It is Faith vs. Law for Himachal Pradesh.

Discussion in 'Hinduism' started by Aupmanyav, Sep 3, 2014.

  1. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    323
    SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh high court order banning animal sacrifices in religious places has left the devout in the hill state in a quandary. Many believe stopping the practice of sacrificing animals to appease deities would invite divine wrath.

    "It is a grey area whether the animal sacrifice can be termed as religious practice or not," a division bench of justices Rajiv Sharma and Sureshwar Thakur had said on Monday. "The faith, rituals and its continuation must change in the modern era. People are required to be sensitized on this issue by the state government."

    Following the court order, Kullu royal Maheshwar Singh has decided to convene a deities' parliament to discuss the issue before the start of the week-long Dussehra festival (October 3-9). The Kullu Devi-Devta Kardar Sangh too has called a meeting on September 13 to discuss the issue. Animal sacrifices are an intrinsic part of the Kullu Dussehra, which dates from 1637. According to the 2011 Census, Himachal Pradesh has 20,118 villages with over 26,500 places of worship. The practice of making an animal sacrifice after the fulfilment of a wish is more common in the state's upper areas.

    While expressing their respect for the court order, many people pleaded that animals are sacrificed on the orders of deities only. "Animals are sacrificed in the same manner that they are slaughtered in slaughter houses," said Kullu Devi-Devta Kardar Sangh president Dot Ram Thakur. "Following the court orders we would stop sacrificing them, but they would continue to be killed in slaughter houses not only in the state but across the country." He said after the September 13 meeting, they would approach the HC with a request to reconsider its decision. "We are now in a fix as we have to follow the orders of the deity and the court both," he said. "We cannot disobey any of them."

    Saying the deities are an important part of life, the Kardar Sangh has also decided to ask their wish on the issue of banning animal sacrifice. "We will ask their views on the issue and only then approach the court," said Thakur. Singh, who is also chief kardar of Lord Raghunath, the principal deity of Kullu, said the practice of animal sacrifice was being followed since time immemorial and was linked to people's strong faith and religious traditions. He said since religious customs associated with the deities could not be changed, they would approach the court on the issue. He said the matter would also be discussed in the jagati (deities' assembly) to be called shortly.
     
  2. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,887
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    If animal sacrifice is outlawed....then everyone is required by law to be vegetarian...
     
  3. Dan0813

    Dan0813 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    18
    Interesting.

    Killing an animal for G-d: bad
    Killing an animal for dinner: no problem

    In my religion, the issue won't arise until the Temple is rebuilt, but it's still disturbing to see this.
     
  4. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,887
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    the reality is...for many religions and religious ceremonies there is no difference!

    The sacrifice and burning of flesh, the donation of foods to the gods was the way to feed the priests and acolytes...

    bring us your best lamb...what a way to fill the belly...I mean coffers...
     
  5. Aupmanyav

    Aupmanyav Search, be your own guru.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,468
    Likes Received:
    323
    They have not done that. They have issued a judgment on whether animal sacrifice should be done or not. I suppose the judges are exceeding their brief.
    Priest do not partake the sacrificed animal. The devotees themselves sacrifice the animal or ask other people to complete the job for them, and take it back as a blessing. Of course, priests are entitled to part of the money donated. But the practice is thousands of years old. How can they interfere in that? They have not said the same for Muslims (Eid). Then why Hindus? Interesting nevertheless.
     
  6. A Cup Of Tea

    A Cup Of Tea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    3,310
    Likes Received:
    566
    and in reality...for many religions and religious ceremonies there is a difference.
     
  7. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,887
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    but of course
     
  8. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    And if a particular religion involves human sacrifice? And stopping that practice would lead to divine wrath according to this belief? What then? Where is the line where secular law must decide if religious law is to be legal or not.
     
  9. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,887
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Christianity is based on G!d deciding to birth a child specifically to be a human sacrifice.
     
  10. Dan0813

    Dan0813 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    18
    Good question.

    There's a lot of discussion of that in a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that addressed whether an employer can be forced to pay for their employees' abortions:
    6/30/14 - Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

    I suspect the court would not be tolerant of human sacrifice. Animal sacrifice is another issue entirely.
     
  11. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,887
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    The case is to whether an employer can be forced to carry insurance coverage which includes prenatal care, contraception and abortion coverage.
     
  12. Dan0813

    Dan0813 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    18
    The heart of the case, as stated in the Court's opinion, written by Justice Alito, is that "The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients." (p.2)

    So it's basically an issue of secular law vs. religious law.

    In a sense, one might argue that here it's the secular government that wants to give people the right to perform human sacrifice, and it's the religious people who are opposed to it. :)
     
  13. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,887
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    Yup...we've went from corporations are people...to corporations are for profit religions...

    Of course you do know what leads to less abortions? Sex education, birth control pills, IUDs and condoms...

    And you do know which states lead in abortions and teen pregnancies?? Take a look at that bible belt...
     
  14. Gordian Knot

    Gordian Knot Being Deviant IS My Art.

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    1
    Dan said "So it's basically an issue of secular law vs. religious law."

    I see it rather differently. What is at stake here is whether the employer can force their personal religious laws on their employees.
     
  15. Dan0813

    Dan0813 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2014
    Messages:
    228
    Likes Received:
    18
    I disagree. The employee is free to pay for the medical treatment out of her salary, or find other insurance. Why should the employer be forced to provide a specific medical treatment that violates his religious beliefs?
     
  16. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,887
    Likes Received:
    1,974
    I have the freedom not to work with such companies...Not everyone does.

    It is just a hiccup...a step towards national health insurance which will have coverage for all, including the daughters of those who are blinded by belief.
     

Share This Page