PETA Targets Tracy, CA Woman Over Animal Sacrifice

Apr 13, 2010 8:45 pm US/Pacific
PETA Targets Tracy Woman Over Animal Sacrifice

TRACY, Calif. (CBS13) ― Animal activists are urging authorities to investigate a woman who says she has carried out religious animal sacrifices in her backyard.

The Tracy homeowner, who asked to not be identified out of fear of harassment from neighbors, said she practices the African-Cuban religion of Santeria out of her home.

"We will kill with a knife," she said. " is consumed, we do cook it and it's consumed by the community."

The animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) was tipped off by neighbors, who saw live animals go into the home but never come out. A PETA statement to CBS13 said, "We felt that this matter deserved investigating and are glad that officials are taking it seriously."

The woman claims she's only killed animals one time in the year she's lived on Lynch Drive, but admits religious ceremonies draw more than three dozen members to the quiet street and sparks curiosity.

"They heard the music, they heard the puppies, they see people dressed in white and they thing we're doing something bad," she said.

more...
http://cbs13.com/local/tracy.animal.sacrifice.2.1631139.html

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 23,640 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2009, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 97 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2009, PETA found adoptive homes for just eight pets.

:wow:

nice job

you might want to educate yourself

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom

It's a combination of false data, data taken out of context, spun, manipulated, and misrepresented. Seriously friend, isn't it obvious to you that that site has an agenda? They aren't exactly subtle about it. My first reaction on reading ANYTHING argued the way they do is to suspect (practically be convinced) it's bullshit and, if the topic is relevant to me, research it deeper. No alarm bells went off for you when reading that?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

rescued. Dalmatians may no longer be the breed of the day, but the problem of unwanted and abandoned pets is as urgent as ever. Shelters around the country kill 4 million animals every year; by some estimates, more than 80 percent of them are healthy.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/134549

Are you saying you aren't aware of the millions of 'unwanted' pets who have to be euthanized each year?

and they kill animals because they can't warehouse them, that undercuts their credibility.

I'm going to start saying this openly. Pet ownership should be rare, and confined to those humans who truly need companionship: our isolated elders and disabled persons who can partner with a companion animal.

may mistaken.

Do you really mean that pet ownership should be allowed only for those people that somebody else thinks requires one ?

I would also like a cultural shift away from the idea of "owning" animals, but I would never attempt to legislate this. I can't speak for him or her, but I assume that's what he or she meant.

No pets ? I can understand why you don't want to legislate that. I don't think we will agree on the animal thing, I was just curious.

take care.

Very rarely here to people actually consider this position, instead resorting to hysterical images of PETA Shock Troops breaking down doors and stealing dogs and cats. I appreciate the question and your response, regardless of our difference of opinion.

Full disclosure, I have what amounts herd of animals in my care, so it's not like I don't understand the companionship angle.

-- NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/24/opinion/24sun3.html

It also includes a logical fallacy. Check the last paragraph.


That's clearly a false dichotomy.

The core of the CCF's argument is one of hypocrisy: It is unethical for PETA to euthanize unwanted shelter animals that have been given to them (as a shelter of last, last, last resort) while claiming to be People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Given that Rick Berman hasn't launched a SheltersKillAnimals.com website to attack the euthanasia of all unwanted animals--rather than the small fraction killed by PETA--I'd say that the dichotomy has already been created by the framing of the debate.

But please, do spell out the fallacy.

But I'll restate this again in simpler terms. Here's the original statement again:


Pay particular attention to the word "Only". The author suggests that PETA's position can't possibly be hypocritical if one believes that the ethical treatment of animals can include euthanasia. So in other words, if someone believes that's it's OK to occassionally euthanize an animal that goes to a shelter and isn't picked up by it's owner, they must also think it's OK to euthanize 95% of all the animals that aren't picked up by their owners. That is a fallacy, whether you choose to ignore it or not. Whether CCF's argument is hypocritical is completely irrelevant. BTW, the same argument has been framed by news organizations and other animal welfare organizations. Are they also hypocrites?

Glad to see this post doesn't disappoint. :thumbsup:

However, rhetorical hand-waving aside, you haven't demonstrated how the yes/no framing of the question of PETA's hypocrisy in euthanizing unwanted shelter animals is a false dichotomy. The false dichotomy was created and introduced to the debate by the CCF in their claim that PETA is unethical for practicing euthanasia on these unwanted animals (i.e., either PETA is an ethical organization or PETA euthanizes unwanted shelter animals). Yet you attempt to pin the creation of that black/white worldview on the author of this opinion piece rather upon the original source: a paid campaign by the CCF.

Bias is one thing, but blinders are quite another.

Actually I have demonstrated how it's a false dichotomy on two separate occasions. Now perhaps you lack the ability to understand what a false dichotomy is. I find this unlikely, but actually I gave you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you don't. The only other explanation I can come up with is you are intellectually dishonest and willfully ignorant. Perhaps there are other options, but I suspect not and I'm no longer willing to entertain them anyway, but I don't buy as an option that I didn't state the case for the author's false dichotomy quite clearly. Putting things in even simpler terms for you to understand, here's several definitions for 'false dichotomy' which are easily found with a 5 second google.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

http://info-pollution.com/false.htm

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FalseDichotomy

http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/98-99/logic/falsedichotomy.html

Now certainly those definitions are worded differently, but they all agree that a false dichotomy is a situation where someone is presented with only two options when the reality is there are more than two options. The author you posted clearly laid out a situation where there were only two options and I have clearly demonstrated their are more than two options. Ergo, that is a false dichotomy, by any widely accepted definition of the term. Your repeating the same nonsense ad nauseum does not change this.

All I did was point out your source was based on an opinion piece (which it clearly was and you don't seem to dispute) and the fallacy contained in that piece. Rather than acknowledge the obvious, or at the very least ignore it, you have chosen the path of flawed reasoning and character assignation. You also continue to try ad nauseum to steer the debate towards CCF, when clearly CCF has not one thing to do with my statement regarding your source. Why you would do these things is anyone's guess. I suspect you have some sort of bias towards me, probably because you dislike anyone who dares to question your assertions or you simply prefer character assignation to substantive debate. Or perhaps your idea of civilized discussion only includes those with whom you agree.

Whatever it is, I'm not playing your games anymore because...

1) You obviously have no interest in substantive discussion.

and

2) I don't find you at all amusing.

Feel free to have the last word, claim victory, and continue your games by yourself. I won't read them as I'm quite done with you in this thread. I have a fixed tolerance for absurdity and you've far exceeded your quota.

Have a nice day.

Where? :shrug: I didn't see it.

I'm asking you to s-p-e-l-l o-u-t precisely how and why that quote by the the opinion piece's author is a false dichotomy. I didn't ask for a definition of the fallacy, nor for examples of the fallacy in application. It's a simple question. Haughty indignation, cherry-picking, and an appeal to spite are clever tools in your toolbox, but they won't do the heavy lifting for you.

So when you say "ABDEFG"--expect me to say, "Hey, where's C?" :hi: There's one in every crowd.


I think this is the root of your disconnect here. My source for what? :shrug:

You are jumping at shadows, Choad. I didn't write the opinion piece, and I don't feel compelled to defend it as a "source" for anything.

I'm not a PETA member, either--but they don't deserve this hit job from well-financed hatchet-men like Berman. That's the context in which this opinion piece was written.

At least some of their claims are backed up by their FOIA request, which means the information came from the state. Now obviously the posting source is highly biased and should be viewed with a high degree of skepticism, but discounting all of their evidence on that basis alone is little more than ad hominem.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf

euthanized animals (especially when this particular screaming is being done by a corporate front group for industries that profit off of the slaughter of billions of animals) is an ad hominem as well.

You completely missed the part about the data that was provided by the state. Now clearly the organization is highly biased, but that doesn't automatically mean that everything they produce is ad hominem. Clearly PETA is highly biased against the commercial animal industry. Does that mean everything they produce, even if it's well sourced, is ad hominem and can be equally dismissed? So the question becomes, do you question the validity of the data provided by the state? If so, I'd be glad to hear why. If not, then it's going to take a bit more than an ad hominem accusation to discount it.

based on their own role in the slaughter of animals.

Look, if this was about PETA, that'd be fine, but be honest and admit that most DUers don't bring up CCF links because they have valid criticisms about PETA as an organization, but as another version of the "but your shoes are leather!" crap that is yelled at vegans all the time.

As far as the numbers go, yes, PETA does euthanize large numbers of animals it takes in, but some context would be nice. First, PETA is not nor did they ever claim to be an animal shelter. They are a shelter of last resort for shelters of last resort. Secondly, where is the CCF's outrage at the euthanizing of animals in shelters all over this country? They're not going after PETA because they care about animals, they're going after PETA because PETA criticizes the industries that the CCF represents.

The problem with starting a conversation with a CCF link is that the original premise is so dishonest as to be pointless to engage with.

For the record, I'm a looney radical vegan, and I don't like PETA. I'm not defending PETA, I just like pointing out nonsense.

But the allegations they make are not theirs alone. PETA has been questioned about their animal euthanasia policies for some time. And while your explanation may be a good one, it doesn't fully explain their behavior. If you look at 2000, they euthanized about 75% of the animals they took in. If they were a shelter of last resort, I would say that would be clearly reasonable. However, if you look at subsequent years, they euthanized a higher and higher percentage until they leveled off at about 95%. So in the last 4 years they have managed to put up less than 45 pets for adoption, after taking in almost 10,000. I find it hard to believe that they are even attempting to find homes for pets.

They most likely weren't. Most of the animals they take in are critically injured or otherwise "unadoptable."

For the record, I oppose PETA's stance on euthanasia.

The numbers posted by CCF don't draw a complete picture. Here's the numbers produced by the state:
http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2008

Notice that thousands of pets were reclaimed by their owners, as you would expect for any normal animal shelter, not one that only takes pets in critical condition.

The reclaims are likely those taking part in spay/neuter programs.

Peta is not a "normal" animal shelter. They aren't an animal adoption service. They provide humane euthanasia services for communities that cannot afford to do themselves.

CCF's claim that Peta is a bad organization because of their low adoption rate is a lot like claiming that the NY Yankees are a bad baseball team because they never score any touchdowns. It simply isn't what they do.

How can you possibly count a pet in a spay/neuter program as "received" by an animal shelter? That's a bit more of a stretch than I'm prepared to readily accept, and even if one could accept that, it still doesn't account for all the animals. Check the numbers again...

http://www.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2008

Notice that 2469 animals are listed as "Surrendered by Owner", which doesn't really sound like 'dropped off for spay/neuter.' Also notice that 7525 are listed as "Reclaimed by Owner." So even if you were to assume that all 2469 were dropped off to get spayed/neutered, you'd still have a discrepancy of 5,056 animals or about half of all the animals they took in, that were completely viable. It would test the limits of believability to assume that the other 5,000 animals they took in just so happened to not be viable.

Notice that those numbers are pretty close?

It just means that about 7500 animals out of about 10,000 came from someplace other than another agency or an owner drop off. That's part of my point. Only about 2500 are being dropped off by owners. You suggest those are part of some spay/neuter program. I can't buy that, but even if I could, that still leaves 5000 or so viable animals that are going back to their owners. Where did those animals come from? The numbers don't say, but wherever they are coming from, it's reasonable to assume they are coming from the same places as the 2500 or so that they euthanized that year. So this makes it hard to buy the "shelter of last resort" excuse. Especially when PETA has been widely reported to have euthanized perfectly adoptable pets soon after their acquisition. I find it much more plausible that PETA actively pursues pets wherever they can find them specifically with the intent of euthanizing them. This would be consistent with what Ingrid Newkirk has stated in the past. Now if that's their policy, fine by me, but I'm not sure why it appears as if they are deceptive about it unless they fear it would adversely affect their donations.

What specific (non-biased) points in your analysis led to this far-fetched conclusion?

What quotes from Newkirk support this super-secret agenda?

I'll remind you that you have provided no support for your own assertions even though I would consider several of them quite "far-fetched". I have already provided data that supports my assertions and opinions. If you want more, just ask for it and I'll be more than happy to provide it. At no point did I claim or even suggest her agenda was "super-secret". You can find some of her statements on her website. Others are widely available from "non-biased" sources. I assumed you were familiar with them, but if not I'll provide them. If you want to put words in my mouth or trade snarks, I'll simply dismiss you as someone who has no interest in substantive discussion.

Here's a few notable tidbits of information, but certainly not all inclusive of those that paint a clear picture of PETA's intentions. All were obtained from "non-biased" sources, including some from PETA itself.

Quotes by Igrid Newkirk:














From the PETA website: Instructions on how to trap and euthanize feral cats.

http://www.helpinganimals.com/Factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=141

What others have said about PETA, which is only one example of many similar:

http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAanimalpeople.htm

Newkirk can think and say whatever she likes about the history and future of animal domestication.

But you have provided no support for the leap of logic from Newkirk saying that we needn't own pets in order to love animals and enjoy them as companions to her actual implementation of a secret PETA mission to find, obtain, and euthanize as many animals from shelters as possible.

None. Zero. Zilch.

That's what's missing from your oh-so-civil reply, Choad. :thumbsdown:

However, I'd be happy to refute your implied claim that PETA's secret mission is to abolish pet ownership or animal domestication:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7407539&mesg_id=7407842

When I'm being civil to you, I don't think it's out of line to expect the same in return, no? So I don't appreciate your snark in reply to such a request. If those are the games you want to play, find someone else.

Next, it's by no means a leap of faith. My statement was clearly identified as my opinion, not a statement of fact. As such I feel no obligation to provide you with the smoking gun you demand. Even if you can explain away Newkirk's conflicting statements(and the best you could do here is hyperbole), you conveniently ignored the statements from others that have actually witnessed PETA doing exactly what you claim they aren't. "Leap of faith"??? Pffft. Hardly. And if it is, there are plenty of non-biased individuals and organizations that have leaped well before I did and the MSM felt they were credible enough to print them.

Moving on to the subject of non-biased sources, I'll use your words..."You've GOT to be kidding here." Your source is PETA itself. I find it pretty incredible that you demand non-biased sources from others, use completely biased sources yourself and then try to pass it off as "refute". If you actually held yourself to the standards you demand of others, you would have exactly... "None. Zero. Zilch." Do you actually expect PETA to admit to their nefarious motives, especially when some of their actions may be illegal and would certainly affect their donations negatively? Using your same logic, I suppose if I want to know if the GOP uses racism to achieve political goals, I need only reference the propaganda on their web site or ask Glenn Beck. If I get a negative response I MUST conclude they have none. I don't buy that reasoning. I'm not sure who would, really. Actions speak louder than words as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.

Cheers!

If someone claims that AIPAC has a super-secret agenda to take over the USA so they can drink the blood of gentile babies, I'm likely to go to the source to see what they say on the matter, and I'm also likely to reject leaps of logic that claim an understanding of a hidden agenda that is unknown to the general public.

Prejudice is an ugly thing. :thumbsdown:

Now you're just diving into the depths of absurdity. I don't intend on following you down that rabbit hole.

Have a nice day!

You wouldn't make the same leap of logic regarding another organization--for example, AIPAC--but you're quite willing to allow your anti-PETA prejudice to color your judgment regarding their "super-secret hidden agenda," while categorically denying that anything the organization says about itself should be taken as the truth.

You can call me crazy all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that emotion has trumped logic in your argument. I don't like Republicans, and I despise those who have been convicted of child molestation, but you don't see me claiming that the GOP has a super-secret hidden pro-pedophile agenda.

So keep on hating PETA if it gives you a thrill, Chode, but don't pretend that you're delivering a dispassionate verdict from an unassailable ivory tower of Logic. It's quite clear that your high horse is a muddy little donkey.

Confirmation bias.
Occam's Razor.

:hi:

"Other"= 7502
"Reclaimed by Owner"= 7525

THAT is the spay/neuter program. I don't understand your confusion.

Understand that the stories about Peta that have been "widely reported" are often "widely reported" by CCF and its offshoots. Drawing the conclusion that Peta is somehow hunting pets with the intent of euthanization seems far more implausible than simply understanding what Peta is and does, but hey, sometimes when people hear hoofbeats in Central Park, they're going to look for zebras. Sometimes they may even look for the headless horseman, as seems to be the case here.

I'm not sure how you can possibly know that, but for the sake of argument we'll say you do.

So you're saying the ~7500 pets in the "Other" category are dropped off to be fixed, and the ~7500 pets marked "Reclaimed by Owner" are the same pets. That leaves ~2500 pets outstanding from the ~10,000 total. 2469 animals are listed as "Surrendered by Owner" which is virtually all the remaining. This flies in the face of the previous poster's contention that PETA is the "shelter of last resort" who receives pets from other shelters. Furthermore it means that almost all the pets that were dropped off directly by owners not participating in the spay/neuter program were euthanized (2369 out of 2469). I'm not really sure how this makes PETA look any better. Perhaps you can clear up the remaining confusion.

I hate to be pesky about requesting proof, but if you have any actual sources that verify what you assert as fact feel free to provide them as I'd be interested in having a look. The numbers I provided didn't come from CCF, they came directly from the state of VA. There's also plenty of evidence from other animal welfare organizations, veternarians, Newsweek, SFGate, and at least one police dept that I'm reasonably sure aren't affiliated with CCF. If you have any evidence they are affiliated with CCF, I'd be glad to see that too.

It's a front.

1. www.rottenacorn.com -- attacks ACORN

2. www.cspiscam.com -- attacks the Center for Science in the Public Interest

3. www.fishscam.com -- attacks the reporting of mercury levels in fish

4. www.obesitymyths.com -- attacks anti-obesity campaigns

5. www.rethinkreform.com -- attacks health care reform efforts

6. www.minimumwage.com / www.livingwage.com -- attacks the minimum wage

7. www.unionfacts.com -- attacks unions

And don't forget his recent campaign against the Humane Society, in which he claims they fund terrorism.

:eyes:

Oh yeah, this is definitely a guy who should be lionized and widely quoted by Democrats.

I just don't get it!!

For those who have no idea what we're talking about, start here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tyson_Foods

Richard Berman is not a reliable source; he is a paid, pro-big-business, anti-legislation activist.
The "Center for Consumer Freedom" :eyes: is not a reliable source; it's a pro-industry, anti-consumer front group.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_Berman_cares_about_animals:_clients_exposed
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rick_Berman
http://www.bermanexposed.org/

Berman is notorious in the political world for his anti-ACORN work, with sites like RottenAcorn.com. And yet DUers are willing to fall for his anti-PETA work, simply because these DUers also happen to hold an anti-PETA bias?

:banghead:

Rebuttals are always met with crickets. I only say this because I'm concerned about your forehead.

But things change, so who knows? :shrug:

Besides which, hopefully another DUer will find the info useful.

Feel free to ignore it as usual, though.

Ron Paul 2012!

makes them. Maybe you could post a list of all sites people should not read.

LOL. Clearly.

Better to be careful than snookered, I say. But YMMV. :shrug:

:popcorn:

we're gonna need TONS of the stuff! :popcorn: :bounce:

kind of like a BBQ, but it was whiffs of death. And I think she is also using a recipe from Olive Garden :)

if she wasn't also blasting that John Tesh music on her radio. That's what really creeped people out.

which, BTW, the PETA people hate too.

Most of the time when Santerians come into the neighborhood and start sacrificing animals, the Christians are the ones who go apeshit and pass resolutions barring the Santerians from worshipping in ways "offensive" to the community, like...well, cutting animals' heads off. I recommend those people read the first four chapters of the Book of Leviticus (which give specific instructions for sacrificing animals). I figure if it wasn't for all that dancing, the Christians screaming about Santerian religious practices would think this was just fine.

So long as she treated it decently before killing it and slaughtered it in a relatively quick fashion -- which most religions generally do by cutting the throat -- I'm not terribly freaked-out.

Yay Hollywood........

Just don't do the deed in the middle of a pentagram during a full moon.

That's a shitty thing to do.

"We felt that this matter deserved investigating and are glad that officials are taking it seriously." -- PETA



An investigation was performed. No animal abuse was found.

So why the PETA hate again? If animal abuse had been found, what then?

What's next for these eco-terrorists, a strongly-worded letter?

Are you that naive?

I care about the rule of law as well, so I'll say up front that if the police thought that this was simply a case of nosy neighbors displaying their ethnic/religious prejudice/ignorance, they shouldn't have investigated.

It's not PETA's job to make police policy; it's their mission to speak out (albeit loudly and often shrilly) against animal abuse.

So I'll ask again: What if the investigation had resulted in charges of animal abuse?

But that's not the point. I say "Fuck PETA" because they would have sicced the cops on her even if they had full-knowledge of her practices.

Livestock (chickens and goats) I can see some exception for, even if it is for religious nutjobbery instead of food. People have slaughtered their own livestock pretty much forever. But domestic pets? That shit ain't right. Am I to understand that this crazy lady is killing puppies under the guise of "gawd" and she's not yet been arrested?

Goats, not puppies.

Yeah, I dunno why that was in the article, but it seemed to have been clear they were killing goats...

Puppies according to another. Quality reporting we get these days, innit?

...it's not a sound you'd hear and immediately think "Aha! That's a goat!"

It's different. Suburban ears might think "puppy," as I think back upon it. It's a disturbing sound, no question. After you hear it a few dozen times in context, oddly enough, it causes your mouth to water.

Just reporting, not editorializing, by the way.

My guess is this has alot more to do with how much their neighbors fear their religion then how they prepare their food.

Hmm...a goat you say?

what's going on? Not STOPPING, but INVESTIGATING? Why should we assume the woman is doing this in a huamne way? She might be, she might not be. That's what an INVESTIGATION is all about.

One minute PETA is investigating animal cruelty, and the next thing you know PETA Special Tactical Units are deployed across the country, kicking in doors and stealing hamburgers from people's mouths at gunpoint. I applaud these brave DUers willing to take a stand against the investigation of animal abuse and the utter horrors that will result if this is allowed to continue.

PETA is just jumping on it for the publicity. My bet is the Santeria HPS will shrug it off and ignore their ranting since she has done nothing wrong. Any investigation will go nowhere fast.

Then why don't they investigate? This is about people who care about animals seeing they are not tortured.

This is about neighbors being fearful of a "scary" religion and calling the police. The PETA decided to jump on the attention bandwagon. There will be an investigation and nothing will result from it besides inconveniencing the people and wasting resources.

Unless you are a member of one of these religions you really won't understand. I've been questioned about my religion by child services due to "concerned neighbors". Fortunately the worker was terrific and I was cleared of suspicion. I still have his card so I can call him if it ever happens again.

...sorry you had a bad experience, but I see no harm in this...if there is no problem, then fine, it's settled...people do stupid, cruel things to animals far too often and I'd rather err on the side of caution.

Except having a goat within city limits.

The investigation appears to have been performed.

The government isn't supposed to investigate you for criminal activity until there is some sort of indication or probable cause to believe that you're breaking the law. If there are no indications that she broke the law, the police have no business investigating her.

But I wouldn't someone next door to me
slaughtering animals for sacrifise and food if
we are in a relatively urban neighborhood.

Tracy is not exactly the country -- maybe the Santeria community
would be wise to buy a small farm and continue
their practices there.

They sacrifice and eat certain types of animals. No different then many other cultures. I would bet the complaining neighbors buy their meat nice and dead and prepackaged for them. Peta is picking on the wrong people.

There are many misconceptions about non-abrahamic religions.

I live in South Texas and we come across practitioners of that ancient religion on occasion. It's not just that they kill animals, but they TORTURE animals.

It is possible to practice Santeria, Macumba, Vodoun, etc. without ever sacrificing a single animal.

I've seen first hand the remains of animals who have been mutilated during Santeria practices, and those animals obviously suffered great pain and anguish before they died.

I've seen first hand the remains of animals who have been mutilated during Santeria practices, and those animals obviously suffered great pain and anguish before they died.

That doesn't mean they all do it, nor that it's an essential component of the religion.

The practitioners of Santeria that I have known have been kind and gentle people. People often portray my religion in a bad light also due to their own ignorance.

Keep it up, everyone!

:applause:

Oh sure, today PETA fights animal abuse, but they REALLY want to take over the WORLD and kill ALL of the animals to save them!

Or so I've heard. :crazy:

I think that's my favorite.

Everyone's heard about it--absolutely everyone!

Unfortunately, no one ever called the police or the media. Ever. Even after PETA poisoned their beloved dogs.

Go figure. :shrug:

Honest to goodness.

Or are we to assume that these so-called "dog owners" have a secret anti-dog agenda?

I'm shocked (shocked! I tell you) that the AKC didn't publish something addressing this.

From upthread:

Truthiness in action!

If my neighbors are taking animals into their homes, and they never see the light of day again, you better believe I will make some phone calls. Even is she were raising these animals to eat (or sacrificing, whatever), there should be guidelines to follow.

How is this different than me buying a dead animal in a store, cooking it up, and then eating it?

Two crazy groups that go great together!

:popcorn:

I've done ethnographic papers on the Santeria religion in my Anthropology of Religion class, and those who practice the religion have nothing but the utmost respect for the animals they sacrifice. And when the animals are killed, they are done so very quickly to minimize the suffering of the animal.

And I just want to point out I'm not defending religion here. I'm a secular humanist, but I do believe people should be able to practice any religion they want, just as long as they don't force it down anyone else's throats.

And on a much lighter note, I couldn't help but think of this song when I read the article: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEYN5w4T_aM

Fuck them.