• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

EU Court upholds Belgian ban on kosher and halal slaughter

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Actually it seems to. The group does give some stats on deaths of both stunned and unstunned slaughters. That is what led them to make this statement when comparing the two:

"CIWF Trust is opposed to the religious slaughter of animals (including poultry) where such slaughter means that the animals are not pre-stunned. It is the failure to stun to which CIWF Trust is primarily opposed; clearly we are not opposed to aspects of religious slaughter which have no adverse impact on the welfare of the animals such as the requirement of Islam that the name of Allah must be invoked at the time of slaughter"

Obviously from their stats even though the appear to be opposed to slaughter in general it appears to be their opinion that kosher and halal butchery is less humane. I too am for the most humane method of slaughter possible. As I tell those in favor of kosher and halal slaughter: "Demonstrate that your method is more humane and I will support you." The religious aspect has nothing to do with it for me either way.
As you show, tis always best to quote the relevant portions of a long link.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
True, if meat eaters cared that much about animal welfare in meat production they could support laws that would have far more impact than this one. That they don't speaks to what you note.

Another way to frame that question would be: is it ethical to make minor regulatory changes on issues with only a small impact on animal welfare when such decisions would have a major negative impact on minority cultures to the extent they could no longer practice their culture (especially one in particular which has been historically persecuted).

It's not uncommon to grandfather in clauses to protect existing groups from harms after all.

Or could make kosher/halal meet an extra animal welfare clause to 'offset' the harms, but it's not really about that is it.

Excellent point.

What happens now beside this issue is god aweful. Feeding cows to cows, chickens to chickens, filling them with all kinds of steroids, forced breeding, etc etc...

The meat industry is horrific.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Unsurprisingly, mental health problems are common in abbatoir workers. But then given how often "rare" cases of unnecessary abuse of the animals is made public, forgive me if I'm not succeeding in generating much compassion for them.
Reliable statistics are always a must when making such claims. But that would be a problem for both sides it seems to me. So this may be a bit of a red herring.
 

Secret Chief

Vetted Member
Actually it seems to. The group does give some stats on deaths of both stunned and unstunned slaughters. That is what led them to make this statement when comparing the two:

"CIWF Trust is opposed to the religious slaughter of animals (including poultry) where such slaughter means that the animals are not pre-stunned. It is the failure to stun to which CIWF Trust is primarily opposed; clearly we are not opposed to aspects of religious slaughter which have no adverse impact on the welfare of the animals such as the requirement of Islam that the name of Allah must be invoked at the time of slaughter"

Obviously from their stats even though the appear to be opposed to slaughter in general it appears to be their opinion that kosher and halal butchery is less humane. I too am for the most humane method of slaughter possible. As I tell those in favor of kosher and halal slaughter: "Demonstrate that your method is more humane and I will support you." The religious aspect has nothing to do with it for me either way.
Thank you for taking the time.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
True, if meat eaters cared that much about animal welfare in meat production they could support laws that would have far more impact than this one. That they don't speaks to what you note.
And when we do advocate for better slaughtering methods,
we're met with accusations of hypocrisy for eating animals,
accusations of religious bigotry, accusations of ignorance,
& religious (someone else's) arguments.
This ad hominem does not diminish the legitimacy of our concerns.
 

Secret Chief

Vetted Member
Reliable statistics are always a must when making such claims. But that would be a problem for both sides it seems to me. So this may be a bit of a red herring.
"Animal slaughter is very dirty work. Although cows, sheep, pigs and chickens are the main victims, vulnerable humans are also being exploited and abused in secret. Psychologists say it’s causing post-traumatic stress disorder, perpetration-induced traumatic stress and a range of other horrifying syndromes. Unsurprisingly, studies have found that slaughterhouse work is connected to higher incidents of domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse."

- Opinion: Abattoir workers are the forgotten frontline victims at the heart of the coronavirus crisis

- The harrowing psychological toll of slaughterhouse work
 

74x12

Well-Known Member
This was posted in an Abrahamic Religion DIR thread by #Shaul - I thought it needed a wider audience.

The EU Court has upheld a Belgian law which requires an animal be stunned before being slaughtered. Such stunning violates the rules of kosher and halal slaughter.

EU court upholds Belgian ban on kosher ritual slaughter

Not mentioned in the article, such stunning of the animal is NOT more humane. The stunned animal experiences more pain that way according to Jewish experts, not less.
Although I believe both religions are wrong about this; I still support their religious liberty. I don't understand the big deal ... cut the animals throat or knock it on the head either way it's dead pretty fast. Seems hypocritical of the Belgians to care about the suffering animals so much that they are particular about the way the animal is slaughtered. You're still killing animals so don't pretend you're accomplishing anything for animals.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Although I believe both religions are wrong about this; I still support their religious liberty. I don't understand the big deal ... cut the animals throat or knock it on the head either way it's dead pretty fast. Seems hypocritical of the Belgians to care about the suffering animals so much that they are particular about the way the animal is slaughtered. You're still killing animals so don't pretend you're accomplishing anything for animals.
And from what little I've read, the religious objections are weak.
It seems more a matter of wanting to do that which they already do.
I'd be pleased to see a cogent argument for it.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
"Animal slaughter is very dirty work. Although cows, sheep, pigs and chickens are the main victims, vulnerable humans are also being exploited and abused in secret. Psychologists say it’s causing post-traumatic stress disorder, perpetration-induced traumatic stress and a range of other horrifying syndromes. Unsurprisingly, studies have found that slaughterhouse work is connected to higher incidents of domestic violence, alcohol and drug abuse."

- Opinion: Abattoir workers are the forgotten frontline victims at the heart of the coronavirus crisis

- The harrowing psychological toll of slaughterhouse work
That is a bit better. But it is still a red herring as far as this discussion goes.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
That sounds sort of dismissive, but you're absolutely correct.
I like meat. I'm willing to have animals die for this.
some-of-you-may-die-but-that-is-a-sacrifice-17417790.png
 

Ponder This

Well-Known Member
IMO, alternative methods of slaughter can only be acceptable if they not merely guarantee less pain, but also guarantee death. Any method failing to guarantee death is unacceptable regardless.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
It's not uncommon to grandfather in clauses to protect existing groups privileges from harms after all.
Fixed that for you.

The question is if laws, in a democracy, made by democratic processes, are universal or if some people can avoid to follow them by declaring themselves exceptional.
For European countries the answer has been "the law applies to everyone" in most cases (though there are still some privileges in the book).
 

Secret Chief

Vetted Member
hypocrisy for eating animals

If a person eats animals and simultaneously expresses concern then, as I said it either is due to genuine ignorance or it is hypocrisy. I would far rather someone said "I eat meat and I don't give a hoot for any welfare of the animals." That would be honesty.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If a person eats animals and simultaneously expresses concern then, as I said it either is due to genuine ignorance or it is hypocrisy. I would far rather someone said "I eat meat and I don't give a hoot for any welfare of the animals." That would be honesty.
And this is a a black and white fallacy. One can eat animals and still strive to be humane. There have been some truly barbaric ways of eating animals. Eating live monkey brains is still a real thing. Tell me that that is no different from stunning an animal before slaughter.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Belgium sought to make the slaughter of food meat humane, so they wanted quick slaughter of a stunned animal. Jews argue that their way kills faster, so it is more humane. I suppose that there are medical scans (such as MRIs or CAT scans) that could analyze brain chemicals to try to understand if the animal was in pain.

Antisemitic theists often use Jewish rites of slaughter to assert that Jews are bloodthirsty or locked in ancient pagan traditions of animal slaughter. They assert that it is akin to Satanic animal sacrifices. There still appears to be cultural rifts in understand one another.

Jewish dietary laws are partly about avoiding illness (from a time before refrigeration) and partly about compassion for the animals.

Thus, the orthodox Jewish tradition of not drinking the milk and eating the flesh of the same animal at the same meal is about not wanting to be too cruel to the animal.

Pigs eat almost anything, and inherently are filthy and diseased. In the United States, today, much pig meat is salted. Pacific islanders can't stand the way the US processes the meat, since the taste is radically altered. Yet, it is that salt that kills (some) parasites and (some) bacteria. Cooking, of course, helps tremendously.

The Christian and Muslim religions come from the Jewish religion, but many of the Jewish dietary laws are omitted in the Christian religion. Thus, Christians can eat pigs, whereas orthodox Jews cannot. It is common, in modern times for non-orthodox Jews to eat and enjoy pig meat. Usually, when an orthodox Jew first tastes bacon (if they ever dare to), it is like eating worms....disgusted at the thought of it.

Making Kosher Meat

Both Jewish kosher meat and Muslim halal meat is drained of blood. Jewish kosher meat is soaked in clean water for a half hour. Both kosher and halal meat is blessed by a religious person who inspects the kitchen for cleanliness violations, and inspects the process of making the holy food.

Most of the gefilte fish made in the United States is processed in a small plant in Louisiana (Larry the Cable Guy just did a show about that...he focuses on uniquely American things). The gefilte fish, there, is made of carp. Carp is a bottom-feeding fish, so thought, by some, to be less clean than other fish. Carp life about 25 years, and goldfish are in the carp family.

Jews don't eat shellfish, and some times of the year, there is red tide (which causes fish to be poison). I think that it is likely that Passover (marking Jewish houses so that God would not curse them by killing their kids) was really about Jewish kids surviving red tide shell fish by not eating it. Egyptians thought that it was a Jewish curse meant to kill off their first born sons (who likely had the pick of the best sea food).

Jews are often blamed for surviving eras of bad food (they survive while non-Jews are poisoned by eating poisonous foods that their dietary laws don't prohibit).

Jews are allowed to eat most insects.

Some balk at Jewish ceremonies that involve swinging a chicken around one's head until its head falls off. If the chicken is not eaten afterwards, it amounts to a bloody animal sacrifice. Yet, it is a remembrance of quickly and humanely killing a chicken, and it is one way of eliminating the blood in the chicken.

Blood in meat tends to rot it quickly. Thus, kosher and halal meat lasts a lot longer. Muslims were experts at transporting foods across burning desert sands on camel caravans, and that kind of exposure to elements would surely harm food if not protected. Additionally, the quick removal of blood eliminates adrenaline, which tastes bad. The blood in the meat makes the meat taste worse.

It was Irish tradition to serve bacon and lettuce intentionally wilted in the bacon grease on Saint Patrick's day. But, when they came to America, they noticed that bacon was terribly expensive. So, instead, they used cheap Jewish corned beef and cheap cabbage, and that became the new Irish tradition.

Many of the old recipes taste salty or pickled in vinegar. This is because those were preservatives in the days before refrigeration.

Some Arab delicacies (goat eyeballs or goat testicles) seem off putting to Americans. As Cody Lundin (Dual Survivors TV show) pointed out, Americans have an aversion to eating insects or worms that many other cultures don't. I explained to Cody that I could survive on a tiny plastic card (charge it at a bed and breakfast...room service).

Jews also stay healthier by getting a bris (slicing off the foreskin around the penis). If you are unfamiliar with Jewish traditions, I'd advise that you don't eat a small meat hors d'oeuvre when you are attending a bris.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
If a person eats animals and simultaneously expresses concern then, as I said it either is due to genuine ignorance or it is hypocrisy. I would far rather someone said "I eat meat and I don't give a hoot for any welfare of the animals." That would be honesty.
For you, it might be so black & white.
But I see a middle ground, ie, eat them,
but do so while minimizing their agony.
Anyone who doubts my honesty is a poopy head.
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
Jewish dietary laws are partly about avoiding illness (from a time before refrigeration) and partly about compassion for the animals.
From a faith standpoint, the laws are about obeying the laws. While there are some later edicts which deal with health, and it compassion for animals IS a separate obligation, the dietary laws are presented textually without justification.
Both Jewish kosher meat and Muslim halal meat is drained of blood. Jewish kosher meat is soaked in clean water for a half hour. Both kosher and halal meat is blessed by a religious person who inspects the kitchen for cleanliness violations, and inspects the process of making the holy food.
Kosher meat is also salted to draw out blood, and then rinsed again. The meat is not blessed by anyone. The ritual activity is the subject of the blessing.
Most of the gefilte fish made in the United States is processed in a small plant in Louisiana (Larry the Cable Guy just did a show about that...he focuses on uniquely American things). The gefilte fish, there, is made of carp. Carp is a bottom-feeding fish, so thought, by some, to be less clean than other fish. Carp life about 25 years, and goldfish are in the carp family.
Gefilte fish is often made of Pike and Mullet as well. There are even some wonderful salmon gefilte fish.
Jews are allowed to eat most insects.
No, Jews are allowed to eat a very select group of grasshoppers. Most don't because most don't have the tradition of precisely which species are allowed. All other insects are not allowed to be eaten.
Some balk at Jewish ceremonies that involve swinging a chicken around one's head until its head falls off.
There is no such ceremony. While there is a ceremony that some people fulfill by lifting a chicken up and moving it around, were it to suffer or become injured, it would be unfit for kosher consumption so there is no "head falling off." The chicken still has to be slaughtered precisely and in the accepted way.

Jews also stay healthier by getting a bris (slicing off the foreskin around the penis). If you are unfamiliar with Jewish traditions, I'd advise that you don't eat a small meat hors d'oeuvre when you are attending a bris.
Intuiting a medical reason for circumcision is nice, but is not supported by Jewish understanding. And the joke about the meat hors d'oervres is a nice attempt, but most circumcisions happen first thing in the morning, and fish is served.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
You're still killing animals so don't pretend you're accomplishing anything for animals.
Nonsense. If you had a family pet that had to be euthanized would you consider setting it on fire? Of course not, even though "you're still killing an animal."
 

Flankerl

Well-Known Member
LOL!! The chicken running around has nothing to do with pain. At that point it is an autonomous reaction. Yes, sometimes animals are not properly stunned. I have never denied that. But in halal and kosher slaughter the animal is always conscious and in great distress. I will point out again that since this is a fait acompli the burden of proof is now upon those opposing this ruling.

Yes exactly. Just like most movements of the animal are involuntary when it's throat is slit.

Do you know how deep the cut is? It's not just thin cut after which you let the animal run around for 15 minutes.



btw how do you feel about meat from hunting?
 
Top