Animal Worship & Sacrifice
We have a complex relationship with animals, covering the whole gamut of human emotion including worship, love, fear, sacrifice and, of course, desire to consume. Our activities have impacted the fate of animals in diverse ways, ranging from extinction to mass breeding, interference with evolution to cloning and genetic modification. Humans turn to religion for behavioural guidance when seeking to answer fundamental questions concerning their role in the broader reality. Our relationship with other species is one such topic.
This article suggests that religious engagement with questions relating to animals have consistently added little value on this topic. This review only skims the surface – most religions have entire books dedicated to their dietary laws alone. However, it seems that religions only focus upon animals insofar as they impact humans, and whilst religious difference between faiths is the norm, regulation concerning animals seems to be extremely inconsistent and complex.
Animal Worship
A distinction exists between the worship of animals as Gods and symbolic deific attribution to animals, either as representatives of Gods or of desirable qualities. We can only speculate whether man’s earliest pre-historic drawings indicate worship of them or were drawn symbolically to denote admiration for certain qualities such as speed or strength. Either purpose can impact the fate of animals in various and unpredictable ways.
We believe that those animals that were themselves directly worshiped largely, although not entirely, escaped the widespread religious practice of animal sacrifice. Animals such as tigers or rhinos may have been and continue to be admired, although not worshiped, for specific attributes of theirs. Species have been driven close to extinction by humans seeking to obtain certain animal parts, the consumption of which would allegedly ensure attribute transfer to humans.
The lines between admiration and worship can be blurred. I have been unable to find a contemporary religion practicing direct deific worship of animals, but ‘zooism’, the worship of animals as representatives of deities, is still quite widespread. For example, snakes are worshipped in India as a connection to Shiva and the cycle of life and death. In some southern US churches snakes are handled and venerated during services, although not worshipped, as the facilitator of Eve’s temptation of Adam.
Dogs, often characterised as ’man’s best friend’, are eaten with relish in some Chinese provinces, to the horror of many Westerners, during a ten-day annual festival in Gungxi where around ten thousand dogs are killed and consumed. However, this is not an Eastern/Western cultural divide. In Nepal, during the Hindu Kukur Tihar festival, dogs are worshipped as messengers to the God of Death. Elephants, still sometimes cruelly treated as beasts of labour in parts of northern India, are worshiped in south India. There are also degrees of religious respect that fall short of worship. Cows are treated as ‘holy’ by Hindus everywhere but are not worshipped. They are allowed to wander freely and are respected as associated with Aditi, the mother of all Gods.
Animal Sacrifice
Hinduism and Buddhism encourage vegetarianism to varying degrees. Not all sects of Hinduism advocate vegetarianism, and only around one third of Hindus are thought to be vegetarian. All Hindus avoid beef as they view the cow as holy. Some schools of Buddhism are strictly vegetarian whilst others regard it as a matter of personal choice and will eat meat. Jaines and Sikhs each have their own dietary laws, again with variance as to observation. It is estimated that two thirds of Jaines, the more restrictive of the two, are vegetarian, and a significant proportion of those vegan.
The indigenous religion of Shamanism is still practiced in many parts of Africa, and animals are killed as part of rituals of carrying messages to the dead. Missionary activity led to the widespread adoption of Christianity, but often syncretically with Shamanism. The result is that many ‘churches’ still practice ritual animal slaughter as part of ‘Christian’ services. Santerianism, a syncretism of Yoruba practices and Roman Catholicism developed by slaves in the Caribbean and US, has an estimated 10 million adherents including many in the US, and continues to practice animal sacrifice. In 1993 the US Supreme court ruled an attempt by Florida to ban animal sacrifice as unconstitutional.
Even within the Abrahamic faith there is little consistency in approach. Christianity respects the sanctity of all life, thus encouraging care and respect for animals. There is neither a generalised nor specific restriction on eating any particular animals. Nevertheless, several monastic orders such as Benedictines and Franciscans choose to be predominantly pescatarian, with many members practising vegetarianism.
The other two Abrahamic faiths both forbid the eating of pork and restrict consumption of animals to those that have been slaughtered according to rules designed to ensure humane slaughter (‘halal’ for Muslims, ‘kosher’ for Jews). Muslims in many countries still sacrifice an animal during Dhuli-Hijjah in commemoration of Ibrahim’s willingness to sacrifice Ishmael. Certain Hindu sects perform sacrifice as part of a variety of rituals. Orthodox Jews do not mix milk and meat and insist upon a minimum time gap between consumption of one after the other. As with all other religious dietary restrictions, an immense range of interpretations of this rule exists, the most stringent adherents having two entirely separate kitchens, and sets of crockery and cutlery, one for milk and one for meat.
It should be noted that while most religious limitations on the eating of animals are said to stem from respect or concern for the animals, religious dietary restrictions are not restricted to animals alone. Jaines and some Hindus and Sikhs either avoid certain root vegetables or restrict eating them to certain parts of the month. There are numerous further complications. Sikhs who are vegetarian are usually not vegan and will eat dairy products free from animal fat. As amongst Jews, or indeed, secular vegetarians, different levels of observance exist on the avoidance of animal derivate products such as gelatine or stock or the wearing of some animal-derived clothing such as leather.
Religious Restrictions are Human-Centred
The range of praxis suggests that religious restriction concerning the eating animals has little to do with the status of animals. The high overlap in the foods banned by Muslims and Jews is noteworthy: both ban foods that deteriorate fastest in hot climates and are most likely to lead to serious illness if eaten after decay. This has led to the suggestion that the dietary laws of both were, in reality, early advanced food science. A competing sociological suggestion is that the coincidence of almost every religion having food restrictions without a scientific basis indicates a desire by each to keep its adherents from mixing socially with other religions.
This brief survey of religious practice concerning different areas of encounter with animals has demonstrated not only disparate laws and practices across religions, but inconsistencies within them. The hotchpotch of religious rulings derived from human perception seem to demonstrate an approach towards our fellow creatures on earth driven entirely by human perception rather than concern for them. Akin to the ‘green religion’ movement, it appears major religions are playing catch up with the times, in a bid to remain relevant and appear as though these concerns have always been at the fore.
Religious regulation of animals has always been framed in anthropocentric terms. Perhaps because its only over the past half century that our mistreatment of animals can be seen to have direct and detrimental consequences for humankind. Prior to this, animals were a tool – a form of technology even – which we used primarily as instruments of progress and development. As we face new challenges, religions will undoubtedly endeavour to adjust; but this seems more of an attempt to keep up with the times than a genuine framework for managing the complicated relationship between humans and animals in the twenty-first century.