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

[IndigoChild5559]

What it amounts to is a statement of "stop being Jewish the way you understand to be Jewish, or leave." Now, of course, this could be prompted by a sincere belief that something intrinsic to Jewish practice must be legislated against, or a belief that (a) religious belief must take a back seat to other legal systems. The underlying message, though, is the same -- no one is forcing you to continue to practice as you see fit so either change your practice or you will have to go elsewhere.

This need not be about the specifics of slaughter. It could be about any aspect of religious practice. A society has the right to decide that a mode of behavior or ritual (be it slaughter, drinking wine, not working on a particular day) flies in the face of that society's values so it makes rules to outlaw that practice. This is not necessarily anti- the religion as religion (though it might be) or anti- the religion as its particular religion (though it might be). might just be "pro a different set of priorities and beliefs."

But the end result is no different in practice and there is no way to suss out any true intent.

Where's it going to stop, rosends, before we call it anti-Jewish? We have countries banning circumcision, the wearing of kippot, kosher slaughter. With all respect to you, if this is acceptable, and keeps spreading, we might as well all move to Israel now, and be done with it.

 

[rosends]

Where's it going to stop, rosends, before we call it anti-Jewish? We have countries banning circumcision, the wearing of kippot, kosher slaughter. If this is acceptable, and keeps spreading, we might as well all move to Israel now, and be done with it.

To call it anti-Jewish (IMHO) is to say that it is specifically designed as a move against Jews. In this case, as it applies to practices of other religions, it might be 'anti-religion' in general. It might be a couple of other things as well, things that have no practical difference and only are different in a theoretical sense. But I refrain from imputing a motive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Labeling something a semantic game is a way of avoiding what was said when one doesn't like that one is shown to be wrong. What you said was factually wrong.

Sorry, I am not playing that game. Make a clear argument. You have failed to do so yet.

The fact that blood is not kosher is immaterial. Certain fats are also not kosher. That doesn't mean that the method of slaughter is driven by the need to remove the fats.

This is a red herring on your part.

The question is whether one can provide a valid reason and I guess you are going to ignore your projecting of your own definition of "valid" and then expecting the world to live up to that definition. The reason for what? For the existence of any Jewish law? Simply put, Judaism exists as do its laws. Some have stated reasons, some do not. What you don't like is that the religion has rules that don't make sense to you. This doesn't automatically make them invalid and following them is not irrational. You can try to rename and relabel things to insulate your position but that doesn't make your position any more correct.

Projection is your fault. You keep trying to make it about my standards when that was never the case. This is an improper debating technique, try again.

You have actually not justified any belief, nor is there any cause to justify a belief. This is another phrase which you seem unclear on. Then you descend into more projection (used accurately) -- because you don't like the answer, you decide that it is evasion. This doesn't change the fact that answers were given.

Are you sure about that? It is more likely that you did not ask properly for support. And please, no false accusations of projection. Once again that appears to be your sin.?
ask questions politely and properly and they will be answered. That means no questions with false assumptions within them.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have seen the Halal procedure in Bedouin camps.. They hold the animal to calm it and then quick as lightening they cut the throat in one motion deep enough to cut thru the esophagus. I thought it was more humane than a stun gun and a bullet.

Certainly no worse. People talk about a stun gun and a bullet as if it is pain free and anxiety free. It's just not.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's just another stupid man made placebo for being "spiritual" and has really NOTHING to do with true spirituality nor anything to do with God. So it all comes down to the cruelty of the animals, that is not in keeping with the REAL God's laws.

Who are you to tell me what my spirituality should be???? Are YOU God? Kosher slaughtering is no more inhumane than a stun gun and a bullet.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where's it going to stop, rosends, before we call it anti-Jewish? We have countries banning circumcision, the wearing of kippot, kosher slaughter. If this is acceptable, and keeps spreading, we might as well all move to Israel now, and be done with it.

To see it as anti-semitism is to miss the a larger cultural change which is
increasingly uncomfortable with how animals are treated. We're seeing
movements against eating foie gras, eating veal, raising beef (even eating
any meat), wearing fur, & Islamic butchering too. Arguments about the
most humane way to kill will happen, & some consensus will become law.
The vast majority of people will adapt to it.
I see intent to change practices, not to expel all such practitioners.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where's it going to stop, rosends, before we call it anti-Jewish? We have countries banning circumcision, the wearing of kippot, kosher slaughter. With all respect to you, if this is acceptable, and keeps spreading, we might as well all move to Israel now, and be done with it.

One's rights and when others are physically affected. Right now some countries are giving animals the "right" of freedom from excessive pain when slaughtered. I asked one poster if I had a religion that demanded I torture a dog before I ate it if that was okay as long as it was my dog? That question was extreme and it was dodged. As to circumcision what is banned is child circumcision. An adult can always undergo the process.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who are you to tell me what my spirituality should be???? Are YOU God? Kosher slaughtering is no more inhumane than a stun gun and a bullet.

the videos that I have seen do not support that claim.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It is strange that in the movie "Avatar", I have heard no objection to the ritual that the Navi use when killing an animal. It is substantially the same as Jews and Muslims use. HMPH!

It's all "context." It's really PC and super cool to be an environmentally conscious and pantheistic Navi. Jews are the bad guys. Forget that the do the same thing.

 

[charlie sc]

So you have no problem with Jews being expelled from these countries?

How are they being expelled? If Jews want to torture animals, they should do it where it's allowed. It's not like they're being kicked out.

Btw, I'm Jewish. I mean, I'm an atheist but my mother is Jewish. Does that not make me still Jewish by some weird Judaical perspective? And I don't give a rats ***.

 

[rosends]

Sorry, I am not playing that game. Make a clear argument. You have failed to do so yet.

No, you have failed to see it. I pointed out errors in your claims. I explained that your premise is false. I made the case that your understanding is flawed based on your errors. I also stated that your position is driven by a particular lens and you are having trouble accepting that any other lens can exist. All you have done is side step and ignore.

This is a red herring on your part.

No, it is actually a direct refutation of your claim. You don't have to like it, but calling it a red herring is a false claim.

Projection is your fault. You keep trying to make it about my standards when that was never the case. This is an improper debating technique, try again.

I have shown what you project. I have shown that your standards are driving your statements. You have yet to show anything of substance.

Are you sure about that? It is more likely that you did not ask properly for support. And please, no false accusations of projection. Once again that appears to be your sin.?

Not only have I shown your projection, but I have not mentioned sin. You are really losing track of what you are saying now.

ask questions politely and properly and they will be answered. That means no questions with false assumptions within them.

I haven't any questions. I have shown how your claims begin with a lack of knowledge. You just don't like that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To call it anti-Jewish (IMHO) is to say that it is specifically designed as a move against Jews. In this case, as it applies to practices of other religions, it might be 'anti-religion' in general. It might be a couple of other things as well, things that have no practical difference and only are different in a theoretical sense. But I refrain from imputing a motive.

I posted a video of halal slaughtering. It did not look painless. At the start they showed a stunned steer. That WAS instantaneous.

 

[rosends]

I posted a video of halal slaughtering. It did not look painless. At the start they showed a stunned steer. That WAS instantaneous.

I do believe that someone made a claim that stunning is sometimes not instantaneous and you stated that stunning is not perfect (post 77) and is only near painless when done correctly (as you wrote, "if all goes well"). If someone showed an instance of Halal slaughtering that was instantaneous would you be persuaded of anything?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, you have failed to see it. I pointed out errors in your claims. I explained that your premise is false. I made the case that your understanding is flawed based on your errors. I also stated that your position is driven by a particular lens and you are having trouble accepting that any other lens can exist. All you have done is side step and ignore.

No, you failed. But you could try again.

No, it is actually a direct refutation of your claim. You don't have to like it, but calling it a red herring is a false claim.

This is the sort of unsupported claim that is all that you can do. It did not refute my claim. It was a detour from the actual argument, a red herring. Your logical arguments need a tune up.

I have shown what you project. I have shown that your standards are driving your statements. You have yet to show anything of substance.

No, you have made empty claims. You keep trying to make it about my beliefs and my beliefs never entered into the argument.

Not only have I shown your projection, but I have not mentioned sin. You are really losing track of what you are saying now.

Oh my! Now you have only demonstrated an inability to follow an argument again. "Sin" was being used colloquially. Actual sin of your sort probably does not exist.
again

I haven't any questions. I have shown how your claims begin with a lack of knowledge. You just don't like that.

Correction, you have no answers. You should be asking questions. This is why you have not been able to learn.

 

[rosends]

No, you failed. But you could try again.

Well, I asked a simple question in post 135 about your claim and you seem to have only addressed it by compounding its incorrectness.

This is the sort of unsupported claim that is all that you can do. It did not refute my claim. It was a detour from the actual argument, a red herring. Your logical arguments need a tune up.

I'll try to lay this out so that you can see what is going on because you can't seem to follow otherwise.
You made a claim about the reason for kosher slaughter
--> "It is supposedly done to get rid of the blood from flesh"
I pointed out that that is not supported by Jewish law (and cited Gemara Chulin) so it is counter factual.

You supported your point with another claim
--> "My statement came from the fact that blood is not considered to be kosher"
I pointed out that the fact that blood is not kosher is irrelevant to the question of what drives the laws and practices of kosher slaughter. As evidence, I showed that there is other material in the animal which is not kosher, but the need to remove that has nothing to do with the laws of slaughter. Therefore, your claim that getting rid of the blood is the reason for the method is provably wrong. You brought up this rationalization. I just showed that it is irrelevant. Then you claimed that my refutation is a red herring. That's strange as it hinged on a claim you made.

No, you have made empty claims. You keep trying to make it about my beliefs and my beliefs never entered into the argument.

You keep using value statements and projecting your moral system onto the world and judging based on what you personally believe. By saying things like, " this should not have been a religious ritual in the first place" you are assuming that your belief about what should and should not be is more than just yours. But it is just yours. You made this about what YOU think.

Oh my! Now you have only demonstrated an inability to follow an argument again. "Sin" was being used colloquially. Actual sin of your sort probably does not exist.

And you have shown that when confronted with your projections and errors you have no answers. You are throwing around words, hoping something will stick.

Correction, you have no answers. You should be asking questions. This is why you have not been able to learn.

I have chosen to spend my time correcting your errors - as your statements are rife with them, you have nothing to teach me. I didn't come here with questions. I'm not the one making the erroneous claims about kosher slaughter.

 

[David1967]

So you have no problem with Jews being expelled from these countries?

Are they expelling Jews from these countries or just requiring that they obey their laws regarding animal cruelty?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, I asked a simple question in post 135 about your claim and you seem to have only addressed it by compounding its incorrectness.

I'll try to lay this out so that you can see what is going on because you can't seem to follow otherwise.
You made a claim about the reason for kosher slaughter
--> "It is supposedly done to get rid of the blood from flesh"
I pointed out that that is not supported by Jewish law (and cited Gemara Chulin) so it is counter factual.

You supported your point with another claim
--> "My statement came from the fact that blood is not considered to be kosher"
I pointed out that the fact that blood is not kosher is irrelevant to the question of what drives the laws and practices of kosher slaughter. As evidence, I showed that there is other material in the animal which is not kosher, but the need to remove that has nothing to do with the laws of slaughter. Therefore, your claim that getting rid of the blood is the reason for the method is provably wrong. You brought up this rationalization. I just showed that it is irrelevant. Then you claimed that my refutation is a red herring. That's strange as it hinged on a claim you made.


You keep using value statements and projecting your moral system onto the world and judging based on what you personally believe. By saying things like, " this should not have been a religious ritual in the first place" you are assuming that your belief about what should and should not be is more than just yours. But it is just yours. You made this about what YOU think.


And you have shown that when confronted with your projections and errors you have no answers. You are throwing around words, hoping something will stick.


I have chosen to spend my time correcting your errors - as your statements are rife with them, you have nothing to teach me. I didn't come here with questions. I'm not the one making the erroneous claims about kosher slaughter.

You do not seem to be able to ask a question properly. Let me help you with that. You can't do it as part of a debate. You won't learn that way. Ask it in a separate post.

The rest of your post appears to be whining and complaining. Let's start over, you might do better the second time around.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

To put a humanitarian form of animal slaughter on par of those things above is just a despicable form of moral equivocation.

You may have missed where it was said that those are things other religions have had to put aside and leave in the past. To ask Judaism to update it's method of slaughter is no different, and no worse.

 

[Ellen Brown]

It's all "context." It's really PC and super cool to be an environmentally conscious and pantheistic Navi. Jews are the bad guys. Forget that the do the same thing.

God cursed the descendants of Ishmael. I wonder if he cursed the Jews somehow?

 

[AsianActivist]

The United States envoy against anti-Semitism has condemned the spread of legislation in Europe that limits the slaughter of animals according to Jewish religious tradition as “disgraceful” and “intolerable,” claiming such laws are forcing the expulsion of Jewish communities.

This makes sense. I mean there are certain things which are barbaric like for example eating dogs (and just about anything else that moves) in China. And perhaps Halal slaughter.

But I would make an acception for Kosher slaughter.