EU Court upholds Belgian ban on kosher and halal slaughter

[Left Coast]

And do you object to luxury? Do you object to anything more that what is absolutely necessary for survival? That, I think, would have to include art, religion, philosophy and any number of other things. Not just meat.

Luxury is lovely, but not when it causes unnecessary suffering and killing. Do you not object to those things?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If one is going to eat meat, the goal should be to do so while inflicting the least amount of trauma and to err on the side of caution.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Luxury is lovely, but not when it causes unnecessary suffering and killing. Do you not object to those things?

This is going to be difficult, but I suppose I have to write it anyway.

What do you suppose to be "unnecessary suffering and killing?" When the lion sinks it's teeth into the throat of the young eland, is that unnecessary? Couldn't the lion just go gather some radishes and seeds? (Yes, I know that was a ridiculous analogy -- but I think it right to make it here anyway.)

Plants, and only plants (I do not include fungi) can make what they require from nothing but minerals found in the soil, sunlight, and air that they can assume through their pores. Everything else on earth -- including fungi -- depends on the death of some other life (and don't forget that plants are life).

Oh, whoops, I forgot that there are some organisms that can get what they need to survive from the sulferous outpourings of deep ocean vents. But then again, every life form around them depends -- again -- on the death of some other life.

This is the nature that we are a part of.

 

[Left Coast]

This is going to be difficult, but I suppose I have to write it anyway.

What do you suppose to be "unnecessary suffering and killing?" When the lion sinks it's teeth into the throat of the young eland, is that unnecessary? Couldn't the lion just go gather some radishes and seeds? (Yes, I know that was a ridiculous analogy -- but I think it right to make it here anyway.)

The fact that you recognize how ridiculous the analogy is suggests you know it doesn't really make the point you seem to be going for.

Plants, and only plants (I do not include fungi) can make what they require from nothing but minerals found in the soil, sunlight, and air that they can assume through their pores. Everything else on earth -- including fungi -- depends on the death of some other life (and don't forget that plants are life).

Yes, that's true. Do you consider any and all killing to be ethically equivalent? If I kill and eat you, for example, does that have no more ethical importance than if I kill an amoeba?

If your answer is no, that you would expect your killing to give me more ethical pause than the killing of a mushroom, then I would hope you can see how the same principle would apply to other animals as well. Plants do not suffer or have conscious awareness in the way that cows and pigs do. Thus I seek to reduce their unnecessary suffering.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The fact that you recognize how ridiculous the analogy is suggests you know it doesn't really make the point you seem to be going for.

Sorry, but I'm not sure that's true. At the end of the day, the history of life on earth makes one very, very clear assertion: nature is bloody in tooth and claw, and almost all life lives by the taking of other lives.

I'm not going to take responsibility for that -- I'm not the author. If you think that I'm wrong, then please enlighten me.

Yes, that's true. Do you consider any and all killing to be ethically equivalent? If I kill and eat you, for example, does that have no more ethical importance than if I kill an amoeba?

There are, in fact, quite a few cannabalistic life-forms that are part of our natural world. Then again, the vast majority of species in this same world are not cannabalistic. Are you going to suggest that either one or the other is somehow "right" or "wrong?" On the basis of what? A denial of nature itself?

If your answer is no, that you would expect your killing to give me more ethical pause than the killing of a mushroom, then I would hope you can see how the same principle would apply to other animals as well. Plants do not suffer or have conscious awareness in the way that cows and pigs do. Thus I seek to reduce their unnecessary suffering.

And I do not fault you for that, in fact quite the opposite. Does that come as a surprise?

But I am a creature of my time and place, my history and my culture. That, too, is part of our natural world. With any luck, those that follow me, when I'm long dead, will -- because they've grown in another time and place, history and culture, than I did -- have different views. All well and good. (Sadly, they won't be my offspring, but there you go...)

You label yourself a Buddhist, which most of the world takes to be a religious affiliation. All religions, so far as I can tell, seek ways to deny our human nature and try to make us into something else. But we are, in my view, not something else. We are humans. And we possess that nature whether we like it or not. Yes, we can suppress some of it, some of the time, but not all of it, and not all of the time.

If I could have but one wish, it would be that people stopped reading religious scripture, and find their way into philosophers of human nature, like David Hume and Edward O. Wilson. I think they'd be a lot further ahead in understanding themselves, and why they so often seem to falter at even those things they claim to believe most heartily.

 

[Left Coast]

Sorry, but I'm not sure that's true. At the end of the day, the history of life on earth makes one very, very clear assertion: nature is bloody in tooth and claw, and almost all life lives by the taking of other lives.

Yes. But that is a gloss that avoids that actual ethical question at issue. It's the nature of things that we're all going to die, as well. Does that mean it's nothing to be concerned about about if I go ahead and cut to the chase and end your life now?

There are, in fact, quite a few cannabalistic life-forms that are part of our natural world. Then again, the vast majority of species in this same world are not cannabalistic. Are you going to suggest that either one or the other is somehow "right" or "wrong?" On the basis of what? A denial of nature itself?

What's "right" and "wrong" to you is a function of the basis of your ethical system. You recently described Mitch McConnell as "the most evil person on Earth," or some similar hyperbole. Yet all the "evil" you believe Mitch to have done is part of nature, too.

By following your own line of reasoning here -- how dare you declare that something that happens in nature is evil????

But I am a creature of my time and place, my history and my culture. That, too, is part of our natural world. With any luck, those that follow me, when I'm long dead, will -- because they've grown in another time and place, history and culture, than I did -- have different views. All well and good. (Sadly, they won't be my offspring, but there you go...)

This is some odd reasoning. You are not some passive recipient of your culture's mores with no moral agency or ability to reason of your own. If I were to survey your posts here on RF, I would bet money that I'd find quite a bit of pushback against the values of "your time and culture" (see below).

You label yourself a Buddhist, which most of the world takes to be a religious affiliation. All religions, so far as I can tell, seek ways to deny our human nature and try to make us into something else. But we are, in my view, not something else. We are humans. And we possess that nature whether we like it or not. Yes, we can suppress some of it, some of the time, but not all of it, and not all of the time.

I don't know how you possibly surveyed "all religions" to determine that, but...okay? I'm not formally Buddhist, btw, but I do appreciate many aspects of their philosophy.

If I could have but one wish, it would be that people stopped reading religious scripture, and find their way into philosophers of human nature, like David Hume and Edward O. Wilson. I think they'd be a lot further ahead in understanding themselves, and why they so often seem to falter at even those things they claim to believe most heartily.

That is truly fascinating, particularly given your logic above.

Religion, as I'm sure you know, is a near ubiquitous feature of human life and culture. We even have evidence the Neanderthals may have practiced some crude version.

If we were to adopt your reasoning as it applies to meat-eating, we'd have to conclude that this demonstrates religion is just a feature of who we are - our very nature as humans. Yet you want us to deny that part of ourselves, because you see a greater good that's possible from departing from doing something just because "it's nature" or "it's culture."

Do you see yet how that might apply to the unnecessary killing of animals for food?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As does yours.

You did not find an error in my post.

It would be nice if you could find one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's nice. I like animals not to be killed when it's not necessary.

So you would just amputate? That is cruel man!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Or...

This whole thing isn’t really about religious slaughter versus “stunning” slaughter at all. Suppose it is simply about protecting Belgian meat producers. The EU doesn’t prohibit kosher slaughter. Apparently they don’t buy the arguments that “stunning” slaughter is better morally. But if the Belgians prohibit all meat from countries that don’t prohibit non-stunning slaughter than its market is closed and local producers are protected. So what if the rights of some minorities are thrown under the bus? Europeans have excluded Jews from ways of making a living for centuries. It’s an old story. Plus it exploits the prejudices of anti-Semites and those that hate Jewish kosher slaughter for more benign reasons. Could be. Not saying it is. But it could be.

Whether this is a "right" or not is debatable. Prisoners that follow Voodoo do not get to sacrifice chickens in prison. Is that an infringement on their rights?

What many people do not realize is that rights in actuality come from the state. And the state can and does regularly redefine what a right is. One can claim to have a "God given right" to do something, just try that out when it affects others negatively. You will quite often find that that right does not exist.

 

[Left Coast]

So you would just amputate? That is cruel man!

Are you kidding? I even think those little ridiculous sweaters are cruel and unusual!

 

[Shaul]

Whether this is a "right" or not is debatable. Prisoners that follow Voodoo do not get to sacrifice chickens in prison. Is that an infringement on their rights?

What many people do not realize is that rights in actuality come from the state. And the state can and does regularly redefine what a right is. One can claim to have a "God given right" to do something, just try that out when it affects others negatively. You will quite often find that that right does not exist.

Gee, according to the Declaration of Independence rights are derived from the Creator. I guess you don’t believe that. That figures.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gee, according to the Declaration of Independence rights are derived from the Creator. I guess you don’t believe that. That figures.

Yes, but the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document in the sense that you seem to think it is. All that it did was to separate us from England. When it came to the Constitution the authors knew that certain "rights" needed a strong guarantee.

 

[Glaurung]

IMO, even if you were somehow prove that animals that undergo shechita do indeed suffer momentary pain, I nonetheless do not think it would be adequate justification to outlaw the practice. From what I understand, the animal dies within seconds, so whatever pain is experienced by the animal is so momentary that banning it on animal welfare grounds seems to be straining at a gnat.

I think the right of Jews and Muslims to conduct animal slaughter as dictated by their long established practices outweighs concerns of sparing animals whatever momentary pain may be incurred as a result of those practices. And that's granting the argument that shechita and dhabihah inflict more pain than a stun gun, which I don't think has actually been shown.

 

[Heyo]

I think the right of Jews and Muslims to conduct animal slaughter

I think a right is something that is granted to all humans or to all citizens.
Let's call the exceptions religions are enjoying by the right name: privileges.

 

[Glaurung]

I think a right is something that is granted to all humans or to all citizens.
Let's call the exceptions religions are enjoying by the right name: privileges.

Religious freedom is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right. And the right of a person or community to manifest their established and bona fide religious customs is not limited to Jews and Muslims.

The state has no place dictating what is and is not acceptable religious practice unless there is exceptionally good reason. And in my opinion, saving livestock from the potential of ephemeral suffering in the slaughtering act is not an adequate reason. I don't think anyone is arguing that Jewish or Muslim abattoirs should be except from all animal welfare standards, just that to mandate stunning unacceptably impinges on the freedom of Jews and Muslims to conduct themselves as according to their religious convictions. A right everyone has.

 

[kiwimac]

I'm glad the EU has upheld this Belgian law.

 

[stvdv]

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.

I am glad to see that people get more awareness of cruelty happening in the world

 

[stvdv]

Religious freedom is not a privilege, it is a fundamental right.

Religious Freedom <> killing others

 

[ratiocinator]

The state has no place dictating what is and is not acceptable religious practice unless there is exceptionally good reason. And in my opinion, saving livestock from the potential of ephemeral suffering in the slaughtering act is not an adequate reason.

It is an exceptionally good reason; nobody has the right to inflict unnecessary suffering, regardless of their beliefs.

 

[Secret Chief]

It would be nice if you could find one.

To repeat myself then:
You posted:
"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."
This is:
"An argument to moderation - the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposite positions."
- Argument to moderation - Wikipedia

And to repeat my further point:
I accept that the above is your honestly held opinion. I only trawled through a long list of fallacies to try to highlight your black-and-white fallacy comment is a game anyone can play. These two fallacies are in opposition to each other, they cannot both be right, but seemingly they are. It's a fruitless urinating contest imo. You think the issue of such monkeys is of a meaningful difference to the issue of slaughterhouses. My opinion is otherwise, but rather than accept this you seem to believe it is an example of faulty reasoning, and having had this pointed out to me, the scales may fall from my eyes and I will agree with your position. You'll have a long wait.