Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Berkut]

Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting. 

Because it indicates that stunning is not necessarily superior is there is a positive risk of improper application of stunning.

So your argument is that since stunning might be done incorrectly, and incorrect stunning is less humane than correct stunning, then stunning should not be used.

But wouldn't the same ninja butchers that currently kill cows in their ninja way be doing the (now) ninja stunning, and hence could not possibly make a mistake?

And barring that, wouldn't you need to show that the stunning is done incorrectly a pretty significant amount of time in order to claim that overall stunning actually results in an increase in pain/stress? Are you making such a claim, and if so what data do you have to back it up?

Personally, I think worrying all that much about how much pain animals you are killing in order to eat are in is a bit silly in general...

[Razgovory]

http://Norwegian Food Safety Authority, get going with your personal attacks.

Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.

You have no ideas beyond Norwegian food safety authority?

When it comes to animal welfare and the treatment of animals during slaughter, yes.

The Norwegian food safety authority deals with domesticated animal welfare and regulates Veterinarians working with farm animals as well, strange as that might be. I could refer to the equivalent bodies for most of Europe. I do not refer to Sven the Seasick.

Does the Norwegian food safety authority cover the clubbing of baby seals and whaling?  Not the most humane thing I can think of.  In most EU countries they still castrate pigs (which has to be very, very painful).  They also cut off the tails (which is illegal, but widely practiced.  In 2007 the EU found that 90% of piglets had their tails cut off despite it being made illegal in 2003).

[Neil]

My main issue with Mohammed is that he fought a war, which doesn't strike me as very spiritual, rather than some sort of trumped up charges on his personal life.

On the other hand, your idea as to what seems spiritual is rather suspect.

[Malthus]

Not really sure how this is relevant cosidering the the proposed change is to require stunning prior to any ritual throat slitting. 

Because it indicates that stunning is not necessarily superior is there is a positive risk of improper application of stunning.

That's a very shoddy argument.  By that logic, wearing a seatbelt is not necessarily superior to not wearing one, because in some rare cases you're better off being ejected from the car rather than remaining strapped to it. 

You cannot compare methods by taking the best case of one against the worst case of another.  There is a reason we have a concept of averages and expectation.

The real issue here is whether halal or kosher slaughter is so sub-optimal as to rate concern. It could well be that one or the other is superior, but that the difference between stunning and bleeding isn't really all that much to be fussed about.

So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?

[The Minsky Moment]

But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe.

Europe is a pretty big geographical entity and not all countries take the view that the Dutch are taking now.  But it is true that some countries have taken positions inconsistent with meaningful free exercise - the French scarf ban is one example.

For some "freedom" means supporting the freedom of oneself or people like oneself.  But true freedom means supporting the freedom of all, even those whose practices and beliefs seem strange or even repugnant.  Liberty that just protects the majority is meaningless. 

That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).

First of all, anti-establishment in the US means far more than a prohibition of an actual state Church - since you have posted in threads in the past that discuss US court rulings on this concept, your ignorance of the fact is puzzling.

Second, apparently anti-establishment means less than that in Europe as some European countries continue to have established state churches . . .

[Berkut]

So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?

Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?

[Viking]

http://Norwegian Food Safety Authority, get going with your personal attacks.

Attacks on the personal morality of Mohammed are a perfectly counter to the appeal to the authority of Mohammed, which is precisely what the muslim argument for halal is.

You have no ideas beyond Norwegian food safety authority?

When it comes to animal welfare and the treatment of animals during slaughter, yes.

The Norwegian food safety authority deals with domesticated animal welfare and regulates Veterinarians working with farm animals as well, strange as that might be. I could refer to the equivalent bodies for most of Europe. I do not refer to Sven the Seasick.

Does the Norwegian food safety authority cover the clubbing of baby seals and whaling?  Not the most humane thing I can think of.  In most EU countries they still castrate pigs (which has to be very, very painful).  They also cut off the tails (which is illegal, but widely practiced.  In 2007 the EU found that 90% of piglets had their tails cut off despite it being made illegal in 2003).

Hunting marine mammals is not regulated in the same way as slaughter of domesticated animals. Docking tails (both for dogs and pigs) is illegal in Norway. I don't know about gelding pigs, but I know they do geld horses.

[The Minsky Moment]

So your argument is that since stunning might be done incorrectly, and incorrect stunning is less humane than correct stunning, then stunning should not be used.

But wouldn't the same ninja butchers that currently kill cows in their ninja way be doing the (now) ninja stunning, and hence could not possibly make a mistake?

The kosher butchers wouldn't be doing any stunning, because stunning isn't kosher under the orthodox rules.  They will just leave the Netherlands and do their work someplace else. 

[Barrister]

My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice.

But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe. It means you can profess your belief in a deity or deities (although also with restrictions, e.g. when you are a public official) and you can worship your deity or deities, including together with fellow believers. You do not get special exceptions from laws applicable to everyone. That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).

Really?

I find that somewhat hard to believe.

So observant Jews are expected to attend work or school on high holidays?  Religious conscientous objectors to compulsory military service are not allowed or excused?  No accomodations are made to muslims fasting during Ramadan?

[The Minsky Moment]

Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?

The debate in this country has always been between those that take the view above, and those that take the view that the government should have some compelling reason to enact regulations that significantly burden the practice of one's religion.

[Malthus]

So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?

Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?

Surely the burden of proof is on the person proposing the general law in the first place, that the law (admitting no exceptions) is truly a necessary imposition on one's freedom to practice a trade one way or the other?

In short, if the goal is 'to prevent excessive or undue pain to an animal in slaughtering', is the best, least freedom-intrusive method of achieving that goal to say 'you must do your job in X manner'?

If so, some proof that X manner is indeed the only way to achieve the goal is required, right?

[Berkut]

So your argument is that since stunning might be done incorrectly, and incorrect stunning is less humane than correct stunning, then stunning should not be used.

But wouldn't the same ninja butchers that currently kill cows in their ninja way be doing the (now) ninja stunning, and hence could not possibly make a mistake?

The kosher butchers wouldn't be doing any stunning, because stunning isn't kosher under the orthodox rules.  They will just leave the Netherlands and do their work someplace else. 

So the argument then becomes "This should be legal, because if it isn't, we won't do it anymore".
Sounds less than compelling to me.

I suspect that what would actually happen is some group of kosher butchers would suddenly find that in fact stunning isn't to forbidden as they once thought and set up shop selling kosher meat that has been stunned.

[Grey Fox]

My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice.

But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe. It means you can profess your belief in a deity or deities (although also with restrictions, e.g. when you are a public official) and you can worship your deity or deities, including together with fellow believers. You do not get special exceptions from laws applicable to everyone. That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).

Really?

I find that somewhat hard to believe.

So observant Jews are expected to attend work or school on high holidays?  Religious conscientous objectors to compulsory military service are not allowed or excused?  No accomodations are made to muslims fasting during Ramadan?

Do we do any of those things? I've never seen any of my employers or schools accomodate anyone for Ramadan or any Jewish holidays.

Altho, I don't recall ever having a jewish coworker or fellow students.

[Barrister]

So far, I'm seeing a lot of assertion that halal/kosher is "torture" while stunning by bolt gun or electrocution isn't, but no actual proof of it. Seems that this is the central point, so there ought to be some sort of scientific proof of the assertion, right?

Isn't the burden of proof on those who are demanding the exemption from the general law?

I would think that the burden of proof is on those who are seeking to change or ban a long-standing practice.

[Valmy]

My main issue with Mohammed is that he fought a war, which doesn't strike me as very spiritual, rather than some sort of trumped up charges on his personal life.

On the other hand, your idea as to what seems spiritual is rather suspect.

Nonsense it is pretty widely accepted that violence is not a very spiritual activity.