Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[HVC]

So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers?  Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it?  Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?

Arguement seems to be that stunning laws are better then nothing (old days of sledge hammers and carving up still living cows), but not necessarily better then halal/kosher. Without proven evidence that stunning is better then kosher/halal then there's no reason to ban halal/kosher besides hating brown/jewish people. I side with the jewish lawyers.

Why is it people are afraid to disagree with jew lawyers, but not uke lawyers?

Your drug stance has tainted your lawyer for justice image

I amended my post to show i care

[Malthus]

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?

Why should you assume otherwise? I can certainly be convinced that some law was poorly thought out, but I am not going to assume it is without some evidence.

Do you use this "logic" on drug laws?

Absiolutely. IMO, there is considerable and convincing evidence that many of our laws in regards to the enforcement of drug laws have largely failed to achieve what they intended to do, or have excessive secondary costs associated with them.

But I *certainly* presume that the burden of proof is on those claiming that drug laws should be changed. I think in many cases that burden has been met.

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?

Again, I have no personal issue with these laws in general, no matter which way they go. But of course it is the case that differing jurisdictions define "humane" in differing ways, and what one society finds humane may not be humane in another. I am quite certain, for example, that there are plenty of countries that engage in plenty of activities that I would find horribly inhumane. That doesn't mean that I think those practices ought to be legal here as well, since some other society finds them acceptable.

Why should the Netherlands be any different? The Chinese do things Americans would never countenance, and the Americans may do things the Dutch do not tolerate. So what?

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

There is a lot of evidence out there about animal suffering under slaughter. It is hardly just assumed. If you want to argue that hallal butchering is just as humane as non-hallal butchering with stunning, then go right ahead. Hell, I would probably come down on your side.

What I won't do is just assume that you don't even have to bother making the argument to begin with, or that illogical arguments are convincing (like comparing botched stunning with perfect ninja hallal butchering, and then asking us to just assume that there is enough botched stunning that it overall is actually LESS humane than not using stunning at all!).

Huh? I'm saying that I'd like to see SOME EVIDENCE that the alleged "problem" exists. So far, none has been produced in this long-ass thread.

If such evidence exists and there is "a lot" of it, surely it would not be difficult to produce? If so, why is no-one producing any?

I'm not "assuming" that the law was poorly thought-out, I'm asking for some evidence that the "problem" under analysis is really a "problem".

The other alternative - that it is hysteria whipped up by PETA types and xenophobes - gains plausibility, if the *problem* cannot be demonstrated to actually, you know, exist.

Ninja rabbis need not enter into it.

[DGuller]

I have already posted evidence in this thread indicating that kosher-style ritual slaughter can be just as humane as the stunning methods.  I have seen nothing to the contrary.

I have only seen evidence that botched stunning is worse than perfect kosher-style slaying.  That's not even weak, that's just pathetic from a logical point of view.  Any good idea executed poorly can have worse results than bad ideas mitigated by perfect execution.

[HVC]

Looking around the Internet, apparently a study was done at Cornell Univeristy about Kosher slaughter and found that typically the animal lost consciousness within a few second of the initial cut.  It doesn't seem to be as "tortuous" as some would have us believe.

I've seen some old school slaughters (rather similar to halal/kosher, except without the bleed out being as important). Animal (in this case pig) was out pretty fast.

[Berkut]

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

The only point is that the fact it was passed into law in itself says nothing about its scientific validity.

I think the fact that it was passed says that at some point it was evaluated and deemed reasonable. You can disagree with that, but if so, you need to show that, not just assume it. It is the law as it exists.

I have already posted evidence in this thread indicating that kosher-style ritual slaughter can be just as humane as the stunning methods.  I have seen nothing to the contrary.

And to the extent that you have done so, I think you make a good case.

Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law.

I don't agree.  As stated above, I side with those who take the position that if the Free Exercise clause is to be effective, laws of formal general applicability must make reasonable accomodation to religious practice.

No argument from me, except that I would place the burden on those asking for the exemption from an existing an generally applied law to show that

A) Their freedom is in fact significantly impacted, and
B) That the effect of the exemption will be minimal.

I actually think that in general those bars have been met, and have no real problem with the exemption. I just do NOT agree that we should give them a pass without any need to actually show that.

In general though, my personal view is that this is the kind of thing that is a gray area. I think if the law did not allow for kosher slaughter without stunning, the kosher people would not really be harmed much, despite their claims otherwise, but I also think that if the exemption is allowed, it is no big deal either.

I am pretty ok with the idea that this is the kind of thing that will see different levels of acceptability across different societies.

I am skeptical of the claim that those trying to not allow the exemption are motivated in any great part by racism or antisemitism. In fact, I find the argument itself pretty offensive.

[The Minsky Moment]

So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers?  Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it?  Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?

As to question 1, it is reasonable for a state to pass laws regulating slaughter and it is also reasonable as a general matter to specify certain methods, including stunning, as part of such a law.  But in the absence of good reasons to believe that kosher or hallal methods, if otherwise carried out in compliance with good practices, are totally inconsistent with the objective of limiting pain and cruelty, the law should make reasonable accomodation to religious practice.

Incidentally, I have no dog in this hunt.  I don't keep kosher.  I don't have any particular interest in defending the Orthodox position.  From a personal perspective, I am more concerned about protecting against Establishment (eg forcing me to pay taxes to pursue a religious agenda I don't like) then promoting Free Exercise (protecting the freedom of others to pratice beliefs I don't agree with).  But both are core principles of equal weight and importance in any system of government that claims to value religious liberty, and so consistency's sake requires I take both equally seriously, even if one doesn't provide me with a tangible personal benefit. 

[Malthus]

So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers?  Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it?  Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?

Argument is that the law is over-intrusive, and that there is no logical or science-based reason for it to be over-intrusive.

Or at least, none that have been actually shown to exist - except by assertion or presumption.

[Berkut]

So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers?  Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it?  Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?

Argument is that the law is over-intrusive, and that there is no logical or science-based reason for it to be over-intrusive.

Or at least, none that have been actually shown to exist - except by assertion or presumption.

And you would make this same argument about the law even if you were not Jewish yourself? Color me: skeptical.

[Malthus]

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

The only point is that the fact it was passed into law in itself says nothing about its scientific validity.

I think the fact that it was passed says that at some point it was evaluated and deemed reasonable. You can disagree with that, but if so, you need to show that, not just assume it. It is the law as it exists.

I have already posted evidence in this thread indicating that kosher-style ritual slaughter can be just as humane as the stunning methods.  I have seen nothing to the contrary.

And to the extent that you have done so, I think you make a good case.

Again, burden of proof for that is on you, as the party demanding an exemption from the law.

I don't agree.  As stated above, I side with those who take the position that if the Free Exercise clause is to be effective, laws of formal general applicability must make reasonable accomodation to religious practice.

No argument from me, except that I would place the burden on those asking for the exemption from an existing an generally applied law to show that

A) Their freedom is in fact significantly impacted, and
B) That the effect of the exemption will be minimal.

I actually think that in general those bars have been met, and have no real problem with the exemption. I just do NOT agree that we should give them a pass without any need to actually show that.

In general though, my personal view is that this is the kind of thing that is a gray area. I think if the law did not allow for kosher slaughter without stunning, the kosher people would not really be harmed much, despite their claims otherwise, but I also think that if the exemption is allowed, it is no big deal either.

I am pretty ok with the idea that this is the kind of thing that will see different levels of acceptability across different societies.

I am skeptical of the claim that those trying to not allow the exemption are motivated in any great part by racism or antisemitism. In fact, I find the argument itself pretty offensive.

The problem is that this is not a case where people are asking for a new "exemption" to an existing law, but one where people are asking to change an existing law to prohibit an activity that was formerly lawful.

Surely some sort of proof ought to be required that the change is necessary?

[Barrister]

So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers?  Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it?  Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?

Argument is that the law is over-intrusive, and that there is no logical or science-based reason for it to be over-intrusive.

Or at least, none that have been actually shown to exist - except by assertion or presumption.

And you would make this same argument about the law even if you were not Jewish yourself? Color me: skeptical.

I know that Malthus has accepted the label of "Jewish lawyer" on the forum, but I don't think he even thinks of himself as Jewish - rather he just has a jewish mother.

In any event I am making the same argument, and I'm definitely not Jewish.

[Malthus]

So what is the argument of the Jewish lawyers?  Are you arguing that the general law about stunning is stupid and was unjustified in the first place, and that it was a mistake to enact it?  Or are you arguing that the law must have exemptions for Jews and Muslims?

Argument is that the law is over-intrusive, and that there is no logical or science-based reason for it to be over-intrusive.

Or at least, none that have been actually shown to exist - except by assertion or presumption.

And you would make this same argument about the law even if you were not Jewish yourself? Color me: skeptical.

Huh? I don't keep kosher.

I'd make exactly the same argument (and have) if the matter was halal only, or headscarves in France - and I'm not Muslim.

Would you be making these arguments if the laws in question did not attack your personal bugbear, religion? Colour me: skeptical.

[HVC]

And you would make this same argument about the law even if you were not Jewish yourself? Color me: skeptical.

i would, but i don't have a law background so i could be way off lol.

[HVC]

This thread shows that canadians are better people then both Europeans or americans

I'm assuming Minsky has a Canadian mother for the purposes of my argument

[Viking]

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.

German Vets - Halal, Kosher Slaughter Unacceptable, say German Vets
British Vet and British Food Standards - Halal and Kosher slaughter 'must end'

etc.etc.

[Valmy]

Would you be making these arguments if the laws in question did not attack your personal bugbear, religion? Colour me: skeptical.

Religious Bugbears are pretty tough.