Halal & Kosher meat must be banned and stunning the animal before slaughter must be mandatory India

[Saint Frankenstein]

I personally think that halal slaughter is more humane than industrialized slaughter. The animal isn't treated like a disposable product and the slaughterer actually has to care for the animal's comfort individually. They are also to provide a good life for the animal such as no crowded spaces, they have to have room to roam around, it has to be clean, the animal has to have good food and water and the animal must be healthy. The slaughter must take place away from other animals to avoid frightening and traumatizing them. The blade is also to be kept out of sight of the animal before the slaughter. Unconsciousness occurs within seconds due to rapid blood loss to the brain.

In that case, no reason will change your mind.

All bhogas on theistic Hinduism are vegetarian, even of Kali.
Non vegetarian bhogas to any Hindu deities are considered evil.
So, are we sure that Hindus are actually going to consume buffalo meat from within a temple?
I've yet to come across a Hindu temple that allows non vegetarian food inside tge temple premises.

Shaktism does not mandate or really push vegetarianism, like most of Vaishnavism does. Some Shaktas refrain from eating beef out of deference for India's cultural views of the cow, but that's not required, either. Animal sacrifice is a big part of the practice of Shaktism in places like Bengal, Assam and Nepal. Yes, they do offer the animals in the temples, including blood offerings. They used to sacrifice humans in the temples, too, before that was stopped. (They still do it in effigy.) Kali certainly does not have a problem with animal sacrifice. She is Nature, after all. Do you know what goes on the wild, that is the creation of Her? Telling us that we can't sacrifice animals to Devi is religious discrimination. As long as they strive to make it as painless and quick as possible, there is no ethical problem with it. What right do you have to force your beliefs on us? We're not all going to be vegetarians.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice_in_Hinduism

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is evil.

They slit the animal's arteries and windpipe in a single, quick stroke with a non-serrated surgically sharp blade. They lose consciousness and die in seconds. Care is also taken to comfort and calm the animal before slaughter. It's a lot like slaughter on small farms. It's more humane than industrial slaughter.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Here's a simple question:

Does Saudi Arabia allow for Hindus to practice their faith openly and freely? NO!

India on the other hand allows for you to believe what you want. However as a majority Hindu country they should have the right to determine their own laws. India has made enough concessions to Islam already.

Halal slaughter should be banned everywhere, not just in India.

What does Saudi Arabia have to do with anything? They don't speak for all Muslims. They're not the Vatican of Islam. There is no Vatican of Islam.

 

[Brian Schuh]

About animal sacrifice. What is wrong with it? It is very ancient. Jews will sacrifice animals when their Temple is rebuilt and Noahides are permitted to sacrifice animals even without a Temple. Animals were made for us. I respect veganism and fruitarianism. But how can a fruitarian respect a potato or onion more than human life itself? If I want to eat meat, I eat halal or kosher, it is the most humane. Stunning an animal doesn't render it free from pain, just renders it unable to express pain.

 

[Flankerl]

The artery near the throat is slit open and the animal is kept alive in pain till all the blood drains out of it.

That's not how mammals work.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I personally think that halal slaughter is more humane than industrialized slaughter.

That it is, but it's still not the instant and painless death that people are trying to portray it as. Stunning the animal is still a brutal practice, but studies have shown it's less painful than traditional ritual slaughters.
But, regardless, any way it's done, learning about it and having to think about it was enough to for me to cut way back on meat consumption, to the point I rarely eat beef and pork, and having mixed emotions about seafood.

 

[FearGod]

India is the country of 3 Dharmic faiths and philosophies that often strictly promotes a vegetarian diet. The concept of AHIMSA, That predates modern Hinduism and Buddhism, against animals often made it impure for one to consume meat or eggs (Except Kshatriya clans and a few others)
Many Hindus these days consume meat based on their personal sect, tradition, religion and culture. Still many remain largely vegetarian.
Buddhism and Jainism are known for their strict bans on animal slaughter. Jainism being the most non violent philosophy in the world, keep away many food items including potatoes and opinions.
But in this day and age, it would be impossible and unfair to compel others to stick to a vegan or vegetarian diet.
So, I hope that the government would come up with a law that would penalize butchers who would for not stunning the animals before slaughter.
And especially ban barbaric forms of meat consumption such as halal and Kosher.

ALSO, MORE IMPORTANTLY, PENALIZE ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN TEMPLES.
Some Hindu religions still practices such barbaric methods that isn't suited to developing nation.

Even though I personally wouldn't eat beef still it's not my right to prescribe the diet of others. So, cattle slaughter could be permitted but by stunning them before hand.
I feel grossly uncomfortable eating meat, mainly knowing how it was slaughtered.
Even though India has a population of 14.2% Muslims, still halal and other forms of slaughter that requires the animal to die in such a pitiful state, shouldn't be accepted in India along with any form of animal killing in such manner.

Sorry, i can't resist the beef meet, it's yummy.
But next time I'll ask if the cow was crying while dying.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That it is, but it's still not the instant and painless death that people are trying to portray it as. Stunning the animal is still a brutal practice, but studies have shown it's less painful than traditional ritual slaughters.
But, regardless, any way it's done, learning about it and having to think about it was enough to for me to cut way back on meat consumption, to the point I rarely eat beef and pork, and having mixed emotions about seafood.

Does stunning actually render them unconscious, though? To me, it doesn't much matter if they stun them or not. It's still a very quick death if done correctly (those halal slaughterhouse investigations in the UK that caused an uproar were really examples of abuse and not of halal slaughter being performed correctly; it was misrepresented in the media, and the slaughterers were just sadists). I've seen videos of halal slaughter being done correctly and in a very compassionate manner. Although stunning them is a bit better if it actually does render them unconscious. Stunning may be adding unnecessary brutality to it, actually, but I'm not sure.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Does stunning actually render them unconscious, though? To me, it doesn't much matter if they stun them or not. It's still a very quick death if done correctly (those halal slaughterhouse investigations in the UK that caused an uproar were really examples of abuse and not of halal slaughter being performed correctly; it was misrepresented in the media, and the slaughterers were just sadists). I've seen videos of halal slaughter being done correctly and in a very compassionate manner. Although stunning them is a bit better if it actually does render them unconscious. Stunning may be adding unnecessary brutality to it, actually, but I'm not sure.

Stunning adds unnecessary brutality but slitting the throat and hanging the animal upside down alive is human and painless.
Excellent!
I admit I didn't know about stunning halal meat in the UK but in India largely in UP, Telangana and even the mosque near my home, the practice is anything but pleasant I m sure seeing the animal with my own eyes still alive and upside down isn't matter when it was still fidgeting.
And also, I didn't talk about Shakta diet and regulations but of the DIETARY RESTRICTIONS WITHIN EVERY SHAKTA TEMPLE THAT PROHIBITS MEAT AND EGGS INSIDE THE TEMPLE PREMISES.
Being a Bengali, I know the beliefs of Shaktas, however I've rarely seen them eat buffalo meat.

 

[Flankerl]

the practice is anything but pleasant

Most stuff that leads to death is.

I m sure seeing the animal with my own eyes still alive

If you chop off the head of a chicken it will run around for some time.

Yet its not alive.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Most stuff that leads to death is.




If you chop off the head of a chicken it will run around for some time.

Yet its not alive.

Then why such drama over the people killed in Syria then?

Like I said, let's try that on a human first and see the results.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Stunning adds unnecessary brutality but slitting the throat and hanging the animal upside down alive is human and painless.

When the arteries of the neck are cut, unconsciousness and death occurs in seconds. They're dead, for all intents and purposes. After a very short bit, it's only reflexes. I've seen a lot of videos of humans being beheaded and having their throats slit, and sometimes the body moves around for a bit, but they're actually dead. It just sometimes takes a bit for the electrical signals inside of the body to dissipate.

I admit I didn't know about stunning halal meat in the UK but in India largely in UP, Telangana and even the mosque near my home, the practice is anything but pleasant I m sure seeing the animal with my own eyes still alive and upside down isn't matter when it was still fidgeting.

Here is a short film demonstrating Islamic slaughtering practices by a very compassionate Muslim.

I do not know what the specific Muslims around you do, but the people in the video are hardly abusive or sadistic. In Islam - as opposed to Christianity, which tends to view animals as mere objects for us to use as we please - animals are seen as the creation of God and they are not created for our use. They belong to God like all things do and have inherent dignity regardless of their relationship to us or what uses we may have for them. So Muslims are supposed to treat animals with kindness and compassion, because they are fellow creations of God. During slaughtering, the animal is supposed to be calmed and comforted. The slaughterer must do what they can to avoid traumatizing and stressing out the animal.

As for stunning, some Islamic leaders say it is okay and some don't. It tends to depend on how efficient the cleric sees it as. Some think that it adds undue stress. I'm not sure, myself.

And also, I didn't talk about Shakta diet and regulations but of the DIETARY RESTRICTIONS WITHIN EVERY SHAKTA TEMPLE THAT PROHIBITS MEAT AND EGGS INSIDE THE TEMPLE PREMISES.
Being a Bengali, I know the beliefs of Shaktas, however I've rarely seen them eat buffalo meat.

I don't know the specific history of where you live. They might have caved into the demands of the wider culture. Who knows. But the point is that animal sacrifice and eating meat aren't a big deal in Shaktism.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

When the arteries of the neck are cut, unconsciousness and death occurs in seconds. They're dead, for all intents and purposes. After a very short bit, it's only reflexes. I've seen a lot of videos of humans being beheaded and having their throats slit, and sometimes the body moves around for a bit, but they're actually dead. It just sometimes takes a bit for the electrical signals inside of the body to dissipate.

Here is a short film demonstrating Islamic slaughtering practices by a very compassionate Muslim.

I do not know what the specific Muslims around you do, but the people in the video are hardly abusive or sadistic. In Islam - as opposed to Christianity, which tends to view animals as mere objects for us to use as we please - animals are seen as the creation of God and they are not created for our use. They belong to God like all things do and have inherent dignity regardless of their relationship to us or what uses we may have for them. So Muslims are supposed to treat animals with kindness and compassion, because they are fellow creations of God. During slaughtering, the animal is supposed to be calmed and comforted. The slaughterer must do what they can to avoid traumatizing and stressing out the animal.

As for stunning, some Islamic leaders say it is okay and some don't. It tends to depend on how efficient the cleric sees it as. Some think that it adds undue stress. I'm not sure, myself.

I don't know the specific history of where you live. They might have caved into the demands of the wider culture. Who knows. But the point is that animal sacrifice and eating meat aren't a big deal in Shaktism.

In response to the halal methods:

Dr Craig Johnson and his colleagues at New Zealand's Massey University reproduced the Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughter in calves. The calves were first anaesthetised so although their pain responses could be detected, they wouldn't actually feel anything. They were then subjected to a neck incision. A pain response was detected for up to two minutes following the cut, although calves normally fall unconscious after 10 to 30 seconds.

The team then stunned the calves five seconds after cutting their throats: the pain signal detected by electroencephalography ceased immediately.


Johnson told the New Scientist he thought this work was "the best evidence yet that [ritual slaughter] is painful". However, he observed that the religious community "is adamant animals don't experience any pain so the results might surprise them".

Islamic methods might not be sadistic on purpose, still better ways do exists for it to be done.
Also, this research shows that killing by anesthesia sounds like a better option as well.

And on Shaktism, you need to read what I actually said. I've said twice that dietary rules for personal preference and temple space restrictions aren't same

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In response to the halal methods:

Dr Craig Johnson and his colleagues at New Zealand's Massey University reproduced the Jewish and Islamic methods of slaughter in calves. The calves were first anaesthetised so although their pain responses could be detected, they wouldn't actually feel anything. They were then subjected to a neck incision. A pain response was detected for up to two minutes following the cut, although calves normally fall unconscious after 10 to 30 seconds.

The team then stunned the calves five seconds after cutting their throats: the pain signal detected by electroencephalography ceased immediately.


Johnson told the New Scientist he thought this work was "the best evidence yet that [ritual slaughter] is painful". However, he observed that the religious community "is adamant animals don't experience any pain so the results might surprise them".

Islamic methods might not be sadistic on purpose, still better ways do exists for it to be done.
Also, this research shows that killing by anesthesia sounds like a better option as well.

I have nothing against stunning.

And on Shaktism, you need to read what I actually said. I've said twice that dietary rules for personal preference and temple space restrictions aren't same

Fine, but Shaktas still practice animal sacrifice.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

I have nothing against stunning.


Fine, but Shaktas still practice animal sacrifice.

That's my point entirely. Generally meat in India, halal or Hindu process use very gross ways to kill animals.
If the government can mandate stunning for all meats, it would be good.
It's the birth place of Jainism, so it should be expected of the people here.

They do, but they won't eat that meat.
My mother took a goat with her for sacrifice to the Kamakhya temple... I didn't go in but she didn't bring back any of the meat.

 

[Chakra]

That's my point entirely. Generally meat in India, halal or Hindu process use very gross ways to kill animals.
If the government can mandate stunning for all meats, it would be good.
It's the birth place of Jainism, so it should be expected of the people here.

They do, but they won't eat that meat.
My mother took a goat with her for sacrifice to the Kamakhya temple... I didn't go in but she didn't bring back any of the meat.

Any reason why she didn't bring it back? Is it because of some ritualistic rule that you can't eat the meat of a slaughtered animal?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Any reason why she didn't bring it back? Is it because of some ritualistic rule that you can't eat the meat of a slaughtered animal?

I actually do not know. I try not to step into temples where animals are slaughtered.
I find it very very uncomfortable.
Bengalis have to consume fish and vegetarianism is less
And even garlic, onion and ginger are considered non vegetarian items here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's my point entirely. Generally meat in India, halal or Hindu process use very gross ways to kill animals.
If the government can mandate stunning for all meats, it would be good.
It's the birth place of Jainism, so it should be expected of the people here.

They do, but they won't eat that meat.
My mother took a goat with her for sacrifice to the Kamakhya temple... I didn't go in but she didn't bring back any of the meat.

Define "gross". Killing of any lifeform isn't really a pleasant thing to do, unless you're the sort who enjoys violence and death. But it's just a fact of life.

I don't see what Jainism has to do with anything. They're a small minority of the Indian population. They shouldn't have more of a say than anyone else. Do you believe in pluralism?

 

[RabbiO]

If you chop off the head of a chicken it will run around for some time.

Yet its not alive.

Were you thinking of any forum posters in particular?

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Define "gross". Killing of any lifeform isn't really a pleasant thing to do, unless you're the sort who enjoys violence and death. But it's just a fact of life.

I don't see what Jainism has to do with anything. They're a small minority of the Indian population. They shouldn't have more of a say than anyone else. Do you believe in pluralism?

Fact of life yes, but trying to make it painless, isn't a myth.
Instead of spending millions of temples, trying to mandate proper instruments to stun the animal seems like a better choice to me.

Please try and understand before you twist my word entirely.
If I believed Jainism had a say on the lifestyle of others, I'd be in favor of banning meat, eggs and root vegetables, mandate masks, penalize mosquito sprays and not kill the larvae of insects forming in the gutters of India.
I m suggesting that most faiths of India had a strong faith in non violence.
And since its a hard practice to do these days, we can bring small changes to our ways. So we should try and at least make the slaughter a bit more humane. Not ban it but use ways to render the slaughter painless.