Kyrgyzstan: ritual slaughtering sheep to combat crisis

[wautd]

Kyrgyzstan politicians slaughter sheep to exorcize 'evil spirits

Thursday, April 21, 2011 - Politicians in Kyrgyzstan recently ritually slaughtered seven sheep in parliament to exorcize "evil spirits" from the chamber, following a string of violent incidents.
The parliament press service said the sheep were killed in a ritual sacrifice within the walls of the Zhogorku Kenesh parliament in Kyrgyzstan's capital Bishkek.

"Parliament deputies are hoping to chase evil spirits from the Zhogorku Kenesh," an official with the public relations department said.

Earlier this month, politicians arranged an armed showdown after a parliamentary row in the chamber over corruption got out of hand, according to security forces.

Ten handguns and an AK47 rifle were seized after police sealed off the building.

The impoverished former Soviet nation went through a series of violent clashes last year when a bloody revolution last April which unseated president Kurmanbek Bakiyev was followed by deadly inter-ethnic clashes in June.

"The meat of the sacrificial sheep will be sent to a home for the elderly, an orphanage and a mosque," he said.

"We're hoping that the tragic events that happened last year will not be repeated and peace and stability will settle in the country."

This is just sad

[Soldier of Entropy]

It's not that bad; the meat is being donated to a good cause, at least. I'd say the fact that they're having armed fights in the parliament building is worse than the ritual sacrifice, as much as it is a useless bit of superstition.

[K. A. Pital]

Central Asia reverting to its natural state, "free" at last.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Eh, it's no more irrational than the Governor of Texas officially calling for three days of prayer for rain, as is being discussed here. At least they can eat the sheep afterwards, you can't drink prayer.

[Simon_Jester]

I would argue that it is, indeed, worse, for a number of reasons.

-Unless I am much mistaken, the Kyrgyzstani legislature is slaughtering sheep as part of a specific religious ceremony; Governor Perry's request was ecumenical and thus does not discriminate among members of various religions. There is no single official religion that the state government of Texas is willing to kill sheep over.

-Animal sacrifices are, I would argue, a more atavistic religious practice- a stronger invocation of times when religion was the dominating factor in cultural life, and when people were far more likely to be harmed for the sake of other people's religious beliefs. The willingness of the faithful to put literal blood on their hands is generally not a good sign in this respect.

-A prayer is something that can be associated with (as noted above) a wide, ecumenical variety of religious views, including ones that are in no way incompatible with the function of a healthy civilization. You do not have to be a fanatic in order to pray. Or to be comforted by the idea that others are praying. I feel that the practice of animal sacrifice requires a greater degree of fanaticism, and thus potential folly.

[Metahive]

Animal sacrifice is no less ecumenical than prayer and really, prayer (just another form of magical chanting) is about as "atavistic", just less elaborate. All abrahamic religions and Hinduism contain examples of it, Christianity even centers around friggin' human sacrifice as people might know. This is not one bit different from Perry's idiotic calls for make-it-rain magic. I think the Texas example is worse since that's a mostly stable modern first world nation while Kyrgyzstan is third world and wrecked by political harship.

[Serafina]

I agree with Simon on the first two points here, and with Metahive on the third point.

You also have to keep in mind that those animal sacrifices are apparently not burnt or such, and just ritually slaughtered. That's not that different from just slaughtering them in any other way, so i'd argue that it doesn't require that much fanaticism. It might be a bit alien to us, since the religions we are familiar with don't do that, but that doesn't mean that one made-up fairy tale is more backwards or worse than the other made-up fairy tale.

Now of course slaughtering animals in general might conflict with some religions, so might prayer to a monotheistic entity (or indeed prayer for help in general).
The point is that this is not really worse, on it's own, than prayer.

Now if they were burning the livestock for religious reasons or such, then i'd agree that it requires more fanaticism than prayer.


Oh, and i am not trying to say that this is not a barbaric embrace of state religion. It clearly is, i just don't agree that "ritual animal slaughter=greater fanaticism than prayer".

[Broomstick]

Actually, in order to be kosher an animal must be slaughtered in what amounts to a animal sacrifice rite. Just because it's not done in a public square as a spectacle doesn't mean it's absent. Likewise, Islam requires explicit animal sacrifice at times.

So, really, religions we are familiar with, including major monotheisms, do in fact practice animal sacrifice. We just don't call it that on a regular basis and in many cases it's not even seen.

[Metahive]

Additionally, some sects like The First Church of Christ,Scientist AKA Christian Science eschew medical treatment in favor of prayers for health. Considering that this can and has lead to needless deaths I'd argue that prayer can be about as fanatical and threatening an activity as animal sacrifice.

[Serafina]

Actually, in order to be kosher an animal must be slaughtered in what amounts to a animal sacrifice rite. Just because it's not done in a public square as a spectacle doesn't mean it's absent. Likewise, Islam requires explicit animal sacrifice at times.

So, really, religions we are familiar with, including major monotheisms, do in fact practice animal sacrifice. We just don't call it that on a regular basis and in many cases it's not even seen.

I'm quite aware of that, i actually watched those procedures a couple of times.
But as you said, it is not called "animal sacrifice", so for most intents and purposes, the public perception in the west is not familiar with religions that practice animal sacrifices.

Ironically, the thread title gets it right: It's ritual slaughtering, not a sacrifice. Sacrifice means that, well, you sacrifice part of the animal in such a way that it is no longer usable, generally by burning it. Unless that's one, it's just a formalized way of killing the animal.
There isn't that much difference between ritual slaughter and, say, ritual handwashing. It's a ritual that doesn't cost you more than a little bit of time.
Now you might get nitpicky and say that some ritual slaughtering procedures waste a lot of blood, but in many cultures (including ours!) blood is not a desired part of the animal anyway.

[Simon_Jester]

[a number of people posted ahead of me; I'm revising my argument to make it 'current' but it is primarily a reply to earlier remarks]

It's not a strict one to one correspondence about "animal sacrifices/ritual slaughters -> more fanaticism," Serafina, true.

But while it's possible to have an ecumenical animal sacrifice, I really, really doubt the Kyrgyzstani legislature tried. And I doubt they cared about trying, either. Whereas Governor Perry at least had the minimal grace to make his call-for-prayer ecumenical: he himself is not attempting to invoke a specifiic deity in a specific way; he is saying "anyone who ritually invokes their deity for help, this would be a really good time for it."

This level of religious invocation is compatible with civil society; it is not new. It is not particularly pernicious, because of the extent to which citizens can take it or leave it. It's abstract, it places no binding commitment on people who don't want to participate, while deliberately trying to extend a sense of collective endeavour to people who do want to participate*.

Whereas animal sacrifices are not in any sense abstract- they are much more than an expression of sentiment on the state's part. They are also binding on nonparticipants, because those sheep are your tax dollars at work.

But there's really something more than that going on here, that I'd like to mention.

Reversion to ritual sacrifices in an attempt to drive out evil spirits implies a much more intense, and much more personal, involvement of supernatural powers in the actions of the legislature: before you can sacrifice a sheep to drive out evil spirits, you must first believe that the chaos in your legislature is caused by evil spirits. Not corruption, not the catastrophic misgovernment inflicted on your people by the tyrannical former ruler, evil spirits.

I didn't properly nail this down last time, but I think it's quite important to the difference between the Kyrgyzstani sheep-sacrifice and the Texan prayer day. Governor Perry is not starting by saying "this drought is evil spirits punishing us for something, what can I do to appease them?" and then thinking "I know! I'll give them some sheep!" At the very least, he is not making that reasoning into a publically endorsed, official position of the government.

The Kyrgyzstani legislature is.

*I would rather have people praying for the health of the state than actively seeking to dismantle it as part of a grand anarcho-corporatist scheme. Not all secular ideologies are healthy.
__________

And Metahive, how does that argument about it being worse when it happens in Texas work, exactly? Do you mean that an act which we generally agree to be bad (an innocent man being put to death for a crime he did not commit) is less bad when it happens in a place where such things happen more frequently?

How do you scale that? Is it an inverse relationship*? Some less powerful relationship that dilutes the nature of the action, but doesn't make the difference between "one bad act" and "two bad acts?"

Or is it just you caring less when it happens in a place where people don't speak English?

*"This place executed 10 innocent men, this place executed 100 innocent men, so each execution in the first place is ten times as bad!"

[Metahive]

And Metahive, how does that argument about it being worse when it happens in Texas work, exactly? Do you mean that an act which we generally agree to be bad (an innocent man being put to death for a crime he did not commit) is less bad when it happens in a place where such things happen more frequently?

Because Texas is stable, prides itself to be modern and is also relatively rich to boot. Kyrgyzstan is unstable, backwards and poor. Texas has less justification to friggin' resort to motherfucking MAGIC to solve its problems, don't you think? One could even say the ritual slaughter in Kyrgyzstan was meant symbolically, to demonstrate unity whereas Perry really hopes to magically make it rain, so there's that potential gap in stupidity too.

[Serafina]

@ Simon: Would you please stop calling this an "animal sacrifice". According to the article, the meat of the slaughtered animals is donated for various charity-related purposes. It is therefore a ritual method of slaughtering an animal. I already explained this.
(Unless you have evidence that a significant part of the animals desirable products are burnt or such).

But while it's possible to have an ecumenical animal sacrifice, I really, really doubt the Kyrgyzstani legislature tried. And I doubt they cared about trying, either. Whereas Governor Perry at least had the minimal grace to make his call-for-prayer ecumenical: he himself is not attempting to invoke a specifiic deity in a specific way; he is saying "anyone who ritually invokes their deity for help, this would be a really good time for it."

You're quite correct. BUT the difference is not in the act itself (prayer or ritual slaughter), but in the way it was performed (open to many religions vs. in the name of a specific religion).

Whereas animal sacrifices are not in any sense abstract- they are much more than an expression of sentiment on the state's part. They are also binding on nonparticipants, because those sheep are your tax dollars at work.

Given that the meat was put to practical purposes, i'd not object if the german parliament would do the same - as long as no religious practices are involved.

And yes, i'd argue that ritual slaughter of animal does not have to be a religious practice. It certainly CAN be, but the ritual could also be devised in order to minimize the pain in the animal (and indeed many are). In and by itself, it does not carry any religious elements.
The same can not be said about most forms or prayer. Those explicitly appeal to some form of the supernatural.

A good comparison would be Yoga. Yoga can be performed for religious reasons - but it can also be performed for entirely non-religious reasons. The same can be said for many forms of meditation, it's just about relaxing your body/mind. That can be done for religious reasons, but also for entirely worldly reasons.
Again, the same is not true for many forms of prayer, who do not carry such a worldly purpose - they exist solely to appeal to a supernatural entity not to slaughter you.
Likewise, ritual slaughter can be performed entirely for worldly reasons. Indeed i'd argue that the way we (western civilisation) slaughter our animals is also a ritualized way for slaughtering animals. The way that ritual is performed has solely secular reasons, but it is a ritual nonetheless.

Reversion to ritual sacrifices in an attempt to drive out evil spirits implies a much more intense, and much more personal, involvement of supernatural powers in the actions of the legislature: before you can sacrifice a sheep to drive out evil spirits, you must first believe that the chaos in your legislature is caused by evil spirits. Not corruption, not the catastrophic misgovernment inflicted on your people by the tyrannical former ruler, evil spirits.

Again, the difference is the (stated) reason the act is performed, not the act itself.
Actually, i'd argue that the act itself is worse, since prayer is solely religious and can not possibly be secular.

I didn't properly nail this down last time, but I think it's quite important to the difference between the Kyrgyzstani sheep-sacrifice and the Texan prayer day. Governor Perry is not starting by saying "this drought is evil spirits punishing us for something, what can I do to appease them?" and then thinking "I know! I'll give them some sheep!" At the very least, he is not making that reasoning into a publically endorsed, official position of the government.

And again, just so that you do not miss it:
I agree that this is a religious act of the Kyrgyzstan government, and therefore condemnable. I disagree about the reason why it is condemnable: not because animals were slaughtered, but because it was religious.

Also, the texan governor is stating "let's appease the evil spirit eating all our rain". He's just not stating it so explicitly, but since prayer is solely an appeal to the supernatural he is appealing to the supernatural.

[fgalkin]

I would argue that it is, indeed, worse, for a number of reasons.

-Unless I am much mistaken, the Kyrgyzstani legislature is slaughtering sheep as part of a specific religious ceremony; Governor Perry's request was ecumenical and thus does not discriminate among members of various religions. There is no single official religion that the state government of Texas is willing to kill sheep over.

Nonetheless, Kyrgyzstan has a better track record when it comes to religion than the US does. There has been some discrimination against radical Islam, but then, it's more of a national security issue considering they share a border with Afghanistan.

-Animal sacrifices are, I would argue, a more atavistic religious practice- a stronger invocation of times when religion was the dominating factor in cultural life, and when people were far more likely to be harmed for the sake of other people's religious beliefs. The willingness of the faithful to put literal blood on their hands is generally not a good sign in this respect.

Except, of course, that polytheistic religions of the time were MORE, not less tolerant of others, and dominated cultural life to a much lesser extent than the Abrahamic faiths. You've got it all backwards, really.

-A prayer is something that can be associated with (as noted above) a wide, ecumenical variety of religious views, including ones that are in no way incompatible with the function of a healthy civilization. You do not have to be a fanatic in order to pray. Or to be comforted by the idea that others are praying. I feel that the practice of animal sacrifice requires a greater degree of fanaticism, and thus potential folly.[/quote]
It's not really an "animal sacrifice" perse, but rather an ancient cultural tradition about washing away bad blood (spilled in the clashes) with "good" blood. Superstitious, certainly, but not really a support of any organized religion.

Also, there is this bit:

http://www.eurasiareview.com/kyrgyzstan ... -21042011/

Almost all the deputies attended Thursday’s traditional ceremony, funded by their own money. Some $15 dollars had been withheld from the salary of each of them.

.

They're not using taxpayer money to fund the ceremony, but rather, their own personal money. The separation of church and state has not been violated.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin