|
On June 28 2011 23:00 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 22:59 Vashalgrim wrote:
The choices available are rather...biased. Regardless, why should there not be an exception made for religious beliefs of others? Because government and religion should be completely separate from one another. This, I cannot believe this discussion has to take place in these times.
Religion and government seperate. Period. Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
That's how ridiculous this is.
|
Sweden33723 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.
Tradition is the most pointless excuse for not changing something that matters, that I have ever heard.
|
On June 28 2011 23:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +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. Tradition is the most pointless excuse for not changing something that matters, that I have ever heard. Hmmm, my family has a thousand year old tradition of killing people who are called 'caelym', surely my tradition is more important than your life!
|
On June 28 2011 23:43 Zandar wrote:Just for the record: Show nested quote + 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
That's fine. If you're going to make comparisons, at least understand what you're talking about. This is settled law in the US. If it is determined that the Jewish/Muslim slaughtering methods are not sufficiently humane and/or in compliance with the law, they can/will be banned. The only reason to make a comparison is if this is not something the Dutch legal system has yet to establish (which seems unlikely).
|
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.
But your meat is bloody tough
|
On June 28 2011 23:44 Thorakh wrote:
Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
That's how ridiculous this is.
Actually, you are the ridiculous one. Surely you are not equating using a method of slaughter which may or may not be "more humane" with cold blooded murder of a human being.
|
On June 28 2011 23:27 dakalro wrote:
There's no debate here. Just imagine the outcry if christians were forced to commit sin by the state. Freedom of religion kids.
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.
You mean like...having to have insurance if you drive a car (or in various other walks of life), when one of the core doctrines of Jesus is "give no thought for the morrow"? And "judge not and ye shall not be judged" but you get jury duty? Shouldn't be hard to find more. These are from the sermon on the mount by the way, pretty important.
Freedom of religion has been designated in first world countries as allowed to be practiced, but within the laws of that country. It's been like that for a fair while now.
The stun gun is to the brain (point near the upper back of the head where the skull bone is thinnest) and it renders the animal senseless, instantly, after which it is slaughtered. Where's the pain in electrocution there? Versus dying choking on your own blood and unable to breathe.
|
stupid law. we;ve been butchering animals for thousands of years. period.
survival of the fittest.
|
On June 28 2011 23:52 Vore210 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 23:27 dakalro wrote:
There's no debate here. Just imagine the outcry if christians were forced to commit sin by the state. Freedom of religion kids.
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. You mean like...having to have insurance if you drive a car (or in various other walks of life), when one of the core doctrines of Jesus is "give no thought for the morrow"? And "judge not and ye shall not be judged" but you get jury duty? Shouldn't be hard to find more. These are from the sermon on the mount by the way, pretty important.
Either you are incredibly ignorant of how people treat religion or you are a massive troll. Either way your post really doesn't have any merit.
I'm not religious myself, but fuck, I can't believe we are actually debating this.
|
On June 28 2011 23:46 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +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. Tradition is the most pointless excuse for not changing something that matters, that I have ever heard.
Depends what matters to what people. Thousnads of years of culture or the pain of an animal. I dont get why its such a big deal to not to stun it. Either way it get chopped up, cooked, and eaten.
|
On June 28 2011 23:52 DDAngelo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 23:44 Thorakh wrote:
Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day.
That's how ridiculous this is.
Actually, you are the ridiculous one. Surely you are not equating using a method of slaughter which may or may not be "more humane" with cold blooded murder of a human being. Nope sorry, if we allow exceptions for religions, the state should allow an exception for my religion too (which involves killing bald white males).
My point is not the severity of the religious practice, my point is the exception itself. It shouldn't be made, never.
|
If were to be sent in front of a jury made up by citizens from the 2200th century they would be ashamed that we delayed this law (ban on halal) so long. My favourite futuristic society (startrek) would not tolerate such pre-industrial behavioural and neither should contemporary societies do.
|
On June 28 2011 23:44 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2011 23:00 Sated wrote:On June 28 2011 22:59 Vashalgrim wrote:
The choices available are rather...biased. Regardless, why should there not be an exception made for religious beliefs of others? Because government and religion should be completely separate from one another. This, I cannot believe this discussion has to take place in these times. Religion and government seperate. Period. Animal welfare is a law and you shouldn't be excused from it because you believe in a man in the sky. I don't see me being excused from being punished for killing bald white dudes because my religion forces me to kill at least one bald white male a day. That's how ridiculous this is.
Do you believe humans are equal to animals ? because clearly we are not
|
On June 28 2011 23:53 Marcus420 wrote:
stupid law. we;ve been butchering animals for thousands of years. period.
survival of the fittest.
You should really read the op - it's not the slaughter that is being discussed, it is the method of slaughter where one is to stun the animal rendering it unconcious and the other is to let it bleed out whilst fully concious... I don't know which is worse - someone has probably conducted a study if I was had to elect one of these methods for myself I would probably ask to be stunned.
|
I think people don't quite understand what the concept of a secular state means... it doesn't mean that religion has no rights since religious groups are still part of the democracy.... it means that the laws of god or whatever the faith is about, cannot interfere with the laws of government..... I'm an atheist but even I can see that the question in the OP is horribly biased and pretty stupid imo.
|
Biased poll options much?
If an animal is about to be killed for me to eat, do I really care much about it's "state of mind" right before death? Nope, not really. I don't really care about Jewish or Muslim traditions, but if that's what they want to do, why should I try to stop them?
|
Yeah.. and I'm sure that same Jury would be more ashamed that Humans dropped 2 Nuclear bombs on their own kind. Not over how they prepared their supper.
|
It's a good law. Especially since it removes a weird exception that was in place in its previous incarnation. The previous law on slaughter of livestock pretty much said "inhumane slaughter is not permitted, with the exception of Islamic and Jewish butchers that prepare meat in the halal/kosher style." In fact, non-Muslim butchers were not allowed to slaughter livestock in the halal style (similarly for non-Jewish butchers wanting to use the kosher style).
The new law basically removes this weird exception and says "Inhumane slaughter is not permitted". The amendment that was added last-minute says that ritual slaughter is still okay, provided that it is proven that the animal does not suffer more than when it's slaughtered in the standard way. How this proof has to be carried out is not specified, but the burden of proof lies with the groups that want to perform ritual slaughter.
So in essence, it removes a tiny little bit of religious freedom in exchange for a small increase in animal welfare. In a country where atheists are the majority, I'm cool with that. Freedom of religion is important, but only as long as it doesn't interfere with the existing laws of the country. There being exceptions for religious groups in laws sets a dangerous precedent.
|
On June 28 2011 23:59 Vortigan wrote:
I think people don't quite understand what the concept of a secular state means... it doesn't mean that religion has no rights since religious groups are still part of the democracy.... it means that the laws of god or whatever the faith is about, cannot interfere with the laws of government..... I'm an atheist but even I can see that the question in the OP is horribly biased and pretty stupid imo.
I am not an atheist, but I admire and respect your intellectual honesty. The poll is horribly biased.
|
This issue isn't exactly about tradition vs animal welfare.
The problem is that "stunning" can lead to fatal brain damage in the animal and thus it would be considered "eating carrion" which is prohibited. Other methods of anesthesia may complicate exsanguination and blood residue in the meat would make it non-halal.
Apparently the Halal Food Authority is taking this debate rather seriously and is looking into available methods that allow for both animal welfare and halal food.
I hope the Dutch lawmakers will use an equal measure of moderation in their approach to this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
