In my opinion, no. I’d see the principle here being that a religious belief system can only apply to the believers in that faith. You can’t tell somebody they have to comply to somebody else’s religious belief system. I shouldn’t have to forswear killing animals because a Jain thinks it’s immoral or forswear eating pork because a Jew thinks it’s immoral or forswear drinking alcohol because a Muslim thinks it’s immoral.
Now if society as a whole were to come around to a non-religious belief that killing animals (or eating pork or drinking alcohol) is wrong, that would be a different matter. But I’m assuming you’re talking about a religious belief here.
Have you even bothered reading the link I provided. It was not “pretty subjective”. They took EEGs of the animals before and during the procedures and there was not observable change in it.
Where do you stand on the interesting issue that you can’t force halal or kosher slaughtered food to be labelled as such in the UK because of religious sensibilities? In other words many consumers who care about animal welfare are being deceived into buying nastily slaughtered meat so as not to upset the fundies.
(and it is fundies by the way that will INSIST on halal or kosher. While it is true that almost all muslims and jews would be very angry if we banned the stuff, my experience with muslims and jews is the overwhelming majority break both rules all the damn time. Therefore I think that banning the stuff will be a one time pain and then almost everyone will get with the program. As opposed to trying to ban halal slaughter in Afghanistan which would be less than practical)
(and again, there’s no reason you can’t do nice halal slaughtering - can anyone think of any reason at all since there’s the nice stuff allowed why we should permit the not nice kind?)
First off, I’ve said before I don’t like the term “fundies” especially when it’s used as a general term for anyone who’s religious. I think it’s offensive.
On the other issue, I’ve never really had a stand on British food labeling laws. I don’t think I’ve ever even considered the issue before this minute. Being as I’m not a Muslim, a Jew, a Briton, or a cow, I don’t really think I need to get involved in this one.
I wasn’t using it as a general term for anyone who’s religious, I was using it as a term for those who take their religion seriously. And why is it offensive? Religious people should be mocked.
“Fundamentalist” ≠ “takes their religion seriously”. You’re using what is already a slur against fundamentalists (“fundie” — and actually, there are arguments about whether “fundamentalist” is an appropriate term in most cases) and making it a slur against religious people in general.
Your second sentence asks how something is offensive, then your third sentence says you’re using it to mock people. Remember, when people read what you wrote, they can remember it five seconds later.
More in line with the OP, it is a little weird that there are halal butchers who think they shouldn’t stun the animals first. Does anyone know how many do versus how many don’t?
And, presumably, when they took EEGs of humans slaughtered by having their throats cut, there was no observable change?
Seriously, does a change in the EEG indicate subjective experience of pain and/or distress? And if that does turn out to be the case in some sort of tests short of slaughter, they’ve somehow controlled for the possibility that slaughter-by-having-the-throat-cut could mask or interfere with the EEG response?
It seems like an extraordinary claim to assert that the animals feel no pain, fear, or distress when slaughtered by having their throats cut. The fact that you’ve generated some squiggly lines that you don’t think look different doesn’t seem like a convincing proof – especially given that there’s a very strong possible emotion that might influence our perceptions (“Oh thank God we don’t have to feel guilty!”). Remember that people asserted such slaughter was okay BEFORE the testing; testing that confirms what they want to believe would seem to need to clear a higher bar, IMHO.
Strictly speaking you are correct but the way most of us non religious people see things is not about doctrine, because essentially no one can actually take any of the major religions seriously in their entirety. It’s about incompatibility with society and using religion to make (primarily) their own lives difficult and also (secondarily but what really annoys us) the lives of others difficult.
I don’t see why the word itself should be offensive. I’m probably guilty of a non sequiteur because the second part basically refers to the point that offensiveness is no reason not to mock the religious. For far too long we have tip toed about the delicate sensitivities of the delusional.
You can see the UK figures from the cites I have provided; I would expect that they are about as humane as halal butchers get. As you can see most halal butchers are humane and no kosher butchers are (although a small number will stun AFTER making the cut which is at least a bit less savage)
Firstly, they do not kill them by “cutting their throat”. They do so by severing the carotid artery and the jugular vein which causes an immidiet and massive loss of blood pressure, unconsciousness within a few seconds and death in under a minute. They don’t feel pain for the obvious reasons, the organ which perceives pain is starved of blood and dying.
Secondly, yes they did control to see what readings an animal in pain would display.
Thirdly,read the damn thing before making presumptions and surmises about the motivations of the testers. The study was done in Germany and while the Germans can be accused of many things, they cannot be called Islamophiles or in favor of ritual slaughter. For the record, they tested several types of slaughter on calves and sheep. Almost all showed the animals suffering no pain, with the exception of sheep killed by bolt who apparently did. The test was not done with the motive of seeing whether or not ritual slaughter was humane, it was done to see whether various methods caused pain to different types on animals. This test has been cited both in academia and by various Courts of law, including the German Federal Court in 2002.
Lastly, about two seconds of thought would make it clear that it is (whatever the method chosen) the slaughterers interests to ensure that the animals feel little pain. And animal in pain is one in distress and therefore one which is a danger to the personnel near it and or equipment.
And assuming you are not mucking mince meat for el cheapo burgers the meat will be of better quality from a non stressed animal due to the fact that there are less stress hormones in the meat.
Remember in Germany they have had a strong Greens presence in government, so I tend to believe the German research.
The final quality of meat is greatly affected by the rate of pH decline in the meat after slaughter. If there was a great lactic acid buildup before slaughter, the pH of the meat declines too quickly after slaughter and a Pale, Soft, Exudative (PSE) condition may develop. As suggested by the name, the affected meat is pale, soft, and fluid may drip from the surface.
My cite talks about stress hormones but not specifically about the “last two minutes”. I am assuming a cut throat would be more stressful to an animal than a quick shot to the head. But that is just opinion.