|
On June 29 2011 17:00 Jakkerr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote:
Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right. well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
That is your view and many others. I am not a Muslim but I understand to some degree the significance of Islamic beliefs and laws to Muslims. Islamic laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness. Indeed, most secular law systems in the western world have their laws sourced in Christianity, and if you take the cultural viewpoint of a devout Muslim, many people in such countries like Australia behave like complete criminals.
I don't it is fair for a country to say: okay, your religion, which is shared by people of over a billion people, is completely stupid, and we're going to ban or make it really difficult for you to do some of your most important practices. Indeed, I would say that to do that would be completely discriminatory. What are Muslims going to do then? Either break a divine law and be punished by God or to follow their Islamic norms and be viewed as barbarians by socIety. That is not a fair position to be put in.
Ultimately, it is a question of values in the matter of governance. Will it be tolerance and multiculturalism, or intolerance and monoculture, perhaps even the unrestricted triumph of the majority over the minority. Sometimes democracy sucks because it ultimately leads to oppression of the minority. That's when the government comes in to provide common sense, but when a government acts the same way... Well, I wouldn't want to be in a minority group there, that's for sure.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2011 17:16 tyCe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 17:00 Jakkerr wrote:On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote:
Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right. well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry). That is your view and many others. I am not a Muslim but I understand to some degree the significance of Islamic beliefs and laws to Muslims. Islamic laws and norms have a divine source. They are not made by man but by God, and so it is not for you or me to question their validity or appropriateness. Indeed, most secular law systems in the western world have their laws sourced in Christianity, and if you take the cultural viewpoint of a devout Muslim, many people in such countries like Australia behave like complete criminals. I don't it is fair for a country to say: okay, your religion, which is shared by people of over a billion people, is completely stupid, and we're going to ban or make it really difficult for you to do some of your most important practices. Indeed, I would say that to do that would be completely discriminatory. What are Muslims going to do then? Either break a divine law and be punished by God or to follow their Islamic norms and be viewed as barbarians by socIety. That is not a fair position to be put in. Ultimately, it is a question of values in the matter of governance. Will it be tolerance and multiculturalism, or intolerance and monoculture, perhaps even the unrestricted triumph of the majority over the minority. Sometimes democracy sucks because it ultimately leads to oppression of the minority. That's when the government comes in to provide common sense, but when a government acts the same way... Well, I wouldn't want to be in a minority group there, that's for sure.
Bullshit, it 100% is his right to question it, because they have absolutely not a single shred of evidence or proof to back up their claim of it being a command from god. It's all a hoax, and they have no proof otherwise. Since they can't actually show that what they claim is true, or even provide evidence in that direction, it is completely acceptable for him to question its validity, in fact, it's the right thing to do for him to question its validity.
The moment we stop asking questions is the moment humanity dies.
Ask questions, especially when it comes to concepts without any actual evidence or proof.
|
On June 29 2011 17:15 Expurgate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 17:02 tyCe wrote:
Traditionally, the Netherlands has been a country that is both generally ignorant and very intolerant of Islamic values, and has voiced its objection to such regularly on the international stage. Wow, describing the Netherlands as a generally ignorant and intolerant country? That's new.
Its been moving that way for the last few years, though its rather exaggerated. Mr. Wilders gets too much time in the spotlight.
On topic; I think a properly executed kosher/halal slaughter is no different then regular slaughtering. Somehow the Animal Party has managed to convince a majority in the Dutch parliament that these traditional methods of slaughter are 'inhumane' / 'abusive to animals' or whatever.
|
On June 29 2011 17:16 tyCe wrote:
Indeed, most secular law systems in the western world have their laws sourced in Christianity
I'm just going to stop you there and point out that most legal systems, are, in fact, not at all based on Christianity, and in fact mainly originated in Rome c500 BCE.
|
LOL. I thought it was "Baneling halal" instead and was wondering why this was in General and not in StarCraft 2
I could not care less about how they butcher their animals. I can understand vegans talking about animal rights - not that I agree in any way, I love my meat - but I think this is just stretching too far.
|
On June 29 2011 17:00 Jakkerr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote:
Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right. well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument:
Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid.
Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between.
The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion.
That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2011 17:39 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 17:00 Jakkerr wrote:On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote:
Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right. well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry). You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid. Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between. The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion. That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not.
Except that they don't know jack shit. They believe, with no evidence or facts to support it. They think there is a god, and behave as if there is one, but they have no proof or logical reason for that belief, they just believe because they want to, which is beyond stupid.
The purpose of the poll however, is to ask how people feel about forcing them to adhere to federal laws an regulations and no longer give them an exemption due to their religion.
|
On June 28 2011 23:09 legaton wrote:
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.
i gotta agree with this here, and as much as i support animal rights i support the right to religious practices more.
|
I don't exactly know if what I'm about to say is true, but a classmate of mine brought this up, and I think it's certainly plausible.
He said: "At the time the Koran and the Thora (i think it is?) were written it was thought that by killing the animals the prescribed way was the most humane way to do so."
I don't know if that's true at all, but it does make sense to me. Does it not go against the core of Jewish/Muslim believes to decrease a live being's suffering as much as possible?
I'm sorry if there are any English mistakes in this post. I am not a native speaker.
|
I'm sorry but I don't understand why there's even a discussion about this.
I'm not a vegetarian or a animal-rights kind of guy but I grew up with animals and for me this is a simple question of common sense.
Tradition is good as long as long as you take it with a bit of common sense. If you wanna bleed out your animals while they're still alive, stun them give them a drug or whatever. There's no freaking argument that any person in their right mind can make for cutting the throat of a concious animal to bleed it out over cutting the throat of an unconcious one.
Even if you're talking about religious tolerance, this discussion isn't about not tolerating a religion but simply about how far a government can intrude on the practices of a religion.
I'm neither jewish nor a muslim, so I don't know the exact fomulation of their laws, but after reading up on them they talk about healthy living animals, not concious ones. The "normal" methods of stunning the animal or rendering it unconcious are forbidden because they would cause injuries that would result in death anyways or would render the animal unkosher by some reason.
What I'm getting at is simple: There are reasons 'we' kill the animals we eat as we do. It's because it's not painful and the animals are rendered unconcious instantly or at least without inducing panic.
If Jews and Muslims want to follow their traditions they're long overdue to search for a method that has the same effect withour breaking and of their religious laws.
Think about what you'd feel like of someone slit your throat open and you'd not be able to breathe and slowly just "stop". Pain or not, 30 seconds or 10 minutes... I don't wish that to anyone or anything
TL:DR: By religious law there's no need to kill the animals while they're concious therefore this is no discussion about being intolerant, but one about being inconvenient in the sense of 'we'll have to adjust out way of doing things'
|
On June 29 2011 17:00 Jakkerr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote:
Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right. well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).
wow really? u need to gather more knowledge.
|
many people here dismiss this tradition simply by saying the source is religious and giving it no further thought.
the source for this tradition is not religoius rather than the tradition is religious.
Looking for the source you will not find "religion" as that is where you start but you will find "Animal Rights". thats what this tradition is. It originated to offer less suffering to the animal.
Now, you may say that in today's world there are more humane ways to butcher an animal and you may have a valid point but coming out dismissing something without really knowing what its about strikes me a bit odd.
While ones view against Kosher butchering might be the right one its a shame that the thought process that brought him to that conclusion is a wrong one.
*Note that I am only refering to a part of those who oppose and not the whole.
|
United States7483 Posts
On June 29 2011 18:25 nucleo wrote:
many people here dismiss this tradition simply by saying the source is religious and giving it no further thought.
the source for this tradition is not religoius rather than the tradition is religious.
Looking for the source you will not find "religion" as that is where you start but you will find "Animal Rights". thats what this tradition is. It originated to offer less suffering to the animal.
Now, you may say that in today's world there are more humane ways to butcher an animal and you may have a valid point but coming out dismissing something without really knowing what its about strikes me a bit odd.
While ones view against Kosher butchering might be the right one its a shame that the thought process that brought him to that conclusion is a wrong one.
*Note that I am only refering to a part of those who oppose and not the whole.
The origins are irrelevant, what matters is why people do it NOW, at this point in time. The answer to that, is because their religion tells them too. Way back, it might have had a good reason. Now? Probably not so much, which means that they should abandon the practice, now that it is outdated.
|
this entire argument seems very weird. people act like slaughtering animals without any religious methods is a pleasant thing for the animal. the traditional methods have the same problems since we don't really know much about how the animal feels pain during. for that reason i think the argument that the animal is hurting is a double edged sword. the animal may also be suffering (less or more) with a more traditional approach. people don't seem to have a problem with cutting the head of a chicken for instance, even though its running around headless for a while before dying. I dunno, seems to be lot of hypocrisy in this thread.
Instead we should concentrate on the living conditions for the animals as this is way easier to determine what is ethical here.
|
Ahm.. We narcotise (bigger) animals before we shoot them in the head with a Boltgun...
No, thats not painfull in any way. The dead comes very quick and theire narcotised...
|
On June 29 2011 18:41 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 18:25 nucleo wrote:
many people here dismiss this tradition simply by saying the source is religious and giving it no further thought.
the source for this tradition is not religoius rather than the tradition is religious.
Looking for the source you will not find "religion" as that is where you start but you will find "Animal Rights". thats what this tradition is. It originated to offer less suffering to the animal.
Now, you may say that in today's world there are more humane ways to butcher an animal and you may have a valid point but coming out dismissing something without really knowing what its about strikes me a bit odd.
While ones view against Kosher butchering might be the right one its a shame that the thought process that brought him to that conclusion is a wrong one.
*Note that I am only refering to a part of those who oppose and not the whole. The origins are irrelevant, what matters is why people do it NOW, at this point in time. The answer to that, is because their religion tells them too. Way back, it might have had a good reason. Now? Probably not so much, which means that they should abandon the practice, now that it is outdated.
You both actually raise good and valid points.
First we need to consider the level of scientific knowlege and the spead of education amongst primitive (ancient) cultures. Typically it was only the noble class and the priesthood who could afford any form of education beyond basic trades. Nobles in general were more concerned with forms of education concerning government, warfare, civil management, engineering & construction etc. The Priesthood were more concerned with the sciences of nature, astrology, astronomy & medicine. Of course they didnt understand it as "science" exactly, but they DID take something, observe it, question it, perform experiments (informally & with no scientific processes) and come to (often) well reasoned conclusions...
With regard to the Jewish prohibition to not eat pork for example... in ancient days with a lack of proper veterinary care or food processing/preserving techniques, Pork was a very unsanitary meat. Pigs were often riddled with parasites and eating any Pig product did quite often result in illness. The cascade effect (thanks to primitive medicine) was that the illness would lead to insanity, disability and even death. Therefore, we had a group of priest who knew that eating pork was bad for you. How would they convince thier followers that they should stop ? By "educating the masses" ?
No, they were priests, so they simply preached that it was a commandment from God to eat no Pork. Many obeyed and strangely enough (miraculously) people didnt get sick as often...
The fact that the success of this "new" prohibition raised the image of the priests with the citizenry and Nobles (thus increasing thier temporal/political power/credibility) may have helped too 
This is one example where a "scientific" discovery worked for the benefit of a civilisation and was discovered, diseminated and enforced by a religeous order. You can examine many other "religeous laws" and find that they had a lot of common sense for the society at the time (and for the years to come).
For example Kosher Butchering may have been an "Animal Kindness" measure (in a time where there ws no RSPCA), Muslim "discrimination" against women may have been a needed social measure to prevent outragous abuses that were even worse at the time.
Even the much vaunted "10 Commandments" make sense when viewed as a set of general guidlines for the behaviour of a "civilised" society.
Once again, the preisthood could not feasably "educate" the ignorant citizens of those ancient civilizations, they had no scientific procedure as we know it and could probably barely explain the reasons for thier own rules in a truely academic manner (No academic/scholarly journals around back then either). Therfore they had to couch their "commandments" as a message from God, which was not only accepted by the supersticious people of the time, but when the Preists were proven right, their influence rose and ensured they would continue to enjoy the political power they held (and ensure future "Commandments and revelations would be heeded).
Dont forget that after the great black plague and the following Dark age... it was the church who preserved the knowlege of the previous ages !
|
On June 29 2011 17:39 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2011 17:00 Jakkerr wrote:On June 29 2011 16:52 ampson wrote:
Traditions. This is what people believe needs to be done for their gods here, people. And it's not like a slit neck is a slow and painful death if done right. well... if ur religion tells you to slit the throat of an animal, otherwise ur not allowed to eat it you have a pretty dumb religion T_T. No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry). You just missed the basic point of religion all together, and based your point on a circular argument: Religion is invalid, therefor it makes no sense to practice it, therefor religion is invalid. Saying that religious people should stop believing in religion is like saying to the sheep on the field that they should stop caring about the sheepherder – No matter if you believe in him, his is still gonna be there, controlling life, death and everything in between. The basic religious argument might be logically invalid in your eyes, but that is simply because you presume that there is no God, until you accept that religious people know for certain that there is a God just as sure as the sheep know about the sheepherder, you are not going to understand religion. That is also why this poll is totally biased. If you know that there is an all-powerfull being giving you orders, that created both you and the animals, then there really is no question of wether you follow orders or not. Sorry to burst your bubble, but people don't 'know' there is a god. You cannot know if there is a god. For example, even if the story of Mozes was true and he really encountered a bush on fire that spoke to him, that does not somehow imply a divine creator.
And by the way, the sheep know about the sheepherder because they can touch him, they can smell him and they can see him. Not to mention they can see the sheepherders influence on the world. Empirical evidence. A sheep can prove the sheepherder is real (if the sheep had sufficient intelligence). A person cannot prove God is real. "Because I said so" is not a valid argument, nor is it evidence of anything.
I recommend you watch http://www.youtube.com/user/QualiaSoup this channel.
|
It strikes me just now that there are actually a lot of people who not only consider it absurd to view a particular law as too unminimalistic, but who regard it as absurd that the law should be minimalistic in the first place. That would be a critical underlying issue here.
That said the law is certainly overextended in my view when it assumes the role of protecting the rights of lesser animals. Although the explanation of such carnal principles is often seen as grotesque, their understanding is nonetheless crucial: People are unique in that they're so productive in life, so productive that one person is almost always more valuable to another alive than dead. This principle is the reason we have laws, to ensure that people who don't make themselves the exception by threatening the lives or property of other people, can live in peace, to benefit maximally from each other's simultaneous living. The lesser animals however are very often as useful to us even in their highest potential dead as alive, simply because they do so little in the course of their lives that it very often fails to outweigh their value as food.
Animals are far too worthless to actually act as members of a society in any meaningful way. Whatever you would say of their contributions in life, none of them are up to par with those of a citizen. Whatever you may say about the immorality of torturing animals, they are not members of society and therefore do not get to have rights. Their protection could only be argued to benefit those human beings who are a part of society, before going beyond the purpose of law. Even if it did benefit human beings it would be so slightly that the negative affects inherent in inflating the domain of law would be highly doubtfully worth it.
The law, afterall, isn't a tool of justice that can be abused without consequence. If all you want to do is bring about justice, you do not really need the law's assistance. You can act within the law to persuade others peacefully to embrace your morality willingly, instead of trying to cram it down their throats. If you succeed in empowering the government to do that for you, you of course also empower the government to do it for other people to you. That is why the government must be minimal. Its only purpose is as a centralized power that can do things scattered individual powers can't do, some of which things are better done, most of which powers are better scattered.
|
All of the above brings us to modern day.
Religion is entrenched in our society thanks to thousands of years of the preists being "right"
The churches also enjoy phenominal wealth thanks to being (in effect) the largest and longest existing "corporations" in existance.
We DO live in an "age of reason" thanks to the rise of the scientific method and the discoveries that have been made, but this rise of science has not eliminated the human need to "believe" in something.
Religion fills the gap for so many people despite the empyrical evidence that the concept of a God or Power is a crock and also despite the scientific evidence that many of the "facts" espoused by religion are blatent lies. (eg Jesus born on Dec 25th, World only 4000yrs old etc)
Why do they still ignore the "science" and embrace the "faith" (and the rules of that faith) ?
For some it is simply due to inertia. If the whole of your society follows the faith (or just the whole of your family/community) then it is "normal" for you to also follow the faith (and pass it on to your children)
For others who "Find the faith" but dont come from a religeous background, it could be because they have become somehow dissatisfied with the "reality" they live in and spiritually need more to be happy. So they reach out to a "social club" that can help fulfil thier need explain their unhappyness. In many cases that social club is Church. Of course, it would be kinda silly to join a religeon and not embrace all of it's rules (even those that have no validity in modern society such as sex discrimination, animal butchering or pork prohibition) as that would indicate you didnt "really truely" believe in the faith and therefor you wouldnt gain the "spiritual" relief you were after in the first place...
Next we must consider why Churches continue to spout blatent untruths in the face of scientific contradictory evidence. This is an easy one, if the Church gained its power from being proven right, then it stands to reason it would loose its credibility if it admits it is wrong, so it must "manage" how and when it will relax a law. And some religeous laws are STILL valid today despite flying in the face of popular preferences (take the Catholic Churches views on sex and marriage for example. If marriage was truely for life, and sex was truely only for married couples, then society would look diferent than it does now... less...decadent)
|
On June 29 2011 19:16 zobz wrote:
Animals are far too worthless to actually act as members of a society in any meaningful way. Whatever you would say of their contributions in life, none of them are up to par with those of a citizen. Whatever you may say about the immorality of torturing animals, they are not members of society and therefore do not get to have rights. Their protection could only be argued to benefit those human beings who are a part of society, before going beyond the purpose of law. Even if it did benefit human beings it would be so slightly that the negative affects inherent in inflating the domain of law would be highly doubtfully worth it.
And here you are just wrong.
In some/many countries, Animals in fact have rights. No matter if you think thats idiotic or not, they have because people wanted it (i myself find it a little puzzling but well...).
Especially this reasoning:
Animals are far too worthless to actually act as members of a society in any meaningful way.
is just not thought out... With that reasoning i could also declare certain Humans as not being "good enough" to have rights (seriously handicapped people... or just people whiteout a job that drain the social system.... Or people that don't give money to charity... It's way to open...).
I would even go as far and say that "some" Animals are more "members" of our society or at least the social enviorment of their owners than many humans.
The only "real" reasoning to disregard all animal rights, is that Aaimals aren't humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
