Christians, I'd say I'm
violating religious freedom.
I would, too, because your law banning the display of crucifixes is
content-based. You don't get to use "general applicability" just
because you outlaw a particular religious practice for everyone,
rather than explicitly outlawing just for the self-professed
followers of a certain faith.
|7.30.08 @ 2:32PM|#
This man should be able to kill goats for his god.
Incidentally - my religion asks me to sacrifice monkeys and eat the
bodies of our dead. (We also must beat our children with the tail
of a dog every Saturday and on our kids sixteenth birthday remove
their thumbs).
I know all you guys will back me up when the time comes. So thanks
in advance.
|7.30.08 @ 2:32PM|#
I don't think that government should interfere with my brayer, Mad Max. Really, a gruff's enough.
Johnny Nowhere|7.30.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Elemenope,
animals "are a unprivileged constituent of society"....
do you differentiate between domesticated and wild animals?
how about those with significantly different nervous systems and
brain structures, like silkworms... are they part of society,
too?
Elemenope|7.30.08 @ 2:53PM|#
do you differentiate between domesticated and wild
animals?
Where such distinctions are useful is in judging particular uses
humans may have for the animal in question. Animals socialized over
time and bred for their affinity for humans (cats, dogs, farm
animals) have, I think, a greater claim on our fealty for their
general well-being, that being defined broadly as an active
avoidance of their suffering.
Wild animals when placed in contexts normally reserved for
domesticated animals, such as drug and cosmetic testing or for
food, can make a similar claim.
how about those with significantly different nervous systems
and brain structures, like silkworms... are they part of society,
too?
Wild animals not manipulated for the direct benefits of humans only
have the bare claim against suffering as it pertains to their
ability to experience it. Silkworms, in all likelihood, have
neither the memory capacity nor consciousness necessary for
experiencing suffering as humans generally define it. Dogs and cats
certainly do. Most animals, I imagine, wold fall on some space on
that continuum.
|7.30.08 @ 3:01PM|#
OK, here's a question for the hardcore libertarians on this site
(BTW I like most of the general tenets of libertarianism but
wouldn't call myself one).
Does the average libertarian really believe that people that hold
beliefs about the supernatural deserve to have their beliefs
protected under law? That seems to me to go against the general
idea of libertarianism where everyone should be treated equally
under the law with no one having special privileges to be above
certain laws. Even with the Rastafarians, they shouldn't be able to
smoke dope if the rest of us can't (mind you the law should be
struck down for everyone). Someone please enlighten me upon how a
'true' libertarian would view religious handouts/privileges.
|7.30.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Does the average libertarian really believe...
What on earth is an average libertarian?
Do you differentiate between religion and bullshit?
I don't lose any sheep over it.
|7.30.08 @ 3:08PM|#
Santeria is even more restricted in Russia, because the word for "goat" is similar to the word for "father".
Johnny Nowhere|7.30.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Andrew,
On an individual level, I try to judge the honesty of the person's
faith. I'm not always right.
As to your other question, haven't you ever heard the old canard
about asking 9 libertarians for opinions, and getting 10
answers?
More seriously, I think that so long as the religious beliefs don't
infringe upon others' rights, folks should be able to practice as
they choose.
|7.30.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Does the average libertarian really believe that people
that hold beliefs about the supernatural deserve to have their
beliefs protected under law?
As a certified hardcore radical Rothbardian, the answer to that
question is that all individuals should be free to believe or not
believe whatever they want, and that it is that freedom, rather
than the belief, that should be protected and cannot justly be
violated by others.
That seems to me to go against the general idea of
libertarianism where everyone should be treated equally under the
law with no one having special privileges to be above certain
laws.
That's because you were under the mistaken understanding that it's
the belief rather than the freedom that is being protected.
Even with the Rastafarians, they shouldn't be able to smoke
dope if the rest of us can't (mind you the law should be struck
down for everyone). Someone please enlighten me upon how a 'true'
libertarian would view religious
handouts/privileges.
"True libertarian" is a big ol' can of worms I won't open here, but
the answer is that the only problem here is the marijuana ban.
Whatever inconsistencies the state develops in applying it is
secondary, because enforcing the law is always unjust regardless of
whether or not it's being enforced with due reverence to equal
protection.
Elemenope|7.30.08 @ 3:22PM|#
Andrew --
You're conflating a few issues there, notwithstanding Ard's
excellent point that there is no such thing as "an average
Libertarian".
Probably first and foremost being that in Libertopia, most
everything would be allowed anyway, so religion probably would need
no "special" favors, nor would the government be in much position
to provide any.
As to whether religious beliefs themselves are due any sort of
official respect, that all depends upon the branch of
libertarianism in question. I imagine, for example, that Randians
would sneer contemptuously at the notion of honoring religious
belief. However, it would merely be an attitude, and it would
probably cash out the same in practical respects as other
libertarians would: no interference, no subsidy.
Fluffy|7.30.08 @ 3:25PM|#
That seems to me to go against the general idea of
libertarianism where everyone should be treated equally under the
law with no one having special privileges to be above certain
laws.
Sorry, but we never even get to that question, because a true
libertarian would say that if the guy owns the goat and wants to
kill it on his own property, nobody gets to say shit about
it.
That would make it unnecessary to hand out a "special religious
privilege" where this guy can kill a goat because it's his
religion, where someone else who just wants to eat a goat
can't.
This particular religious liberty issue is only arising because of
the abuse of general liberty being undertaken to limit the
locations where one can kill a goat.
LMNOP raises some interesting questions about animal cruelty, which
always provokes interesting debate here, but this isn't really an
animal cruelty issue. They're not trying to protect goats here [I
imagine it's still completely legal to EAT goat within this
municipality]; they're just trying to limit the places where a goat
can be killed.
|7.30.08 @ 3:26PM|#
As to the point about different strains of libertarianism on this question, it is true that the Lew Rockwell/Ron Paul angry social conservative wing of the movement tends to view separation of church and state with disdain, seeing it as a means for the state to suppress what would be religion's proper role in the free and tolerant yet culturally conservative society they desire.
|7.30.08 @ 3:28PM|#
"Sorry, but we never even get to that question, because a true
libertarian would say that if the guy owns the goat and wants to
kill it on his own property, nobody gets to say shit about
it."
Ah, true. Murray Rothbard frowns down upon me for not pointing that
out first.
|7.30.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Rich Ard:
Oh you free thinker you!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/average
Hopefully you can find an adjective in there to your liking.
|7.30.08 @ 3:36PM|#
I don't think it's simply a matter of killing the goat that is the problem. It's the manner of killing the goat that's the issue - bleeding it to death - which is at issue. No matter what religion/cult/stupidity you belong to you aren't allowed to torture a sentient being. I don't care what religion you belong to - you ain't above the law.
|7.30.08 @ 3:44PM|#
Johnny Nowhere,
Yes, I've heard the saying - it applies to most people - I don't
think libertarians are such complex creatures that it's impossible
to characterize them though.
As to your point about belief, sure people can believe anything
they want - but surely they can't DO anything they want because
their religion says they can. If I can't torture a goat then
neither should this guy. What if the belief was to have sex with
the goat instead of torturing (actually, see my first sarcastic
post to see my point). What actions people should and shouldn't be
allowed to perform should NOT depend on religion but on what's
good/bad for society.
Elemenope|7.30.08 @ 3:49PM|#
What actions people should and shouldn't be allowed to
perform should NOT depend on religion but on what's good/bad for
society.
As judged by whom? Appointed moral arbiters frankly suck at picking
out genuine threats to the public order. From their example you'd
need to believe that two guys screwing in their bedrooms or smoking
some pot are a general threat to the health of humanity or some
such thing.
Society itself is no better at judging these things, even ex post
facto. Vaccine scares and masturbation ninnies are a dime-a-dozen.
The "collective order" are in general a panicky and overly
suggestible crowd.
|7.30.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Andy Craig:
all individuals should be free to believe or not believe
whatever they want, and that it is that freedom, rather than the
belief, that should be protected and cannot justly be violated by
others.
This issue has nothing to do with 'belief' and everything to do
with 'actions'. I have no contentions with what you say. You have
the 'freedom' to believe any stupid thing you want - maybe you
believe are superior to every other race - but if you act on that
belief it is a different story.
"True libertarian" is a big ol' can of worms I won't open here, but
the answer is that the only problem here is the marijuana
ban.
Exactly. Religion has nothing to do with this issue. Either this
guy (as well as all of us) have the right to torture animals or
not. Full Stop.
|7.30.08 @ 3:50PM|#
What actions people should and shouldn't be allowed to
perform should NOT depend on religion but on what's good/bad for
society.
Oh dear. I was just beginning to enjoy this thread. Quick - this
guy needs his goat gotten!
|7.30.08 @ 3:50PM|#
I don't think it's simply a matter of killing the goat that
is the problem. It's the manner of killing the goat that's the
issue - bleeding it to death - which is at issue. No matter what
religion/cult/stupidity you belong to you aren't allowed to torture
a sentient being. I don't care what religion you belong to - you
ain't above the law.
Andrew: check Wikipedia under Kashrut for the rules of kosher
slaughter. What is considered humane is to slit the throat in one
swift motion, severing the jugular.
Full disclosure: I am not Jewish, but I sit next to a Jew at
work.
|7.30.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Elemenope:
Certainly everything wouldn't be allowed. That's anarchy not
libertarianism.
And when I say average libertarian I mean 'what would the majority
consensus be'. Is that any better? Probably not.
Fluffy|7.30.08 @ 3:56PM|#
It's the manner of killing the goat that's the issue -
bleeding it to death - which is at issue. No matter what
religion/cult/stupidity you belong to you aren't allowed to torture
a sentient being.
It's nonsensical to say that cutting a goat's throat to kill it is
"torture" when that's how all feed animals were killed for
consumption for millennia. Using a stun gun to knock cows
unconscious is an extremely recent development in slaughterhouse
methodology. Even now up to 30% of the chickens that are processed
in this country are decapitated while awake. If the guy chops the
head off his goat during the ceremony, would that make it OK?
Also, we allow deer hunting, and unless you get a head shot deers
die by...[wait for it]...bleeding to death. Is it torture to hunt
and shoot a deer?
If it's going to be illegal to have a goat bleed to death it should
be illegal to have deer bleed to death too.
|7.30.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Andrew-
I see your point. Most of the protections of the Bill of Rights
could fall under the libertarian concept of a more all-encompassing
natural liberty. But unfortunately that concept's not codified into
constitutional law, and the Bill of Rights is. So we have to take
what we can get.
|7.30.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Fluffy,
As I've probably already stated, this is not about killing a goat,
it's about torturing a goat (and because he has an irrational
belief people seem to think that then it's OK). People can and do
kill goats all the time for food - but there is a proper, legally
sanctioned way to do it.
|7.30.08 @ 3:59PM|#
If it's going to be illegal to have a goat bleed to
death it should be illegal to have deer bleed to death
too.
No, no, no. If it's going to be legal to have a deer bleed to death
it should be legal to have a goat bleed to death too.
Fluffy|7.30.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Exactly. Religion has nothing to do with this issue. Either
this guy (as well as all of us) have the right to torture animals
or not. Full Stop.
And this is why I have to resist the animal rights people when they
pop up in these threads and whine about how it's not fair to treat
animals as property. Because if you deviate for even a second from
the stance that animals are property and the owners can do whatever
they want to them, people show up and start pretending they believe
that kosher slaughter methods are "cruel", when pretending that
belief makes it easier to stop someone from practicing a
non-mainstream religion.
If you're going to FORCE me to, then fine, I'll say it: animals are
property, and have no rights at all, and if allowing people to
torture them is the price I have to pay to stop people from just
making shit up to abuse the members of minority religions, I'm
happy to do that. Ted Bundys of the world, knock yourselves
out.
|7.30.08 @ 4:01PM|#
As an animal lover and pet owner myself, I have to agree. Animals are property, and must be treated as such in a free society.
Johnny Nowhere|7.30.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Andrew,
I'm with Rothbard and Fluffy on this one: if you want to screw your
goat on the altar of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, have at her. She
is your property. So long as you keep this activity to yourself, or
within your gang of (consenting adult) believers, I think the
effects on the rest of us will be minimal.
|7.30.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Elemenope:
As judged by whom?
That's a strange question. This is still a democracy I think, isn't
it? Are you saying judgements can't be made in a complex society? I
think we all know how to weigh evidence and debate an issue. I
don't think we need to take this debate to relativistic, sophomoric
musings.
|7.30.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Rich Ard:
I don't understand your problem? Social policy and law SHOULD be
dictated by religion? How would we have made it from the dark ages
if we continued to allow religion free reign in society? Can you
please elaborate your point for me?
And what's with all the bad puns? :)
Fluffy|7.30.08 @ 4:10PM|#
That's a strange question. This is still a democracy I
think, isn't it? Are you saying judgements can't be made in a
complex society?
Actually, I would have no problem arguing that the entire concept
of something being good or bad for society is a metaphysical
absurdity.
The purpose of our social institutions should be to manage
interactions between you and me, or to manage those things we own
in common. Nothing that happens between me and my goat falls into
those categories.
|7.30.08 @ 4:11PM|#
No, the proper limits of government power are not open to
democratic debate.
That's a pretty sweeping statement to make. Do you not approve of
amendments to a state's constitution?
Johnny Nowhere|7.30.08 @ 4:15PM|#
"What actions people should and shouldn't be allowed to perform
should NOT depend on religion but on what's good/bad for
society."
Andrew,
Torturing bunnies in a toxicology lab is justified as good for
society because it prevents human suffering. These studies are
condoned and in part financed by the US government.
By your logic, then, do we not all have the right to torture
animals?
|7.30.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Can you please elaborate your point for me?
I was anticipating a flurry of posts positing that laws should be
enacted to protect the rights of the individual, rather than a
nebulous 'social good'.
And what's with all the bad puns?
And what's the problem...I thought this all started because we were
talking about what sort of pun we could have with goats.
It's been a long day at the office, I guess. :)
|7.30.08 @ 4:18PM|#
By your logic, then, do we not all have the right to torture
animals?
I won't say that this pun's unintended, but that's a pretty
tortured analogy.
|7.30.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Animals are property, and must be treated as such in a free
society.
Yes, and no. This is a little too black and white for me.
Yes, they are property for most purposes, but no, that doesn't mean
I have to oppose a law prohibiting you from blowtorching the leg
off your dog if you feel like it, even though I would oppose a law
prohibiting you from blowtorching the wheel off your car if you
feel like it.
Fluffy|7.30.08 @ 4:48PM|#
That's a pretty sweeping statement to make. Do you not
approve of amendments to a state's constitution?
This moves the debate into an even more philosophical direction,
because basically the answer to this question depends on whether
you believe that the Good is something that we identify, or
something that we will into existence.
If we identify the Good and do not will it, this strongly implies
that there is a form of government which is Good, and all
governments can be judged by how close they come to that Good
government.
If we will the Good into being, then all governments are good as
long as the majority is satisfied that the government represents
its will, whatever that might be.
Our constitutional system has a natural tension to it, because it
tries to express both of these notions of the Good at once. It does
so because certain fundamentals were put in place at the outset
that are theoretically open to change, but procedurally very
difficult to change.
Surely you would agree that you can imagine theoretical
Constitutional changes that would be outside of the realm of
acceptable or "good" government?
|7.30.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Andrew wrote:
Does the average libertarian really believe that people that hold beliefs about the supernatural deserve to have their beliefs protected under law?
Beliefs, yes. Actions affecting other entities, no. You should be
able to believe anything you like; say anything you like; do
anything to yourself or (a) consenting, informed individual(s) you
(and they, if there is a "they") like.
The presumption that we have the 'right' to do anything we choose,
regardless of its nature, directly or by proxy, to other entities
that don't apparently operate in a similar cognitive space, or who
do not, or can not, consent is a conclusion I cannot reach.
The question asked several times here, paraphrased as "if I can
kill a deer, why can't i kill a goat?" is, to be kind,
unenlightened and backwards. The correct question is, why, if it is
not ok to kill a small human with disabilities that does not (and
cannot) share our cognitive space, is it considered 'ok' to kill a
being that does not share that space in the normal course of
events?
It is ultimately convenient to use other beings. It is easier to
rape a woman and take the resulting child than it is to marry her
and support her for many years. It is easier to steal than it is to
earn. It is easier to kill animals than it is to pursue a non-flesh
diet consisting of nutrients that come as close as possible to
fulfilling our needs. It is easier to 'have fun' hunting than it is
to say 'I have the power to kill, but I opt not to use it.'
As far as I am concerned, any animal that does not directly
threaten me or mine - regardless of where they land in the animal
kingdom - is in no danger from me. It is the natural extension of
the libertarian position of my right to swing my fist ends at the
chin of another; I simply recognize that a horse, goat, cat, or
bird is just as much 'another' as any of you are.
Should an animal threaten to interfere, or actually interfere with
my person or family or dependents without my consent - be it a germ
colony, a mosquito, or George W 'cognitively impaired' Bush himself
- I gain the absolute right to swat the animal. Whether I actually
do or not is a matter of my personal choice, based on any number of
other complicating metrics.
I'm no pacifist. I hold multiple dan rankings in the martial arts,
and I am an expert with a decent range of weapons, almost all of
which I own quality instances of. It is fair to say that I enjoy a
good dose of violent conflict; still, the uncrossable lines seem
brilliantly clear to me. I often wonder - not in a favorable manner
- just how other people manage to avoid the conclusions I've come
to. The words that seem to sum it up to me are 'lazy' and
'selfish.' YMMV, of course.
Just as an aside, some of you may find the following link
interesting:
http://invitromeat.org/
|7.30.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Why stop at germs? If you take it that far, it makes no sense to
exclude the living, breathing plants.
So stay off the grass and starve to death.
|7.30.08 @ 5:15PM|#
Surely you would agree that you can imagine theoretical
Constitutional changes that would be outside of the realm of
acceptable or "good" government?
Certainly! My attitude is that Good is a pretty malleable social
construct (and that the Quality comes off before the name goes
on).
|7.30.08 @ 5:17PM|#
I'm usually a big, fierce animal protector, but I do eat meat,
and I do think some animals are meant for consumption. A goat falls
into that category. I don't like goat, but some do.
However, I don't like religious freedom being used as a protector
on so many crazy things. In this case, it's not needed anyway. He
can prepare and eat his goat if he needs to with or without
religious freedom as a defense.
But before you know it, people are going to start using religious
freedom to protect some things that are just out there and wrong.
Who's to say that I shouldn't be able to kill any dog I see as part
of my religion? Or any animal I choose even if it's someone's pet?
Or vigilante killings as part of my religion?
These religious freaks are going to want to bring on as many
special treatment acts and laws for their projects and desires as a
100% democrat Congress would do for its pet projects given half the
chance.
|7.30.08 @ 7:04PM|#
Chloee spake:
I do think some animals are meant for consumption
..."meant for consumption" by what designating force or entity?
God? The kosher authorities? KFC? Their own free will? (If the
latter, I don't think "eat me" means what you think it
means...)
|7.30.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Andy skipped the small matter of reading comprehension, rashly
venturing:
Why stop at germs? If you take it that far, it makes no sense to exclude the living, breathing plants.
Oh, I don't stop at plants, Andy; if they get in my face, I'll
consider taking them out, too. :-)
Next time, actually read until you understand what is being said.
You'd be amazed how much less of your own shoe you'll taste.
For your reference, an incomplete list of things I wouldn't eat can
be found in the paragraph above the one you responded to.
Perhaps on second reading, you'll note the absence of germs.
Also, in order to give you a reference point for construction of
that list under the assumption that you may actually have a point
to make, my general rule is if it has an organized nervous system
with any kind of detectable brain or brain-like cluster, it's an
animal I wouldn't eat or interfere with unless provoked.
Such an attitude is kind of hard on plants and very simple
organisms, but there you have it.
Fluffy|7.30.08 @ 8:21PM|#
It is the natural extension of the libertarian position of
my right to swing my fist ends at the chin of another; I simply
recognize that a horse, goat, cat, or bird is just as much
'another' as any of you are.
The reason this is untenable is because if the moral norms we apply
to human interactions with other humans also apply to animals, then
it is "evil" for a lion to eat an antelope.
And that is frankly absurd.
No system of morality that has even the most remote connection to
anything resembling a "natural" law would find life itself to be
immoral. And if it is immoral for one species to eat another, then
all life is immoral. The distinction between plants and animals is
ultimately "cognitive" also, after all.
Human morality is the set of ethical rules that cover interactions
between humans. A human cannot morally outrage a rock. Or a germ.
Or a plant. Or a goat. Or a tiger. And the reverse is true. Nothing
a rock, germ, plant, goat or tiger does or could possibly do to a
human is immoral.
Fluffy|7.30.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Also, in order to give you a reference point for
construction of that list under the assumption that you may
actually have a point to make, my general rule is if it has an
organized nervous system with any kind of detectable brain or
brain-like cluster, it's an animal I wouldn't eat or interfere with
unless provoked.
Then you've constructed a system where the cognitive capacity of
the entities around you determines what you're going to eat.
I don't think that's what meat-eating humans are doing, but those
seem to be the terms you prefer so I'm willing to use them to show
the contradictions of your position.
Chloee|7.30.08 @ 8:40PM|#
Bug off, Ben, you're interrupting my evening meal of a preachy jackass that pissed me off today.
|7.30.08 @ 9:35PM|#
Fluffy held forth:
The reason this is untenable is because if the moral norms we apply to human interactions with other humans also apply to animals, then it is "evil" for a lion to eat an antelope.
Not at all. Our behavioral norms are not a uniform blanket that
apply only when reciprocal. I can't imagine why you would think
they were, but that's what makes your presumption wrong right at
the base.
For instance, one consequence of your argument is that because some
humans murder other humans, there's no problem with any human
murdering any other human. See? You don't even need to leave your
own species for your argument to founder.
Sophisticated moral behaviors are for sophisticates; when one party
is sophisticated, and another is not, that does not create a right
for the sophisticated party to act in an unsophisticated manner
towards the unsophisticated party. That's just a demonstration of
weakness.
|7.30.08 @ 9:46PM|#
Fluffy subsequently produced the following doses of fabric
softener:
Then you've constructed a system where the cognitive capacity of the entities around you determines what you're going to eat.
Precisely.
I don't think that's what meat-eating humans are doing...
No, that's what I'm doing. I thought we were clear on
that.
...but those seem to be the terms you prefer so I'm willing to use them to show the contradictions of your position.
Hmm. Fine then, you let me know when you come up with a
contradiction, and I'll consider it.
Having already disposed of your curious moral relativism where you
want the considerably lesser sophistication of animal limits and
behaviors to dictate your own, I'm ready and waiting for further
comment from you.
|7.30.08 @ 9:52PM|#
Quoth Chloee:
Bug off, Ben, you're interrupting my evening meal of a preachy jackass that pissed me off today.
You're the one who threw out that absurd "meant for consumption"
line; it's your job to explain it, not mine. You make a ludicrous,
indefensible statement like that on a public forum, you can expect
someone to point it out. And by the way, that jackass probably has
tularemia. :)
Oona Thurman|7.31.08 @ 7:23AM|#
Lori Wyndham sez: "I'm pretty sure the Constitution of the
United States still applies."
Shows how little she knows.
bob|7.31.08 @ 8:46AM|#
the writtings of christian religion clearly states that all animals are for food, not excluding pets. texas has another ban on butchering pot-belly pigs, is this breed more valuable than other breeds, because some have them as pets? is it right to put are pets above people? should people go hungry, while we incinerate pets and put them in the landfills daily. we all need only to care more for each other, and not worry so much about animals. we are a society that punishes men for not feeding pets right, while are nieghbors go hungry, where is the logic in that? spend money on health care for pets, while are nieghbors die from lack of medical attention?
|7.31.08 @ 11:35AM|#
bob,
the writings of the christian religion say a lot of things - but it
doesn't say that 'all' animals are food - some are prohibited from
being consumed (although I don't see what that has to do with
anything).
Nobody puts pets above people - maybe above rocks and other
inanimate objects.
Nobody is going hungry in this country because of bans on eating or
killing certain animals. Are you saying we should be feeding the
euthanized animals to the poor? I think it's possible to care more
for people and animals - it's not mutually exclusive.
Are you saying in a free society I can't spend money on my pet as
long as there are people that don't have enough money.
Finally question, do you read anything you write and compare it to
reality in any way?
|7.31.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Johnny Nowhere
Torturing bunnies in a toxicology lab is justified as good
for society because it prevents human suffering. These studies are
condoned and in part financed by the US government.
By your logic, then, do we not all have the right to torture
animals?
That's actually a very good point. I'm not against testing drugs on
animals first for our safety (I'm not a PETA member or anything
similar). It is the 'unnecessary' suffering of animals due to some
psychopathic whim that I am simply against - and which the law is
against as well. Some people in here talk that if animals get a
minimal amount of rights (which they don't seem to think they
already have) then animals will be ruling over us or something as
in some sort of terrible Animal Farm scenario.
The tendency of some of the people here to suggest a libertarian
view entails the right to torture animals is going to surely ensure
the death of any sort of libertarian society they may want to
encourage.
|7.31.08 @ 11:56AM|#
Fluffy,
animals are property, and have no rights at all, and if
allowing people to torture them is the price I have to pay to stop
people from just making shit up to abuse the members of minority
religions, I'm happy to do that. Ted Bundys of the world, knock
yourselves out.
Yes, animals are property - but they do have rights by the law as
we speak - so you are utterly wrong here. I don't want people to
not torture animals so I can harass religious people. That is
absurd, and you are really stretching it here. Didn't people just
'make up' human rights, or were they written in the sky somewhere?
Oh, and your Ted Bundy comment was revealing.
Surely you can bring forward one cogent argument in the defense of
torturing animals.
|7.31.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Johnny Nowhere,
if you want to screw your goat on the altar of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster, have at her. She is your property. So long as
you keep this activity to yourself, or within your gang of
(consenting adult) believers, I think the effects on the rest of us
will be minimal.
You think so, eh? If it doesn't effect you then fuck it. What's the
problem that I have to 'keep it to myself'? If it's not 'wrong'
then everyone should celebrate my cultural diversity.
Your house is also your property. Do you think building codes are
an abomination as well. I should be able to construct my house any
way I want? (Why do I need a foundation - and 'proper' electrical
wiring? Inspect this Muthaf*cker. That's what I wanted to say to my
building inspectors)
bob|7.31.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Andrew The writings of the christian religion say a lot of
things - but it doesn't say that 'all' animals are food - Read a
little further.
Nobody puts pets above people - maybe above rocks and other
inanimate objects. If a government punishes its people for not
feeding dogs enough or not giving them proper medical attention,
while people do without, then pets are above people.
Nobody is going hungry in this country because of bans on eating or
killing certain animals. Are you saying we should be feeding the
euthanized animals to the poor? If you look only at this country,
stop buying from other countries. Feeding the poor is exactly what
im saying.
Should I look at reality through who's eyes?
|7.31.08 @ 12:54PM|#
Your own eyes, just clean your glasses.
Would you be punished more for not feeding your child or not
feeding your dog? Non-humans and humans are not equal - the way I
see it and the way the law sees it. Your comparing mistreating an
animal in your responsibility to socialized medicine. I'm all for
socialized medicine, as I assume most of you are not, but these
things don't compare. Take another hit buddy.
You don't have to give your dog medical attention at all in this
country - it's actually legal for you to 'put them down' if you
want - and I'm not even arguing against that.
Sorry, but from what your wrote that was all I could make sense
of.
bob|7.31.08 @ 3:30PM|#
Andrew
Sorry if my words offend or appear to be hitting.
I know my reality does not match many others, and thats fine. we do
agree on socalized medicine, and I hope it is enough to be
friends.
|7.31.08 @ 8:26PM|#
There does not appear to be an exception for slaughtering deer,
contrary to the Reason article, unless this is a recent change not
reflected on the municode website, which seems unlikely.
Here's where Euless has its city codes (may not be absolutely up to
date):
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10705&sid=43%20
Here are two ordinances covering slaughtering animals:
http://library4.municode.com/default/DocView/10705/1/32/33
http://library4.municode.com/default/DocView/10705/1/32/35
Searching for 'deer' only finds the first ordinance, which
prohibits owning deer within city limits.
The court opinions do not seem to be online except maybe through
Pacer, which I don't subscribe to:
Merced v. Kasson et al.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-txndce/case_no-4:2006cv00891/case_id-163407/
The original complaint used to be on courthousenews.com, but it
either moved or is gone. But the way-back machine has a copy:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070226205247/www.courthousenews.com/PDF+Archive/santeria.pdf
If the city allowed slaughtering deer but not goats, Merced might
have a pretty good case; but it looks like the city only allows
slaughtering fowl within city limits for health and safety reasons,
which I think is sufficient to hold up in court.
|8.9.08 @ 6:14PM|#
was recently watching some online news clip - and some family at
a city residence in or near Los Angeles, had a disaster where the
law enforcement authorities came into their home -ransacked it,
wound up shooting one or two of her sons.
Well, they showed her in the backyard, in city limits - you could
look down the city block and see the homes and cars - FEEDING HER
CHICKENS in the fenced in backyard. Yes they were heavily
hispanic...
The story went into how she'd cook up the chicken soup and whatever
ethnic meals they named...
There she was, with her little chicken farm - right there in spic
city...right in the backyard- they showed her tossing the corn down
- you know then flashed to her and hubby sitting on the love couch
or swing on the porch smiling...
Oh, well.... yeah chickens ok - goats ok to in my book. Who gives a
damn what religion has to do with it.
If libs can have their gerbil farms ... what the hey
|8.9.08 @ 6:25PM|#
One more thing. A programmer friend moved to California - career
upgrade, and moved to a room rental in a multimillion dollar
mansion in the Santa Rancho Margarita valley area southeast of
Tustin. Had a rather winding "valley" road not so wide for access -
somewhat dangerous he related.
Anyway, during the fires a few years ago he saw the black
helicopters on the hill up the street for one of the attacked
mountain bikers - killed or "eaten" by the mountain lions moving
from the state fires - and in fact had one under his rental
residence when he came home one night.
He related merrily how they called the place the breakfast nook -
since across the street someone raised chickens, then up the road
pigs, around the bend corn or wheat whatever...
These were wealthy homes - well to do owners - but apparently a few
had a "farmers thumb".
The "breakfast nook" - laughing he didn't have to go anywhere to
have bacon, eggs, toast, and sausage.
Of course, anywhere you have encroaching big city life - the
democratic controlled regions where "the left behind" needing
welfare pop up like flies....you can expect any and all freedoms of
the like to be summarily extinghuished - since of course
"civilized" people would NEVER do such a thing.
Yes, it's more than a bit crazy and tainted, the reputation that
precedes "food creation" in our modern libtard psychosocial pop
culture mindset - of the "city lifers".
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Jacob Sullum
- The Salvia Ban Wagon, Jacob Sullum, November 19, 2009
- Menu Mandate’s Missing Math, Jacob Sullum, November 18, 2009
- The Folly of Unilateral Disarmament, Jacob Sullum, November 11, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245