Native American tribe gets permit to kill 2 bald eagles

They shouldn't have to join together to "form" a religion. Why should the culture of a group be treated differently than the culture of an individual?

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Because in order to get protection for your religious freedom, you have to prove that you're following a religion. That's the balancing point.

To Native Americans religion and culture are integral, much the same way that Judaism is. Meaning that they don't have an open-door policy on who can join. Meaning that their culture/religion can't be used to excuse non-natives from breaking the law and using "religious freedom" to get off.

That's what I mean by "forming a religon". If a bunch of non-natives want to smoke peyote for "religious reasons", they have to either find a tribe that will let them partake in the ritual, or register their own religion with the government.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Yes, and I think it's garbage.

The distinction between religious beliefs and other cultural beliefs is a very blurry one to say the least. That someone is following an idea does not automatically become valid just because they find a group of other people that follow the same idea. If someone "follows" an idea they stumbled upon, whether through media or through thought, why should validation from others who happen to follow it be the tipping point?

edited 14th Mar '12 2:26:53 PM by HiddenFacedMatt

"The Daily Show has to be right 100% of the time; FOX News only has to be right once." - Jon Stewart

Because there has to be some sort of arbitrary point where "freedom of religon" is no longer an excuse.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Veering off topic here, folks. The thread isn't about "religion in general", or "the validity of giving members of a religion a legal exemption to certain laws." or even "what constitutes a religion".

Veer back toward the topic, please.

...if you don’t love you’re dead, and if you do, they’ll kill you for it.

Ultimately I'd like to see us arrive at a point where religion is not an excuse for anything one does that's contrary to prevailing law, but I'd have to say that it's a topic for a much wider conversation, and that this one seems to be winding down from its original topic. Is there anything else relevant to discuss?

Edit: Maddie-ninjaed!

edited 14th Mar '12 2:32:17 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

That's like someone saying "the Bible is just ink and paper, why not just use a dictionary instead?". It's ignoring the whole ritual behind the beliefs.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Using mock feathers would probably come across as an offensive, illegitimate method of the Sun Dance, if anything.

"Oh, don't worry! In order to protect the animals we're going to BS our traditions."

I'm not educated in this, but I'd imagine it's worse than not doing it in the first place.

Well, it's also ignoring large parts of their religion. Some tribes believe that certain parts of certain animals have different powers based off of what they came from. Eating or wearing those parts, according to their religion, gives the person a certain power or connection to the gods. A wing feather from an eagle, worn during one specific dance has different properties than, say, down feathers from a duck used during the same dance.

edited 14th Mar '12 3:04:25 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Dutch Lesbian

Well, considering the bald eagle is no longer endangered, there should be no controversy to this event. The Native Americans need bald eagle feathers for their religious ceremonies, and they are within their rights to kill two bald eagles for that purpose.

Wizard Needs Food Badly

I simply do not see the problem. The bald eagle is not an endagered species anymore, and killing two eagles is not going to put the species at risk. How is this any different from the Christian (and Jewish, for that matter) tradition of having lamb for Easter?

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

I actually thought bald eagles were extinct until I read this.

hashtagsarestupid

I've seen a bald eagle nest before. All the cars on the road were stopping and taking pictures of it, and the birds didn't seem to care much.

It's a good thing though, that they weren't looking to kill two condors instead. Getting permission to shoot down a California condor would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

They never travel alone.

And more importantly, how is it any more ethically dubious than industrial livestock farming?

I'm leery of it because they just got off the endangered list and all not that long ago, but really, raising any kind of animal rights concern over this would be feckless and hypocritical in the extreme.

edited 14th Mar '12 4:28:59 PM by Pykrete

This.

No matter what, this is more morally right in my mind than hyping cows up on growth hormones, feeding them something their alergic to because it's cheaper(Corn), then slaughtering them.

At least the eagles got to be free a while.

I'm baaaaaaack

Yes. Wildlife is protected by the state while livestock is private property.

edited 14th Mar '12 4:29:00 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Also, traditionally speaking, they trap the eagles first. They don't just shoot at them.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Although to be fair, it's a little more fair to just shoot at them, gives the eagles a chance.

I'd think they'd have a rather more sporting chance of not getting caught in the trap than dodging a supersonic bullet...

European pagan religions are not -quite- the same as American shamanism, but there is some overlap, so. . . I know that I for one would not be comfortable using fake or subpar materials in a ritual or spell in which the object itself is important. I imagine the shamans are no more endeared to the idea,

Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-

... yeah, I'm not seeing any problems with this. They're not endangered, they only want two, and I guess they won't have to do it very often.

We have something similar in Aus, I believe - indigenous people are allowed to hunt certain animals which actually are endangered. I think that's under the condition that they are living according to their culture, and that they hunt traditionally - i.e. no going after dugongs in motor boats.

edited 14th Mar '12 9:30:27 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

I can hear religious fundies and PETA making a great big fuss over this already...

It'll be hilarious and entertaining.

I don't think most people know this goes on though. Plus, picking on another religion like this will just get liberals and the like on their asses. And people don't pay much attention to PETA now anyways.