In the Dallas suburb of Euless, a Santeria priest has filed suit against the city, saying its laws prohibiting animal slaughter at home interferes with his First Amendment right to practice his religion. I hope he loses, because Santeria is ... well, I don't want to break any Bnet rules here, so let's just say it's not a religion I would want practiced in my community. No how, no way. But I bet he wins.
Meanwhile, police yesterday discovered a so-called Santeria shrine in the woods outside of Dallas, near where the bodies of a kidnapped couple were discovered. According to cops, several other bodies have been found over time in the same general area. The shrine contained, among other things, a human skull. Cops are calling it "Santeria," but from what we know now, it seem that it could be any of the Afro-Caribbean religions practiced in Latin America, some of which are wickeder than others (for example, palo mayombe, related to Santeria but trafficking in darker spirits, can involve human sacrifice).
Some people in the First World laugh at this stuff, consider it benign. They should talk to missionaries who have had to deal with it head-on in Haiti, Africa and elsewhere.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
"...whether federal animal welfare statutes are being broken..." -- scared of that -- Maybe it's time to throw the towel in on the animal husbandry aspect -- Maybe it's better to figure on focusing on certain cash crops instead.
'As St. Paul so eloquently put it, the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit",' Well that punches holes in the whole crunchy argument about food, doesn't it. I thought the premise of the crunchy approach to food was that it is based on a sense of the holy. Christians have this push-pull issue between the Kingdom and the world. "In it but not of it"- yet a crunchy con can equate the correct sourcing of a meal with reflecting/honoring/living in accordance with the Kingdom, but have problems with a religion that has no apparent disconnect between relationship between the spirit and physical worlds. Which is it? This is a perpetual confusion to me as I read the various Christian arguments. I've been following religious news, well, religiously, for over 40 years and this world/Kingdom struggle seems to be a constant theme that Christians struggle with. Wish Rod would start a thread on that. It does address the whole crunchy approach. Rod and other crunchies, how exactly does your premise that certain ways of living in the world are more "authentic" than others square with "in the world but not of it?" In what ways are your chosen paths not "of the world" when the argument you make for your spirituality is made in terms of how you live in the world and what material choices you make? This is a genuine question.
Just the first 20 seconds or so...
I don't have a problem with animal sacrifice in Santeria or candomble, as long as the animal is given a quick death and its meat isn't wasted.
Come to think of it, I don't have a problem eating meat as long as it was organically and locally raised, ethically slaughtered, and every-bit-including-the-squeal gets used, and food isn't wasted.
Mind you, I don't mess with blood in ritual very often. (And when I have I've pricked my own finger. That's the only ethical way to do it in my path.) But my grandma taught me how to wring a chicken's neck when I was a little girl, and always said that you don't waste food because that chicken died so I could eat Sunday dinner. Even at eight, I felt that there was some sacred responsibility there.
I think you can discuss the mechanics of slaughtering an animal and the pros and cons of doing that in a high-population-density area without discussing the morality of it.
I recommend dipping into Frazier's "The Golden Bough" if you want to understand why animistic religions use blood sacrifices.
"I would bet that those cops who found the "Santeria" shrine don't know the first thing about Santeria and have loosely labeled this crime an act of Santeria followers." A couple DID act inappropriately (such as the one who spoke of battling its 'spirit' publicly) But to their credit, the dept. DID handle it very well, even educating the media about Palo and defusing some silly ideas.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.