A worldwide push against Chinese fur farms has brought about much commentary. Many countries and societies have joined in the fight against this cruel and barbaric practice. Fur farms by their very nature are nothing more than industrial plants that use animals as commodities. Because of this the animals are shown no kindness and are often skinned alive and/or bludgeoned to death. Fur is not a necessity and even if so this sort of brutality should never be accepted in our so-called civil society.

In one proclamation against such fur farming, fur has been banned with the exception of some headgear worn by religious higher-ups. Should such exemptions be allowed? Should centuries old traditions be exempt from a society that has supposedly advanced past placing lions and Christians together for the amusement of the masses?

Animal sacrifices are often part of cultural and religious rituals. Such brutality against animals is illegal in most parts of the world regardless of belief. Rituals involving animal torture and sacrifice continue in various cultures and when individuals are caught enacting these brutal crimes they often claim freedom of religion. Is the guise of religion a reason for continuing barbaric practices? Should not religion lead the way toward greater humanity?

Fighting roosters is a bloody, cruel activity supported by those that make a few dollars betting on and owning the winning rooster. This activity has been banned in most of the United States. Hawaii recently tried to have the ban lifted citing that rooster fighting is part of their native traditions. The ban was upheld – does this tread upon the rights of natives to continue to follow traditional practices?

Bullfighting has been around since Roman times eventually becoming very popular in Spain, Portugal, Southern France and Latin America. It is a barbaric activity that involves the spearing and teasing of a bull until he can no longer fight back at which time he is finally put out of his misery. Several regimes in the 18th and 19th centuries tried to ban this brutal practice but Franco re-instituted the perverse tradition and it remains popular today. Opponents are growing but the culture thrives on the pomp and circumstance surrounding the bullfight. Those that fight the bulls, the toreros, are employed by the government and are granted celebrity status throughout those countries that still support the practice. Can a society hold on to this sort of blood sport and then call itself advanced?

Fox hunting in England has been an active part of country and royal living for many centuries. Recently animal rights people won a victory and stopped the use of live fox for the hunt. Many “hunters” have been outraged by this intrusion on an age-old tradition – a tradition that rewarded the hounds by allowing them to tear the fox to pieces at the end of the hunt. The hunt continues but the trail is now only scent baited and the poor hounds must make due with their usual dinner at the end of their day. One hunter stated that it “just didn’t feel real without the fox running around and outwitting the hounds at every turn.” I must wonder if the fox agreed with this assessment.

Cosmetic companies continue to test products on animals despite more sophisticated and accurate methods. Animal testing is currently cheaper than the alternatives. What sacrifices are simply too much just so we can look and smell good?

There are many more traditions that include the use of animals as a way for humans to amuse ourselves, pay homage to a dark lord, spare us from the ravages of age and earn money. Can there ever be a good enough reason to continue traditions that brutalize any creature and if so where do we draw the line.