Los Angeles' Ed Boks says Jewish Kapparot is "illegal, inhumane"

Describe for us please what method of slaughter you consider "humane"

Please note that if you totally disapprove of killing animals for the purpose of eating them then you are being disingenuous in this criticism of "kappurot". The actual killing of the chickens in this case would be by slitting their throats witgh a very sharp knife.

You are quite correct that the ceremony can be carried out by substituting money to be given to the poor, presumably so that they can by their own dead animal to eat rather than in this more direct fashion. Understand what I am saying here? If your intent is to criticize the killing and eating of animals DO THAT (not attempt to link it to something else).

I am not against eating animals but I do feel they should be treated and killed humanely. Most Kapparot chickens are not treated humanely.

Ed Boks eats meat, wears leather, eats cheese, eggs, milk, uses products tested on animals. I believe he also wants animals treated humanely. I think the woman who runs the poultry concern group doesn't eat meat or animal products. She only cares that chickens be treated humanely if you are going to eat them. We are not all Vegans or even vegetarians, just a group of people who care that animals are treated humanely and legally. I went to some Kapparot events. The chickens were filthy in cramped cages with no water. I eat chicken but would never want to eat one of those after what I've witnessed. We found trash cans full of dead chickens behind one temple. They were throwing them away. What a waste.

My rabbi was in on the statewide protest phone-in against this article, calling his representative to get it removed. It's from 2006 and so it's old. He was assured that the press writer who put out this mistake was fired by Ed Boks. Ed Boks's position is more nuanced. This grotesque over-simplification and misrepresentation shouldn't have been revived here two years after the fact.

Ed Boks wrote that comment. That is exactly word for word what he wrote himself. He approved that entire press release before it was released. I can get the person to send me the original emails from Ed Boks if you like.

The press person didn't work for Ed Boks. That is United Poultry Concern. What are you talking about? Either you're lying or Ed Boks told you a story. And what's wrong with his comment?

I emailed the person who has Boks' emails about Kapparot. They agreed to give them to me to post. They said his original comment was very hateful toward Jews and they asked him to tone it down. It'll be here later today. You can all see exactly what he said word for word. Obviously, Boks is a liar.

 
Proof that Ed Boks wrote that comment and asked for it to be included in an independent press release. He didn't fire anyone over the press release because these people didn't work for him. They are animal rescuers. Note that the press person told him he should tone down his comment, which he did.

In a message dated 9/29/2006 2:15:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, eboks [at] ANI.LACITY.ORG writes:

More I talk to legal eagles the more they seem to support this practice
is a crime in LA.  Our thinking is to wait till after the Holy Days and
then start an educational campaign for next year.  What do you think?
ed

>>> *****(City Person) 9/29/2006 2:02:46 PM >>>
I think it was appropriate to remove the Kapparot article from the
blog.  It sounds as if it was quickly beginning to attract the kind of
attention and static you don't need any more of right now.

I'm at a loss to figure out what to do with the religion-related
practices vis-a-vis animals (Kapparot, Santeria, etc.).  The public
sector seems to have a very hard time sustaining efforts to address the
rituals, allegations of cruelty, and sacrificial killings. 



In a message dated 9/28/2006 8:30:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time, edboks [at] hotmail.com writes:

You rock (Boks thinks the press release is great)


-----Original Message-----
From: "***>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 3:08 AM
To: "EdBoks [at] hotmail.com"
Subject: Kapparot articles

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3309121,00.html
The major Jewish rabbis in Israel are against Kapparot. They state it's not Kosher slaughter and is inhumane. The Israel SPCA says the ritual encourages animal cruelty. They are picketing in Israel. Some also fear the bird flu. Some information in case you need to answer questions.
 
The PR was read 2,156 times, picked up by 65 journalists in the first two hours.

(Ed Boks originally wanted to say it was barbaric and loathsome but someone told him to tone it down)

From: ***
To: edboks [at] hotmail.com
Subject: Re: PR about Kapparot
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:26:38 EDT

In a message dated 9/28/2006 9:25:17 AM Pacific Daylight Time, edboks [at] hotmail.com writes:
"Some of our nation's healthiest animal husbandry practices and laws originated in the ancient traditions of the Torah.  Nowhere is the barbaric practice of Kapparot even mentioned in the Torah.  It is a loathsome pagan tradition that has been muddled into the sacred religious practices of a small Jewish sect.  Kapparot should have no place in a civilized 21st Century Los Angeles community."
Couple small changes?  Any suggested edits?

*** maybe just get rid of barbaric and loathsome?

 
 
In a message dated 9/28/2006 9:07:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, edboks [at] hotmail.com writes:
How's this for a quote?
"Some of our nation's healthiest animal husbandry practices and laws originated in the ancient traditions of the Torah.  Nowhere is the barbaric practice of Kapparot even mentioned in the Torah.  It is a loathsome pagan tradition that has been muddled into the religious practices of a small Jewish sect.  Kapparot should have no place in the 21st Century Los Angeles community."


From: ***
To: EdBoks [at] hotmail.com,
Subject: PR about Kapparot
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 22:25:25 EDT

I'm waiting for a few other comments. This will be sent out but not from me. Care to add a comment? There's a link at the bottom to a page with information on this ritual. It was really horrific and unclean. Because they are going to kill the animals, they don't give food, water or clean their cages. There are flies and poop everywhere. They swing the chicken around then slit the vocal chords and throw it in a plastic trash bag. It slowly dies. They do this in dirty parking lots and back alleys. Fortunately they do this in the little storefront temples and not the big temples. The mainstream Jewish religion is against this.
 
Jewish chicken killing ritual "Kapparot" is illegal, inhumane and unnecessary

Every year before Yom Kippur the Jewish Day of Atonement some Jews perform the ritual "Kapparot." "Kapparot is a custom in which the sins of a person are symbolically transferred to a fowl. The fowl is held above the person's head and swung in a circle three times" while certain words are spoken. "The fowl is then killed so that the person may have a good, peaceful life." Sometimes the chickens are given to the poor as food but unfortunately the chickens are not always cared for or killed humanely.

In Los Angeles, California ritual animal sacrifice of any kind is illegal under Municipal Code SEC. 53.67. "No person shall engage in, participate in, assist in, or perform animal sacrifice. No person shall own, keep, possess or have custody of any animal with the purpose or intention of using such animal for animal sacrifice. No person shall knowingly sell, offer to sell, give away or transfer any animal to another person who intends to use such animal for animal sacrifice. 'Animal sacrifice' means the injuring or killing of any animal in any religious or cult ritual or as an offering to a deity, devil, demon or spirit, wherein the animal has not been injured or killed primarily for food purposes, regardless of whether all or any part of such animal is subsequently consumed."

The First Amendment "Freedom of Religion" does protect animal sacrifices except when a municipality or state has an existing animal cruelty statute that forbids it. If the religious sacrifice of an animal violates that statute, then the city or state can prosecute that act. If the animals as in this case were cared for, used or killed in a way that violates California's existing anti-cruelty statutes, then the defendants will not be able to fall back on the First Amendment as a defense. They would be guilty of animal cruelty which is punishable by a fine and/or jail time.

Dr. Richard Schwartz respected Jewish Author & Educator stated "Kapparot chicken killing is a senseless heathen superstition. Chicken sacrifice is not mentioned in the Torah or in the Talmud." Rabbis Ramban and Joseph Caro called Kapparot "a foolish custom that Jews should avoid."

We ask people who partake in this ritual to instead consider the humane and legal alternative. One may place money in a handkerchief and use this instead of a chicken. The money is then given to the poor. Former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Shlomo Goren stated "Kapparot is not consistent with Jewish teachings and law. Repentance and charity can be better accomplished by using money instead of a slaughtered chicken." After all Judaism is all about love and compassion to our fellow humans and animals. For more information about Kapparot, please visit http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/kapparot.html


In a message dated 9/28/2006 9:23:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time, edboks [at] hotmail.com writes:
Think its too over the top?


From: ***
To: edboks [at] hotmail.com
Subject: Re: PR about Kapparot
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:12:55 EDT

In a message dated 9/28/2006 9:07:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time, edboks [at] hotmail.com writes:
How's this for a quote?
"Some of our nation's healthiest animal husbandry practices and laws originated in the ancient traditions of the Torah.  Nowhere is the barbaric practice of Kapparot even mentioned in the Torah.  It is a loathsome pagan tradition that has been muddled into the religious practices of a small Jewish sect.  Kapparot should have no place in the 21st Century Los Angeles community."

*** You want to say that comment? I'm going to ask Jack Weiss to comment. It's in his district. (Ed Boks wanted to say that, he wrote that, he asked to be included in the press release. Weiss was contacted for comment but didn't make any comment at all)

(Ed Boks runs it by City Attorney Dov Lesel, Bob Ferber, David Diliberto and two Animal Control Officers ahead of time. He sends this to the animal rescuers behind the press release. He is the one who told the animal rescuers that it's a crime which is why they sent out the press release in the first place)


From: eboks [at] ANI.LACITY.ORG
To: DDiliberto [at] ANI.LACITY.ORG, DPantoja [at] ANI.LACITY.ORG
CC: WTranzow [at] ANI.LACITY.ORG, DLESEL [at] lacity.org, k9kittee [at] yahoo.com
Sent: 9/27/2006 10:20:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Re: Fwd: ritual sacrifice is illegal animal cruelty
 
It is my understanding they do not eat these chickens but use them as a propitiation for their sins.  That appears illegal per this statute.

Bob, Dov,
Any opinion?
ed

>>> David Diliberto 9/27/2006 9:59:26 AM >>>
Note that we have this law in effect in LA:

SEC. 53.67.  ANIMAL SACRIFICE.

     (Added by Ord. No. 166,307, Eff. 11/12/90.)

     (a)     No person shall engage in, participate in, assist in, or perform animal sacrifice.

     (b)     No person shall own, keep, possess or have custody of any animal with the purpose or intention of using such animal for animal sacrifice.

     (c)     No person shall knowingly sell, offer to sell, give away or transfer any animal to another person who intends to use such animal for animal sacrifice.

     (d)     Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prohibit any person or establishment lawfully operating under the laws of this city and state from lawfully engaging in the slaughter or ritual slaughter of animals where the preparation or killing of such animals is primarily for food purposes.

     (e)     For the purpose of this section, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:

     “Slaughter” means the killing of any animal for food purposes;

     “Ritual slaughter” means the preparation and killing of any animal for food purposes in accordance with California Food and Agricultural Code Section 19501;

     “Animal sacrifice” means the injuring or killing of any animal in any religious or cult ritual or as an offering to a deity, devil, demon or spirit, wherein the animal has not been injured or killed primarily for food purposes, regardless of whether all or any part of such animal is subsequently consumed.


This is the above referenced Food and Ag code:

19501.  (a) Cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, goats, or
fallow deer, or poultry shall be slaughtered by the methods
prescribed in this section.  No state agency shall contract for,
purchase, procure, or sell all or any portion of any animal, unless
that animal is slaughtered in conformity with this chapter.  This
chapter applies to any person engaged in the business of slaughtering
animals enumerated in this section, or any person slaughtering any
of those animals when all, or any part of, that animal is
subsequently sold or used for commercial purposes.
   (b) All cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, goats, or
fallow deer subject to this part, or poultry subject to Part 1
(commencing with Section 24501) of, Part 2 (commencing with Section
25401) of, and Part 3 (commencing with Section 26401) of, Division 12
shall be slaughtered by either of the following prescribed methods:

   (1) The animal shall be rendered insensible to pain by a captive
bolt, gunshot, electrical or chemical means, or any other means that
is rapid and effective before being cut, shackled, hoisted, thrown,
or cast, with the exception of poultry which may be shackled.
   (2) The animal shall be handled, prepared for slaughter, and
slaughtered in accordance with ritual requirements of the Jewish or
any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter
whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the
brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the
carotid arteries with a sharp instrument.
   This section does not apply to the slaughter of spent hens and
small game birds, as defined by the department by regulation.

>>> Ed Boks 9/27/2006 9:45:56 AM >>>
Let's discuss.

Five People Charged with Animal Cruelty in Santeria Sacrifice Case
 
(http://www.animalrights.net/archives/related_topics/) By  Brian Carnell

Friday, August 23, 2002
Four Florida men were charged this month with three counts of animal cruelty 
after police discovered dead chickens, pigeons and doves that the men had
killed  apparently as part of a Santeria sacrifice. A 17-year-old minor was also 
arrested. 
Santeria is a combination of Roman Catholicism and west African  beliefs. The
religion first took hold in Caribbean nations and has hundreds of  thousands
of followers in the United States. 
In reporting on the arrest, both the Tampa Tribune and the Associated  Press
wrongly claimed that a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court ruling held animal  sacrifices
as protected under the Constitution. But that is not at all what the  U.S.
Supreme Court held. 
Instead, what the Court said was that cities and states could not  single out
ritual animal sacrifice and make it illegal. So a city that allowed  people
to kill chickens within the city limits, could not pass a law making it 
illegal to kill chickens as part of a religious ceremony. 
But the upshot of that ruling is that if a municipality or state has an 
existing animal cruelty statute that is applied across the board and the 
religious sacrifice of an animal violates that statute, then the city or state  can
prosecute that act. If the animals in this case were killed in a way that 
violates Florida or Miami's existing anti-cruelty statutes, then the defendants 
will not be able to fall back on the First Amendment as a defense.

Ed Boks lied to the Jews about his comment. Nothing new. Everyone knows he's a liar.

Ed Boks is a non-denominational liar. He lies to all religions.

Since when does the head dog-catcher fire reporters...or even employ reporters? You'll have to do better than that. Or was that you , Ed?