Banning halal/kosher butchering - Page 16

On June 29 2011 06:19 Zorgaz wrote:


Nope i eat meat. I never said I'm against us eating animals.

I do however think that animals know pain aswell as we do and that we should avoid inflicting unnecessary pain on them.

No point making them suffer more.

On June 29 2011 06:27 Jokithedruid wrote:


I never understood why people cant accept that people eat/talk/sleep differently and always think that they are the center of universe which every1 else should orbit in a nice "normal" way. Stop the "it's mah town" b/s please, it's unintellegent and a fascistic way of thinking.

On June 29 2011 06:34 DizzyDrone wrote:
Relevant study by the University of Wageningen (Dutch only, sorry).

"The
main
conclusion
of
the
survey
was
that
ritual
slaughter
has
a
number
of
negative
aspects
for
the
animals
when
compared
to
conventional
procedures
where

a
stun
is
performed
prior
to
slaughter." (2008)

That said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what this is about. It is not about forbidding the act of ritual slaughter. it is about removing an exception in the law that allowed religious groups to do so without a stun.

Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.

On June 29 2011 06:34 DizzyDrone wrote:
Relevant study by the University of Wageningen (Dutch only, sorry).

"The
main
conclusion
of
the
survey
was
that
ritual
slaughter
has
a
number
of
negative
aspects
for
the
animals
when
compared
to
conventional
procedures
where

a
stun
is
performed
prior
to
slaughter." (2008)

That said, I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what this is about. It is not about forbidding the act of ritual slaughter. it is about removing an exception in the law that allowed religious groups to do so without a stun.

Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.

On June 29 2011 06:14 Mutality wrote:
Animal Welfare is using a stunner? The description given in the post does not stand for what the Halal Slaughtering process is. Maybe some of you should look up the Halal Slaughtering process and then see which is better for Animal Welfare

Edit: Nice informational article I just found to help clarify "Halal" http://muslimvillage.com/2011/05/31/is-halal-slaughter-cruel-to-animals/

On June 29 2011 06:41 Herculix wrote:


well since i can't read dutch, what are these negative effects? the post which made me change my mind after voting had a source of a scientific study that found that there were no pain signals sent to the brain of an animal slaughtered via slicing the throat, and to be honest even if there was, if it ends its life ASAP afterwards, that's about as good as you can ask for. stunning is pretty painful in itself.

so anyways, negative effects?

On June 29 2011 06:39 Blasterion wrote:
But you cannot erase other people's beliefs.
Besides it's not even a human problem in question. It's asking a religious group to discard a portion of their culture for well beings of beasts that are to be food anyways.
Oppressing people for beasts of consumption is blasphemy.

Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place.

On June 29 2011 07:15 domovoi wrote:

People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly.

What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday?

Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you!

This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone.

On June 29 2011 07:17 Roflhaxx wrote:
I really couldn't care less about jewish and islamic traditions. The rest of western world has moved on from living like "god" told us to years ago. Why shouldn't they?

On June 29 2011 07:23 Killrwombat wrote:
Animal rights are definitely a priority rather then accommodating religious traditions in my book. There is no reason to make an animal suffer in death, killing an animal for food is bad enough.

On June 29 2011 06:27 Blasterion wrote:

There is no point on making people suffer buy not allowing them practice their religion just because animals are suffering either.

On June 29 2011 07:15 domovoi wrote:

People who say this on the grounds that government should be "secular" are not thinking this very thoroughly.

What if there was a law that said "You are forbidden from operating a store on Sunday"? You have now discriminated against Orthodox Jews who rely on their stores being opened on Sunday in order to make up for their choice to close them on Saturday, the Shabbat. You are imposing by force of government a Christian-turned-secular norm on Orthodox Jews, and really for no good reason. What's wrong with making an exception for those who practice Shabbat and don't open their stores on Saturday?

Or how about, a law that requires all families to hang up Christmas trees during Christmas, which is now a secular tradition. What about a law that says you cannot skip school except for government-mandated holidays such as Easter and Christmas, which are also secular holidays. No more observing Rosh Hashanah for you!

This doesn't sound like separation of church and state. It sounds like the state interfering with religion, except instead of Catholicism, it's modern secular norms. I agree, the state should impose many modern norms (e.g. no murder) that might clash with religious norms, but the "slippery slope" argument that religious exemptions will lead to an exemption of murder is pretty stupid and fallacious. The above examples could easily involve a reasonable religious exemption that doesn't hurt anyone.

On June 29 2011 07:26 Derez wrote:


All your examples (except the xmas tree one, because its ridiculous in terms of privacy) are in fact laws over here (netherlands).

It is illegal to skip school for holidays that aren't recognized by the government, and most recognized holidays are christian in their nature.

It is also illegal to open a store on a sunday, the only way to obtain an exemption is on the basis of tourism.

In both cases, there has never been a need for exemptions on religious grounds. Dutch society is much more unitary then the US (for example).

On June 29 2011 06:27 Jokithedruid wrote:


I never understood why people cant accept that people eat/talk/sleep differently and always think that they are the center of universe which every1 else should orbit in a nice "normal" way. Stop the "it's mah town" b/s please, it's unintellegent and a fascistic way of thinking.

On June 29 2011 07:25 zalz wrote:


People don't suffer because they can't cast their magic spell on an animal. Animals do tend to notice small things like choking on their own blood.

I simply weight the very real concern of actuall impulses felt by animals to the imaginary religious reasoning that goes behind this barbarism.


I realise that allowing them to go about this ritual slaughtering without sedating the animal means they will provide no benefit but it will detract from the animal wellfare.

I realise that blocking unsedated ritual slaughter means the animal will suffer less, and it has no practical downside. Some religious people might be upset but then again, when are they not?


Research by a dutch universty clearly proves that this form of slaughter is causing unneeded pain in the animal. Meanwhile most of these supposed works of researching that prove how great ritual slaughter is happen to only be found on muslim/jewish websites and promoted by muslims and jews.


Letting animals suffer for no good reason is ridiculous. The animals can be sedated and THEN ritually slaughtered. Everyone should be happy with that solution except that ofcourse religious people make up some nonesense about how that don't really count.

Times change and religion has to change with it or get left behind. In this case religion was lagging behind and the modern world had to drag it up to speed. Modern societies need not be burdened by barbaric traditions.