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

Just as cruel. Should be banned as well.

 

As I've read through the thread I haven't seen much scientific evidence either way whether electrocution is more humane than throat slitting. Doing a quick Google search using the terms "animal electrocution" and "livestock electrocution" hasn't turned up much info either but there are criticisms of electrocuting animals for fur as being overly cruel and unreliable. The methods for doing it for meat might be different.

Until I see more I don't find the argument that electrocution is more humane than throat slitting and desanguinating that solid. Also given the sad condition of factory farms and livestock processing facilities raising and butchering animals following strict Kosher / Halal practices might actually be more humane than the industrialized systems that most of our meat comes from.

 

I don't agree with Donny often when it comes to religion but he makes a good point here. As much as we should respect others' religious / cultural practices they should respect ours. If this person wants to participate in social events at other people's houses he should be nice enough to stick to salad if he can't eat the meat served.

 

What if he changes his mind and starts eating other meat? Does that "render the contract void" if she wishes? Not in theory, but in practice! Answer truthfully!

 

Mathloom - while you're clearly elucidating the rules you're also more-or-less ignoring the fact that Muslim culture has, in the vast majority of cases, an incredibly skewed power differential in favor of the husband. While your "marriage contract" argument is reasonable, ignoring this traditional and ongoing domination of women by men seems disingenuous. You don't believe that the penalties a woman would suffer for "breaking the marriage contract" are significantly more severe than a similar violation on a man's part?

It's rather difficult to avoid this detail and still construct an honest estimation of Muslim marriage.

You can say that a woman "chose" to accept that particular contract, but did she choose the culture/country she was born into? Can she choose to leave that culture/country without suffering severe repercussions?

Islam is designed to keep males in power. There's nothing wrong with admitting that. But, when one person has greater socially-sanctioned power in any relationship, it means that the subordinate person has a corresponding lack of power.

 

My point is that the ban is not well reasoned, or at least it has not been demonstrated as such. The motives matter because there is a limited economy of political will; the common ground you speak of is an illusion--a dangerous one that provides cover for bigotry. A ban on ritual slaughter will alienate minority and immigrant populations from the political process, further empowering the nationalist far-right. There seems to be a large disparity between the low probability that the legislation will have any meaningful impact on animal suffering and the very real and certain impacts that will be felt by minority communities.

Well then what do you consider to be responsible and humane? Many Jews and Muslims consider ritual slaughter to be responsible and humane. Those "psycho PETA nutjobs" seem to be convinced that raising animals to be slaughtered for their consumable flesh can never be responsible and humane (the nerve of those people!). These are issues about which many people have deep emotional concerns. Are you sure that your opinion is right, and theirs wrong? Sure enough to risk alienation of vulnerable minority communities and marginalization of their interests?

Let me ask you this: Have you ever felt alienated by the society within which you live your life? Have you ever felt like your voice was marginalized in its institutions of power? When you say, "Religion is just collateral damage," you aren't just tossing off an argument on a basketball BBS, you're drawing a line. You stand on the side of reasoned progress while religion stands against it and you (and therefore must be against reason itself).

Modernity doesn't only clash with religion; it clashes with everything. You can leave religion behind, but what was behind religion will remain. Why do you even care about animal cruelty? I can understand the desire to reduce suffering in all forms. What's curious, even dangerous, is the practice of labeling some forms of suffering "collateral damage" while crusading against other, presumably more noble, forms.

 

Minimizing suffering/harm for all involved (animal, earth, neighbors).

Yes, so?

Yes, so?

Vulnerable? Minority communities? What?

There is a way to answer the question of what methods of food harvesting do the least amount of harm, so it's not really a matter of opinion there.

Yes, so?

Yes, so?

I'm saying that inhumane behavior is not acceptable, and it just so happens that this particular inhumane behavior is religious in nature.

Some religious behaviors are great examples of ways to live, some suck ass. Pointing out the sucky ones does not draw a line in the sand and demonize all religion or all religious practices.

Everything clashes with everything, oh well.

You're getting off topic here, but I don't (and never did) claim that what hides "behind" religion will be removed once religion is gone. What will be removed is what resides "within" religion, some of which is the cause of unnecessary suffering, and the good things will persist, as they are inherent to humanity, as shown by generations of moral refinement that has nothing to do with religion.

Because I would like to reduce suffering in all forms.

Oh, well

LOL, sorry, but if you call religious people not being able to practice rituals that cause unnecessary suffering a form of "suffering" in itself, then well, sucks to be them. Your religious freedom stops where someone else's rights begin, and I think animals deserve the right not to suffer unduly. Don't you?


On the whole, it seems like you're talking in a thousand different directions here and going wildly off-topic. Suggesting that I'm choosing some wacko animal liberation movement as a "political bedfellow" simply because I don't like religion is an insulting oversimplification of someone's values, and hinting that I'm in danger of becoming part of their "cult" is about as silly as suggesting that MadMax is likely to end up in the Church of Scientology simply because he's a deist. I dislike your thesis, sir!

 

Definitely a crappy situation, nobody likes "that" guest, lol

Does he ask if the meal is halal or what?

I guess I am trying to understand his perspective. I try to keep halal, but I don't go around to other people's homes and tell them how to cook or what to eat!

 

Always interesting to read threads on here with rural-related themes. This and the Georgia Illegal Immigrant thread are pretty chuckle-tastic to someone who actually, you know, deals with these issues in the real world.

Vaids, you've definitely done your research, good posts.

I would hope that Donny et al. do not purchase any meat from 99.9% of the restaurants or grocery stores around.

 

How do you measure suffering?

So everyone wants to minimize suffering, but there is a dispute over how to achieve that goal.

Minority communities aren't vulnerable? Banning a custom practiced by a small minority of the population will have little to no impact on the majority, so it's easy for them to say, "What the hell, let's try this new stunning thing, and maybe those poor cows will suffer a little less before they become my dinner." The observant Jewish and Muslim communities, on the other hand, will immediately face difficult challenges and real hardships.

So you should be able to empathize with the Jewish and Muslim communities in this case. Seriously. Take a step back and consider the impact this legislation might have on individuals, families, and communities that have the most at stake and little ability to influence the outcome.

But you haven't established that the religious behavior is the inhumane one. You've put the cart before the horse, which is probably why you've been accused of latching onto any cause that happens to be in opposition to religion.

You said religion is "collateral damage," which is something more than pointing out sucky behavior. We constantly make decisions about whether we are willing to tolerate behavior we find distasteful. Instituting a legal directive against such behavior is not necessarily the best approach.

I was just pointing out that religion isn't uniquely opposed to modernity, nor would that make religion necessarily a "bad" thing. You invoke the causes of "modernity" or "progress" or "enlightenment" at your own peril, because one day they'll be invoked against you, if they haven't been already.

You're treating religion as some monolithic concept that can be isolated and surgically removed from a cultural body, leaving the healthy parts intact. But if you're not saying that all religion is bad or all religious behaviors are bad, what are you saying? You seem to be suggesting that all human progress is in spite of religion, which implies that religion either provides nothing good to society or is a net evil. That sounds like equivocation, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt if you can explain just how you measure these "generations of moral refinement" you describe.

That's nice, but why? Can you demonstrate this desire with scientific tests, or do you take it on faith?

I don't really care about what rights animals (or humans) deserve, as if I had any say over such things. Where do all these "rights" come from, anyways? It all seems so arbitrary, kind of like your arbitrary distinction between those who deserve relief from suffering and those who it "sucks to be."

I don't think you're joining the cult of PETA (not sure where you got that from, but whatever), though I don't see why their position is any less reasonable than yours. I do think that you are making an irresponsible rush to judgement that has the unfortunate side effect of empowering the politics of xenophobia.

 

Well, you were speaking as if it was off-hand knowledge to you, so I figured I'd ask.

It's a throwaway statement because it carries no weight or depth to it. It's just simply thrown out there without any kind of explanation or context. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with it. Statements like that are consistently misused to deceive people, so I don't put a lot of stock in its face value, hence the "throwaway" remark.

That's all well and good, but none of that seems to be an argument *for* ritual slaughter, but rather (repeating myself here), an argument *against* improper modern slaughter.

If these forms of ritual slaughter truly are the most humane way to kill animals, then you know what? I'm all for it.

If you truly knew my posting history, you'd know that I'm open to changing my mind and, if anything, my "dogma" revolves around the fact that new knowledge brings discovery which can, and should, change even the most sacred of beliefs and viewpoints. Please give me examples of sophistry, that's a pretty large insult to hurl around. And yes, teaching a child to believe something without evidence and to unquestionably follow it is very much the abuse of a mind, just as much as demanding accommodations is unmannerly.

I'm still waiting on you to show us some examples of people using this as a platform to attack all religions and religious rituals. Guess I'll be waiting a long time.

 

It reminds me of this:

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/lang/eng//id/477

However, things don't seem to be that cut and dry here. But it is analogous, and does illustrate the point that sometimes intuition/perception can lead us astray. But like I said before, none of the things I've seen in this argument seem to justify ritual slaughter as much as they do condemn improper modern slaughter.

I try not to. And when I do eat meat, I try to make sure it was raised and slaughtered in the most responsible way possible. Nobody here is trying to make the perfect the enemy of the good, mind you.

 

Often times people develop opinions after researching an issue. In this issue, you made no such attempt, posting in response to the OP:

It was for this reason I focused on exposing the bias that led to such an absurdly premature position- your posting history more than demonstrated a preexisting distaste for religion (putting it mildly), which was, in this instance, manifested in the form of cheerleading for a piece of legislation on a topic you clearly had yet to research.

I saw it as a caveat intended to provide context to the reader. Why would you assume it to be deceptive? You previously compared such caveats to global warming- did the article present itself as pushing a particular viewpoint? (global warming is such a highly politicized topic that its difficult to read articles that don’t devolve into demagogue-ing for one side or the other) Was there any evidence that the author’s point of view was prejudiced? In any case, if that’s how you saw it, I don’t mind.

The only discussion topic that was an argument against improper slaughter was over/under stunning. The rest were all directly related to electric stunning.

Lol, its odd that we pretty much hold the exact same point of view on this.

I’m familiar with your posting history. I didn’t say that you aren’t open to changing your mind, just that, at times, you display obstinacy/argumentativeness. And btw, individual ‘dogma’ tends to vary from the practitioners of that dogma.

Along the same lines, individuals tend to perceive themselves very differently than others perceive them. But that’s an entirely different subject….

Sophistry is simply a statement that, at times, you produce arguments that sound logically feasible but defy the very reasoning you seek to employ. For example, “teaching a child to believe something without evidence and to unquestionably follow it is very much the abuse of a mind.” Seriously? Do you have children to draft an honest appraisal of that principle? Parents routinely have to teach their kids things without evidence and ask them to unquestionably follow it.

As for ‘demanding’ accommodations, my point was merely that there are times when requesting accommodation is, in fact, more mannerly than not having made the request at all and making the host feel guilty when not eating. When my family hosts guests, we take pride in catering to their needs; if they don’t eat meat, we try to provide more vegetarian options on the table. If they eat only kosher, I ask them for kosher restaurants they deem appropriate. I wouldn’t want someone to have to violate their religious/personal convictions for me just as much as I wouldn’t want to be put in a position of having to do that with them.

Yes, I believe you will.

As a final note, I’m going to have to bow out of this debate for the time being- I have work-related travel coming up and although I’m expecting to have internet access during the conference, I wont have the time to dedicate to forum debating. Take care.

 

My 'bias' that led to that position didn't have to do with religion as much as it had to do with the very reasonable assumption that an unconscious animal would suffer less pain during slaughter than a conscious animal. And I maintain that when anesthetized properly, that holds true. If you have some data that shows otherwise (despite my asking), I'd be more than happy to check it out, and if it shows something contrary to my belief, I'll be first in line to sign up for that.

I did not assume it to be deceptive, I said it was indicative of deceptive practice and not something to be trusted at face value. In such that "science is divided" is technically correct for any subject, even if the "divide" is 99% to 1% agree-disagree.

They were all directly related to improper modern slaughter, i.e. not having the proper technique or technology to slaughter causing less pain or suffering than ritualistic methods.

I don't think it is odd at all. I don't believe that you, or anyone else in this thread, is deliberately trying to cause more suffering for animals. What kind of monster would do that?

If you're *that* familiar with my posting history, then you need to stop your lurking and come out and play some more

Because something is routine does not mean something is correct or proper. Since we're lobbing such grenades at each other, I'll go ahead and say that based on your posting history (i.e. this thread), I can tell that you like to fabricate accusations against people and play the victim card. Such as in the case of you falsely saying that people here are using this as a platform to delegitimize and attack all religions and all religious practices.

You're speaking of a situation that does not exist in the context of this thread and the discussion therein. Unless the OP has some more details he wants to drop on us about this bothersome dinner guest.

I gotta call BS on that. If you're going to rail on me for making unjustifiable claims, don't be surprised when someone does the same to you for making claims which are presently and obviously false, especially when you run from it.

Peace out.

 

I am still not seeing much info either way that says that modern methods even when carried out properly are less cruel than ritual methods. Your assumption tells you that an unconscious animal will be in less pain when its killed than a conscious one but what I have yet to see here is evidence that the electrocution process to render the animal unconscious isn't cruel or painful to begin with. Just speaking from personal experience getting an electric shock certainly is painful.

You said that the term "the science is divided" is deceptive since it could be 99% to 1% but do you have evidence that that is the case?

 

But this is not a reasonable position, as you have yet to provide any evidence for it. The burden to provide the data is on you and the other ban proponents.

 

I'm late to the argument, but I have shot animals while hunting that when I got to them were dying or paralyzed, but not yet dead. The quickest and most effective way to kill them is to slit their throats. It's usually one breath and total collapse. It's quicker and more humane than a bullet to the head (I know, I've tried). I would be shocked if the animal suffers more pain from a throat slit than from an electrocution to stun it. This seems to be purely anti-religious law, which shouldn't be suprising, based on what we've seen from Dutch politics recently.

(I'm fully aware that the people defending the law will dismiss my opinion as barbaric because I just mentioned that I hunt. They're wrong.)

 

Leave DaDakota Alone

 

Hunting is apparently permitted in the Netherlands: English page on the Dutch hunting authority's website.