Is snake defanging appropriate if its religiously called for?

FUCK NO!

My religion believes we should slaughter babies… hmm yea that sounds good and we should respect that because my religion dictates that…..GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE. Theres no way in hell that would fly.

obviously my example is more extreme than above, but its on the same basis, just because religion dictates it, doesn’t make it right. Theres no reason to mutilate these animals. And for what? So you can handle something that shouldnt be handled?

No. Enough said.

I’ve never heard of religious snake handlers defanging their snakes, seems like it would defeat the purpose of exhibiting your faith if there were no danger…do you have a source?

snake handlers haha http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpVffsJ0OhA

Why do we have to mess with the snakes anyway. I’m all about kicking puppies and drowning kittens instead.

jews killed chickens and cattle in the times of the temple to praise their god. in some cases, the animals were tortured. do you say that jews shouldnt believe what they want to believe in? assuming from your statement, i call you a racist.

zulu people killed herons for the red sack under their necks. this was done while the heron was alive, and is extremely painful. they did this to please their gods. do you say that zulus shouldnt believe what they want to believe in? assuming from your statement, i call you a racist.

the maori people of new zealand hunted the now extinct moa, for religious purposes. the moa was tied to the food chain in a very strong way. because of this, many other species of animals went extinct. do you say that the maori shouldnt believe what they want to believe in? assuming from yoir statement, i call you a racist.

many flutherites live in the united states, right? what is one of the major principals that the united states is based on: fredom of belief as it is stated in the first amendment of the american constitution. the whole reason why the american revolutionaries fought was because they were being persecuted for their beliefs. so arent the flutherites who are american, disregarding the document that almost every american holds as a beacon to show them the way?

wars are started because of ignorance of the other party involved. for instance, the dutch and british colonists, who were extremely passionate about christianity, tried to convert the natives of africa to christianity. if they refused to convert, they were murdered. so, if you went to a snake handling people and asked them to give up their belief, and they refused, and nothing could ever change their mind, if you were that passionate about the rights of snakes, you would kill these people because you wouldnt want the snakes to suffer.

however, there can be alternatives to ripping out a snakes teeth. you can find a loophole in the religion and bring up a paradox, where the people of that religion can choose which side of that paradox they want to defend, and which one they should disregard.

i cannot tolerate people who are not tolerant—i forget who said that, but i interpret it as everyone has a bias and their own opinions and people who cant acknowledge these differences without hate are wrong. however, everyone hates something that someone else believes in. i hate nazis because i think that their beliefs are wrong. it doesnt mean that i can kill all nazis or force them to disregard their beliefs. delirium hates these people who defang snakes because she thinks that it is wrong. it doesnt mean that she can kill all of these people who do this or force them to disregard their beliefs. some people disagree with what delirium has to say, probably the people who defand snakes. it doesnt mean that they can kill delirium or force her to disregard her beliefs.

*everyone has a belief that someone else considers wrong. what if someone else says that you cant believe in what you believe in? i would be really pissed off. *

@Mtl – First off, get your accusations straight. Del isn’t attacking a culture or claiming racial superiority over it – she’s criticizing a specific practice. Accusations of racism bear a lot of weight and you shouldn’t make them lightly. Also, there’s a difference between allowing people to believe as they choose and allowing them to act as they choose. Nazis may be permitted to believe that Jewish people should die, but they are not permitted to act on those beliefs. Religious tolerance is tempered by a recognition that some actions, whether religiously inspired or not, cannot be condoned. Thus, though a snake handler may believe whatever they choose, they may still be stopped from mutilating snakes.

On a related point, your claim that “everyone has their own opinion, so who’s to say what’s right” is one of the most extreme forms of relativism and falls into a self-contradictory trap. If everything is opinion, if everything is biased and there is no Truth, how can the very statement that “there is no truth” have any value?

Finally, try to write more clearly in future: watch your sentence structure, your capitalization, and your spelling.

@hobbes: what is the point of having a belief if one cant persue it? there is no point in this circumstance.

i dont believe in truth. i only believe in many wrongs that contradict each other. i believe that no one can be right, and everyone is wrong.

it is a very touchy topic, and i fear that people will read my opinions in a way that they are not intended to be read. a simple synonym can change the topic drastically. so, i will revise my work more often from now on. thanks for the tip.

@MZ: 1) What Hobbes said. 2) I’m pretty sure that the bible does not say “handle snakes that have been de-fanged”. That would defeat the purpose of snake-handlers. If they believe they are religiously called to “handle” them, ok…I guess. De-fanging is not religiously called for. That would be simply for their own convenience and safety.

@mtl zack so wait….your saying if my made up group of baby killers existed,and believed this, youd be cool with that? Because its their belief and it should be respected?

@Zack – Whether people who hold a belief find meaning in it is not really my concern. The point is that we have to apply some sorts of limits on what is justifiable through religious belief. The KKK was a pseudo-religious organization, and though the government still allows the organization to exist and hold whatever beliefs they want, we do not allow them to go around lynching people any more.

Also – as I said before, how can the statement “I don’t believe in truth” have any meaning whatsoever? If truth doesn’t exist, the statement can’t be true – it’s a big recursive loop of logic.

@uberbatman: i should be tolerant, but it doesnt mean that i will be.

@augustlan: that factor of safety of the human vs. rights of animals is about valuation of human life vs. valuation of animal life, which i think is a completely different topic.

@hobbes. again, i should be tolerant of the kkk, but i am not.

can you please elaborate o the “recursive loop of logic”? im not sure if i understand.

@all: im sorry about this, and id like to continue, but i have an early class tomorrow that i cannot be late for and its way past my bedtime, so ill sleep on what you have said, and ill reply tomorrow. but honestly, i will be thinking about this, it is not an empty promise. i think about this sort of thing every day, i kid you not. usually people have philosophy in the back of their head nd their main task in the front. i am the opposite of this. anyways, goodnight fluther!!

That seems somehow to be a cop-out. Saying you should be tolerant but aren’t is a way of both condoning their beliefs and not condoning them at the same time, and doesn’t seem like a real answer to me.

If you say “there is no such thing as truth”, then the statement is false by its own lights. The statement claims that truth does not exist, and so the statement must include itself in its own description: that is, the statement cannot be true because, according to its own claim, nothing is.

I never said that truth does not exist. I said that I believe that truth does not exist. a belief does not make something true.

No one is perfect. Freud claims that all problems root with the mother, but he perspnally had several of the problems he described.
If someone started a religion based ok killing babies, I would use logic to fight it. For instance: your religion won’t grow because there won’t be a next generation to pass it on to. The point of religion Is to teach morals and values so that your kids will be proper In society. If you kill the next generation, there is no point.
As for Nazis, if all inferiority were wiped out, what are you better than? If there’s no inferiority, there can be no superiority.

So… you accept that your own belief has no value? A belief doesn’t make something true, but it should reflect truth. If it doesn’t, why hold it?

The problem with fanatics is that they tend not to be susceptible to logical arguments. Try arguing with a KKK member or a Christian Funamentalist and you’ll know what I mean. Also, as a point of accuracy, Nazis didn’t want to feel superior, they wanted to create what they saw as a “clean” world, which involved killing everyone who didn’t fit their ideas of perfection.

Finally – by your own arguments, isn’t arguing against someone’s beliefs displaying a certain lack of tolerance for them?

source? It’s otherwise a moot point.

NO. I hate ppl who use religion as a scapegoat for doing stupid stuff.

”@augustlan: that factor of safety of the human vs. rights of animals is about valuation of human life vs. valuation of animal life, which i think is a completely different topic.”

It’s not a completely different topic really, if you look at the original question. Defanging snakes is cruel and incredibly painful for the animal, something I think qualifies it for human rights vs. animal rights category, especially if it’s being done because some jackass wants to toss a snake around without getting hurt.

And just because it’s a belief doesn’t mean it can’t be misguided and wrong. You want to worship? Fine, do so. But not at the expense of another creature’s suffering.

I’ve done some looking around, and I cannot find anything to back the idea that religious snake handlers (Appalachian ones) defang their snakes. As has been pointed out, this would completely contradict the entire reason they do what they do, which is to show faith in God according to Mark 16:17–18 (And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.) and Luke 10:19 (Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.). I think maybe you were referring to Indian snake charmers, who apparently do defang their snakes.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/01/0121_030121_snakesavior_2.html

p.s.
I personally like Luke 4:12 better. (It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God)

@ hobbes: i think that my belief has value, but someone else might not. my beliefs reflect what i believe is true, which doesnt mean that it is true. if nazis cleaned up the world completely, 100%, no imperfections, then what would they believe in after that? they would have to create imperfections in order to keep the religion strong. and im NOT arguing against anyone’s beliefs. in fact, this whole discussion, ive been arguing that people should believe what they want. when i use a paradox, im not arguing their belief, im refreshing the believer’s mind.

@mrmelted: all this time i thought that the process of defanging was the ritual, but it is actually the handling that has significance. in this case, i agree with the fact that snakes should not be defanged, because it serves no purpose to the religion. if the defanging process played a part of the religion, then i would have to say what ive been saying during this entire discussion.

maybe we can switch this topic to something else that may seem upsurd to many (delirium), but acceptable to some (me). i propose we change the topic to zulus killing owls because, according to the zulus, if an owl lands on your property, your family will die. it turns out, thanks to @jholler’s research, that this topic is not appropriate for this discussion because the process of defanging does not play a role in the religion.

i misunderstood the fact that defanging was a preliminary to doing the actual ritual, and not the ritual itslef.

I’m confused: are you saying that you accept your beliefs might be wrong, or that two people with contradictory beliefs are both correct?

Is the fact that they would be left with no people to kill if they succeeded really all that you find wrong with the Nazi ideology?

Look, Zack. If I am a member of a religion which preaches that it is the duty of every good and honest follower to kill all Mtl_Zacks, would you allow their actions based on the idea that all actions are acceptable when justified by religion? If not, then you must accept that the actions of religious people must still conform to some rules outside those of their religions.

im saying that i accept my beliefs are wrong. also, if a muslim believes something, then he is wrong, if a jew believes something, he is wrong, if a christian believes something, he is wrong. someones belief is always wrong from someone else’s opinion.

another philosphy about your last point:

there is a spectrum for everything. there is always a third option. lets take the example of eating pork. on a jewish scale, the idea of eating pork would lie closer to the “bad” side as opposed to the good side, but in the christian scale, it would lean closer to the middle. the two extremes can change distances depending on the culture and how lineant the rules are. the extremes can never be reached by the standards of the religion in question, but “good” and “bad” can be reached by the standings of people of other religions. the idea of killing all zacks would be in the good side of the hobbes religion, but would be in between neutral and bad on the zack scale, because of the religious tolerance and the fact that we’re going to die, combined. sort of like the average of dying and tolerance. there isnt just good and bad, there are infinite answers in between.

I like pork chops. Muslims don’t like pork chops. I don’t like Muslims. :-)

@mtl zack i dont think its so much comparing the one religion to any other, as it is comparing religious beliefs to commonly accepted human beliefs, IE we as humans have no problem eating pork so if a religion wants to or not is their choice, but when your talking about animal/human cruelty thats where it crosses that line that we have to step in and say no.
Theres a big difference between religious tolerance for acts that donthurt others and that, that does. Take the American Indians that take Peyotes as a religious ceremony for example. They are still allowed to take these even though its against the law because of their religion, but the thing is, they arent hurting anyone/anything else by doing it. If their religion instead dictated that they were to sacrifice people to their gods theres no way the US government would stand for it.

De-fanging a snake for snake handling is cruel and ultimately kind of pointless, which makes the cruelty even worse. The whole point of handling snakes is to test your faith, both in not getting bitten and that you will be taken care of if you do get bitten.

That’s a good way of putting it, uberbatman – I hadn’t thought of it like that. Though (to play the Devil’s Advocate), “commonly accepted human beliefs” is a somewhat slippery term. Things like rape and murder obviously go against a common consensus, but I think there are a lot of ethical areas which are painted in much grayer tones.