EPTAs a Muslim this isn't the first time I've seen the Dutch government try to do something like this
Here's a video about what Halal food/Kosher basically does to the animal.
Banning halal/kosher butchering - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
LaGTTJack
United States69 Posts
As a Muslim this isn't the first time I've seen the Dutch government try to do something like this Here's a video about what Halal food/Kosher basically does to the animal. | ||
|
isM
United States735 Posts
| ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:13 Zorgaz wrote: If animal cruelty doesn't disturb you, then atleast I think that's kinda disturbing. sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food. Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion. I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word. | ||
|
Karok
Netherlands142 Posts
| ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:32 Destro wrote: sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food. Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion. I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word. Are you claiming that the people who practice this dogma are doing it because they are on the verge or starvation? If not I don't understand how your post has any merit. | ||
|
ComusLoM
Norway3547 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:27 dakalro wrote: There's no debate here. Just imagine the outcry if christians were forced to commit sin by the state. Freedom of religion kids. On the other hand does it really hurt when you get a cut? No. If that cut was through a major artery the pain would be the same and you'd die peacefully from lack of oxygen, no pain. Getting electrocuted on the other hand ... ouch, if you ever touched some electrical wires you know. There's a difference between being forced to do something and being forbidden. Quite frankly there is not enough emphasis on integration. If any community moves to a different country to speak their own language and congregate together exclusively that is obviously terrible and unfortunately halal practices encourages this lack of integration. This is due to the establishment of halal businesses within this integrated community, further strengthening the link within their own community and desperately weakening the link to the actual country they are in. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:30 isM wrote: I seem to remember a certain group in power of a certain nation in the 1930s-1940s banning kosher butchering. I don't think government should legislate for or against religions, it goes against free will. To limit the rights of humans and extending those of beasts......What has humanity become? | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:25 LaGTTJack wrote: Halal death is not painful....Kosher death is not painful...this is religious... As a Muslim this isn't the first time I've seen the Dutch government try to do something like this Here's a video about what Halal food/Kosher basically does to the animal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBsbfqCXmlw I would avoid citing Zakir Naiq as your primary source, the guy is a religious cleric, so while what he may be saying in this case may be accurate, he's been known to say some... questionable stuff. As a religious source, it's whatever... As a scientific source, I would cite the scientific studies as referenced earlier. | ||
|
Shagg
Finland825 Posts
| ||
|
Jokithedruid
Sweden74 Posts
Stop the baseless hating and use some common unbiased research abilities. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:25 LaGTTJack wrote: Halal death is not painful....Kosher death is not painful...this is religious... As a Muslim this isn't the first time I've seen the Dutch government try to do something like this Here's a video about what Halal food/Kosher basically does to the animal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBsbfqCXmlw Well that guy wouldn't have any reason at all to say what he says so he must be legit. Come on man, be reasonable. You can't trust religious people or religious scientists on this subject because they will always be biased towards protecting their traditions. He is religious and he's standing infront of a religious crowd, all he needs to say is what they want to hear and they will eat it up like...well like halal meat i suppose. Independent scientists have shown that the animal does suffer and for that reason it has to be sedated. Animal wellfare takes precedence over religion and rightly so. Sedating or stunning the animal before slaughter is a perfect compromise. Try not always wanting to have everything your way. Religious freedom should be very limited. Owning a religious book, having a religious institution of choice within reasonable distance and being allowed to pray to whatever god you favour. It is not the ultimate loophole to bypass all freedoms. | ||
|
Seide
United States831 Posts
Hell hunting season people just straight up shoot animals with guns with no care in the world. Why not go take up the fight against hunting too. I fail to see the big issue here, apart from people jumping on the "omg look what these religious ppl are doing, see how bad religion is" bandwagon. Is this kind of slaughtering hurting your life in any way? Probably not, why do you care then, and why do you want to limit it, thus hurting the life of people who follow that belief. Its not a hard concept people, if its not hurting your life, let them live their life was they please. Also, sorry, that poor cow that is going to be killed anyway experiencing pain is not hurting your life. Stop trying to show how superior person you are by caring about the lives of "those innocent creatures", its pathetic. All around the world there are thousands of animals raised with 1 single purpose in life: to die and wind up on a plate. How they die, is really a minor issue at this point. | ||
|
Jokithedruid
Sweden74 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:32 Destro wrote: sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food. Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion. I wouldn't be surprised that people would rather end animal suffering before we end human suffering. If thats what is "humane" i want nothing to do with the word. Amen brother. | ||
|
Destro
Netherlands1206 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:34 On_Slaught wrote: Are you claiming that the people who practice this dogma are doing it because they are on the verge or starvation? If not I don't understand how your post has any merit. Humane is a derivative of Humanity, the 1st world is not the representative of humanity, infact, statistically, its a minority. Thus, what is practised in the rest of the world is more "humane" then what you people are claiming. Now before you call semantics, lets keep in mind that these are dutch laws, so the dutch folk here have a bit more weight in the conversation imo. Also consider the fact that to a muslim, giving an animal a more humane/proper death, is to give it a halal death. These dutch lawmakers are essentially trying to say "my way or the highway" and to a greater extent, so are the posters in this thread. | ||
|
Mordiford
4448 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:38 zalz wrote: Well that guy wouldn't have any reason at all to say what he says so he must be legit. Come on man, be reasonable. You can't trust religious people or religious scientists on this subject because they will always be biased towards protecting their traditions. He is religious and he's standing infront of a religious crowd, all he needs to say is what they want to hear and they will eat it up like...well like halal meat i suppose. Independent scientists have shown that the animal does suffer and for that reason it has to be sedated. Animal wellfare takes precedence over religion and rightly so. Sedating or stunning the animal before slaughter is a perfect compromise. Try not always wanting to have everything your way. Religious freedom should be very limited. Owning a religious book, having a religious institution of choice within reasonable distance and being allowed to pray to whatever god you favour. It is not the ultimate loophole to bypass all freedoms. What you recommend is not exactly a compromise, that's just getting it your way. Without evidence to suggest that it is more painful and inhumane, you can't just suggest an arbitrary compromise. Other sources were cited in this regard, what studies have Independent scientists done that show the animals suffer, if you could source some of these studies you're referring to, that would be helpful. | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:38 zalz wrote: Well that guy wouldn't have any reason at all to say what he says so he must be legit. Come on man, be reasonable. You can't trust religious people or religious scientists on this subject because they will always be biased towards protecting their traditions. He is religious and he's standing infront of a religious crowd, all he needs to say is what they want to hear and they will eat it up like...well like halal meat i suppose. Independent scientists have shown that the animal does suffer and for that reason it has to be sedated. Animal wellfare takes precedence over religion and rightly so. Sedating or stunning the animal before slaughter is a perfect compromise. Try not always wanting to have everything your way. Religious freedom should be very limited. Owning a religious book, having a religious institution of choice within reasonable distance and being allowed to pray to whatever god you favour. It is not the ultimate loophole to bypass all freedoms. Let's put this into perspective. Religious Rights and Rights of Humans to religion Animal Rights are Rights of Animals Humans>Animals There for Rights of Humans take priority over those of Beasts. If you are gonna draw equal signs between Humans and Beasts I will lose respect for you as another member of humanity | ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:32 Destro wrote: Villagers cutting the throats of goats to provide food for the village do not disturb me either, because it is not pointless harmcausing. Why won't you understand this? There is a difference between killing an animal, and killing an animal in a cruel way. Even if slithing a goats throat is cruel to the goat, those villagers may not have any other less cruel way to kill the goat so it is still acceptable.sorry, cutting the throat of an animal doesnt disturb me. people's ignorance to how the world works does however. Go to africa, tell a village that has 3 goats to survive off of for 2 months that they are disturbing for cutting the throat of a goat for food. Until we stop treating other humans worse than we treat our food, i will never believe that this kind of arrogant 1st world issue is worth the discussion. And again, just because there are worse problems does not mean lesser problems cannot be addressed. It's like saying "Wow, I can't find my keys, I'd better not search or find a solution because people in Africa are starving and that needs to be solved first.". | ||
|
ComusLoM
Norway3547 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:41 Destro wrote: Humane is a derivative of Humanity, the 1st world is not the representative of humanity, infact, statistically, its a minority. Thus, what is practised in the rest of the world is more "humane" then what you people are claiming. Now before you call semantics, lets keep in mind that these are dutch laws, so the dutch folk here have a bit more weight in the conversation imo. Also consider the fact that to a muslim, giving an animal a more humane/proper death, is to give it a halal death. These dutch lawmakers are essentially trying to say "my way or the highway" and to a greater extent, so are the posters in this thread. Why wouldn't the dutch have the right then to legislate in their own country based on your argument that is exactly what you'd be advocating, you allude to this fact, but that doesn't make your argument any less flawed. And last time I checked the third world was pretty much a shithole, not as bad a shithole as the media would have you believe, but still a shithole. Also people who have brought the "christians would be outraged if X were banned" argument are probably not aware of the changes of position the church constantly underwent when it expanded in order to placate the pagans in the Germanic countries, Christianity is incredibly different to what it was even 200 years ago, not exactly an expert on how Islam has changed though, would be interesting. | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On June 29 2011 05:50 ComusLoM wrote: Why wouldn't the dutch have the right then to legislate in their own country based on your argument that is exactly what you'd be advocating, you allude to this fact, but that doesn't make your argument any less flawed. And last time I checked the third world was pretty much a shithole, not as bad a shithole as the media would have you believe, but still a shithole. Also people who have brought the "christians would be outraged if X were banned" argument are probably not aware of the changes of position the church constantly underwent when it expanded in order to placate the pagans in the Germanic countries, Christianity is incredibly different to what it was even 200 years ago, not exactly an expert on how Islam has changed though, would be interesting. I do know a lot about the Christian Reformations during the early to late middle ages, but explain to me what the price of rice in china has to do with this conversation? | ||
|
MilesTeg
France1271 Posts
It's the same in France, they're legislating on everything to please the intolerant majority, and I find the whole debate disgusting. Besides is the poll is ridiculously biased, and should be removed from the OP. (this coming from an atheist who doesn't even want to kill a bug...) | ||
| ||
