darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Ignorance is bliss
But ignorance is also the cause of all great suffering
I'm not going to lie, my contribution to any efforts for change would most likely be dismal and a waste of my time.
-
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!
Netherlands may ban religious animal slaughter
- Thread starter Wandered Off
- Start date
I'm not going to lie, my contribution to any efforts for change would most likely be dismal and a waste of my time.
Killing animals for food at slaughterhouses is considered by some to be inhumane, too.
PhAA
Grand Master
Probably, but I don't think it would ever go far. I mean, I doubt the world would be willing to starve to death.
David M
Well-Known Member
The question is whether the animal was stunned prior to being slaughtered? There are both Jewish and Muslim bodies in the UK that do allow stunning before slaughter and in that case I have no real problem with those methods when applied to an already unconcious animal.
Levite
Higher and Higher
No. Because kosher slaughter is both about minimizing the suffering of the animal and also adhering to Jewish Law. I personally think that death within thiry seconds or so is sufficient minimization of suffering, and so I have no problem with kosher slaughter from an ethical point of view. Personally, I think that if I was so anxious about animal cruelty that death within thirty seconds or so was not enough for me to be ethically satisfied, I would probably just become a vegetarian.
And my point, above, was really that talking about minimizing animal suffering is great. But most non-kosher meat is not slaughtered without as much or more suffering than kosher meat, so it seems premature, at best, to begin accusing kosher slaughterers of unwarranted cruelty. But even if non-Jewish meat producers could somehow come up with a virtually instantaneous method of execution, if one is going to be punctilious enough in one's secular ethical beliefs to quarrel over five or ten seconds, or even twenty seconds, then one should probably just become a vegetarian, because it seems like any suffering is too much for such an individual's beliefs.
Oneatatime
Huh?
Requests for exemption from laws on the basis of religious freedom should be judged on their individual merit and approved or turned down accordingly. Alternatively discretion can be used when deciding whether or not its in the public interest to persue a criminal charges. A good example is those who have been let off after assisting a loved one die either in the UK or abroad in a country which allows euthenasia. As far as I know nobody in the UK as been prosecuted for doing this so far and it seems that the public are generally suportive of this.
I remember not long ago a man wished to be burned on an open pyre outside for religious reasons but was refused permission by his local council because of laws against the burning of bodies outside. Personally I thought that in this case it would acceptable to use a bit of discretion and let him do it. I don't know the outcome because as with most news the media loses interest when something else comes up.
Alternatively there have been cases in the US where parents have argued that religious freedom gives them the right to rely on prayer healing rather than modern medicine to treat their childs illness. The consequences have been death or injury on the part of the child. There is a clear case for not permitting religious freedom under such circumstances where expression of this freedom is to the detriment of another.
On the issue of animal cruelty there are circumstances where its permitted legally that aren't religious. I have done science involving animals which involved the handling and ultimately killing them in a manner which wouldn't have been pleasant for the animal. For those that are wondering I was dealing with invertebrates such as worms and crabs but there is research carried out on primates and other mammals which despite the scientists best efforts will be unpleasant for the animal. The justification given for this research is the advancement of science and/or benefit to humans. Often the benefit isn't immediately obvious which results in the uninformed or idealogically motivated denigrating a particular avenue of research but its there if you care to find out.
So what justification do the religious offer for being exempt from laws such as ones intended to prevent animal cruelty or protect job applicants from discrimination? Ultimately it boils down to the religious wanting to live their life in accordance to their religious beliefs. In the case of kosher or halal meat the belief that animals have to be killed in a ritualistic manner in order for it to be acceptable to eat them. When it comes to jobs it could be that their religion doesn't believe that women or someone outside their faith is incapable of doing a certain job because their scripture or interpretation of historically significant events say this is the case.
There is no difference between kosha/halal meat and non-kosha/hala meat except in the minds of Muslims or Jews but from the perspective of animal suffering there is a real difference between the suffering experienced by the animal when its killed stunned or fully aware therefore this is not justified. There is no reason why a women can't fullfill a religious role traditionally reserved for men except the vague belief that religious rituals won't work properly if not done by a man. This is clearly to the detriment of a women seeking to advance within the religous hiarchy which is likely the intended purpose and therefore not acceptable. Discriminating against a job application because they aren't a member of a particular faith group is also unjustified where the job is not dependent on being a member of that faith group such as being a teacher in a religious school. This is clearly to the detriment of the teacher and only serves to limit the exposure of student to those outside of their faith group which is promoting sectarianism within society.
In short any exemption or easement of the law on the basis of religious belief should be done so on the merits of a particular request, not simply on the basis of religious freedom.
I remember not long ago a man wished to be burned on an open pyre outside for religious reasons but was refused permission by his local council because of laws against the burning of bodies outside. Personally I thought that in this case it would acceptable to use a bit of discretion and let him do it. I don't know the outcome because as with most news the media loses interest when something else comes up.
Alternatively there have been cases in the US where parents have argued that religious freedom gives them the right to rely on prayer healing rather than modern medicine to treat their childs illness. The consequences have been death or injury on the part of the child. There is a clear case for not permitting religious freedom under such circumstances where expression of this freedom is to the detriment of another.
On the issue of animal cruelty there are circumstances where its permitted legally that aren't religious. I have done science involving animals which involved the handling and ultimately killing them in a manner which wouldn't have been pleasant for the animal. For those that are wondering I was dealing with invertebrates such as worms and crabs but there is research carried out on primates and other mammals which despite the scientists best efforts will be unpleasant for the animal. The justification given for this research is the advancement of science and/or benefit to humans. Often the benefit isn't immediately obvious which results in the uninformed or idealogically motivated denigrating a particular avenue of research but its there if you care to find out.
So what justification do the religious offer for being exempt from laws such as ones intended to prevent animal cruelty or protect job applicants from discrimination? Ultimately it boils down to the religious wanting to live their life in accordance to their religious beliefs. In the case of kosher or halal meat the belief that animals have to be killed in a ritualistic manner in order for it to be acceptable to eat them. When it comes to jobs it could be that their religion doesn't believe that women or someone outside their faith is incapable of doing a certain job because their scripture or interpretation of historically significant events say this is the case.
There is no difference between kosha/halal meat and non-kosha/hala meat except in the minds of Muslims or Jews but from the perspective of animal suffering there is a real difference between the suffering experienced by the animal when its killed stunned or fully aware therefore this is not justified. There is no reason why a women can't fullfill a religious role traditionally reserved for men except the vague belief that religious rituals won't work properly if not done by a man. This is clearly to the detriment of a women seeking to advance within the religous hiarchy which is likely the intended purpose and therefore not acceptable. Discriminating against a job application because they aren't a member of a particular faith group is also unjustified where the job is not dependent on being a member of that faith group such as being a teacher in a religious school. This is clearly to the detriment of the teacher and only serves to limit the exposure of student to those outside of their faith group which is promoting sectarianism within society.
In short any exemption or easement of the law on the basis of religious belief should be done so on the merits of a particular request, not simply on the basis of religious freedom.
Nisou Kitsune
Resident Anime Freak
I have to agree with Oneatatime. While the anti Jew and Muslim comments are concerning, the reasons for the change are ultimately better. There is a good reason why the laws for animal slaughter in the US were changed by the book Slaughterhouse (by Gail Eisnitz). I mean, not only is the swift killing of food animals humane for the animals, but the mentality of the workers is made better.
I dunno about you, but I dont know how long I could be in a place with the dying sounds of animals around me all day long and not be affected by it.
I dunno about you, but I dont know how long I could be in a place with the dying sounds of animals around me all day long and not be affected by it.
Gaura Priya
IRL
Good riddance...
I hope the whole world becomes vegetarian. Everything becomes kosher/halal!
I hope the whole world becomes vegetarian.
Everything becomes kosher/halal!
Nisou Kitsune
Resident Anime Freak
What do you propose we do with the domestic animals that we breed for food? Cows and sheep can no longer return to the wild; they stay in their fences and dont know how to survive by themselves. Pigs are only a little better.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
My concern is people who are bothered by comments which are against the traditions of these religions and the fact that they've been called anti-jew/ muslim.
Its sad how as soon as a religion feels targeted its self defence mechanism is to accuse everyone against them of targeting the particular religion.
What benefit does religious tradition have to the Netherlands overall? Meaning unless you're Jewish or Islamic, what does allowing traditional animal slaughter give to you?
That's a common question. I heard one veg refer to it as the Sheep Apocalypse theory.
Those who push for an all-veg world have suggested that the animals could be cared for, perhaps used for purposes that didn't require slaughter. They could be bred in lower numbers, as opposed to now, where they are bred in large numbers for food supply. A nice balance might be attained.
It's unrealistic to think everyone would go veg, so I don't entertain the idea too much.
That's easy. Cows can continue to be herded and milked, sheep kept for wool etc. Just make their living spaces healthy and happy and treat them well.
I think India is a great example of how this is possible. For thousands of years cows have been herded without any intention of killing them. Those who bred them took great care to look after them and greatly loved and appreciated them for what they did for the villages/towns (ie/ milk, dung, working the land etc.).
Nisou Kitsune
Resident Anime Freak
Well, this is true, but now we have tractors and natural gas and electricity for warmth, and we can make synthetic clothes and Silk (which is surprisingly good, btw).
The same land that is used for ranching can produce as much as 3 times more poundage of grown food.
Im playing devil's advocate. I know realistically we arent all going to go vegetarian.
The same land that is used for ranching can produce as much as 3 times more poundage of grown food.
Im playing devil's advocate. I know realistically we arent all going to go vegetarian.