Denmark bans religious slaughter

[milquetoast1]

To me it seems very pointless to suddenly become concerned about an animals last moments alive, It's a token gesture either way considering whats coming next and that their whole reason for existing is to die.

 

That same argument can be used to negate all animal welfare concerns for the animals we raise for eventual slaughter.

 

I don't draw the line at any point, and to me the "last moments alive" for any farm animal start at birth and end with death.

 

Besides, as I said earlier this line of argument is irrelevant. The relevant argument is that we have animal welfare laws that have been established irrespective of religion, so is it right that the religious get exemptions from these laws?

 

If you think yes, then why? If you think yes, then why not other laws?

 

My opinion is that the headlines "Denmark bans religious slaughter" is misleading, and appears anti-religious, because it's really Denmark affirming the secular principle that everybody is equal in law so the headlines should be "Denmark ends religious exemptions from animal welfare laws".

[psynuk]

That same argument can be used to negate all animal welfare concerns for the animals we raise for eventual slaughter.

 

I don't draw the line at any point, and to me the "last moments alive" for any farm animal start at birth and end with death.

 

Besides, as I said earlier this line of argument is irrelevant. The relevant argument is that we have animal welfare laws that have been established irrespective of religion, so is it right that the religious get exemptions from these laws?

 

If you think yes, then why? If you think yes, then why not other laws?

 

My opinion is that the headlines "Denmark bans religious slaughter" is misleading, and appears anti-religious, because it's really Denmark affirming the secular principle that everybody is equal in law so the headlines should be "Denmark ends religious exemptions from animal welfare laws".

 

'it right that the religious get exemptions from these laws?'

hmmm, sort of.

If you going to have a country ruled over by 'democracy' things will change.

a crap answer, i know but it's truthful.

[boyfriday]

Personally I'd say there probably isn't a better way to soothe delicate peoples conscience, so at least in that sense the true followers of the halal method have some honesty about what their doing. I suppose the same could probably be said for 'normal' abattoir workers as well if their only doing bolt cause of politics.

 

That's a really good point. I mentioned earlier about witnessing a slaughter carried out by Spanish peasants (cant think of a better word). There was a noble honesty about the fact the locals saw the beast being killed, the slaughter man was business like and professional and the animal appeared to die very quickly. It was butchered within minutes of being bled and was being eaten later that evening.

 

I also remember seeing Jamie Oliver slaughter a sheep in Spain/Italy and that moved me (and him) similarly.

 

Having seen all that and enjoyed the produce I still wouldnt state a preference over stunning or not stunning, and obviously due to commercial pressures not all livestock can be slaughtered this way.

 

---------- Post added 21-02-2014 at 09:12 ----------

 

That same argument can be used to negate all animal welfare concerns for the animals we raise for eventual slaughter.

 

I don't draw the line at any point, and to me the "last moments alive" for any farm animal start at birth and end with death.

 

Besides, as I said earlier this line of argument is irrelevant. The relevant argument is that we have animal welfare laws that have been established irrespective of religion, so is it right that the religious get exemptions from these laws?

 

If you think yes, then why? If you think yes, then why not other laws?

 

My opinion is that the headlines "Denmark bans religious slaughter" is misleading, and appears anti-religious, because it's really Denmark affirming the secular principle that everybody is equal in law so the headlines should be "Denmark ends religious exemptions from animal welfare laws".

 

How would you feel if the non-religious were able to slaughter animals without stunning?

[milquetoast1]

How would you feel if the non-religious were able to slaughter animals without stunning?

 

Well it would at least be logically consistent, and equal, I will concede that. But if it was allowed merely to accommodate religious demands within a secular framework, then it becomes a peculiar secular oxymoron. However, remove the religious exemption by allowing non-stunned slaughter for the non-religious equally, but label every single food item as such, and I have no argument here.

 

Basically:

 

If animal welfare experts were to conclude that it was best to slaughter animals without stunning, which resulted in laws that mandated non-stunned slaughter, then I would support that and I don't think the non-religious should be exempted.

 

If a future government was to decide that we should not eat meat at all, then I don't think the religious should be exempted.

 

Neither do I think that the religious should be exempt from taxes, or any laws, that apply to the rest of us.

 

I think it is your position, the one that thinks it's okay for religion to be exempted from these particular animal welfare laws, but probably not all others, that is logically shaky.

[boyfriday]

Well it would at least be logically consistent, and equal, I will concede that. But if it was allowed merely to accommodate religious demands within a secular framework, then it becomes a peculiar secular oxymoron. However, remove the religious exemption by allowing non-stunned slaughter for the non-religious equally, but label every single food item as such, and I have no argument here.

This is the argument I don't understand milquetoast. As you know I'm not religious, so there's a temptation to object to things the religious want to do-because it's no loss to me. When I (and others) mention the other points you raised (meat eating is unconnected to the argument about religious slaughter) I have to challenge that by using it as an analogy.

 

For instance what do you think the outcome would be if the choices were between not stunning meat or not eating meat at all? The public wouldn't forego meat eating in favour of animal welfare on those grounds because it would be a loss to them.

Basically:

 

If animal welfare experts were to conclude that it was best to slaughter animals without stunning, which resulted in laws that mandated non-stunned slaughter, then I would support that and I don't think the non-religious should be exempted.

Good point.

If a future government was to decide that we should not eat meat at all, then I don't think the religious should be exempted.

There would be a revolution if that ever came to pass.

Neither do I think that the religious should be exempt from taxes, or any laws, that apply to the rest of us.

Whether we like it or not though they are part of our communities and should be able to dictate their own lifestyle, provided of course it doesn't materially affect those who don't follow their faith.

I think it is your position, the one that thinks it's okay for religion to be exempted from these particular animal welfare laws, but probably not all others, that is logically shaky.

 

Actually, I haven't said they should be exempted from animal welfare laws. My objection is two fold-I object to the reasons this issue proliferates the tabloid media currently. I object to banning something purely due to the weight of public opinion without dedicated, independent research which reaches a definitive conclusion. The research so far, from both sides, seems to be from vested interests.

[WeX]

The states all animals should be stunned before slaughter. This applies to every one expect a small number of a minority who use their religious freedoms to excuse cruel and inhumane treatment of animals.

 

Ill ask anyone who owns an animal to choose between the two options if their animal had to be put down. One where it has its throat slit while its awake and one where its pre-stunned.

 

Lets have a law, created under the advise of experts rather than a situation dictated by religious zealots. Animal Rights before Religious Freedom.

[boyfriday]

The states all animals should be stunned before slaughter. This applies to every one expect a small number of a minority who use their religious freedoms to excuse cruel and inhumane treatment of animals.

 

Ill ask anyone who owns an animal to choose between the two options if their animal had to be put down. One where it has its throat slit while its awake and one where its pre-stunned.

How do you think they'd feel if that choice involved a bolt fired into their skulls to render them unconscious?

 

Since your concerns seem to centre around animal welfare why aren't you advocating that all livestock is euthanased like domestic pets?

Lets have a law, created under the advise of experts rather than a situation dictated by religious zealots. Animal Rights before Religious Freedom.

 

I agree, and not one created by knee-jerk xenophobia propagated by the tabloid press.

[milquetoast1]

boyfriday

 

I think it's my position that is logically sound, and it's your's that is shaky.

 

In fact if your objection is on the two points you mention, then rational thinking is secondary to a devil's advocate reaction to public opinion it seems.

 

And you might think you are arguing against a ban on religious slaughter, but you are also arguing for religious exemption from animal welfare laws.

 

I take particular exception to this:

 

Whether we like it or not though they are part of our communities and should be able to dictate their own lifestyle, provided of course it doesn't materially affect those who don't follow their faith.

 

So animals, and people who follow their faith (children) are fair game. Nice.

[WeX]

I agree, and not one created by knee-jerk xenophobia propagated by the tabloid press.

 

Its not knee jerk, its been discussed for years and its not xenophobic as its not focused on one group. This is a small group of people who are not following UK law but are given special dispensation against advise from animal welfare organisations and government agencies.

 

Stop defending peoples right to treat animals inhumanly!

[boyfriday]

boyfriday

 

I think it's my position that is logically sound, and it's your's that is shaky.

 

In fact if your objection is on the two points you mention, then rational thinking is secondary to a devil's advocate reaction to public opinion it seems.

 

And you might think you are arguing against a ban on religious slaughter, but you are also arguing for religious exemption from animal welfare laws.

 

The fact is I'm not arguing against a ban on religious slaughter but have exhaustively explained my reasoning why a ban should be open to proper discussion and not just acted on because the Daily Mail says so, that would be the 'rational' thing to do.

 

I take particular exception to this:

 

 

So animals, and people who follow their faith (children) are fair game. Nice.

 

I'm not sure of your point, citizens by default have the right to self determination, including how we raise our children, the state gets involved to moderate the excesses or are you advocating that the state should interfere in everything we might choose to do.

 

---------- Post added 21-02-2014 at 11:04 ----------

 

Its not knee jerk, its been discussed for years and its not xenophobic as its not focused on one group.

It's absolutely knee jerk, animals have been religiously slaughtered in Europe for centuries, yet the objections to it have only arisen in line with general anti-Islamic sentiment, something you yourself have some history of on this forum.

This is a small group of people who are not following UK law but are given special dispensation against advise from animal welfare organisations and government agencies.

 

Forgive me, but Im still waiting to have the conversation about the independent, conclusive research and the rights of human beings over the welfare of animals.

 

Assuming you were a meat eater, would you stop eating meat if stunning was prohibited? It only became a legislative issue in 1979 btw.

 

What about animal testing?

 

Stop defending peoples right to treat animals inhumanly!

 

You haven't answered my question about the captive bolt or euthanasing livestock like you would domestic pets?