2009
This has already spawned a great deal of controversy. Even in principle, animal rights activists oppose it, but in polytheistic religions, blood sacrifice is the highest form of sacrifice. We are talking religious rights here. And religious rights are not to be taken lightly.
In Heathenism, the head and skin of sacrificed animals were hung on trees in honour of the gods, and when in an urban setting, this practice was modified, as DuBois (1999:51) tells us: “Traveler’s accounts of the Viking city of Hedeby indicate the display of slaughtered animal carcasses outside of houses as testimonies to household rituals within.”
: Later in the mid tenth century a Spanish Jew from Cordova left an account of what is thought to be the market town of Hedeby in Denmark, where few of the inhabitants were Christian. He described their way of life with fastidious distaste, noting that they ate much fish, threw unwanted infants into the sea, and sang in gruff voices like growling dogs. He observed that among them sacrifice and feasting went together: ‘They hold a feast where all meet to honour their god and to eat and rink. Each man who slaughters an animal for sacrifice – ox, ram, goat or pig – fastens it to a pole outside the door of his house, to show that he had made his sacrifice in honour of the god.’ (Davidson 1988:37)
World’s biggest animal sacrifice
The Daily Telegraph reports that,
Worshippers travelled long distances, many coming from neighbouring India, to attend the Gadhimai festival, which honours the Hindu goddess of power and takes place once every five years in southern Nepal.
“This is a very special day for Hindu devotees,” head priest Mangal Chaudhary Tharu told AFP as the Gadhimai festival began.
As I said, animal rights activists are up in arms. In a related story, Animal activists protest sacrifice festival we hear from opponents of religious freedom: “We launched our campaign to put a stop to the gruesome killing of animals in the name of God,” said Pramada Shah, director of campaign group Animal Nepal which has launched an online petition demanding the festival be canceled.
“Even in the 21st century, innocent animals are facing cruel treatment due to people’s superstition.”
I think Mr. Shah would do better to consider the cruelty to humans in the name of religion, including the widespread cultural genocide engaged in by monotheism. Here, we hear no complaint uttered, and those who are killed by outraged ethnic religionists are hailed as martyrs.
The campaign received a local boost when it won the support of Ram Bahadur Bomjam, a young Nepalese man believed by followers to be a reincarnation of Buddha after supporters said he could survive without water, food or sleep.Bomjam, dubbed “Buddha Boy” by Nepalese media, has spent the past year meditating in the jungle near Bariyapur, but recently broke his silence to condemn the festival.
“Human beings have turned brutal by offering animal sacrifices to the goddess. This practice must be stopped now,” he reportedly told local media.
With all due respect, Buddha boy has as much say as the Pope. That is to say, none.
The temple’s head priest, Mangal Chaudhary Tharu, said 800,000 people attended the festival in 2004, when about 400,000 sacrifices were made, and he said he expected more people to come this year.“Nepal’s security situation has improved and we are expecting a larger turnout this year,” said Tharu, the fourth generation of his family to serve as a priest for the festival, whose origins have never been documented.
“We are not forcing devotees to sacrifice animals. It is an age-old practice and it must continue.”
If others do not like animal sacrifice, they have no need to engage in it. The meat is distrubted and eaten. It’s not wasted. This was true of sacrifices in the ancient world as well, where the sacrifice went hand in hand with the feast. There were no “whole burnt offerings,” where the animal was converted into ashes on the pile of wood. The spilling of blood was essential, as the blood was the life force.
The shedding of the blood of the victim formed an important part of the sacrificial rite, and the term rjóða (redden) occurs frequently in Icelandic poetry in connection with sacrifice. (Davidson 1988:58)
This is religion. It is THEIR religion. Those of other religions have no more right to dictate what the form of one religion’s cultic activities than we do theirs. The Catholics engage in ritual cannibalism. Where is the outcry? Killing an animal is somehow worse than eating a human being?
Sorry folks. This surly old son of Odin retains the right to animal sacrifice whether he actively engages in it or not. Yes, most modern Heathens probably get their “animal” from the grocery store. But even that animal has been killed.
Animal rights activists can complain. They will complain. But as I said, this is religion, the legitimate practice of ancient customs and traditions, hallowed in antiquity. It is not slaughter of animals for fun, or for profit, or for some perverse pleasure. This is a religious right, as important to these people as the Eucharist is to Christians.
You could argue that taking away the Eucharist is taking away the central Christian rite; animal sacrifice is no different. And the Christian Roman emperors, when they banned animal sacrifice, knew exactly what they were doing to Paganism: they were gutting it. I’d like to see modern polytheism escape that fate.
Hail! Khaire! You have done a wonderful job explaining what blood sacrifice actually is. The only time holocaust sacrifice happened in Ancient Greece (when the animal was totally consumed by the fire) was during a time of extreme peril — and that didn't happen often. This was the primary way people got meat, which, no matter what a vegan might tell you, is still the best way to consume needed protein.
Julia, thanks for commenting. Exactly! Sadly, the act of sacrifice is misunderstood in the West today (wonder of wonders since it was exterminated along with polytheism itself). One has to wonder how different the perception would be if the Jews still practiced animal sacrifice.
No one who eats meat has the right to criticize animal sacrifice.
Edward Butler
http://henadology.wordpress.com/
I wholeheartedly agree, Edward.
I personally have no problem with animal sacrifice at all. (It may come as a surprise to some people that a vegetarian can hold that perspective, but I do.) It's usually done more humanely than modern slaughterhouses handle the deed. There is reverence in the act when done in religious contexts, and that changes how most people carry out sacrifice. You don't want to send pain to your deities, only the offering and your prayers. It also goes to feed people who need the food far more than we generally wasteful Westerners do. Sacrificing an animal for religious purposes is far more honorable to me than throw away attitude that accompanies the modern slaughterhouse.
Not even those who exclude meat from their diet have a right to complain about sacrifice, since it's about religion in addition to food.
Hrafknell, on your musing about difference in perceptions if Judaism still used sacrifice; there is actually an element still present in Jewish tradition, and it's Kosher slaughter. The animal is blessed and inspected before it goes to your table. (Or, at least it's supposed to be. Can't trust anyone with your food these days, it seems.) Related to that note, I wonder how many people make the connection between the consumption of the animal after the offering with the story of Abraham's willingness to offer up Isaac? More cannibalistic undertones, methinks…
Thanks for commenting, Elizabeth, and as before, your approach is thoughtful and open-minded.
I hadn't thought about kosher slaughter, so thank you for bringing that up.
I was thinking specifically about the very obvious spectacle of animals being led to slaughter in the Temple. Given the weight Evangelicals assign to Judaism these days I wonder if they in particular would be less critical of Pagan sacrifice.
A reconstructed Temple would certainly make for a very interesting world. A nice fantasy…
Oh, I highly doubt Evangelicals would be less critical of Pagan sacrifice, even if Judaism returned to it. We're the "evil" polytheists, after all. To them the Jews are just "not called" yet.
That is a good question, though. Would Judaism begin the sacrifices again if the Temple were rebuilt? I'm not sure, honestly. It's so tied with whether or not they would begin tithing to the Levite priests again, as well. Historically they were the tribe that handled the rites, rituals, and care of the Temple. I'm not certain that they would be particularly welcome in their former capacity. Makes one wonder.
I know that there is a conservative Jewish group that advocates the Temple's reconstruction. I don't know what manner of support they have. I've visited their site (though I'd have to Google it again to find it). They have models of it, and reconstructions of the priests' vestments, etc.
I think the majority of Jews, if they don't outright advocate the reconstruction of the Temple, would be happy to see it done. My mother and grandfather would be, and they're both Reform Jews (not at all conservative.) But I'm pretty sure neither one of them would be happy with the reinstatement of animal sacrifice. Though, I'd have to ask to be sure. It's such a personal issue that I've no idea which way Judaism as a whole could sway if the possibility were ever to arise. (Not likely with the current climate, but that's no reason to stop asking questions.)
I'm not at all surprised that the group you found had specifications for everything. Everything is fairly detailed in the Tanakh, so it wouldn't be that hard to reconstruct from the descriptions.
It's kind of funny…I hadn't thought about that site (they sell models of the Temple too) until recently when I watched Indiana Jones with my son and the evil archaeologist puts on the high priest's garb before opening the ark.
I wonder if any polls have been taken with regard to reconstructing the Temple? It would be interesting to see what Jews think about is vs. what Christians think about it (Protestant vs Catholic)…
The fact that these animals are distributed and eaten makes a huge difference. Ritual practices aside, this is no different than any other situation where we kill an animal and eat it. In fact, I argue that we should kill our own meat so we can really appreciate where the meat come from. Buying meat from a grocery store tends to make you take it for granted. (at least for me.) Factory farming and the conditions in which the animals are held before being butchered is a tad bit more significant an issue than animal sacrifice IMO.
I agree, Jenn. We would certainly have more appreciation for the animal and a closer contact to nature if we did so. It's not the same to thank the slab of meat on your plate for dying so you could live. Our "advanced" urban lifestyle has cost us much.
Personally I am a vegetarian and my view is that bloodless sacrifice has a long, proud history as a minority tradition within polytheistic Paganism.
But there is no denying the centrality of animal sacrifice to most polytheistic traditions throughout history. And even though I am a vegetarian, as a Pagan I appreciate the significance of a sacred meal shared by humans and our Gods.
And what is Thanksgiving, after all? In the immortal words of Anya Jenkins it's nothing but "Ritual sacrifice. With pie."
And lets compare the annual caloric intake of those participating in the once every five year holiday in Nepal, with those participating in the annual bloodletting here in the US of A.
Absolutely, Apuleius. Most sacrifices in the ancient world were bloodless. Most of my sacrifices are bloodless – as in ancient times, cakes, bread, libations, incense, etc. I like the quote about Thanksgiving. It's dead on.
I swiped it from a comment several days ago over at the Wild Hunt blog by someone named Raksha. But I'm a huge Anya fan and she really did have some great lines!
One of the positive things about the Internet is the rapid dissemination of ideas and information. Half of the stuff I hear I'd never come across if we relied on the "Old Ways" if I can plug progress (in moderation of course!) here for a minute