‘Male writers get asked what they think, women what they feel’ »« Don’t cut the throats of conscious animals. Stun animals before slaughter.

Animals sacrifice for gods. (warning: violent images)

Humans have been sacrificing animals for gods since ancient times. This will be continued as long as gods exist in people’s minds. People from almost all religions, regions, cultures sacrificed animals. Most communities still do it. They still think gods need blood.

Animal Sacrifice in ancient times:

animal sacrifice 1

animal sacrifice9

animal sacrifice11

animal sacrifice 2

animal sacrifice13


animal sacriice 3



Animal Sacrifice in modern times:

animal sacrifice8



animal sacrifice 5

animal sacrifice 4



animal sacrifice14




  1. Maneesh says

    This is bloody crazy. If any person is god fearing/loving in any religion, he should sacrifice himself. Why kill helpless and gullible animals in the name of god.

  2. kamal sapra says

    Luckily in Hinduism! Reforms , logical & scientific thinkings are taking place inspite of few orthodox. Majority or upto 99% of hindus, long years ago have shun this inhuman practice or ritual of senseless killing of poor animals in the name of GOD. Rest 1 % will be reformed soon.

    • Abhishek Bs says

      You might have not visited rural India. Practice of offering Animals’ life in the name of god is still found in abundance. Main reason is they want some flesh to eat (every1 who sacrifice Animals for God)!

  3. voidhawk says

    If one eats meat raised and slaughtered in modern intensive farming, they have no grounds to protest at the animal sacrifice shown here. Usually the animal to be sacrificed is raised comparatively well, it’s just the last moments which are brutal and violent.

    Why is it worse that a cow is ritually slaughtered for the sake of a god than thousands of cows which are murdered without even the bother of ritual to be wasted for the sake of a capitalist system which would rather mountains of meat be thrown away than risk running short on the shelves?

    • says

      I know farm animals suffer a lot. They deserve to grow up in a much better condition. Anyway, don’t you think it is better to tell the truth that humans need meat rather than god needs blood?

      • voidhawk says

        Humans don’t need meat, especially those in the developed world. (There is an argument that in more arid conditions (or on islands too small to support proper farming) that meat is a necessity) I’d prefer that we weren’t killing the animals at all.

        Yes I’d like to eliminate animal sacrifice but the amount of suffering caused by it is insignificant when it comes to the suffering we put animals through through farming. I realise that I’m in danger of giving a ‘dear Muslimah’ post but if we criticise the suffing of animals through sacrifice whilst tucking into a burger, I think that not only are our priorities screwed, but it’s very easy to be seen as hypocrites.

        • says

          Millions of humans want to eat meat. I want meat. You should respect the right of meat eaters to eat meat as we respect the right of vegetable eaters to eat vegetables. Humans are basically meat eaters. For religious and ideological or health reasons many humans become vegetarians. It does not mean that everybody has to change their food habits. We don’t force animals to change their habits. Grass eaters continue eating grasses, meat eaters continue eating meat. What I think is urgently necessary is to improve the living conditions of farm animals. They should be slaughtered only in the standard slaughter houses and the most modern scientific slaughter method should be used which gives almost no pain or the least pain possible.

          • voidhawk says

            With respect ‘I want to’ isn’t a strong moral argument. If I have to respect your want to eat meat, why shouldn’t I respect the want to sacrifice a cow to a favoured god? Even if the deity doesn’t exist they could enjoy doing it for the tradition/ entertainment/ whatever other reason you choose The rest of the response is simply the naturalistic fallacy writ large.

            We not only force animals to change their habits all the time (Guard dogs, beasts of burden) but we ourselves have changed. The appendix was used to help process the grasses we no longer eat.

            I think we more or less agree that animals should suffer as little as possible, we just seem to disagree on how best to achieve that and the priority in which we should tackle it. I think we should first make sure animals are treated humanely in farming as those of us who can reduce our meat consumption to the point where barbaric farming practices are no longer necessary. At the same time we can reduce sacrifice where possible, but I think our attention should be focussed more on meat and dairy animals which are treated atrociously and in vast numbers, rather than the relatively tiny number of sacrificial animals who have a fairly decent life before being ritually butchered.

          • Jet says


            It sounds as if you may be overestimating the actual amount of suffering that takes place on farms. Richard Carrier has blogged about this before and is an excellent starting point for more information.


            The article is worth reading in full, but, in brief, we cannot currently stop killing animals without there being some serious effects to the wellbeing of many people both in developed nations and undeveloped nations (both nutritionally and economically, as animal products are used for more than just food). Our goal then, should be to continue killing animals while minimizing their suffering (and this can be accomplished by the widespread adoption of animal husbandry laws like those in California).

          • voidhawk says

            Jet, I’m fully aware that conditions aren’t concentration-camp like but I’ve seen enough farms here in Britain as well as abroad to know that the nice, clean facilities on RC s blog do not represent a universal. In addition, even if it only causes a small amount of suffering, surely it is preferable to have a system which results in none?

            I’m not advocating an overnight global conversion to vegetarianism, that’s obviously stupid. I just think we should slowly reduce our consumption where feasible. I’ve already stated that I’m some parts of the world meat is a vital source of food. (further the environmental perspective is that we need to drastically reduce our consumption, but an outright rejection of meat can be more environmentally harmful.) And to care for the animals we do eat carefully and humanely.

          • Erection says

            Millions of males want to ass fuck females. I want to ass fuck. You should respect the right of ass fuckers to ass fuck as we respect the right of females to be fucked vaginally. Males are basically ass fuckers. For religious and sympathetic or health reasons many males become pussy fuckers. It does not mean that everybody has to change their fuck habits. We don’t force males to change their habits. Pussy fuckers continue to fuck pussies, ass fuckers continue to fuck ass. What I think is urgently necessary is to improve the living conditions of females. They should be ass fucked only when they are menstruating and the most modern scientific ass fuck method should be used which gives almost no pain or the least pain possible.

  4. Amitava Ghosh says

    প্রাণী হত্যা ঠিক কি ভুল সে বিতর্ক অন্য সময় করা যাবে।জীবের সাথে জীবের খাদ্য খাদক সম্পর্ক।
    অন্য মাংসাশী জীবের সঙ্গে মানুষের পার্থক্য আছে।মানুষ সাধারনত কা”চা মাংস খায় না।উন্নত বুদ্ধি বৃত্তির দ্বারা নিত্য নতুন প্রনালী উদ্ভাবনের ফলে মানুষ কা”চা মাংস ভিন্ন স্বাদে গ্রহন করে।
    এই সত্যি স্বীকার করতে অসুবিধা কোথায়?কেন খাদ্যের প্রয়োজনে মাংস সংগ্রহ কে ধর্মিয় আবরনে মুড়তে হবে?কেন খাদ্য সংগ্রহ করতে গিয়ে পাশবিক মনোবৃত্তির পরিচয় দিতে হবে?
    নিষ্ঠুরতা মানুষের সাজে না।সর্বোন্নত চেতনা সমৃদ্ধ প্রাণী হিসেবে নিজেকে জাহীর করা মানুষের শোভা পায় কি?
    তোমাকে আমাকে বা আমাদের মত অনেককে যে কু প্রথা(স্বভাব)কষ্ট দিচ্ছে,ব্যাথা দিচ্ছে সেই কু প্রথা(স্বভাব) কিছু মানুষ আনন্দের সাথে পালন করছে।চিন্তা ভাবনার এই পার্থক্য কেন হয় জানিনা,তবে
    এই পার্থক্য ঘোচাতেই হবে।ধর্মিয় মৌলবাদের বিরুদ্ধে হাতিয়ার হোক শিক্ষা আর মানবিক মুল্যবোধ।

  5. Abdul Ghafoor says

    God seems to be a very blood thirsty creature. Especially the Semitic god. Could it be that the clergy, not having the resources to eat meat on their own, created a god who wanted the sacrifice of the flesh and then gorged on it telling the pious that it was god the glutton. Whatever the case, god is some blood thirsty psychopath.

  6. Amitava Ghosh says

    মানুষের পাশবিক প্রবৃত্তির নমুনা। আদিম যুগ থেকে চলে আসছে।পশু হত্যার প্রয়োজনীয়তা নিয়ে মতভেদ থাকতে পারে কিন্তু জীবের সাথে জীবের খাদ্য-খাদক সম্পর্ক এব্যাপারে কোন সন্দেহ থাকতে
    পারে না।প্রশ্ন হচ্ছে হত্যার পদ্ধতি নিয়ে।জীবন হানী করে খাদ্য সংগ্রহ করার মধ্যে এমন পৈশাচিক মনোভাবের বহিঃপ্রকাশ আদৌ সমর্থন যোগ্য নয়।ধর্মীয় মৌলবাদ এ ঘটনা মেনে নিতে পারে কিন্তু মানবিকতা, মুল্যবোধ এ ঘটনা ঘৃনার সঙ্গে নাকচ করে।
    আসলে ধর্ম যাবতীয় কুকাজ সমর্থন করে যার জন্যে মানুষ জঘন্য অপরাধ কোরে ধর্মের আশ্রয় নেয় এবং
    অপরাধ বোধের গ্লানিতে ভোগে না।সন্ধ্যাহ্নিক কোরে বা নামাজ পড়ে সব পাপ ধুয়ে ফেলার এই তাতক্ষানিক উপায় মানুষ কে আরও বেশি করে অপরাধ করতে প্ররোচনা যোগায়।
    মানবিকতা ও মুল্যবোধ কে হাতিয়ার করে ধর্মীয় মৌলবাদের বিরুদ্ধে আপোস হীন সংগ্রাম এই অপরাধ প্রবনতা থেকে বেরিয়ে আসার পথ দেখাবে।
    sorry for posting once again due to some inclusion.

  7. busterggi says

    Of course that’s only because most have given up on human sacrifices, something even Yahweh demanded originally (there are still traces in the OT). That’s why you have to respect that guy in India who sacrificed his daughter to Kali last week as much as any other theist.

  8. lorn says

    Life feeds on life. Death is never pleasant. There are no good ways to die. Some are more painful and/or traumatic than others but this is a matter of being more or less bad, never one of good versus bad. A wolf killing game by ripping its genitals off and waiting for it to be weakened by the trauma, sometimes waiting hours before going in for the kill, as bloodier and more painful, but no less effective than human methods. Meat is murder, get over it. That said …

    As notionally moral beings, and claiming to at least being nominally sensitive to suffering of other sentient beings, our obligation to ourselves as moral being is to at least consider the suffering where it is practical to do so. But this is an entirely human centered conceit. Nature has no morality. You either survive and reproduce , or you don’t. Sneaking up and ripping off an animals genitals so they suffer shock and fall unconscious is a fine way taking down large prey species with little risk. The wolf wants the calories and nutrition embodied in the prey and wants to get it at the smallest possible cost. Without expending too much energy and, highly preferred, without getting injured. Even minor injuries can doom a predator.

    Note that in earlier centuries gourmands claimed that animals which had suffered tasted better. It was considered the height of culinary fashion to have cows beat to death with whips. It typically took hours and whip swingers were worked in shifts. Cattle killed this were considered to be the very best beef for feasting and special occasions. Much like we now consider Kobe beef to be the best for entirely different reasons.

    All of these considerations and judgments are entirely based on human judgment and huge doses of anthropomorphism. The universe does not care. The universe does not judge.

    Selecting options for animal slaughter by visceral reaction to lurid photographs, essentially emotionalism based upon aesthetics, is silly. If the desire is to make the process more humane it would be simple enough to take blood samples of animals slaughtered and assay the stress hormones. This would be, IMHO, a practical and scientific approach that avoids making assumptions about what animals find traumatic. If anyone had any relevant research available I would love to see it.

    Based upon the literature I have read, and my own personal experience of bleeding and bleeding animals after hunting, albeit, anecdotal evidence, I suspect that death by massive blood loss, as long as other stressors are limited, ranks low on the amount of suffering imposed.

  9. Jeanette says

    MEN MEN MEN. What horrible disgusting uncivilized barbaric pieces of you know what. HOW COULD MEN HURT AN INNOCENT ANIMAL???!! These are men”s ideas and working, not women”s. Men are just plain evil. When they’re not raping, hurting, assaulting, abusing, making women”s lives miserable, molesting, etc they are hurting ANIMALS. I LOVE animals and respect them as living, breathing beings with hearts and souls. Men have no hearts and souls.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>