Animal Rights vs. Religious Rights

[exploited]

Is there really a good answer to that though?

Religious beliefs are often the deepest-held beliefs people have... That is about the only thing that stands out. It makes them unique (allegedly) and worthy of some protection. But it still doesn't really make sense, because I have beliefs just as important to me that aren't religious, but I could be persecuted for practicing them.

Like drugs - I think it is my right to ingest what I want, I feel that principle very deeply, it guides me in many ways throughout life. But unless that belief stems from a doctrine laid down by Native American ancestors a thousand years ago, tough titty.

I personally don't think that religious beliefs should be protected anymore than any other belief. The government shouldn't prohibit you from talking about it or trying to propagate it, but it has zero obligation to not regulate those practices which cause harm.

[exploited]

That sums it up rather well Ex. I think the way to keep this stuff reeled in is what I said. If animal cruelty is truly intolerable, then we ban it and no one can do it, end of story. If banning it is so obstructive to religious practices that we decide to let some people do it, then we can just ditch the law altogether and let anyone do it.

[eynon81]

I agree with Ex in large part. I've had it out with con law professors that argued the first amendment only applied to those who worshiped God. I pointed out that considering the number of non-religious type involved in the creation of the constitution I think the founders were less getting at a specific religion and more a freedom of conscience.

This is manifest in current practice as groups like the American Atheist receive tax exempt status as a church.

Remember that I said the freedom of religion exception didn't stem from a specific belief but from "deeply held convictions". Religious organization are, by in large, human organizations that organize and express those deeply held convictions...but can a more secular organization, like say the Free Masons, be protected under the religious protections of the first amendment? I'd say yes.

when challenged by the state however I think the burden is on the organization or individual to show that these practices stem from a deeply held conviction, which is pretty much how it works now.

so yes, the Jews can keep slitting those animals' throats.

[eynon81]

this thread made me google factory farms.

now I feel terrible.

veal man...just let the little guy grow up.

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

I've covered that, Dharma. It is just another reincarnation of ancient pagan beliefs. Like I said to Non, it is like saying Christianity is fifty years old because some dude reinterpreted it recently and got some followers.

[Hyperion]

Within 200 years the legal structure will start to evaluate the end of all slaughter for meat, especially as 'artificially-grown meat' becomes an alternative staple. Consumption of meat has actually been one of the most difficult aspects of my choices in life thus far. I'm reestablishing my vegetarian diet now after careful consideration of the subject.

[The Dharma Bum]

[exploited]

[Winchester]