Countries banning of kosher meats are forcing "expulsion" of Jews

[sooda]

Yes. And that is why Europe should ban it. Globally. In Switzerland we have even import ban from country practicing that.

Ciao

- viole

I am sorry to hear that. I lived in Lugano for over a year and have made many, many trips to Suisse.

 

[viole]

I am sorry to hear that. I lived in Lugano for over a year and have made many, many trips to Suisse.

Sorry to hear what? That Swiss do not like barbaric ways to kill animals?

Ciao
- viole

 

[sooda]

Sorry to hear what? That Swiss do not like barbaric ways to kill animals?

Ciao
- viole

Perhaps they just don't want an influx of Muslims. I lived in Andermatt for 6 months. BTW, I'm Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry to hear what? That Swiss do not like barbaric ways to kill animals?

Ciao
- viole

I would not call it barbaric. It was humane for its time. There are better methods now.

 

[rosends]

Try to reason logically. If your God is a loving God that would apply to animals as well.

I'm not sure what this means. What does it mean to be a "loving God"? Whose vision of "loving" is in play here? I might say he is loving when he commands warfare. Or when he makes laws about my clothing fibers. Clearly, "loving" is not a simple thing, easy to quantify and apply. Logical reasoning requires premises and I sense we operate with different premises.

Kosher butchery appears to use a technique that minimizes pain for the animal.

That is certainly one understanding of it.

Something that a loving God would want.

Again, that depends on your understanding of "loving." Someone could come over and say "a loving God would forbid eating animals." Different people draw different lines. And because that reasoning for the method is not a stated one, but one imputed by man, man tries to find logical ways to change it. If one doesn't try to apply human logic to it, but accepts it as a law from the divine, then one is not in the position to suggest changing it.

 

[viole]

Perhaps they just don't want an influx of Muslims. I lived in Andermatt for 6 months. BTW, I'm Christian.

You see, that is the problem. When we object that some customs are not according to our morality, we are immediately accused of antisemitism or islamophobia, or whatever. With the hope that we get so scared to be named that, that they can still keep doing what they want.

Those days are over.

If your, or their, religious habits conflict with our secular views, they have a few choices. Remain and adapt, they will always be welcome if they adapt to local customs. Or leave. I am sure their doctor did not order them they have to stay in Europe at any cost.

Since Muslims still like to come here, despite us having banned the construction of minarets on Swiss soil, I am sure they will be ready to adapt. For obvious reasons.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure what this means. What does it mean to be a "loving God"? Whose vision of "loving" is in play here? I might say he is loving when he commands warfare. Or when he makes laws about my clothing fibers. Clearly, "loving" is not a simple thing, easy to quantify and apply. Logical reasoning requires premises and I sense we operate with different premises.

That is certainly one understanding of it.

Again, that depends on your understanding of "loving." Someone could come over and say "a loving God would forbid eating animals." Different people draw different lines. And because that reasoning for the method is not a stated one, but one imputed by man, man tries to find logical ways to change it. If one doesn't try to apply human logic to it, but accepts it as a law from the divine, then one is not in the position to suggest changing it.

I see, you believe in a batpoop crazy version of God that is logically inconsistent and probably dishonest as well. Oh well, to each his own.

 

[rosends]

I see, you believe in a batpoop crazy version of God that is logically inconsistent and probably dishonest as well. Oh well, to each his own.

That's your assessment of my position but if you thought about it logically then you'd realize your mistake.

I believe in a divine God that is not subject to human logic and intellectual dishonesty (which, through your post, appear to be in ample supply). But think what you want. To each his own.

 

[viole]

I would not call it barbaric. It was humane for its time. There are better methods now.

Many things were considered human a long time ago. That does not entail they are not barbaric today.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's your assessment of my position but if you thought about it logically then you'd realize your mistake.

I believe in a divine God that is not subject to human logic and intellectual dishonesty (which, through your post, appear to be in ample supply). But think what you want. To each his own.

You appear to give far too much credibility to the Bible. Or perhaps I should say the Torah. If you take parts of it literally then my assessment is both honest and correct. At best the Torah should be a guide and not a ruler. You are abusing your own holy books when you do not look for the deeper meaning in them and interpret it too literally.

 

[rosends]

You appear to give far too much credibility to the Bible.

Or you give far too little. Your personal feelings don't establish reality and more than mine do.

If you take parts of it literally then my assessment is both honest and correct.

That entire statement doesn't follow. If I take any part of it literally, then your assessment that my idea of God is a particular way becomes an honest and correct assessment? The claim and the conclusion are unrelated.

At best the Torah should be a guide and not a ruler.

You mean according to your way of thinking. You can't claim some sort of objective idea about what must be in the world.

You are abusing your own holy books when you do not look for the deeper meaning in them and interpret it too literally.

And you don't understand the method and system by which Jewish law is developed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Many things were considered human a long time ago. That does not entail they are not barbaric today.

Ciao

- viole

There is always a matter of degree. Calling something that was as humane as possible until recently does not help foster a productive conversation. Now I may have jumped on @rosends a little too hard since he appears to be taking parts of his holy book as indelible laws that could never have been meant to be taken that way. Time will tell.

I do agree that since there are better ways that is the way it should be done. End of argument. If one's religious beliefs do not allow that then there is the vegetarian option.

 

[sooda]

You see, that is the problem. When we object that some customs are not according to our morality, we are immediately accused of antisemitism or islamophobia, or whatever. With the hope that we get so scared to be named that, that they can still keep doing what they want.

Those days are over.

If your, or their, religious habits conflict with our secular views, they have a few choices. Remain and adapt, they will always be welcome if they adapt to local customs. Or leave. I am sure their doctor did not order them they have to stay in Europe at any cost.

Since Muslims still like to come here, despite us having banned the construction of minarets on Swiss soil, I am sure they will be ready to adapt. For obvious reasons.

Ciao

- viole

I am certainly not accusing you of anti semitism...

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Ignore...

Then why bother replying, ellen?

 

[viole]

I am certainly not accusing you of anti semitism...

Thank you. My favorite people are actually Jews. Feynman, Weinberg, Allen, Spinoza, Einstein, Landau, etc.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or you give far too little. Your personal feelings don't establish reality and more than mine do.

That entire statement doesn't follow. If I take any part of it literally, then your assessment that my idea of God is a particular way becomes an honest and correct assessment? The claim and the conclusion are unrelated.

I did not say "any part". And it does follow, but I am not going to get into it here.

You mean according to your way of thinking. You can't claim some sort of objective idea about what must be in the world.

No, according to logical and consistent reasoning. I can claim an objectively superior morality when based upon reasonable presuppositions. You on the other hand cannot even claim to have an objective morality.

And you don't understand the method and system by which Jewish law is developed.

Perhaps not, but I can spot logical inconsistency when it exists. Not knowing how something is formed does not mean that one cannot see the errors in that. A person may use a long and convoluted argument to "prove" that 2 + 2 = 5. They would still be observably in error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@rosends , what do you think of the vegetarian option? If kosher butchering is banned is going vegetarian a reasonable alternative?

 

[rosends]

I did not say "any part".

So when you wrote "If you take parts of it literally" then you mean "only specific parts" and I take it YOU get to decide which parts. Got it.

And it does follow, but I am not going to get into it here.

No, it really doesn't, but I don't need to get into that right now.

according to logical and consistent reasoning. I can claim an objectively superior morality when based upon reasonable presuppositions.

Those presuppositions are yours and not objective. You have already shown that you are starting from a particular position which isn't universal. Therefore to claim an objectively superior morality is an error.

You on the other hand cannot even claim to have an objective morality.

Sure I can. Why would you think I can't? I can say "God's law defines an objective morality." You can disagree all you want but to claim that I can't make a claim is silly.

but I can spot logical inconsistency when it exists.

Or you can decide that there is one based on your premises which aren't everyone's.

 

[rosends]

@rosends , what do you think of the vegetarian option? If kosher butchering is banned is going vegetarian a reasonable alternative?

Not according to everyone. There is a range of understanding within Jewish law about vegetarianism. Some say it is preferable, some say that it is forbidden. Some say it is acceptable. Some say it isn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So when you wrote "If you take parts of it literally" then you mean "only specific parts" and I take it YOU get to decide which parts. Got it.

My my my, you do love to project. I am not the one that decides. But yes, there are clear parts of the Bible or Torah that are mythical.

No, it really doesn't, but I don't need to get into that right now.

Yes, it does, but I have never seen you arguing those parts of your holy book.

Those presuppositions are yours and not objective. You have already shown that you are starting from a particular position which isn't universal. Therefore to claim an objectively superior morality is an error.

Again not mine, but I never claimed that the presuppositions are objective. I said that it results in an objectively superior morality, something that you will fail at since a literal interpretation of the Torah results in a rather terrible morality that no one follows.

Sure I can. Why would you think I can't? I can say "God's law defines an objective morality." You can disagree all you want but to claim that I can't make a claim is silly.

You would have to justify that claim. It fails when tested.

Or you can decide that there is one based on your premises which aren't everyone's.

I never said that the premises that I follow were everyone's. They just lead to a superior morality.