Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Shaker

MPs want curbs on 'unacceptable' religious slaughter

Futile. Utterly and absolutely futile. Nothing will ever be done about this in a million years. But I suppose it shows their hearts are in the right place if nothing else (and there is nothing else).
Powwow

Your deep concern for the cow verses the unborn baby has been noted.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Your deep concern for the cow verses the unborn baby has been noted.

Quite. Certainly up until 24 weeks a foetus isn't sentient. It's not conscious. It can't feel pain and has no preferences or an interest in experiencing one physical and/or emotional state of affairs over any other. Pain and fear are subjectively unpleasant physical and mental states respectively which an organism wishes to avoid or, if it happens anyway, to cease from happening; but you have to be sentient to do that (indeed, that's a large part of what the word means) and a foetus isn't.

All things the exact opposite of animals due for slaughter, which are sentient. Therefore, unless you're an out-and-out speciesist (which to nobody's surprise you of course are), the cow (pig/sheep/goat etc.) is a moral patient (in the lingo) and of moral concern but the human foetus pre-24 weeks is not. One already sentient; one eventually will be but isn't now. You work it out.

This is actually quite a simple and straightforward logical point that almost anybody can understand. In your case however, I'm not hopeful.

Now back to the thread topic.
cyberman

Re: MPs want curbs on 'unacceptable' religious slaughter

Shaker wrote:
Futile. Utterly and absolutely futile. Nothing will ever be done about this in a million years. But I suppose it shows their hearts are in the right place if nothing else (and there is nothing else).


Why do you think it is futile?
Shaker

Re: MPs want curbs on 'unacceptable' religious slaughter

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Futile. Utterly and absolutely futile. Nothing will ever be done about this in a million years. But I suppose it shows their hearts are in the right place if nothing else (and there is nothing else).


Why do you think it is futile?

Because experience shows us that when it comes to an act or practice (a) without a religious 'rationale' and (b) exactly the same act or practice supposedly with a religious 'rationale,' the latter will get a free pass and is expected to be allowed to go on unchecked and even treated with respect whereas the former may well be downright illegal.

Thus if you own sheep and you cut the throat of one of them in the absence of any so-called religious reason - simply because you're a sadist and felt like it, for instance -, you'll be charged with animal cruelty and you'll receive the appropriate penalty. Do exactly the same to a sheep and pronounce some Arabic or Hebrew babble over it, claiming that it's part of your religion, and you have special exemption in law made for you so that the usual rules don't apply to you. Or hack off a part of your baby without anesthetic just because, and you'll be hauled into court: do the self-same thing saying that your faith demands it and it's simply allowed to go by. We have plenty of examples demonstrating the fact that there's nothing so absurd and/or obnoxious that, if given the religious label, will demand toleration. Criticism of the practice will always, always, always be taken by its practitioners to be criticism of the religion and slapped with a label of an anti- this or a -phobia that, which are deemed to be Very Bad Things these days, and so nothing ever changes.
northernstar

Nice to use religion as an excuse, it gives a cruelty a shiny respectable face.
cyberman

Re: MPs want curbs on 'unacceptable' religious slaughter

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Futile. Utterly and absolutely futile. Nothing will ever be done about this in a million years. But I suppose it shows their hearts are in the right place if nothing else (and there is nothing else).


Why do you think it is futile?

Because experience shows us that when it comes to an act or practice (a) without a religious 'rationale' and (b) exactly the same act or practice supposedly with a religious 'rationale,' the latter will get a free pass and is expected to be allowed to go on unchecked and even treated with respect whereas the former may well be downright illegal.

Thus if you own sheep and you cut the throat of one of them in the absence of any so-called religious reason - simply because you're a sadist and felt like it, for instance -, you'll be charged with animal cruelty and you'll receive the appropriate penalty. Do exactly the same to a sheep and pronounce some Arabic or Hebrew babble over it, claiming that it's part of your religion, and you have special exemption in law made for you so that the usual rules don't apply to you. Or hack off a part of your baby without anesthetic just because, and you'll be hauled into court: do the self-same thing saying that your faith demands it and it's simply allowed to go by. We have plenty of examples demonstrating the fact that there's nothing so absurd and/or obnoxious that, if given the religious label, will demand toleration. Criticism of the practice will always, always, always be taken by its practitioners to be criticism of the religion and slapped with a label of an anti- this or a -phobia that, which are deemed to be Very Bad Things these days, and so nothing ever changes.


I really don't know the answer to this: Is it currently legal to slaughter animals in this cruel way as long as it is for religious reasons? I thought the article said something about introducing measures to ensure that the law is enforced properly. This suggests that there is no legal exemption, just inaction on the part of law enforcement agencies (same guys that make sure our pies aren't made of horses, I guess).
Shaker

Re: MPs want curbs on 'unacceptable' religious slaughter

cyberman wrote:
I really don't know the answer to this: Is it currently legal to slaughter animals in this cruel way as long as it is for religious reasons?

In a word, yes. The usual legal situation in this country (as in most) is that animals destined for slaughter must be stunned (and therefore rendered momentarily insensible) by one means or another (it varies between species: captive bolt for cattle: electrocution for pigs and poultry, etc.) before slaughter. This is waived if it's halal or kosher slaughter. Wikipedia again:

Quote:
According to Jewish law and to Muslim law, animals must be slaughtered by a single cut to the throat. Stunning is not allowed. However, many Muslim authorities accept reversible stunning, such as electrostunning, prior to the cut.


End 'cruel' religious slaughter, say scientists:

Quote:
Religious slaughter techniques practised by Jews and Muslims are cruel and should be ended, says a scientific assessment from the Government's animal welfare advisers.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council says that slitting the throats of the animals most commonly used for meat, chickens, without stunning, results in "significant pain and distress". The committee, which includes scientific, agricultural and veterinary experts, is calling for the Government to launch a debate with Muslim and Jewish communities to end the practice.

One Muslim organisation, the Halal Food Authority, already insists on the slaughterhouses it regulates stunning animals first on welfare grounds, as long as they are still alive when their throats are slit. But in other halal and almost all kosher slaughterhouses, animals have their throats slit without prior stunning which would render them insensible to the pain. Religious groups say that doing so would be against their interpretation of religious texts.

In a 2003 report on red meat, FAWC called for ministers to repeal the religious groups' legal opt-out ... [but] The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it would not change its "long-standing policy of religious tolerance" by ending the opt-out".


*

Both the Jewish and the Muslim communities are exempt from the Welfare of Animals (slaughter or killing) Regulations 1995 on the grounds of religious freedom. This means that they do not have to stun the animal before "sticking", the industry term for cutting the animal's throat.

As I said, futile. They get it right in some places, but this country won't be one of them.
Powwow

Well, I've chopped the heads off many chickens and turkeys. And yesterday I was squishing Japanese lily beetles between my fingers.
Hey Shaker, if you are ever fit enough, maybe someday you can venture out into the sun and warmth of summer and see those beetles in their bright scarlet jackets.
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Well, I've chopped the heads off many chickens and turkeys. And yesterday I was squishing Japanese lily beetles between my fingers.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.
Quote:
Hey Shaker, if you are ever fit enough, maybe someday you can venture out into the sun and warmth of summer and see those beetles in their bright scarlet jackets.

If and when summer ever arrives I'll be sure to give it a try. I'm equally sure I won't feel a need to kill anything, however.
Powwow

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_pYOqj5L...MG1802RedLilyBeetle-main_Full.jpg
cyberman

Re: MPs want curbs on 'unacceptable' religious slaughter

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
I really don't know the answer to this: Is it currently legal to slaughter animals in this cruel way as long as it is for religious reasons?

In a word, yes. The usual legal situation in this country (as in most) is that animals destined for slaughter must be stunned (and therefore rendered momentarily insensible) by one means or another (it varies between species: captive bolt for cattle: electrocution for pigs and poultry, etc.) before slaughter. This is waived if it's halal or kosher slaughter. Wikipedia again:

Quote:
According to Jewish law and to Muslim law, animals must be slaughtered by a single cut to the throat. Stunning is not allowed. However, many Muslim authorities accept reversible stunning, such as electrostunning, prior to the cut.


End 'cruel' religious slaughter, say scientists:

Quote:
Religious slaughter techniques practised by Jews and Muslims are cruel and should be ended, says a scientific assessment from the Government's animal welfare advisers.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council says that slitting the throats of the animals most commonly used for meat, chickens, without stunning, results in "significant pain and distress". The committee, which includes scientific, agricultural and veterinary experts, is calling for the Government to launch a debate with Muslim and Jewish communities to end the practice.

One Muslim organisation, the Halal Food Authority, already insists on the slaughterhouses it regulates stunning animals first on welfare grounds, as long as they are still alive when their throats are slit. But in other halal and almost all kosher slaughterhouses, animals have their throats slit without prior stunning which would render them insensible to the pain. Religious groups say that doing so would be against their interpretation of religious texts.

In a 2003 report on red meat, FAWC called for ministers to repeal the religious groups' legal opt-out ... [but] The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said it would not change its "long-standing policy of religious tolerance" by ending the opt-out".


*

Both the Jewish and the Muslim communities are exempt from the Welfare of Animals (slaughter or killing) Regulations 1995 on the grounds of religious freedom. This means that they do not have to stun the animal before "sticking", the industry term for cutting the animal's throat.

As I said, futile. They get it right in some places, but this country won't be one of them.


But what you have quoted here does not touch upon the current state of British Law. I'm not being difficult and I really don't know the answer, but that comment about enforcement seems to me to make sense if it is already illegal.
Shaker

Re: MPs want curbs on 'unacceptable' religious slaughter

cyberman wrote:
But what you have quoted here does not touch upon the current state of British Law. I'm not being difficult and I really don't know the answer, but that comment about enforcement seems to me to make sense if it is already illegal.


I'm genuinely not being difficult here either  If slaughter without prior stunning is already illegal, you mean? If that's what you meant, the short answer is, it isn't already illegal - if you have a religious motive for slaughter. 'Normal' slaughter, if you want to put it that way (slaughter without any element of religious ritual) mandates prior stunning for everything from beef bulls to chickens, but if slaughter is carried out under the auspices of a religious tradition, all that is simply ignored.
Powwow

Shaker,
What about the animals right not to be stunned? lol
Shaker

pow wow wrote:
Shaker,
What about the animals right not to be stunned? lol

It is utterly ignored, of course, in this case.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum