|
On June 29 2011 17:16 tyCe wrote:
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.
This is really stupid. There are lots of religious beliefs and practices that are incompatible with various human rights. Whether you believe they have a divine source or not, they have no place in modern liberal societies.
|
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 No offense to any muslims and jews but in my opinion Religion is very very outdated and doesn't bring much good too this world (same goes for Christianity and the rest dont worry).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.
I am completely aware of this to be honest, and I also respect their beliefs, but too a certain degree.
Being religious doesn't mean you are allowed to do stuff which is considered wrong or inhumane in a society even if it goes against the beliefs of ur religion.
|
On June 29 2011 19:16 zobz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
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.
Don't you think that you're overextending yourself? This isn't about 'not killing animals' or them having any kind of a rights even comparable to those of humans.
Most western governments have already laws that tell us how we're allowed to slaughter animals. They just make exceptions for ritual slaughter.
|
So all of the above adds up to the fact that churches did provide a very valid civic function in the past built up political power and credibility due to that sevice.
They cannot simply "disband" in the face of mounting scientific evidence that their core beliefs are often inccorrect as they still in many areas provide a strong social funtion (charities & good works). Plus no organisation/ entity of power wants to give up its power if it can help it.
People themselves are still joining churches in their droves thanks to inertia, tradition or a spiritual need for faith. These "masses" are still therefore following the rules of their churches (valid or not).
This all brings us back to the OP for this thread and the thrust of a lot of argument on this topic.
"Why are (Secular) governments still kowtowing religeous requirements by making exeptions to animal cruelty laws with reagrd to the methods of butchering?"
The answer is -
Because the churches still have a massive amount of political power due to the sheer number of people still involved,
They have a massive amount of economic power due to their sheer size and income/assets They have still have a "Fair" amount of military power due to the fact that some whole contries are practically run by thier churches (admitedly this is really only prevalent in the middle east)
Governments NEED to listen to organisations with this much power (Voters, Money,Capacity for inciting unrest). Yes, even if the "message" of the organisation flies in the face of scientific wisdom.
|
On June 29 2011 17:16 tyCe wrote:
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.
So if I thought it was okay to be a serial killer because god told me so, government shouldn't stop me?
|
konadora
Singapore66364 Posts
religion is too damn important/sensitive in keeping the country and international ties stable, definitely won't happen
|
Yeah really happy this got through, finally.
|
Sorry, not sure how to put all of them together in three spoilers, but if you read my last three posts in order, you should understand why governments bow to religeous pressure to allow Kosher buthering and other "silly" laws to exist
My posts are pretty long though so there will be a lot of TL;DR people here.
I broke my input up into three posts that were meant to be read back to back but other people posts came in before I finished my three
|
On June 29 2011 19:46 konadora wrote:
religion is too damn important/sensitive in keeping the country and international ties stable, definitely won't happen
That depends extremly on where you live....
I would say it does not even depend on that, it just depends on "cultures" (which are heavily influenced by religion due to history).
|
Just to point out, the Jewish slaughter laws are meant to accomplish the exact same thing as these Dutch laws. Both render death painless for the animals.
|
I am an atheist born in a christian family. Therefore i know very little about the jewish/muslim tradition of sacrificing animals. But as an animal lover I find it unhuman to make an animal suffer just because of tradition. I never respect traditions if I am not OK with them.
|
I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that.
Yet, when it comes to the last few seconds of these animals, we grow a bleeding heart based on inconsistent scientific data, risking to antagonize a relatively large minority group. If anything, this tells me that this ban is in motion just to irritate Muslims, and another step forward to religious intolerance which has been growing at a worrying rate in the Netherlands.
|
On June 29 2011 19:58 Ghazwan wrote:
I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that.
Yet, when it comes to the last few seconds of these animals, we grow a bleeding heart based on inconsistent scientific data, risking to antagonize a relatively large minority group. If anything, this tells me that this ban is in motion just to irritate Muslims, and another step forward to religious intolerance which has been growing at a worrying rate in the Netherlands.
Not all are quite so hypocritical.
In Australia recently there was a feature in one of our major investigative journalism shows (called "60 Minutes") that exposed (on prime time TV) how Indonesia was treating its meat animals.
The public outcry to the brutal treatment has significantly impacted meat export from Australia to Indonesia and the situation is being examined by our politicians.
At no point is the controversy linked to any form of religeous issue, just an animal welfare issue.
|
On June 29 2011 19:16 zobz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
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.
If you want to be a coldhearted maniac, go ahead, but please keep your bullshit to your fantasies.
Morality does not stop because someone is not part of your group.
I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that. I invite you to find any statements of people pro animal welfare in this thread in which is stated that animals living in horrible conditions is fine. I eagerly await your response.
|
On June 29 2011 19:50 Datum wrote:
Just to point out, the Jewish slaughter laws are meant to accomplish the exact same thing as these Dutch laws. Both render death painless for the animals.
But they fail to achieve that as research showed. Research clearly demonstrated that ritual slaughtering is animal cruelty.
They can still slit the animals throat, they can still cast their blood magic + 3 magic spell on the corpse they just have to knock the animal out before they start with it.
|
Not sure if posted before, but I found them interesting and they might contribute to discussion:
A case of BAD halal/kosher practises:
http://vimeo.com/25096650
An example of more modern meat processing:
http://vimeo.com/22077752
Again, the first example is of bad halal/kosher practises I'm sure - however, the law enacted has a provision which allows for traditional practises if they are shown not to cause unnecessary pain. Ain't that a win-win? Bad practises are purged out of business, old traditions may still live on and animal welfare is improved.
I'm still kind of flabbergasted how anyone thinks a tradition is worthy of keeping simply because it's a tradition. A tradition being traditional is not an arguement for it, it's simply restating that fact. Those ritualistic aspects of slaughter were first enacted to ensure that people ate fresh meat and avoided rotting meat etc.
Times have changed though and there's really no good reason to follow them. A god/goddess/pantheon which is concerned whether the animal is stunned before it's killed is a very, very petty god/goddess/pantheon, imo. Very... anthropomorphic, naye?
|
you can believe in whatever you want, just as long as you aren't hurting others. Animal welfare is always more important.
|
On June 29 2011 19:58 Ghazwan wrote:
I still find this whole discussion a display of hypocrisy. We breed these animals to eventually eat them. During their lifetime, they are documented to live in horrible conditions. And, we are fine with all that.
Yet, when it comes to the last few seconds of these animals, we grow a bleeding heart based on inconsistent scientific data, risking to antagonize a relatively large minority group. If anything, this tells me that this ban is in motion just to irritate Muslims, and another step forward to religious intolerance which has been growing at a worrying rate in the Netherlands.
Well it's a step by step progress, pvdd is also trying to change this and overall has been changing it already.
For example we are also the first country that doesn't allow pigs to be castrated without being stunned/drugged (or w/e is the correct word for ''verdoofd'').
These particular animals might all have a similar purpose, but that doesn't mean you can't hold up some living standards for them... animal rights...
Also see this, how australian cattle get's tortured/mistreated in these so called ''humane halal slaughter houses'', still think the difference is just those ''last few seconds''?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/jakarta-fights-live-cattle-export-ban/story-fn59niix-1226072019409
|
Animal welfare!I I love animals <3.
|
Jewish and Muslim traditions, imo.
Animal Rights are fine, but i'm not so into sacrificing the rights of billions of human beings for the sake of lessening a few seconds of pain and fear for an animals who was born, raised, and kept alive for the sole sake of having that happen to him. Livestock animals don't really have rights imo. They're more like plants.
EDIT:
For clarification, i'm not saying that the traditions are ALWAYS more important. If there was a practice of stabbing a dog in the stomach and watching it bleed it out for no reason, I'd side with the dog. But, in this case, the animals are going to be killed anyway. It's only a few seconds. Are those few seconds of the animal really worth oppression, whether it be great or small?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
