Eagles

     I saw something the other day, on one of the blogs I regularly read, that I thought would be very relevant to the class.  I spent quite a bit of time thinking about this and have come to an opinion.  First, I will explain.
     http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46729054/ns/us_news-environment/#.T2ftZhHeBYA
The federal government is about to grant a permit to a Northern Arapaho tribe which will allow them to kill two bald eagles for the purposes of a religious ceremony.  traditionally these tribes have usually applied for feathers and other eagle parts from a federal repository.  it is extremely rare for one of these permits to be issued.  Should it ever be issued at all?
     This is an issue I've thought about from several angles and in several different frameworks.  I land firmly on the side of the 'no' argument.  Someone might ask what the harm is if this tribe is allowed to kill these eagles.  After all, people are allowed to sacrifice certain animals if they wish.  Chickens and goats are still slaughtered for religious ceremonies regularly.  The bald eagle was taken off the endangered species list in 1995 and its status was officially improved again with its removal from the threatened list.
     This person might also argue that we owe it to the American Indians to help them maintain any semblance of their culture that they want.  Under most circumstances, I would agree with them.  while I'm no fan of a 'white guilt' kind of effect, I do recognize that our government has historically stolen things from the various indigenous peoples of America.  The difference here though, is in the substance of the culture.  The death of an animal.  The animal's life will be taken for the purpose of a ceremony.  The purpose is not to eat the animal or make specific goods out of its body.  the purpose is for a 'religious ceremony'.  That means its one and only purpose is to further a superstition.  I will, under no circumstance, support the taking of any kind of animal life based on superstition.  it's inhumane.
     As an omnivore, I understand why we raise and kill certain animals.  There's always a line though, and I think the line of purpose is the best one to draw.  I argue that religious freedom is never more important than a living creature of sufficient importance, rarity, intelligence, or capacity to suffer.  No one has the right to increase the amount of suffering and death in the world without just cause.  For me, just cause ends at entertainment and superstition.  I oppose this permit in the same way I oppose hunting.  Yes hunting is sometimes important and allowable for the control of various animal populations, but when the main purpose seems to be the joy of ending life, it's indicative of  a harmful proceeding.
     As a side note, my opposition has nothing to do with the bald eagle being our national bird.  My disapproval does not come from some selfish sports-team-mascot kind of patriotism that can't bare to see a bald eagle killed the same way it can't stand to see an American flag burned.  (After all, Benjamin Franklin wanted our national bird to be the turkey, and I think that was a swell idea.  The somewhat homely but stubborn and resilient turkey would be a fine symbol)  I do suffer from the same 'awe' bias as everyone else has for nature's more iconic animals.  Although there's not much reason for it, it seems so much more sad when a panda or a rhino dies than it does when a cow or a rare type of worm passes on.
    Regardless, my point is that religious freedom, even that of a badly oppressed culture should not take priority over a general life affirming public policy.  After all, what happens when someone decides that they need to stab a baby dolphin 345 times with a corkscrew or they cannot attain salvation?  What about the small but devoted sect that needs to publicly guillotine a live camel in order to communicate with their dead relatives?  In the realm of religion all ideas are equal, so any request in that vein involving death or suffering must always be considered with extreme caution.