Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[The Brain]

Anyway, unconvincing denials of lack of self-identification notwithstanding, I have to say I am with the Jewish Cabal on this one.

I still don't get this position. If the law is "baseless" enough to allow for exemptions, perhaps everyone should get those same exemptions. What's so exceptional about the halal slaughter ritual that if divorced from a religious context, it should be banned but allowed if it keeps the religious element?

Because the Sky Fairy is tossing and turning at night worrying about how exactly you kill your dinner.

[garbon]

Anyway, unconvincing denials of lack of self-identification notwithstanding, I have to say I am with the Jewish Cabal on this one.

I still don't get this position. If the law is "baseless" enough to allow for exemptions, perhaps everyone should get those same exemptions. What's so exceptional about the halal slaughter ritual that if divorced from a religious context, it should be banned but allowed if it keeps the religious element?

Because the Sky Fairy is tossing and turning at night worrying about how exactly you kill your dinner.

Alright but our governments are supposedly secular.

[The Minsky Moment]

In response to grumbler

The validity of the study is not in question.  It's application and generalization to a matter it did not test is what is in question.  The study itself provides no basis to conclude that the results would be identical or even similar if kosher protocol were used.  Reaching that conclusion requires making the unwarranted and not very plausible assumption that the method and execution of the cutting makes no difference.  The ball is the court of the proponent of the unproved hypothesis, just as it always should be.

[The Minsky Moment]

- Malthus and MM claiming they don't identify with Orthodox Jews here because M&MM don't keep kosher

There are many reasons I don't identify closely with orthodox Jews.   . Kosher is very low on the list.

[Razgovory]

*Like

It is within the scope of the responsibilities of government to make cruelty to animals illegal.

So much for scientific experimentation.

[Camerus]

Anyway, unconvincing denials of lack of self-identification notwithstanding, I have to say I am with the Jewish Cabal on this one.

I still don't get this position. If the law is "baseless" enough to allow for exemptions, perhaps everyone should get those same exemptions. What's so exceptional about the halal slaughter ritual that if divorced from a religious context, it should be banned but allowed if it keeps the religious element?

@Garbon

Because freedom of religious practice has been fundamental cornerstone of human rights in the west for at least two centuries.  As I am sure you are aware, religion plays an extremely important part in the history of humanity and in the lives of many today, and religious tenants held by minority groups can't be treated as simply an arbitrary preference that can just be ignored / suppressed where there is no compelling reason to do so.  Thus divorcing halal slaughtering methods from its broader religion context is to disingenuously change the nature of the debate.

And in answer the broader question, I simply don't see that enough proof is out there to suggest that the shock method is so much more humane as to deny people a fundamental right Western society has so long strived for.

[garbon]

@Garbon

Because freedom of religious practice has been fundamental cornerstone of human rights in the west for at least two centuries.  As I am sure you are aware, religion plays an extremely important part in the history of humanity and in the lives of many today, and religious tenants held by minority groups can't be treated as simply an arbitrary preference that can just be ignored / suppressed where there is no compelling reason to do so.  Thus divorcing halal slaughtering methods from its broader religion context is to disingenuously change the nature of the debate.

I don't think so at all. When calling into question whether there is a compelling reason to force a religious group to do something against their beliefs, I think it is only natural to call into question whether there is a compelling reason to put the imposition on anyone. Why should people miss out on privileges because they can't find it within themselves to have belief in a recognized faith?

And in answer the broader question, I simply don't see that enough proof is out there to suggest that the shock method is so much more humane as to deny people a fundamental right Western society has so long strived for.

If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?

[Razgovory]

If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?

Your using the argument that is often used against gay marriage.

[garbon]

If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?

Your using the argument that is often used against gay marriage.

Are you referring to the slippery slope that if you allow gay marriage, one should allow marrying animals and the like?

[Camerus]

@Garbon

Because freedom of religious practice has been fundamental cornerstone of human rights in the west for at least two centuries.  As I am sure you are aware, religion plays an extremely important part in the history of humanity and in the lives of many today, and religious tenants held by minority groups can't be treated as simply an arbitrary preference that can just be ignored / suppressed where there is no compelling reason to do so.  Thus divorcing halal slaughtering methods from its broader religion context is to disingenuously change the nature of the debate.

I don't think so at all. When calling into question whether there is a compelling reason to force a religious group to do something against their beliefs, I think it is only natural to call into question whether there is a compelling reason to put the imposition on anyone. Why should people miss out on privileges because they can't find it within themselves to have belief in a recognized faith?

And in answer the broader question, I simply don't see that enough proof is out there to suggest that the shock method is so much more humane as to deny people a fundamental right Western society has so long strived for.

If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?

Except what privileges of non-believers are being trampled upon here?  Unless halal and kosher butchery techniques give Muslim and Jewish butchers a competitive business advantage that they can use to undercut their non-halal / kosher competitors (which AFAIK isn't the case), I don't see how anyone's rights are being restricted in any meaningful way.  I mean, does anyone really have a deep yearning to slit the throat of a calf rather than use the shock method, all things being equal?  To the extent that I would even think abuot it, it strikes me as a win-win pragmatic compromise, rather than an infringement of my rights.

But of course, my assumption is that religion is too potent and important a force for many humans to simply suppress it where there can't be reasonable accommodations made.  Now if it were the case that kosher butchery was demonstrably noticeably worse on the animals than the shock method, or if this 'exemption' had significant impact on the liberty and/or livelihood of others, then I would be of a different opinion.  But as that is not the case, I'll take the more pragmatic path, rather than the more ideological one.

[Admiral Yi]

Was rereading a collection of Bernard Lewis essays and came across the interesting fact that Hassidic Jews didn't exist before the 18th century.

[Razgovory]

If that's the case, why have such a law that restricts all non-believers? Do they not have rights as well?

Your using the argument that is often used against gay marriage.

Are you referring to the slippery slope that if you allow gay marriage, one should allow marrying animals and the like?

No, that gay marriage is an "Extra" right.  You are allowed to marry, but you must do so in the parameters of the law i.e. to a person of the opposite sex.  Giving gays the right to marry the same sex would be an additional right.

[garbon]

Except what privileges of non-believers are being trampled upon here?  Unless halal and kosher butchery techniques give Muslim and Jewish butchers a competitive business advantage that they can use to undercut their non-halal / kosher competitors (which AFAIK isn't the case), I don't see how anyone's rights are being restricted in any meaningful way.  I mean, does anyone really have a deep yearning to slit the throat of a calf rather than use the shock method, all things being equal?  To the extent that I would even think abuot it, it strikes me as a win-win pragmatic compromise, rather than an infringement of my rights.

But of course, my assumption is that religion is too potent and important a force for many humans to simply suppress it where there can't be reasonable accommodations made.  Now if it were the case that kosher butchery was demonstrably noticeably worse on the animals than the shock method, or if this 'exemption' had significant impact on the liberty and/or livelihood of others, then I would be of a different opinion.  But as that is not the case, I'll take the more pragmatic path, rather than the more ideological one.

The right not to suffer unnecessary government intrusion into one's life. If one is already admitting that the shock method isn't necessarily so great, why force it on one segment on the population but not another? Why not make the reasonable accommodation for everyone?

Off the top of my head, I can think of two negatives of allowing for such religious exceptions.
1) It can inflame hatred of non-group members who see their actions curtailed by legislation whereas special interest religious groups are allowed free mobility. Not that such actions can make an average individual a full on bigot, but it shouldn't be surprising that some would look distastefully on privileges assigned to one group because they happen to believe/worship in the "right" way.
2) It helps to enhance the role that religious groups are allowed to play in politics.

[garbon]

No, that gay marriage is an "Extra" right.  You are allowed to marry, but you must do so in the parameters of the law i.e. to a person of the opposite sex.  Giving gays the right to marry the same sex would be an additional right.

Except that everyone would be free to engage in the "extra" right. Two straight men or two straight women could get married if same-sex marriages are allowed.

The fact that it isn't a desired right by straight peopled doesn't make it a gay only privilege.

[dps]

This thread proves the vitality of Languish.

I've skimmed a handful of pages but I'm still trying to figure out how this went to 30

I'd just about pay someone to summarize the thread & highlight the more entertaining posts.

Summary:

Dutch lawmakers propose to ban kosher and halal slaughter of animals.

Marty and Slargos argue that kosher and halal slaughter cause the animals unnecessary pain, and therefore should be banned. 

Raz and Malthus argue that kosher and halal slaughter don't cause the animals unnecessary pain, and therefore there is no justification for a ban.

Minsky argues that there isn't enough scientific evidence that kosher and halal slaughter cause unnecessary pain to justify a ban.

Barrister argues that even if kosher and halal slaughter cause the animals more pain than other methods, the principle of freedom of religion means that accomodation to the views of observant Jews and Moslems should be allowed.

I argue that regulation of slaughterhouses should only be concerned with food safety, and any pain suffered by the animals is irrelevant.

Arguments about what constitutes proper scientific evidence, about what freedom of religion should mean, about legal justifications for government regulations, and insults about bigotry, idiocy, and general asshattery abound.