Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Razgovory]

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.

That's the argument.  I don't buy it, but there you go.  Presumably you could also engage of the "extra" right of kosher slaughter.

[grumbler]

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?

I doubtr that the law specifies anything about religion elements, merely that the procedures called for in halal and kosher butchering (and yeah, I know there are real names for those procedures, but prefer the imprecise but identifiable labels) are allowed.

So you could presumably get trained in kosher butchering and butcher that way, though you couldn't call the product "kosher."

[Tonitrus]

I argue that animals slaughtered by either halal or kosher methods, are equally tasty.

[grumbler]

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?

I doubtr that the law specifies anything about religion elements, merely that the procedures called for in halal and kosher butchering (and yeah, I know there are real names for those procedures, but prefer the imprecise but identifiable labels) are allowed.

So you could presumably get trained in kosher butchering and butcher that way, though you couldn't call the product "kosher."

Turns out I am wrong; only actual Jews and Muslims get the benefit of the exception in Britain:

Slaughter by a religious method
2. In this Schedule references to slaughter by a religious method are references to slaughter without the infliction of unnecessary suffering—
(a)by the Jewish method for the food of Jews by a Jew who holds a licence in accordance with Schedule 1 (which relates to the licensing of slaughtermen) and who is duly licensed—
(i) in England and Wales by the Rabbinical Commission referred to in Part IV of this Schedule; or
(ii) in Scotland by the Chief Rabbi; or
(b)by the Muslim method for the food of Muslims by a Muslim who holds a licence in accordance with Schedule 1.

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-01314.pdf

[jimmy olsen]

Yes, your silly ancient desert fairy tale tells you to torture animals. Your non-existent god is a sadist, I get that. You want me to respect your war criminal torturist paedophile murderer rapist bandit thief of a prophet, I get that. I'm sorry, but fuck you.

Ayesha's age at marriage is disputed.

Citations 173-76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-181

those are all in arabic or farsi, not linked or just a reference to tariq ramadan. The traditional sources do cite her age as 6 or 7 when married and 9 when the marriage was consumated (after her illness when she lost her hair). If you aren't going to argue that she was an adult (as defined at the time) then you are merely obfuscating and ignoring the murder, torture, war crimes, aggression etc.etc.

Murder, torture, etc, whatever it was the 7th
century. Hell, I take my wars of aggression on a case by case basis even today.

As for Aisha
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet's daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be...

it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.

[garbon]

I doubtr that the law specifies anything about religion elements, merely that the procedures called for in halal and kosher butchering (and yeah, I know there are real names for those procedures, but prefer the imprecise but identifiable labels) are allowed.

So you could presumably get trained in kosher butchering and butcher that way, though you couldn't call the product "kosher."

Yeah I was hoping (?) this would be the case but unfortunately as you have shown, it isn't that way in Britain. Just seems odd to me.

[garbon]

Presumably you could also engage of the "extra" right of kosher slaughter.

Alas, no. They wouldn't allow it.

[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.

Just saw this.  Sorry, but I don't buy it.  The argument that "well, yes, the method used (copied directly from halal regulations, because halal was naturally the focus of their studies) caused pain, but doing the exact same thing with a slightly longer blade sharpened in a slightly different manner would have completely different results" simply isn't logically tenable.  It may prove to be true, but it certainly isn't obviously true or even scientifically valid.  It is like arguing that we understand the reflectivity of light striking a surface at a 45 degree angle, but its behavior is completely different at 46 degrees.  You'd have to show that, not assume it.

[Viking]

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.

I don't make that list? Did you even read this thread?

[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.

I don't make that list? Did you even read this thread?

Yeah, but attributing the postion that a ban is justified to Marty and Slagos makes the idea sound worse than attributing it to you.   

[Viking]

Yes, your silly ancient desert fairy tale tells you to torture animals. Your non-existent god is a sadist, I get that. You want me to respect your war criminal torturist paedophile murderer rapist bandit thief of a prophet, I get that. I'm sorry, but fuck you.

Ayesha's age at marriage is disputed.

Citations 173-76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-181

those are all in arabic or farsi, not linked or just a reference to tariq ramadan. The traditional sources do cite her age as 6 or 7 when married and 9 when the marriage was consumated (after her illness when she lost her hair). If you aren't going to argue that she was an adult (as defined at the time) then you are merely obfuscating and ignoring the murder, torture, war crimes, aggression etc.etc.

Murder, torture, etc, whatever it was the 7th
century. Hell, I take my wars of aggression on a case by case basis even today.

As for Aisha
http://www.muslim.org/islam/aisha-age.htm

the Isaba, speaking of the Prophet's daughter Fatima, says that she was born five years before the Call and was about five years older than Aisha. This shows that Aisha must have been about ten years at the time of her betrothal to the Prophet, and not six years as she is generally supposed to be...

it was in the tenth year of the Call, i.e. the tenth year after the Holy Prophet Muhammad received his calling from God to his mission of prophethood, that his wife Khadija passed away, and the approach was made to Abu Bakr for the hand of his daughter Aisha. The hijra or emigration of the Holy Prophet to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of the Holy Prophet in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage.

By golly, maybe the muslims should be told that.

[Martinus]

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.

As garbon said, this wouldn't be an extra right for gays - everyone would have the right. Same with halal/kosher - either allow it for everybody or don't allow it at all.

That way the measure is weighted on its own merits ("is there a compelling reason to ban same sex marriage?" "is there a compelling reason to ban halal/kosher slaughter?") and not on whether some minority group has more privileges than another.

[Slargos]

Yeah, but attributing the postion that a ban is justified to Marty and Slagos makes the idea sound worse than attributing it to you.   

Well done, you fucking Jew.

A good summary. Although I would say that my position is actually "If it causes unnecessary pain, it should be banned" alternatively "It should be banned in order to fuck with the Semites". 

[Martinus]

Is that really how you wish to answer my question?

To answer you seriously, no, under Polish labour law the employer is not required to accommodate "special needs" of a religious employee. If you run a cantine for employees, you are not required to serve kosher, halal or vegan options, or serve fish on Fridays (ok I suppose they accommodate Discordians by usually serving pork on Fridays - and throughout the rest of the week too). People applying for jobs where you are supposed to work on Fridays, Saturdays or Sundays do not get that day off because their religion prohibits work on that day. Some of the national holidays are of a religious nature (Easter Sunday and Monday, Pentecost, Corpus Christi, All Hallow's, two days of Christmas) but that's that - they are treated just like other holidays (e.g. Independence Day), and you can't come to work on Pentecost so you can get a day off on Ramadan or whatever.

[Martinus]

Yeah, but attributing the postion that a ban is justified to Marty and Slagos makes the idea sound worse than attributing it to you.   

Well done, you fucking Jew.

A good summary. Although I would say that my position is actually "If it causes unnecessary pain, it should be banned" alternatively "It should be banned in order to fuck with the Semites". 

Anything that pisses off religious people is an extra bonus, yes.