|
Always the same blind and clueless bashing on religion when the history has proven that Humans don't need any religion to be violent.
When you kill an animal with your hands, actually it gives your more responsability on what you are eating and what means eating meat on a daily basis. Clearly our modern society doesn't respect more animals than religious one because we don't even know how the animals are treated before we eat them and how they are killed, All the killing move on animals are done by machine, now killing an animal means nothing for us, you just buy your meat at the supermaket and you are done with it.
Where the ancient and religious societies are more aware of the responsability by eating meat because they have to kill and dismember the animal manually, and trust me when you see how it's done manually (i saw it with my eyes), you become a vegetarian or you respect alot more the animals and eat less meat.
|
acually, i think the topic starter should be banned for this.
putting on the one side animal welfare and on the other side Jewish and Muslim traditions is clearly racist.
it implies Jewish and Muslim traditions is contrary to animal wellfare. without even giving the posibility of thought that the so called Jewish and Muslim tradition in slaughtering animals might be more humane, than the common version in the west.
it clearly creates a bias because , hey who would be against animal wellfare,
im not,
are you?!!
|
On June 29 2011 07:15 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +Personally I think exceptions based on religion should not even exist in the first place. 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.
You're basing your argument on several examples of religious based laws. Obviously, I disagree with them. If it weren't for the obvious economic implications people should be allowed to operate their stores on Sundays (which in the Netherlands is not allowed, few exceptions aside). There's no way people should be forced to take part in religious events. Finally, I think people should be able to skip schooldays for religious reasons as long as it doesn't interfere with their education (in the Netherlands this is the case, although the rules to do so are very strict).
|
On June 29 2011 08:24 mmm wrote:
acually, i think the topic starter should be banned for this.
putting on the one side animal welfare and on the other side Jewish and Muslim traditions is clearly racist.
it implies Jewish and Muslim traditions is contrary to animal wellfare. without even giving the posibility of thought that the so called Jewish and Muslim tradition in slaughtering animals might be more humane, than the common version in the west.
it clearly creates a bias because , hey who would be against animal wellfare,
im not,
are you?!!
yea, there's a lot to be discussed here about the merits of each method presented and I'm still waiting on the OP to link anything that talks about this going on in the Netherlands. There should also be a link to a detailed and reputable source for each method, otherwise, this is only going to spark stupid responses.
|
Well, all the halal kebabs that I buy after a night out taste just as good.
|
I can't see how swiftly cutting an animals throat could be that cruel to the animal? I mean, it's going to DIE, does the amount of pain during the last seconds really play that big part?
If I had to choose a way to get killed, a sliced throat seems rather painless compared to many other methods. And the animals aren't awared that they're going to die, so rendering them unconscious doesn't help them against the mental torture of knowing that you're going to die (as it would with a human).
Just let the jews and the muslims have their traditions. If you want to focus on animal rights, focus on their living conditions, not if their death is painful.
Or, you could focus on something important, like world hunger, over population, green energy sources, etc. These kind of questions upset people, while not really achieving anything important even if it goes through. Such a waste of time, if you ask me.
|
A video showing both Kosher and Halal slaughter. The video is in Dutch but that doesn't matter much, the images speak for themselves. NSFL
http://vimeo.com/25096650
|
From what I hear about halal chicken, the only difference is that the butchering shop has to pay an imam to pray for the poultry.
I'm not very good with religious traditions, but does it say anywhere in the Tora or Quaran that the livestock has to be at full consciousness? I thought the point was that the creature had to be bled dry - which is not too different from modern butchering techniques.
Regardless, I would be a lot more concerned about the livestock's life and upbringing, as opposed to its death.
|
This is an extremely simple debate but loaded because of religious people who compare stuff with WWII.
It was decided that butchering should be done in the most animal friendly way. In the modern world we have ways to measure stress and pain and means to reduce it.
Therefore, it was banned to butcher without first making the animal go unconsciousness. Only when they were unable to feel pain, it was allowed to kill them.
In the Netherlands under the constitution, religious people have more rights than nonreligious people. Freedom of religion is very strong here and you can do things that are illegal otherwise if it us under the umbrella of religion. Freedom of speech is one thing. You can call for gay people to be killed as long as you can claim it is a religious view. If it is a religious view, you are protected. If not, it is illegal under other laws.
Same with schools. People can get money from the taxpayer to fund their own school if and only if the school is based on religious ideology. It's part of freedom of religion to get free money to have a religious school. Other ideologies can't get this money because religion is not like other ideologies. It has special rights.
Because of the special status of anything religious, it was still allowed to butcher without stunning as long as it was under the umbrella of freedom of religion. In the torah it states that an animal is only kosher if it can walk 4 paces after the throat is slit. If not, the animal is probably sick and not safe to eat. This is perfect fine stone age logic. Stone age logic no longer applies. But it is seen as religious dogma right now. Not following religious dogma is considered a sin.
All completely silly.
If you ask me the religious people have an argument. What needs to happen is the constitution has to be changed. The constitution is what it is now because of the persecution of protestant Christians. Freedom of religion needs to be protected but it needs to put non religious people on an equal level with religious people. It doesn't do that because the text is archaic and obsolete. Not having a religion is currently not protected by the constitution. Non religious people are second class citizens. You can't start a Keynesian school. But you can start a Scientology school, using taxpayer money. When you claim Keynesian is a religion it suddenly gets special privileges and you can fund a Keynesian school.
If Keynesianism claims to be a religion then suddenly other constitutional rights are removed to allow for religious practices, if the religion of Keynesiamism demands for this.
Under the current constitution, children have no freedom of religion. Children are brainwashed by tax payer money in schools founded on this religion. No one protects their right of growing up without believing they can be of another religion than the religion of their parents.
This case just shows the freedom of religion needs to be entirely removed from the constitutional. Freedom of religion is already part of freedom of speech and expression. Religion as an ideology is just like any other ideology, be it economic, scientific, cultural, or whatever.
So yes, this new law does collide with the constitutional rights of religious people, and that's exactly the problem. It shouldn't.
If someone slits your throat when you are perfectly conscious, you will suffer. If you are unconscious and someone slits your throat, you will feel way less. The law says animals should be slaughtered only in the least painful way possible. So that bans halal and kosher slaughtering because in the bible or quran they didn't have anesthesia, obviously..
Right now, Muslim people don't dare to say much. But jewish people are very vocal. They bring up Hitler and what he did and lie that if the throat of an animal is slit fast and skillfully enough, you can't feel it.
Also, they bring in other issues about if eating animals should be moral even if you slaughter in the least painful way.
Then these Jewish people threaten to go to terrorist state of Israel. I say, go. We don't need you in our modern society. Don't use the holocaust argument against us. Don't bring up that you were in a concentration camp.
So really religious people are lying and the animal rights party, who are vegetarians and want to abolish factory farming completely, just put their finger at a very sore point in our society.
On top of that, Islamic clerics claim that slaughtering an animal while it is unconscious is perfectly halal and a large percentage of halal meat in the Netherlands is already slaughtered that way.
When some religious group claims the only non sinful way to slaughter an animal is to throw it off the highest building in the country during working days at 4 PM, does not allowing that mean you are denying their right to have the religious ideology they choose to want?
Really, if we give religious people special rights, were do we draw the line.
As for protection minorities especially, I am fully for that. Why? Because in a democracy, minorities are weak and have little power. Their rights need to be protected especially well. But animals are part of this group. Animals need to be protected. Greeks believed animals and rocks were the same thing. Now we know mammals suffer as much as humans and other animals are not far off. They are just less smart and their consciousness is at a way lower level.
|
If my religion is to whack off squirrels and then eat there heads. Damn right I should be able to whose to say all your religion is not crazy or the only right one. If animal welfare had its way we would be able to eat steaks or hamburgers. Only difference between Live Stock and Animals is we deemed them that.
|
Being unconscious doesn't mean you don't feel pain if it was that simple people executed by the state would just be knocked over the head, you're killing something it's not animal friendly to kill them just because they don't flop around as much when it's unconscious meaning it's easier for YOU to look at doesn't mean it wont feel the same pain.
|
On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage)
180 people believe in freedom.
|
On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom.
I hope you aren't serious.
|
On June 29 2011 09:03 FliedLice wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. I hope you aren't serious.
entirely serious. why do they not deserve the freedom to have food prepared in the way that is their tradition?
|
On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom.
180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
|
On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Vegetarian right? I sure as hell hope you don't eat chicken.... I dont even want to tell you what people do with chickens!
|
On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
Humans > Animals
Therefore
Religious tradition > Animal life
|
On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion*
and a bunch of people think that the choices of the poll are dumb because it implies that kosher/halal is not in the interest of animal welfare.
|
On June 29 2011 09:07 Zetter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On June 29 2011 09:01 Destro wrote:On June 29 2011 07:50 smallerk wrote:
Just knowing that 180 people think we should kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style, just because of religion. THAT SHIT MAKES ME SAD(and rage) 180 people believe in freedom. 180 people believe in the freedom to kill animals by slitting their throat cold blood style just because of religion* Humans > Animals Therefore Religious tradition > Animal life
Id much prefer Predator > Prey
Humans are animals.
|
Even if humans > animals, why ' human false beliefs > real animal suffering '.
What if a cow believes cow > human. What objective argument do we have that it is indeed human > cow and not cow > human?
I would pick a human life over the life as a cow, but I have no perfectly sound and objective argument for that.
And even if it is objectively true that humans > cows, what does it matter if we can't convince cows that this is true?
Might does not make right. Even the people who wrote the bible, with their Taliban morality, knew better than that.
Humans are animals, yes. Religious dogma is just wrong here. They can claim we are divine and angel-like all they want. There is only one reality.
Reminds me of Florida where they outlawed humans having sex with animals, including the animals known as humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
