Halal and other religions

Bismillah! Then if the animal request that you let it go, you must inform it that you will not let it go. Do this thrice.

Wait, how does the animal request being let go?

If this is actually the case, I'd certainly be more open to it (the notable pain at the end compared to secular methods being weighed against a lifetime of poor living quality), but I find it hard to believe that halal meat could be produced on the suggested magnitude without cutting corners. And I would still be uncomfortable with the religious exception in and of itself.

Obviously no. However, what it does mean is that just the barest minimum of being open to opposition views, rather then accusing any and all critics of being secretly racist and 'hating darkies'. Hell that's almost certainly the case for a number of the groups, hi EDL, BNP, etc - and especially in France, but that's by no means the majority.

If that is true, why is the Dutch government trying to ban kosher and halal slaughter practices on grounds is it animal cruelty?

Because not everyone agrees on what counts as animal abuse. Seeing as consciousness is very quickly lost after the slice I for one don't see the issue. And I care about the suffering of animals and get pissed when people discount it entirely.

For the same reason the US senate tried to enact laws that would literally breakl the internet. Politicians arent experts on livestock kill methods.

Also that. Lack of research done. That animal is out pretty damn fast due to heavy blood loss.

This pretty much. My Muslim friend tells me that the slaughtering of animals for food is supposed to be cruelty-free.

Whether or not halal and kosher meats are produced on such a wide-scale without cutting corners is a completely different thing, and there should be some standards in place.

European Politicians aren't as retarded as the American ones.

But the bill banning halal and kosher slaughter was created by an Animal rights party

Not being as retarded doesn't necessarily mean you're as well researched as you can be. Especially if you're an animal rights party. And again. Varying definitions on what counts as abuse.

I call bullshit on the first statement.

edited 21st Feb '12 12:42:01 PM by CDRW

If that was true, explain ACTA, and how a ton of big euro nations signed without even reading it.

Topic, please. "Politicians" is not the topic.

Well I think its fair to assume that a party about Animal rights will have some idea about what is going on with regards to the killing of livestock. Then again, there is PETA so -shrug-

It's also safe to assume they will be highly biased.

How so?

It's something I've noted with activists. There tends to be a good chance of them being highly biased in favor of their cause. Hence why it is their cause. This can be very bad. As we see with PETA.

But I think they must have been a reason though why they did it because what they did is a violation of the ECHR.

edited 21st Feb '12 1:19:12 PM by whaleofyournightmare

Having a reason doesn't mean much really. Many people have reasons. Some are poorly researched. Others just ignore evidence because of their cause.

It does in Europe because the Jewish and Muslim groups in the Netherlands can take the Dutch Government to the European Courts of Justice and the European Court of Human rights.

I still don't believe that all reasons will count as being good ones even with that. They're still people and groups of people. And few things are dumber.

I really don't buy the bit about Kosher and Halal slaughter being humane because it's only a few seconds of extreme pain and asphyxiation that an animal experiences, particularly when you can achieve instantaneous unconsciousness with nearly perfect consistency using a gun with multiple bolts. I don't particularly care one way or another about the religious component, although I am certain some anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim sentiment goes into a portion of the populations' criticism of the processes. OTOH, I would prefer that individuals be honest about the nature of the killing, and admit that their religious convictions outweigh the interest in more humane methods of slaughter.

Supposed to, yes. But between quirks of the shot (people survive headshot wounds too) and this being a factory setting where people get rushed, clumsy, or stop giving a fuck and don't administer it properly, it happens depressingly often.

And then, of course, shit like this.

edited 21st Feb '12 3:02:21 PM by Pykrete

Which is where is a big thing about moving away from bolt guns

Well, to be fair, there were no guns back in the times of Moses or Muhammad. For their time, they likely were the most humane methods. However, I think both Kosher and Halel do require that the animal not be mistreated, which something like factory-farming certainly does not.

The point is that while halal and kosher rituals do to animals aren't right, the things the secular do are far, far worse. Thus saying that halal is unacceptable and not making any comments about factory farming or even mentioning kosher practices sounds more like disliking Muslims specificially than having any concern of the welfare of animals. Muslims are people just like anyone else who follows a certain religion. Yes, there's going to be the crazies, but most religious people are fairly decent people. There would be more peace if the crazier religious people were reined in.