Should the Gadhimai Animal Sacrifice Festival be Stopped?

[I_am_learning]

There is a animal sacrifice festival held every 5 years in Bara District in Nepal, attended by millions of people from India and Nepal.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rifice-nepal-festival-protests-gadhimai-hindu
It is notorious for the large number of animals sacrificed, and the very unsightly aftermath.
I have been seeing a lot of international attention to the event, especially from animal right activists, and a lot of voices against it. People in Nepal and abroad have been protesting and trying to abolish the festival.
Now, here is my curiosity.
Is anyone morally justified in trying to stop this festival but be indifferent to thousands of slaughters in the slaughter houses in the rest of the (developed) world?
One argument that keeps surfacing is, what happens in the slaughter houses in the developed world is a lot more humane, is for food, and not for some idiotic belief that the God needs blood and thus shouldn't be compared to the barbaric act there.
The last point first: Its foolish and uneducated to believe that God needs blood.
Whether the God needs blood or not is just a matter of belief, since the concept of God is itself a belief. Unless the arguer is set to argue that nobody should believe anything (including religions) and should go only with hard scientific facts, I think its silly to try to justify that one belief is superior to the other.

The next point: Killing for Food is Okay, Killing for a belief is not Okay.
If its about feeling, then the people doing the sacrifices feel as much right in doing it as would people who do it for food. If the arguer believes killing animals is intrinsically wrong then killing it for food should be just as wrong. So, the only valid point would be to say that killing animals for whatever cause is wrong and the arguer must either be a vegetarian or should at least try to be one whenever possible, and he/she must want the slaughter houses to close.

The next point: The way they do it is not humane and hygienic.
There is no intentional torture in the festival. The sight of fellow animals being butchered and some sloppy butchering of novices do causes some torture though. So, I think they should still try their best to make the sacrifices as humane as possible. But you can only expect so much of hygiene, technology and management from people and places, where a lot of them don't even have toilets. In the part of the world where humans suffer a lot, there is only so much attention that will be given for the animals'. So, the devotees, a lot of whom come from very poor background, shouldn't be shamed, but the authorities who have power and means should be.

So, I believe, nobody is justified to argue to stop the festival altogether, unless they are also arguing that everybody should be vegetarian whenever possible, and slaughter houses should be closed. But people can call for improvements in hygiene and humane-ity.
I would love to hear your points.

 

[Danger]

I can't see how any outsider has a right to say anything about it.
Anyone who has seen behind-the-scenes exposes of North American meat producers knows that those buffalo and whatnot are probably better treated prior to death than chickens, pigs, or turkeys are here. Beheading is certainly no more traumatic than a bolt-gun to the brainstem or electrocution. (In fact, that's how we initiated our farm chickens to the table. The body runs around for a couple of minutes after, but it isn't aware of any pain.)
I do hope, however, that the meat is used rather than wasted.

 

[Czcibor]

Is anyone morally justified in trying to stop this festival but be indifferent to thousands of slaughters in the slaughter houses in the rest of the (developed) world?

No, but being self-righteous can make one feel good.

The last point first: Its foolish and uneducated to believe that God needs blood.

Whether the God needs blood or not is just a matter of belief, since the concept of God is itself a belief. Unless the arguer is set to argue that nobody should believe anything (including religions) and should go only with hard scientific facts, I think its silly to try to justify that one belief is superior to the other.

Guardian (and its readers) have very serious ideological bent, which is far away from science. Try talking with them concerning owning nuclear weapons, using such scientific terms like "game theory" or "signalling theory". Point out that MAD is actually outcome of very rational decisions and is the best accessible strategy to keep peace.

Privately:
-Thank Jesus of Nazareth that we gave up sacrificing animals in Western Civilization.
-I consider such sacrifice as terribly wasteful spending. But because of stadium and airports that were recently built in my country, I don't feel that I'm in position to look down on them.

 

[ecoo]

Knowing that what is good and bad is defined by culture which is defined by humans, I don't see anything wrong with it. Of course, according to western culture it is obviously seen as a horrible act.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

which is defined by humans,

i think it spans across the animal kingdom, not just humans.

 

[Danger]

i think it spans across the animal kingdom, not just humans.

Animals have culture? And a sense of "good" or "bad"? Are you from California or something?

 

[Astronuc]

Animals have culture?

Apparently so.
http://www.onbeing.org/blog/calling-his-cattle-home-with-a-trombone-video/6689 (Be patient, they start coming just after 52 sec)

(The human spectators enjoy it as well)





(An elephant likes piano - and they can boogie too!)Apparently elephants form attachments to other elephants, other animals and people.

 

[Danger]

Apparently so.

Uh-uh... that's just copying our culture, not defining one as Greg proposed.

 

[ecoo]

I think he means something like our natural resistance to "know" not kill another one of our own, but that's simply how the brain is wired.

 

[I_am_learning]

I think he means something like our natural resistance to "know" not kill another one of our own, but that's simply how the brain is wired.

Maybe that's how we were raised: "don't harm others". Maybe for some tribes, the natural instinct when they see someone from other tribe is to kill them.

 

[Danger]

the natural instinct when they see someone from other tribe is to kill them.

That's what war is all about. (Although, in the case of "more developed " humans, it is often demanded by those in charge of the tribes strictly for their own benefit.)