As the popularity of Cherry's post on yummy curries shows, food interests us. Food is also a topic that interests religions, along with sex and other personal and private concerns. Since they are deeply concerned with controlling every aspect of life, it's not surprising that religions tend to include dietary rules. Buddhism, for example, has a first precept which seems to entail that it is normally unacceptable for its followers to eat meat since doing so necessarily causes animals to be killed with intent solely to satisfy the meat eater's desire for a tasty dish. But how seriously should these traditional religious teachings be taken?
In the BBC News report
"Leading vet criticises ritual slaughter of animals", Prof Bill Reilly, former president of the British Veterinary Association, argues that the current number of animals killed using painful methods simply because they are traditional requirements in religions such us Judaism and Islam is morally unacceptable (2012). He is also concerned that the legal option in the UK and EU of slaughtering animals for such religious groups is used as an excuse to cut costs in some slaughter houses. The charity group Compassion in World Farming, goes further: they argue that the beliefs of the religions themselves, along with the known facts that animals feel and suffer, should persuade believers to give up their ancient traditions in favour of more modern and humane methods of killing than the culturally preferred single cut across the neck, which, as Reilly tells us, based on his own observations, causes animals "distress, fear and pain ... for all to see in the abattoir" (¶ 13). The article also notes that there is some disagreement amongst Jewish and Moslem religious leaders: some think that the modern method of stunning is acceptable provided it does not actually kill the animal before its throat can be slit, whereas the more traditional are unwilling to allow such stunning.
This article attracted my attention for a couple of reasons. First, it highlights the false belief of many people that religions are a reliable guide to what is morally right and wrong, or, even more mistaken, that religions are a source of moral right and wrong. When a religion, in this case Islam and Judaism, teach something that is morally wrong, such as needlessly causing pain and suffering to animals, that does not make the teaching or behaviour morally right, on the contrary, it proves that at least some teachings in the religion are immoral. Nor are the Jewish and Moslem faiths the only religion to teach injustice and immorality: I was brought up in the Catholic version of Christianity, and the Christian bible explicitly teaches many things that are grossly unjust and against moral right. For example, the Christian (also Jewish and Moslem) teaching on slavery is to condone it as we see, for example, in
Titus 2:9 which says: "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them (New International Version [NIV], 1984). Every other reference to slavery in the bible is consistent with this immoral teaching, which was very useful for slave owners when abolitionists in the US and elsewhere wanted to end that evil traditional cultural practice that most people at the time accepted.
As the ideas of Compassion in World Farming suggest, these religions are also characterized by a failure to reason clearly, sometimes to the point of hypocrisy and dishonesty. For example, if Christians were sincere in thinking that homosexuality is wrong because their bible says so, as it definitely does in
Leviticus 20:13, which commands that "if a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads", then they would also have to reject eating prawns, pork and other tasty foods, which are also clearly condemned in Leviticus (
Lev. 11:12 &
Lev. 11:7). Daily observation suggests that Christians are very fond of eating all of these forbidden tasty meats. The truth is that the Christian bible is wrong on all these matters. It is not a reliable guide to moral right and wrong.
And as I suggested in my introduction, eating meat also shows some problems in popular ideas about Buddhism. Some Buddhists think that the First Precept, which is commonly translated from Pali into English as: "I undertake the training rule to abstain from taking life" (
"Five Precepts". 2012), means that it's OK to eat meat provided you do not actually kill any animal with your own hands, whereas other Buddhists argue that it means you cannot normally eat meat because it causes the death of animals. Both of these groups of Buddhists cannot be right: one group must be wrong. It is the Buddhists such as Thailand's Santi Asoke group who are correct. The Buddha, and Buddhist teaching, place great emphasis on intention, and when people buy meat in a supermarket or order chicken at a restaurant, their intentions cause animals to be killed, thereby violating the First Precept of Buddhism. Of course, as the Buddha sensibly and rightly realised, sometimes it is necessary to eat meat, and in such cases, even killing an animal with your own hands is not against the First Precept's teaching because the action is forced by need, not an unnecessary intention to enjoy the delicious taste of meat. However, in Thailand today, and certainly in Bangkok, no one needs to eat meat. People eat pork, duck, steak and so on because they want to enjoy the great taste, not normally for any health or other necessity, and that freely chosen, intentional indulgence in a sensual pleasure which causes animals to be killed is against the First Precept of Buddhism.
Five Precepts. (2012, April 23). In
Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 00:49, May 8, 2012, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Five_Precepts&oldid=488892062
Leading vet criticises ritual slaughter of animals. (2012, May 5). BBC News. Retrieved May 5, 2012 from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17966327
.jpg)
