Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Malthus]

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.

The religious aspect doesn't even necessarily come into it. Assume I just plain wanted to slaughter animals in the halal manner, but I had zero religious reason to do it.

To my mind, a regulation prohibiting that would be excessive if there was not strong scientific evidence that halal slaughter actually and in fact was substantially inferior in the way alleged - causing excessive suffering to animals.

So far, I've seen exactly nothing in the way of evidence that this is true - other than argument-by-assertion, argument-by-insult, and circular arguments such as "Norway has this regulation, so it must be right".

That, before we even get to the question of whether a 'religious exemption' is reasonable.

[HVC]

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.

a toronto university (york?) used to be shut down on jewish holidays becasue traditionally most teachers and a good chuck of the students were jewish. not so now, but when they tried to get rid of that rule there was a big stink (not sure if they succeeded)

[Razgovory]

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.

Are these actions humane?  Gelding of pigs is widely practiced in the EU (though not Norway).  It would seem that it is far more "torturous" then bleeding out.  And though Docking is illegal, it is still widely practiced.  Our Euro friends could crack down on this behavior but it wouldn't have the benefit of harassing religious minorities.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

A very small number might, but most won't.  The reason is that what the butchers think isn't that relevant.  What matters is what their observant Jewish customers think.  And if the latter are being told by their rabbis that that stunned meat isn't kosher, they won't buy it.  They will buy it imported from Belgium or Germany or wherever else non-stunning is permitted.

[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?

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?

Indeed - and presumably that burden has been met, since there is in fact a general law that demands that animals be stunned before being killed. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.

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'?

Very likely, yes - hence the myriad of laws that exist in many countries governing the manner in which animals can be slaughtered. Now, I am sure you can make arguments about particualr methods and their success at achieving the goals in question - but those arguments are not religious in nature, but presumably scientific.

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

Not at all - just evidence that X manner is better than ~X manner. And presumably that proof has been supplied to a degree that the legislature found satisfactory in general. In this case, it is that stunning is more humane than not stunning.

The argument now is whether some group ought to get an exemption to that general law. If in fact said group can prove that their method is just as humane, and hence their accommodation for their religious beliefs is not significant compared to the imposition on their freedom, then I would support that exemption.

But the burden of proof is on them to show that they can achieve the same level of humaneness without the need for stunning.

[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?

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.

The Jewish question - sure we do.  Jewish kids would skip school for the major holidays, and get dereffed exams if their exam fell on a holiday.  I think an orthodox jew could even be excused from writing exams on sabbath (Saturday).

[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.

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

Many disagree, most notably various flavours of 'holy warriors'.  And given that one of the times when we are most in touch with our basic nature when we are doing violence, I can see an argument for it.

[Barrister]

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.

I suspect that's a very Christian ideal of spiritual.

As you very well know the concept of Jihad is a strong part of muslim spirituality.

[Razgovory]

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.

It's the case here.  Jews got off school on their holy days.  When I was in school, the Cafeteria offered a non-meat alternative during Lent for Catholics.  I doubt it took to much effort.

[Berkut]

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.

A very small number might, but most won't.  The reason is that what the butchers think isn't that relevant.  What matters is what their observant Jewish customers think.  And if the latter are being told by their rabbis that that stunned meat isn't kosher, they won't buy it.  They will buy it imported from Belgium or Germany or wherever else non-stunning is permitted.

Sure, that is the story given. And that is the basic story everytime some religious groups insists that their sacred cow not be killed. If you let blacks into the military, why, all the white boys will quit. If you let let gay people get married, then marriage will be destroyed. If you allow contraceptives to be sold, then everyone will have sex all the time.

What actually happens is that people typically don't care much, and all it takes is a minority of rabbis saying "Yeah, we did some study, and it turns out it isn't such a big deal..." and then in a generation or so, at the most, people will look back and chuckle about how worked up they got over crap like this.

And some ultra-ultra-ULTRA-orthodox splinter will break off espousing their absolute purity and they will go to the expense and trouble if importing their meat from wherever. Shrug.

I mean really, that is what we have now with the Orthodox anyway, right? People holding on to some semi-arbitrary set of rules the rest to the group has decided isn't really important anymore.

[The Minsky Moment]

. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.

The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature.  Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.

[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?

Indeed - and presumably that burden has been met, since there is in fact a general law that demands that animals be stunned before being killed. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.

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'?

Very likely, yes - hence the myriad of laws that exist in many countries governing the manner in which animals can be slaughtered. Now, I am sure you can make arguments about particualr methods and their success at achieving the goals in question - but those arguments are not religious in nature, but presumably scientific.

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

Not at all - just evidence that X manner is better than ~X manner. And presumably that proof has been supplied to a degree that the legislature found satisfactory in general. In this case, it is that stunning is more humane than not stunning.

The argument now is whether some group ought to get an exemption to that general law. If in fact said group can prove that their method is just as humane, and hence their accommodation for their religious beliefs is not significant compared to the imposition on their freedom, then I would support that exemption.

But the burden of proof is on them to show that they can achieve the same level of humaneness without the need for stunning.

You are presuming the very question under analysis - which is simply argument by circularity. Why on earth should I assume that because a law was passed, it had a logical and rational reason for it? Do you use this "logic" on drug laws?

Also, note that the law in the US is different, and allows for halal slaughter. How does your presumption fare, when laws in different jurisdictions contradict? Is something "humane" in the US, and "inhumane" in Norway?

Better to ask to see the proof, rather than simply assume it exists, I would have though.

[Berkut]

. I think it is reasonable to presume that in fact whatever necessary burden needed to be met to pass said law was met already.

The only burden required to pass a law is to get a majority in the legislature.  Such a thing is easily achievable even in the absence of any scientific basis.

So? Now your argument is that in fact the law requiring stunning doesn't actually work to do what it is intended to do?

Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law. The law exists, so apparently some burden of proof was met, even if you don't think it is an acceptable one (although I suspect your decision to decide this one is not acceptable is strictly based on the outcome being one you don't like - I think plenty of research has been done on animal cruelty).

[Neil]

I suspect that's a very Christian ideal of spiritual.

As you very well know the concept of Jihad is a strong part of muslim spirituality.

And even then it discounts a lot of more militant Christian thinking.  It's a very New Age spirituality.

[The Minsky Moment]

What actually happens is that people typically don't care much, and all it takes is a minority of rabbis saying "Yeah, we did some study, and it turns out it isn't such a big deal..." and then in a generation or so, at the most, people will look back and chuckle about how worked up they got over crap like this.

And some ultra-ultra-ULTRA-orthodox splinter will break off espousing their absolute purity and they will go to the expense and trouble if importing their meat from wherever. Shrug.

I mean really, that is what we have now with the Orthodox anyway, right? People holding on to some semi-arbitrary set of rules the rest to the group has decided isn't really important anymore. 

The Orthodox are now the fatest growing denomination within Judaism so the scenario you paint of easy accomodation is just not so.
The orthodox have been stubbornly adhering to strange rules for almost 2000 years, including at times when doing so meant getting torched.  I don't think you grasp the mentality at work.  If there is a splinter, the splinter will be the few who choose to change the religious rule to fit the secular rule.  The majority will dig in.