Dutch parliament approves ban on religious slaughter;Awkwardness for Jews and Muslims

Is he a jackass for only eating halal meat or because he "forces his wife and kids to eat nothing but halal meat"?

Thanks for the clarification

 

Perhaps he's a jackass because he is forcing his draconian, mythical way of life onto people who would otherwise not conform.

So the latter, I'm sure.

 

Definitely the latter. I couldn't care less what he wants to eat himself. But I am forced to invite this idiot because he feels slighted if we only invite his wife (my sis-in-law). So he has to come and then he off handedly demands that the entire meal be halal.

 

That is pretty jackassary. He's a guest in your house and tells you what to serve.

 

Some people just care too much. It shows in their posts. Live free and Die hard.

Gahh I wish they would make a 5th movie.

 

1) Relevant excerpt from the OP's article that everyone seems to gloss over:

2) Most Muslims scholars hold that electric stunning is permissible given appropriate circumstances. A report on this topic was published by the Muslim World League in conjunction with the World Health Organization (WHO)- for anyone interested, chapters 4 and 5 that highlight the findings are linked below:
Chapter 4
Chapter 5

Cant really comment on what Judaic Scholars say on this issue...(On a side it, it bears mentioning that there is no governing Islamic body that declares verdicts for the entire Muslim Community. The Muslim World League is simply a collection of scholars from different Muslim countries that attempts to address issues like the one above)

3) Based on the reports I've read, there is nothing definitive that states electric stunning mitigates pain any more than conventional slaughter. That said, every time I've slaughtered, I ensured that the animal was stunned before slaughter because although the jury is out, it makes easier to slaughter. On a side note, animals thrash around with or without stunning- the thrashing is, from my understanding, reflexive and not an indication of pain.

4) All of that said, I find it disingenuous in the extreme for people to jump on this issue as a key issue to delegitimize religious practices across the board. Honestly, I understand that many on this board abhor religion and see it as anachronistic to modernity. But to harp on every last issue to substantiate that point becomes overkill.

5) Discussion of force/not force: I'm not commenting on the family at all, because like Mathloom, I dont know them and dont understand the details of the situation. That said, what constitutes 'forcing' for a parent? Most parents enforce things on their children from a young age. The intention is to do what you feel is best for your child, and a parent requiring his kid to eat only halal or kosher isnt really depriving his child of anything.

I guess I just dont see it as insidious a practice as most do on this forum...

 

I'd say that claim is highly dubious. "Science is divided" can mean 1% disagrees.

While measuring pain is certainly not a very quantitative/scientific process, especially in animals, it would stand to reason that if you slaughter something while it's pain receptors are turned on, it will feel more pain than if they were turned off.

Nobody has done such a thing.

I find people forcing their religious practices on their family, especially children, to be very unseemly behavior. And to force it upon others around you (i.e. as a guest in someone else's home) is pretty annoying in its own right.

 

Here's something to think about...

Stunning the Animal could be equated to anesthesia awareness... When the patient wakes up in the middle of surgery and can feel everything but does not even have the power to scream.

 

Except a cheeseburger.

 

If that happens (which I doubt is possible, let alone likely), then it sucks to be that one animal. But the minute chance of failure is no reason to go ahead and remove all doubt that an animal will feel pain by justifying non-anesthetized slaughter.

 

This thread is an interesting example of the theory of modernity. That as time passes we are in some way more civilized and more ethical than those that came before us. That we transformed from the age of myths to the age of religions. Then now to the age of modernity/technology.

I really do like this dialogue.

 

You guys should check out how the livestock you eat is treated. Those animals would be lucky to have their throats slit.

 

are you referring to Food Nation? If anyone hasn't checked it out yet... You should definitely find that documentary.

 

Well, not to make a big thing out of nothing, but if no one has done such a thing, how'd you and I both know he was probably talking about you on #4?

 

Have you actually researched this issue? I can honestly say I've read a number of research journals and found dissenting articles on both sides of the isle. The claim is only 'highly dubious' for those attempting to advance a particular position absent any significant investigation to speak of.

Once again, you display a remarkable level of ignorance on this issue. What level of pain is injected into the animal when it gets stunned? What about animals that get stunned and slaughtered minutes later when their bodies are in the midst of recovery? Or animals that dont get stunned correctly?

I assure you that the debate on this issue isnt merely a product of religious zealotry as much as it is a genuine attempt to figure out which method mitigates the most pain.

We'll just agree to disagree.

You find it unseemly because of your avid distaste for religion in general. Normal people dont see a family teaching their kids religion and religious practices as being unseemly.

I agree with you about forcing it upon others. I'd say its a bit extreme too, but I can find justifications why he may have done it...If he feels its forbidden to eat that meat, then he'd probably prefer communicating that in advance to avoid coming over and not eating anything. It's akin to a practitioner of Hinduism requesting no meat when coming over...he's not forcing his religion on you, just requesting that you accommodate his so that he doesnt come over and have nothing to eat.

 

They are not allowed to eat anything. If they are out they end up eating fries and I think a fried fish sandwich from Mcdonalds at the most.

 

I don't know who he was talking about, but no matter who it was, no such person has existed in this thread.

 

I'm loving your comments in this thread and have rep'd accordingly.

To DonnyMost:

You might want to be careful about the political movements you take as bedfellows. Maybe you have no interest in finding religion, but religion--wrapped up in science-y language about animals' feelings or whatever--might still find you.

Digressing, perhaps God is nothing (the atheist logic) because She is everything undifferentiated (the monotheist logic). People aren't stupid or anachronistic by mere virtue of their believing in God.

We could all do a better job of listening to those with ideologies and beliefs we find different or even offensive. To un-digress, the arguments coming from the religious folks quoted in the OP piece don't seem to condemn one or another form of slaughter as evil; rather, they are focused on the impact of the proposed legislation on their families and broader communities.

What's worse than the pseudo-scientific rationale put forth by the ban's proponents is their partnership with overtly bigoted political parties bent on making ethnic minorities feel unwelcome. I can hear the rationalizations and reversals now: "We don't hate the Jews and Muslims. No, sir! We only care about the animals and their feelings. Don't you care about the poor little animals, Mr. Liberal? Don't you care about cultural progress realized via the objective, reasoned process of scientific method? Ah, so you do! Well, then join us as we forge a path to a better tomorrow where we can eat all the meat we want without having to worry about the pain it causes God's creatio...er...our poor little fuzzy friends. All we have to do is get rid of those pesky Jews and Muslims who refuse--refuse I say!--to join the rest of humanity in our lock-step march towards the world of pain-free meat."

 

If a point of view is well reasoned, do their motives really matter? This doesn't seem to be a case of selective enforcement or something of that nature. It's a case where typically opposing groups find common ground on something for different reasons.

My question is whether this "tradition" is central to their faiths or just a function of when these faiths arose. The health reasons behind not eating pork are no longer there for example. How is this different? I don't know enough about the reasons behind it really.