?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
13 December 2006 @ 10:10 am
You can kill it, eat it, but don't pray over it  
A group of Turkish airline workers are in trouble after sacrificing and eating a camel.

Once again, I'm missing what must be obvious to most people. What is the problem here? The workers ate the camel. People eat camel meat all the time, so that can't be it. They killed it. What, did they do it on the shop floor during business hours? Did they not clean up after? Did they forget to invite management? What's the issue with that? Animals are killed every day in the thousands, in the tens of thousands, just for the meat. Wait, was it the religious connotation? Just killing it for the meat would have been okay, but if you sanctify the kill by slaughtering the beast in accordance with and observance of religious ritual, that makes it a problem? Islam includes ritual animal sacrifice on certain holy days, so why is this ritual of thankfulness on the part of the workers a problem?

If they'd killed the animal and then just disposed of the carcass, I'd be pissed. They didn't do that, though. They ate it. So, again, why all the hullabaloo?
 
 
Current Mood: confused again
Current Music: XM150: Chris Tucker - Thief
 
 
 
E. Steev Ramsdelltranscendant on December 13th, 2006 09:01 pm (UTC)
I feel the need to point out that the article only insinuates that the slaughter was done for religious reasons by calling it a sacrifice in the second paragraph. Nowhere else does it mention that they were doing it for religion--no, this was a 'job-well-done' gift to themselves. Might have been a sacrifice, might not have been, but we can't tell.

The only thing I see wrong with it is that they killed the animal at an airport without asking permission. That could cause issue, I guess.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on December 13th, 2006 09:59 pm (UTC)
"Sacrifice" carries implications, especially an animal sacrifice. You make a good point; the killing of the camel might not have been for religious reasons. If that is in fact not the case and it was merely killed for food, then the problem becomes irresponsible writing on the part of the journalist covering the story.