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

I've always been under the impression that non-zabiha (halal) animals live in much crueler conditions.

Also, the way you cook the meat leads to how tender (juicy) the meat is. It's a cultural thing. Muslim people tend to prefer well-done meat. I like my steak medium-well. Medium to medium-rare is no bueno for me.

 

Please share. Pardon me for finding the throwaway statement in the article sufficient to cause doubt. We've seen that kind of stuff before used to mislead us, "science is divided over global warming", etc.

If they're not doing it correctly (i.e. not actually anesthetizing the animal during slaughter), then that is *not* an argument *for* ritual slaughter, but rather an argument against improper "modern" slaughter.

And if you want to get into specifics, it doesn't seem that far fetched that scientists would have the ability to measure brain wave activity in the parts of the animal brain that sense/control pain reception (not a neuroscientist, but it seems plausible given what we know about the human nervous system).

If the pain caused by the stunning process is greater, or more prolonged than the ritual slaughter, I doubt it would be in use. That, or we're severely lacking in the research and development department when it comes to efficient (painless and efficient would seem to go hand in hand) machinery for slaughter (which seems highly unlikely).

Once again, if I'm so ignorant, please drop some knowledge on us. I'm honestly curious what kind of info is floating out there to suggest that modern slaughter techniques are more brutal than ritualistic ones. That goes against basic intuition for sure.

No one has used this as a platform to delegitimize or attack all religious rites or rituals. Please point out who has done this.

Absolutely not. I find it unseemly because it is essentially disallowing someone to make their own religious choices. Foisting those choices upon children is a great disservice to them and what essentially amounts to mental abuse of an emotionally vulnerable and impressionable human being. Mind you, I'm not speaking of morality, I'm speaking strictly of religion.

You're a guest in someone's house, you don't demand/expect that they should bow to your norms. When my vegetarian/vegan friends hang out with a group of people, they know ahead of time they're going to have to accommodate the group, and not the other way around. If we choose to alter our behavior to suit that one person, then great, but they don't expect it, let alone demand it.

 

Not a chance in hell, my friend. There's a gap wider than the grand canyon between people who support responsible, humane treatment of animals (even slaughter animals), and psycho PETA nutjobs.

My cause here is not one of atheism, but rather of minimizing suffering of living creatures and harvesting food responsibly, from field to table. Religion is just collateral damage in this fight. (the parallels to other issues regarding modernity clashing with religious rituals is interesting though)

 

Here we go again...

So if she knew what she was getting into when she got married, whatever happens to her afterwards isn't "force", as long as she knew about it before?

 

He makes a valid point, if she (voluntarily) married him knowing that (halal) was part of the deal, that isn't "force". The kid, on the otherhand...

 

If you have access to journals, you can find it yourself. You can go ahead and search scientific journals or google scholar fairly easily.

As for the statement being a 'throwaway statement,' that's once again a dismissal of what you dislike.

There are a number of discussion topics related to electric stunning- meat/carcass quality post stunning (particularly the result of PSE (pale, soft, exudative) meat), hemorrhaging, over/under stunning and the difficulty in finding a standard calibration, broken bones, 'blood splash' (ecchymoses or petechial haemorrhage), uncontrollable carcass kicking, etc.

So there are issues, as there are issues in slaughtering. As I said previously, I'm not really in one camp or another. From what I've read, the jury appears to be out, but I've experienced first hand the simplicity and ease of stunning prior to slaughtering which is why I had it done.

From your posting history, you're clearly a skilled debater and intelligent person, but at times can be dogmatic and obstinate in your viewpoints. You're obviously passionate when it comes to defending your positions, and perhaps, at times, propound sophistry as justifications and/or arguments. That teaching a child religion could be tantamount to mental abuse, or requesting reasonable accommodations could be portrayed as unmannerly is beyond me.

As I said in my last post, we can agree to disagree.

 

How about a guillotine?

Quick and painless, this doesn't even have to be discussed.

And the cleric can say whatever prayer he wishes as the blade swiftly crashes down onto the animal's neck.

 

lol i've always wondered why less than well done is looked down upon. it tastes good *****!

 

Actually the current government is. I'm really not happy with the current government.

That being said, I'm not sure what I think about this law, on the one hand I'm alsways in favour of hurting animals as little as possible.

However I'm not sure the west should comment about the treatment of animals who are bred for food supply. It is not like our food animals are treated that good.

 

How could an ancient ritual be the most painless/quick method possible?

 

Which is - as usual - completely wrong, because just because she got married does not mean she should not be allowed to change her mind about things. If she was fine with it when she got married, but later changes her mind and wants to eat other stuff, and her husband forces her to eat halal anyway, then that is - force.

 

See post above. Just because she got married does not mean she checked her ability and free will to change her mind about things at the door. At least it should not. And if she changes her mind and wants to change her eating habits, but it is not allowed to, then that is absolutely force.

Just like if a woman gets married and knows sex is part of the deal, it is still rape when she gets forced. Except in certain jurisdictions...

 

That's an assumption on your part, which based on the original post, doesn't seem to be hinted at/included in this situation.

There's no way to know the pretext of the marriage, or the current state that it operates under.

But like I said, the kid is without question subject to this forced religious rite.

 

WTF, I thought this thread was about methods of animal slaughter, the hell happened

 

i agree - i dont understand the whole point of kosher, but as a rabid carnivore i am hardly in a position to be critical of it. i can agree w/ the notion of banning 'cruel' practices, but i question whether or not a 'kosher death' is really less 'cruel'.

the real problem is that stoners are going to stop coming to amsterdam and now jews and muslims will too - your government is killing your tourism industry.:grin: if they ban prostitution that will be the death blow to the dutch economy - yall cant survive on tulips alone!

 

way worse than 'religious slaughter' - more cruel and less tasty.