|
Poll: What is worth more?Animal wellfare (1015) 75% Jewish and Muslim traditions (344) 25% 1359 total votes Your vote: What is worth more? (Vote): Animal wellfare
(Vote): Jewish and Muslim traditions
Centrist Dutch lawmakers worked behind the scenes to amend legislation that would outlaw centuries-old Jewish and Muslim traditions of slaughtering animals.
As in most western countries, Dutch law dictates that butchers must stun livestock — render it unconscious — before it can be slaughtered, to minimize the animals’ pain and fear.
But an exception is made for meat that must be prepared under ancient Jewish and Muslim dietary laws and practices. These demand that animals be slaughtered while still awake, by swiftly cutting the main arteries of their necks with razor-sharp knives.
So, how does this community thinks about this??
|
|
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Don't think its going to go through as a legislation though, its too divided.
|
Animal wellfare in theory.
|
I wish there was a third option. The issue at hand is whether it's fair to create religious exceptions to laws. For example, should you be allowed to use a specific drug as part of a religious practice that is banned for everyone else? I oppose the exception on these grounds, not "animal welfare."
|
The choices available are rather...biased. Regardless, why should there not be an exception made for religious beliefs of others?
|
the very last thing i worry about when it comes to islam/judaism is how they prepare their food
|
Animal welfare over religious traditions, anyday, everyday.
|
|
|
On June 28 2011 22:59 Vashalgrim wrote:
The choices available are rather...biased. Regardless, why should there not be an exception made for religious beliefs of others?
there was something in your constitution against that i think
|
Slippery slope. According to some interpretations of a certain religion, it's required that apostates are killed.
In my opinion, we can't make exceptions to our democratically created laws for religious traditions, even those that do not cause harm.
|
United States42961 Posts
They should make a judgement about whether cutting the throat with a razor is humane (I personally think it is if the guy knows what he's doing) and allow that for everyone, regardless of religious needs.
However, equally I think religious leaders should ask themselves if there is anything wrong with stunning things before you kill them. It's against tradition but so are cars, for centuries people walked everywhere. Technology moving on is a part of life, some traditions are simply an old way of doing things.
|
|
|
Separation of church and state, US will never do anything about it.
Damn constitution.
|
On June 28 2011 23:04 Dispersion wrote:
Separation of church and state, US will never do anything about it.
Damn constitution.
This is a Dutch law, not an American law.
I also have no idea what point you're trying to make.
|
On June 28 2011 23:04 Dispersion wrote:
Separation of church and state, US will never do anything about it.
Damn constitution.
By what you just said, isn't the government obligated to eliminate the practice religiously killed animals from its books ?
I don't think you're quite getting the concept of
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
|
Thousand year old cultural practices are way more important than "animal welfare." Butchers have been slaughtering animals for even longer without a stun gun. They know what to do, so no reason for the state to interfere with their practices.
edit: people often go nuts when matters involve religion, but this is a case of cultural practice imo.
|
Vegans surfing on european islamophobia to forbid all of us to eat meat what we want because the "meat industry" makes animals suffer.
First they came for the Halal meat,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a muslim.
Then they came for the Kosher meat,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a jew.
Then they came for my meat
and there was no one left to speak out for my meat.
|
You can still stun the animal so they are unconscious before they slit their throat...
Atleast thats what ive been told.
|
On June 28 2011 23:01 sanya wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 22:59 Vashalgrim wrote:
The choices available are rather...biased. Regardless, why should there not be an exception made for religious beliefs of others? there was something in your constitution against that i think
Oh you must have missed that this was a question about Dutch laws....not US laws. I actually do not know what their constitution allows for that or not.
Though looking at the US constitution, it has that line:
Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
And that law would seem to be prohibiting the free exercise of someone's religious belief. Does the Dutch constitution have a similar clause?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
