Northern Arapahoes Given Right to Kill Eagles for Religious Purposes

From the Seattle PI....

A federal government decision to allow a Wyoming tribe to kill two bald eagles for a religious ceremony is a victory for American Indian sovereignty as well as for long-suppressed religious freedoms, the tribe says.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service granted a permit March 9 to the Northern Arapaho Tribe allowing it either to kill or capture and release two bald eagles this year.

While no one questions the religious sincerity of Northern Arapaho tribal members, spokesmen for some conservation and animal rights groups question why the tribe can't meet its religious needs without killing wild eagles. They say the tribe could raise captive birds, or accept eagle feathers or carcasses already available from a federal repository that collects birds killed by power lines or other causes.

The Northern Arapaho share the Wind River Indian Reservation in central Wyoming with the Eastern Shoshone Tribe. The Northern Arapaho decline to say specifically what they will do with the eagles the federal permit allows them to kill.

Musings

I'm reading a book about women in the American abolitionist movement. There are a lot of similarities between that movement and today's animal rights movement (such as it is...but that's another post).

One of the differences I see immediately is the role of the churches and the religious community. Quakers, for example, were the early abolitionists in the US. The drive to emancipate slaves was grounded on religious and moral grounds. Slavery was a "sin" and to work to end slavery was "God's work." There was tremendous moral energy, organization, networking, and credibility that came from the involvement of religious organizations and individuals.

Now, I'm an atheist, but I'm practical enough to realize that religious groups offer a certain weight and a lot of passion to issues they choose. Just look at the pro-life movement. Where is that religious outrage over the treatment of animals?

It's not there and it is one crucial element the animal rights movement is missing.

Who's Better?

What is the difference between these two?

1) The religious fundamentalist who believes animals are inferior because they have no soul, that God put them here to serve his beloved humans, and that they should be used for human comfort.

and

2) The atheist who believes animals are inferior because they have little intelligence, that evolution has placed them in a position of serving the top species, and that they should be used for human comfort.



There is no difference as far as I'm concerned. So, I think many atheists should review their superiority complexes.

Atheists or Believers?

I'm an atheist. I have no problem using the term. I used to be Catholic though and still have a great deal of loyalty to the Church. Probably because it is so much a part of my culture.

This site occasionally criticizes believers for their treatment of animals, but I wonder if atheists are all that better. Atheist podcasts I listen to still seem to value humans over animals, just for different reasons. They use science as the basis for superiority which justifies experimentation and other abuses. Humans and animals are not the same, but it's not a matter of soul, but of superior intellect.

Isn't this basically the same thing as believers who base their judgment on their "God?" It's the same end result.