EPTTo my knowledge, in halal slaughter, the animal doesn't feel pain when it's done correctly. If the dutch government wanted to be picky, I'm sure most religious leaders wouldnt care if they were stunned first.
Banning halal/kosher butchering - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
LittleAtari
Jordan1090 Posts
To my knowledge, in halal slaughter, the animal doesn't feel pain when it's done correctly. If the dutch government wanted to be picky, I'm sure most religious leaders wouldnt care if they were stunned first. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:08 caelym wrote: 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. That's a pretty interesting view, we should never change anything ever. Get off the internet and go cook a squirrel over an open fire. | ||
|
blackone
Germany1314 Posts
| ||
|
Djagulingu
Germany3605 Posts
Thing is, halal butchering is actually the least painful method. At least according to what I heard from a few veterinars. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32130 Posts
| ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
Kinda shitty choice for the religious patrioit~ Why treat your citizens so crappily? I get that it's for "animal rights" but kosher slaughter was originally designed for their benefit. If people want to seriously get at animal malpractice then we all know this isn't what needs to be done. | ||
|
nukeazerg
United States168 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:03 KwarK wrote: 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. very poor analogy on your part. Cars do not equal a dietary restriction. prisons are overflowing draining peoples lives. Animals are not worth adding people to prison | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:04 Dispersion wrote: Separation of church and state, US will never do anything about it. Damn constitution. This is wild to me. Why should you decide how people of a certain faith are allowed to practice their religion? I have a feeling that this poll is going to be extremely lopsided because of how it was presented, and in the general mentality of teamliquid, but it's still ridiculous to me to think that we should do anything to this practice. Case in point, the link that the other gentleman posted here (Animals appear not to feel it). Yes, some practices, such as the killing of apostates should not be allowed, because they infringe on basic human rights such as life, which is why muder isn't allowed. The method in which you slaughter an animal does no such thing, and thus we shouldn't try to presume that we know enough about their faith to pass any law at all on the matter. I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now." You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief. (Edit: I realize that this is in the netherlands, and not the US, but the above quote still confuses me) | ||
|
caelym
United States6421 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:11 Zorkmid wrote: That's a pretty interesting view, we should never change anything ever. Get the fuck off the internet and go cook a squirrel over an open fire. thanks for taking what i said out of context bro. Slaughtering animals is a simple standard practice that has had no negative impact for thousands of years (someone's going to cite some random facts to counter this, but search your feelings, you know it to be true). There's no reason to change just because some people think it's mean to kill animals. And what if I did go cook a squirrel over an open fire? You going to disrespect me for that? (Watch the Ozarks episode of No Reservations) | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:16 reneg wrote: I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now." You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief. If my belief required animal torture, I don't feel like I would have much dignity. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10870 Posts
| ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:16 reneg wrote: This is wild to me. Why should you decide how people of a certain faith are allowed to practice their religion? I have a feeling that this poll is going to be extremely lopsided because of how it was presented, and in the general mentality of teamliquid, but it's still ridiculous to me to think that we should do anything to this practice. Case in point, the link that the other gentleman posted here (Animals appear not to feel it). Yes, some practices, such as the killing of apostates should not be allowed, because they infringe on basic human rights such as life, which is why muder isn't allowed. The method in which you slaughter an animal does no such thing, and thus we shouldn't try to presume that we know enough about their faith to pass any law at all on the matter. I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now." You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief. (Edit: I realize that this is in the netherlands, and not the US, but the above quote still confuses me) Imagine? We don't have to, that's basically all laws. This isn't about religion, it's about whether stunning an animal is necessary or not. If it is necessary then your religion doesn't matter, you have to do it. If it's not, it's your choice. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:19 Zorkmid wrote: If my belief required animal torture, I don't feel like I would have much dignity. This isn't animal torture, though, it's a humane method of slaughtering livestock. | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:19 Zorkmid wrote: If my belief required animal torture, I don't feel like I would have much dignity. We're not talking about dismembering the animals and forcing their friends to watch. We're discussing humanely slaughtering them. The Jewish/Islamic method has been cited as being a very humane way to slaughter the animal. If you're completely against killing the animal at all, then there's no common ground we can discuss, but I feel like if you're okay with society in some way using their meat, then I honestly feel like the kosher method of slaughter is just as humane and good as electrocuting them with a stun gun, then killing them. | ||
|
SaetZero
United States855 Posts
Side note being I would say follow religious beliefs if they can prove how important that part of the ritual is, with excerpts from their doctrines or something similar. But i don't have an attachment to either issue personally. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:22 Saraf wrote: This isn't animal torture, though, it's a humane method of slaughtering livestock. So, then is that was how we executed prisoner's on death row (capital punishment argument aside), by cutting their arteries with razors, would you still agree that it was humane? | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
Also Halaal food is really good =/. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:16 reneg wrote: This is wild to me. Why should you decide how people of a certain faith are allowed to practice their religion? I have a feeling that this poll is going to be extremely lopsided because of how it was presented, and in the general mentality of teamliquid, but it's still ridiculous to me to think that we should do anything to this practice. Case in point, the link that the other gentleman posted here (Animals appear not to feel it). Yes, some practices, such as the killing of apostates should not be allowed, because they infringe on basic human rights such as life, which is why muder isn't allowed. The method in which you slaughter an animal does no such thing, and thus we shouldn't try to presume that we know enough about their faith to pass any law at all on the matter. I find it shocking that people would even consider it. Imagine if people came up to you, and even though you held the belief that you CANNOT do something, said, "sorry, that's not the way everyone else does it, you have to be like the rest of us now." You'd find it an affront to your dignity and your belief. The idea is to make all butchers comply with the same law. There was an exception built in for specific religious practices, but they're trying to remove it. They didn't create restrictions on butchering in order to prevent these religious practices. They're just trying to make everyone comply with the same law. I also think analogies to the US first amendment should stop. There are really two reasons: 1) This is a Dutch Law, not American. Argue about it on its own merits and within the Dutch legal system. 2) People appear to have no clue what the first amendment actually says. I'm not talking about the text itself, but the 200+ years of legal precedent since. For example, this issue would have a clear outcome in American courts (and might in Dutch courts as well). + Show Spoiler + In Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963), the Supreme Court required that states have a "compelling interest" in refusing to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. The case involved Adele Sherbert, who was denied unemployment benefits by South Carolina because she refused to work on Saturdays, something forbidden by her Seventh-day Adventist faith. In Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), the Court ruled that a law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest, even though it might be "neutral on its face," would be unconstitutional. The "compelling interest" doctrine became much narrower in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that as long as a law does not target a particular religious practice it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), the Supreme Court ruled Hialeah had passed an ordinance banning ritual slaughter, a practice central to the Santería religion, while providing exceptions for some practices such as the kosher slaughter. Since the ordinance was not "generally applicable," the Court ruled that it was subject to the compelling interest test, which it failed to meet, and was therefore declared unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Pay close attention to the differences between Employment Division v. Smith and Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Unless a similar case made it to the Supreme Court, it would be decided along these lines. | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
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. | ||
| ||
