And if the people of Denmark were to make a democratic decision to recognize fetal rights as well as animal rights, and restrict the availability of abortion accordingly? I suspect that many of the people her who are arguing that society should adopt a single moral stance on the rights of animals to the exclusion of all others would take a very different view, and would contend that society is obliged to tolerate a range of moral views despite the fact that some people find some of the tolerated practices to be repugnant.
In Spain it’s been most recent, but again it’s integrated within regular abbatoirs. In the story I heard of how my local one got a halal section, the Muslim local leaders who were brought for a tour of it so they’d be able to tell local authorities what needed to be put in place for that were suprised to find out that the usual method was actually quite close to their requirements.
The methods I’ve personally used on small animals involve calming it down, a quick twist (kills the animal) and a sharp knife (to cut the neck veins and bleed it out). For animals too large for the neck twist, the traditional way involves making sure the knife is sharp enough to cut air.
That doesn’t seem very fair when applied to this particular argument. In New Zealand, a largely “religion free” country, they use stun then cut for a reason. It’s because objectively they find it the fastest, most humane, most efficient method.
Any departure from said method is an accommodation - whether that be for reasons of conscience, religion or other belief.
As mentioned above, I also understand that stun / cut is acceptable to Halal - where the two primary concerns are disease free and the prayer.
Personally I don’t think that “traditional” slaughter is cruel enough to trouble me personally - and should a boutique abattoir want to do it this way I wouldn’t have a particular problem. (assuming all other health and cleanliness standards were met)
Having said that - we don’t do things the same way today as they were done 2000 years ago - things change and evolve for a reason - it’s because we find better ways of doing them.
I don’t believe that religion should get a pass from this - instead, we look at how we can change and adapt current needs with traditional demand - stun then cut seems to be a pretty good compromise that keeps everyone happy. I don’t think this is an imposition on a religion to expect them to “accept” this.
Although I am not religious - so my opinion on the matter doesn’t matter so much.
Seriously? That’s incredibly disturbing.
That’s ZPG Zealot.
That is their democratic right to do so and for those opposing to make a better case.
Yes we are required to tolerate a range of moral views, views bother me not one jot. *Practices? *a whole different ball game. Where they affect you and you alone I don’t care, where they extend to a third party or creature then religious belief is simply not a good enough reason for inflicting or increasing harm.
So I don’t think your abortion example is good one. The true equivalent argument would be if the overall outcome is accepted (as it is for both slaughter and abortion) and there is the potential for suffering due to the manner in which it is done then I’d expect the activity to be heavily regulated to make sure such suffering can not happen. And no, I don’t think religious considerations should play any part in that.
In Norway, work once led me to inspect the slaughterhouse for an aquaculture fish farm.
I was surprised to discover that the slaughterhouse employs two people with Masters degrees in fish welfare, whose only job is to stand between the electrical stunner and the slaughter processing (gutting) machine, and make sure no fish coming out of the stunner showed even a vague indication of being conscious.
I was frankly surprised to find out that you can even get masters degrees in fish welfare, but friends later assured me that, yes you can.
And the point of that little digression is that the Danish animal welfare laws may be tighter on the slaughter process than other nations. I don’t know this, but it seems like it might be possible.
I agree that animal welfare is important. It’s not the topic, though.
The topic is whether or not halal and kosher slaughter are justifiably banned in the name of cruelty.
I’ve seen lots of halal slaughter, and growing up in an Islamic country meant all my meat was slaughtered that way. The term “cruel” is subjective, but here’s what happens: The animals throat is sliced and it bleeds to death. It’s cut with a large knife and a sawing motion.
For a human it would be terrifying, and I’d say the animals experience pretty much the same terror. Wide eyes and struggling, as they are tied up first. Lots of gasping as the trachea is cut; lots of gasping for air since the carotid artery and veins are under pressure so a great deal of blood flow occurs which is then aspirated. Death is not instantaneous.
It’s kind of a horrible few minutes if you are a human. I can’t speak for animals, but then I guess they can’t speak for themselves and that’s part of the issue.
One nice test is to ask whether or not it would be an acceptable new way to kill animals. It would not, and outrage would ensue.
It’s only tolerated because it meets the test of religion, and in particular older religions get a bye with some of the crazier things they’ve promoted for a long time. (I can think of animal slaughter and treatment of women as starter points that seem to get an exemption beyond what they would get if they were just invented yesterday.)
I live in Denmark. Whether the law itself is justifiable or not, I can’t really say, but there is no question that the reason it was passed was 1% “poor animals,” and 99% “fuck the Muslims.” Everybody here - and I mean everybody - knows this.
Denmark and Norway are two different countries, din jävla nolla. 
That is definitely a violation of human rights. I am Jewish and like the rest of Jewish community would not want to be left without food.
You have an inalienable human right to believe whatever you want to believe and to preach whatever you want to preach. You do not have an inalienable right to act however you want to act–especially insofar as your actions affect other living beings.
That said, there is a human right to freedom from discrimination, so interference with religious practice should be limited to cases with clear compelling interest. Based on the discussion in this thread, it seems there isn’t scientific consensus on whether Halal/Kosher slaughter is genuinely cruel. And it doesn’t seem (from what little I’ve read) that Danish lawmakers were particularly concerned with the science, either.
TLDR; there may be good reason to ban Kosher/Halal slaughter, but my gut tells me the Danish legislature is acting in bad faith.
You just made up this “right to freedom from discrimination”, no? Anyway, to what would it apply besides religion? I’m not going to accept a right that is granted solely to believers. That would not be a right, but a priviledge.
So what other practices should be free from interference except in cases with clear compelling interests? For instance does it apply to video gaming?
How do you propose granting a right to freedom of religion without granting a right to freedom from institutionalized religious discrimination?
Er… We have that in the US. To give an obvious example, Muslim businesses can’t refuse to admit service dogs to their businesses even if they’re among those who think that dogs are unclean, because that would be discriminating against handicapped people.
As I understand it, Denmark has banned certain slaughtering practices, which happen to be commonly used in kosher and halal slaughterhouses. That’s acceptable to me. They did not ban kosher or halal slaughter, which would not be.
That said, I think the phrasing “religiously-dictated cruelty” is a bit misleading; the Talmud doesn’t say “make sure the cow suffers, because fuck cows,” and I’m pretty sure Hadith (Sunnah?) doesn’t either. At least for kashrut, it’s my understanding that the intent was to minimize cruelty, even if they didn’t have the tools to carry that out that we have today. If you think animal slaughter is inherently cruel, I am not going to give much weight to your opinions on the religious practices or the Danish law.
It seems to me that you are conflating your perception with the animals’ experience.
That is objectionable, but partly because it’s not about the method and there’s nothing halal slaughterhouses can do to comply with the law (also, religious bigotry/racism).
What right is granted “solely to believers”?
Everyone has the right to freedom of religion. I don’t believe in God but I have freedom of religion. Beyond that, you seem to be of the opinion that people choose their religion.
Obviously many western Christians have believed this since the Reneisance, but that’s not the way much of the world views it. For example, I didn’t choose to be a Muslim or a part of the Ummah, I was born into it. I can reject it, and to a certain extent have, and others can join but to us, as well as the Jews it’s both a tribal and a religious identity. We may not fit everyone’s idea of what constitutes a “nation” but as Allessan once said, “we came first.”
Similarly, most Navajos, and countless other Native American tribes don’t see any clear line between Navajo culture and Navajo religion.
How is forbidding an individual Muslim from discriminating against the handicapped a form of “institutionalized religious discrimination?”
I was under the impression you were asking how we grant freedom to practice religion without it allowing freedom to discriminate.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood you.
You did, but no problem.
clairobscur claims I “made up” people’s right to be free from discrimination. This seems like an odd claim in the context of discussions of religious freedom. So, I asked him how we would give people the right of freedom of religion without giving them the right to be free from institutional discrimination against said religion.
Hope it’s clear now?
:rolleyes: oh puhleez. That’s what you are basing your estimation on? Whether it looks aesthetically pleasing or not? It is not a case that the “throat is sliced” as you say. The carotid artery and jugular veins are severed. There is a massive loss of blood pressure and unconsciousness with a sexton or so. Death within a minute or so. There is no pain because the organ that perceives pain is being starved of oxygen.