In a sense, though the Jews sacrificing animals in the temple in Old Testament times
were committing bloody atrocities against Deity's creatures, at least they were out in the open and honest about it. Imagine your children witnessing the activities described  in the bloody scriptures of "Leviticus" and "Exodus" and you will find it easy to understand why carnivore cults such as orthodox Judaism and orthodox Christianity no longer sacrifice openly on their altars in their temples for people to see, but now kill the animals out of sight in their non public slaughterhouses.  For were they to coerce and kill animals in the presence of their offspring, the innocence in their children would respond and see the act for what it is, a demonic act causing misery and death for creatures that Deity created.

   In this respect the Sunni Muslims who live in Muslim countries are far more honest: they slaughter the animals in the open with sharp knives so the animals suffer minimally.  I have however met one former Muslim woman who told me her horror at seeing blood everywhere in Cairo on the day of collective slaughtering.  She is now a vegetarian, as were Muhammad and Ali.

  Proportionally, there are far more vegetarian Muslims than there are vegetarian Jews or Christians.  The vegetarian Shiites or Shias are in the majority in both Iran and Iraq, though Sunni Muslims were the political and military leaders in Iraq and punished the Shias in Iraq as well as in Iran.  Shias affirm that the true lineage of Muhammad's authority was to pass to the vegetarian Ali and not to the carnivorous line of Bakr, Omar and Uzman.  The fact that the preferred diet of Muhammad was vegetarian, and that he warned Muslims is no doubt one of the main reasons why vegetarianism is considered to be the lawful sunnah, or correct tradition, by the Shias.  Muhammad was, after all, vegetarian in his preferred diet. The fact that the Sunni tradition differs from its prophet on so great a matter of diet is not of little importance.  Muhammad's life itself is to be regarded as the correct tradition, yet though the preferred diet of Muhammad was vegetarian, and though Sunnis admit that Muhammad warned Muslims about how hard it was for the body to deal with the eating of

    Remember that if the orthodoxies of Judaism, Christianity and Sunni Islam truly followed ancient Judaism's example, the animals would be killed on the altar in the synagogues, churches and mosques.   But the orthodoxies can see how this form of honesty would show people that they are in fact demon cults, and how this public commitment to brutality would lead to their children leaving their sects, and so they now do their slaughtering outside of their places of worship.

     Ask any sane person if the acts they are witnessing are good or evil?

  Humans are forcing an animal through a chute, prodding the animal, pulling it with a tether--the animal is moaning in pain--the humans persist, employing more force, and the animal screams louder.  The cow's head is shot with a bolt or bullet and its throat is slit.

  The chicken's head is chopped off, or the chicken is thrown into a bag and suffocated.

  The pig is cut in half while alive!

  Sea life is hooked, netted, suffocated.

  These are evil acts to the animals, and no prayer or ritual can make it otherwise.

      Love creates harmony.  There is no harmony here.  Evil creates conflict; there is tremendous conflict here.  Deity loves, creates.  Demons oppress and destroy.
 
 

   Go to animal farms.  Witness thousands of hogs and thousands of chickens, in cages, one atop the other, in animal farms. The chickens and hogs never see the light of day unless they're fortunate enough to be caged by a window.  The animals on the top defecate and urinate and it falls on their species in the cages below them.  It is about as degraded a scene that one can imagine.  And all the eaters of chicken and pork products contribute to this brutality.  The Hindu/Buddhist scenario of former animal oppressors reincarnating as animals that they formerly oppressed and slaughtered comes to mind.
 

"You must not, however, eat flesh with its life-blood in it." Genesis 9: 4

"Thus says the Lord God: You eat flesh with the blood, and lift up your eyes to your idols, and shed blood; shall you then possess the land?  You resort to the sword, you commit abominations..."  Ezekiel 33: 25-26.

     There are a sufficient number of scriptures in the "Book of Ezekiel" to confirm that Ezekiel was vegetarian.  He denounced the animal sacrifices, and he saw the elect as wearing the bindi, the mark on the forehead worn by vegetarian Hindus.  He denounced the bloodshed and violence committed by the orthodoxy, and his vision of the bones of the dead rising again is happening in our very times, when vegetarians throughout the world are resurrecting the memories of those who in the past denounced the brutality of animal sacrifices.

   The law against eating blood originally meant eating anything derived from bloodshed.  This is seen clearly in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, a work which parallels "Genesis" in that both works describe the Deluge as a punishment against the corruption and violence committed by  "all flesh" and not just humans.  The Book of Enoch is the key unlocking the original morality of the vegetarian Bible that preceded the Old Testament or Torah.

  Jews in favor of animal sacrifices attempted to create a legal loophole allowing the eating of flesh if the blood was drained from it. It is physically impossible to remove all traces of blood from flesh, because blood, whether in a liquid or dried state, is an essential, inseparable part of flesh. Flesh is by definition comprised of blood. That is the nature of flesh. Therefore all eaters of flesh are eaters of blood as well.

   If you eat the dryest of dried flesh, you are still eating dried blood in that flesh. So while some Jews object to the eating of flesh with blood, they were still biologically assimilating blood to some degree.

    Those who argue that eating flesh is fine as long as the blood is drained away are nothing by sophists attempting to justify their eating addictions, or their addiction to profiting off animal sacrifices.  Clive Backster's experiments in The Secret Life of Plants demonstrated that even separated from its source blood still responds to emotional stimuli.  Therefore, the fact that all flesh retains some blood matter, whether dried or in liquid form, suggests that eaters of flesh not only cannot help but take in blood, but they also are effected by that blood. Blood is simply a by product of the crime, the horrendous atrocity committed on the the animal.

  The carnivore's preferences regarding the degree of blood residue in the corpse is secondary to the fact that a violent crime has been committed against another sentient creature, and nothing criminal occurs without payback in the universe of a just Deity.