EPTBanning halal/kosher butchering - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
FreddYCooL
Sweden415 Posts
| ||
|
Badfatpanda
United States9719 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:22 SaetZero wrote: Unless you are an animal activist, or a member of said religion, you should not be posting in this imo. If you don't do either, most people will side with animals since they have pets. This is interesting issue, but asking general public for their opinions on it just seemed very biased to me lol. 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. Interesting view of bias lol, requiring parties to be on either side of an issue to post seems like a textbook definition of bias in my opinion. But to the OP, I would appreciate some source links ^^ | ||
|
qrs
United States3637 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:23 RoosterSamurai wrote: Presumably yes. As far as we can tell, it's relatively painless. There's a reason that that's one of the more popular methods of suicide, you know.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? We don't use captive bolts in the execution of prisoners either; that doesn't make it inhumane. | ||
|
FezTheCaliph
United States492 Posts
Point being at least in the US Halal butchers take better care of their animals. And apparently some use stunning first. The problem with it for Muslims is that the whole point is to avoid causes the animal any uneccessary harm. spoiler is the wikipedia description of the actual slaughter the whole article is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhabīḥah + Show Spoiler + According to Islamic tradition, the animal is brought to the place of slaughter and laid down gently so as to not injure it. The blade must be kept hidden until the very last moment while the jugular of the animal is felt. The conventional method used to slaughter the animal involves cutting the large arteries in the neck along with the esophagus and vertebrate trachea with one swipe of an non-serrated blade. Care must be taken that the nervous system is not damaged, as this may cause the animal to die before exsanguination has taken place. While blood is draining, the animal is not handled until it has died. If any other method is used its meat will not be halal. So some Muslims are using stunning. The emphasis on the slaughter is to avoid any unneccasry pain to the animal. The arguments against stunning beforehand is accidentally killing the animal by electrocution. I did my part trying to present the counter argument. My thoughts are if some are already using a "fail-safe" stun method, ban the killings before stunning to force the other ones to adapt. | ||
|
NintendoStar
United States217 Posts
| ||
|
Epsilon8
Canada173 Posts
| ||
|
Mabius
Canada323 Posts
| ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
| ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:26 Omnipresent wrote: 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. You're right, I apologize, I wasn't looking at it with a Dutch context. I'm unfamiliar with the dutch legal system, and was trying to draw parallels through my own experience. I personally feel like the law should continue to provide exceptions for these specific methods of slaughter, and that is all. Since this is basically a poll of whether or not you think that's right, I'll vote and i've said my part. I would personally be highly offended if something that I weren't allowed to do (through my convictions), was forced upon me by the state. Whether or not you also hold those convictions should be irrelevant, as long as I'm not infringing upon your rights to hold your own. The slaughter in this fashion doesn't infringe upon your right to buy meat that was knocked out before it was killed, so vote with your wallet, instead of your laws. | ||
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
Also, the "animal welfare" option should be renamed "stunning animals before killing them". | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
No practice should result in something inhumane just because it's "tradition". I'm not going to argue that certain laws may or may not allow them to do such a thing, but personally, I don't agree with it. | ||
|
Sideburn
United States442 Posts
| ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:22 reneg wrote: 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. I'm not against killing animals for food. But I want to know that it is done in the most quick and painless way possible. Cows that are slaughtered kosher are cut by the neck and hung upside down until they die from blood loss. If you have the stomach for it, sit through the movie "Earthlings" to see what these forms of slaughter really look like (I'm not preaching vegetarianism, I love meat). The Jewish/Islamic method has been cited as being a very humane way to slaughter the animal. Let's not get into a citation thing, as I've looked and there is evidence that says that it is both a horrible AND terrifically humane method of slaughter. I'm just saying I've seen it, and it looks like agony. | ||
|
Marradron
Netherlands1586 Posts
Edit: Ok the law has just got passed with the exeption mentioned. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:40 Piy wrote: Doesn't really matter, the lead up to slaughter is generally far worse than the actual slaughter anyway. Intensive farming is a far larger problem than this anyway. You're completely correct my friend. | ||
|
Nesto
Switzerland1318 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:11 Vashalgrim wrote: Though looking at the US constitution, it has that line: And that law would seem to be prohibiting the free exercise of someone's religious belief. Does the Dutch constitution have a similar clause? not a specialist in law / US law, but as far as I know your supreme court has ruled mutliple times that "neutral laws" in this case cruelty against animals, which conflict with religious freedom are constitutional. other example: anti polygamy law (Edmunds Act) conflicted with (at that time) mormons "only clean way" to marry, but was considered constitutional. | ||
|
Zandar
Netherlands1541 Posts
This is a Dutch Law, not American. Argue about it on its own merits and within the Dutch legal system. That might be true, but our constitutions have a lot of similarities. Acutally: The framers of the U.S. Constitution were influenced by the Constitution of the Republic of the United Provinces (Now the Netherlands). In addition, the Act of Abjuration, essentially the declaration of independence of the United Provinces, is strikingly similar to the later American Declaration of Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On June 28 2011 23:30 NintendoStar wrote: You guys have got to be kidding. Do you know how cruelly corporations treat animals? Its not just about how they're killed, its about how they're treated when they're alive too. I come from an Islamic family, I can guarantee you that halal prepared meat is FAR more humane than non-religious meat. My thoughts exactly. Factory farming is far more cruel than ritualistic slaughter. But I guess it's easier to go after religious minorities than big agribusiness. Fcking politicians. | ||
|
Saraf
United States160 Posts
Either way, I think exception for religious practice is integral to the separation of Church and State; it's simply not right to disallow the practice simply because it's not well-understood. The law's goal seems clear: require slaughter of animals be humane. The halal/kosher butchering practices are humane and so don't conflict with the law's goal; to ban them too in the name of "fairness" isn't fair at all to the set of Jews and Muslims who would be marginalized by the ban. EDIT: Someone said the law including the exception passed. That's good; being humane to animals and allowing ritual are not incompatible. | ||
| ||
