Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Berkut]

Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians.

Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.

No such place, religious freedom is not absolute anywhere.

[Neil]

Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians.

Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.

No such place, religious freedom is not absolute anywhere.

I have no problem with Jews keeping kosher within the bounds of ethnic Alberta.  Moreover, there's always Israel.

[Berkut]

Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians.

Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.

No such place, religious freedom is not absolute anywhere.

I have no problem with Jews keeping kosher within the bounds of ethnic Alberta.  Moreover, there's always Israel.

I don't think anyone in question has any problem with Jews keeping Kosher.

And really, IIRC Israel has all kinds of legal disputes with their Orthodox Jews.

[DGuller]

My brother in law moved from Israel to Brooklyn, because Israel wasn't Jewish enough.

[dps]

Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians.

Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.

No such place, religious freedom is not absolute anywhere.

Would you agree with the proposition that anti-Semiticism is more common and more extreme in Europe than in the US?

[viper37]

Sure, they may very well be that last 1% that pitches a fit and become extra-extra-orthodox-orhtodox. They can prove their faith by becoming vegetarians.

Or they could just move to a country where religious freedom isn't tempered by bigotry.

What is religious freedom?
If it's illegal for an ethnic Albertan to beat his wife, but is considered proper behavior for a non-ethnic Albertan to beat his wife, will you allow it?  What about honor killings?  In some middle east culture, it's better to kill a girl dressing with a mini-skirt than allow her to shame the family.  Is it still religious freedom?

In this case, we have animal cruelty.  A regular slaughterhouse would not be permitted to kill the animals without stunning them, it would be considered animal cruelty.  Why do we  allow others to do that?

I think everyone should observe the same rules, and that's not bigotry, that's simply sending a message that we welcome everyone, so long as they observe our own rules.  It's no more ok to make an animal suffer than to beat your wife because she did not wear a veil. 

[grumbler]

In this case, we have animal cruelty.  A regular slaughterhouse would not be permitted to kill the animals without stunning them, it would be considered animal cruelty.  Why do we  allow others to do that?

The issue is whether or not the way "others" slaughter animals causes them enough additional suffering to make interference in a religious matter acceptable.

I think everyone should observe the same rules, and that's not bigotry, that's simply sending a message that we welcome everyone, so long as they observe our own rules. 

I am more than a little bothered by the implications that Jews and Muslims are not part of "us" that is doing the welcoming or not.  "Their" rules are part of "our own rules," believe it or not, because "they" are part of "us."

It's no more ok to make an animal suffer than to beat your wife because she did not wear a veil. 

I don't think it is very realistic to ban all "animal suffering" because it is not possible to raise, transport, or slaughter animals without them suffering to some extant.  Black-and-white thinking, alas, will get us nowhere in a debate like this, because the alternative to " mak[ing] an animal suffer" is to have no food animals at all.  Is that truly what you are proposing?  That " to beat your wife because she did not wear a veil" is no worse than operating a cattle farm, railroad, or slaughterhouse?

[viper37]

I am more than a little bothered by the implications that Jews and Muslims are not part of "us" that is doing the welcoming or not.  "Their" rules are part of "our own rules," believe it or not, because "they" are part of "us."

there are rules against animal cruelty.  What's at stake here, is if we make an exception for people with a particular religion, representing a minority in a given country.

Be it the Netherlands, Canada, or the US, there are rules against animal cruelty.  It's a given that you can't slaughter the animals without stunning them if you are a regular slaughterhouse.

Why an exception to a minority group?

I don't think it is very realistic to ban all "animal suffering" because it is not possible to raise, transport, or slaughter animals without them suffering to some extant.  Black-and-white thinking, alas, will get us nowhere in a debate like this, because the alternative to " mak[ing] an animal suffer" is to have no food animals at all.  Is that truly what you are proposing?  That " to beat your wife because she did not wear a veil" is no worse than operating a cattle farm, railroad, or slaughterhouse?

You can have surgery with anesthesia or without it.  One way is more painful than the other, wich one?
You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution.  Wich one is crual, wich one is not?

[grumbler]

there are rules against animal cruelty.  What's at stake here, is if we make an exception for people with a particular religion, representing a minority in a given country.

Be it the Netherlands, Canada, or the US, there are rules against animal cruelty.  It's a given that you can't slaughter the animals without stunning them if you are a regular slaughterhouse.

Why an exception to a minority group?

The entire issue is "is halal or kosher butchering cruel?"  That has not been established.  What exactly does an "animal cruelty" law forbid?  Generally, causing an animal unnecessary or extreme pain.  It hasn't been established yet that halal and/or kosher butchering does this (and, arguably, the world's foremost expert says "no" at least in the case of kosher butchering).  If this was as black-and-white as you make it out to be, there wouldn't even be a debate.

You can have surgery with anesthesia or without it.  One way is more painful than the other, wich one?

We aren't talking about surgery here.  Do some research.  The choices aren't between a method that causes animals no discomfort and a method that causes discomfort, it is between two methods, both of which cause discomfort and even pain, but for different reasons.

I'd bet that more animals suffer pain from botched standard slaughtering than from ritual slaughtering, as Dr. Garandin points out.  Do we ban all slaughtering?

You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution.  Wich one is crual, wich one is not?

An analogy worthy of Marti, but not worthy of response.

[Berkut]

You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution.  Wich one is crual, wich one is not?

Are you going to eat the cat afterwards?

Are cats kosher as long as you don't stun them first?

[dps]

You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution.  Wich one is crual, wich one is not?

Are you going to eat the cat afterwards?

Are cats kosher as long as you don't stun them first?

Pretty sure cats aren't kosher, no matter how you slaughter them.

Don't know what viper would do with a dead cat.

Now if it was The Brain, it'd be necrophilia time.

[garbon]

The entire issue is "is halal or kosher butchering cruel?"

That's not true. That's not the extent of the issue in the Netherlands or as discussed here.  I suppose that is the extent of the issue for some participants but certainly not all.

[The Brain]

You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution.  Wich one is crual, wich one is not?

Are you going to eat the cat afterwards?

Are cats kosher as long as you don't stun them first?

Pretty sure cats aren't kosher, no matter how you slaughter them.

Don't know what viper would do with a dead cat.

Now if it was The Brain, it'd be necrophilia time.

I'm not dead yet.

[DGuller]

Pretty sure cats aren't kosher, no matter how you slaughter them.

Don't know what viper would do with a dead cat.

Now if it was The Brain, it'd be necrophilia time.

I'm not dead yet.

[dps]

You could cull the cat population in a city by trapping them and setting them on fire, or trapping them, and inject them with a lethal solution.  Wich one is crual, wich one is not?

Are you going to eat the cat afterwards?

Are cats kosher as long as you don't stun them first?

Pretty sure cats aren't kosher, no matter how you slaughter them.

Don't know what viper would do with a dead cat.

Now if it was The Brain, it'd be necrophilia time.

I'm not dead yet.

We can fix that.

I don't think that we need to stun you first.