In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:b89fcd9c-dfcd-4715-aaf8-2c083872cc9f">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]I wouldn't be surprised if this legislation stemmed from some Dutch people's concerns about growing (largely African and muslim) immigrant population as much as animal rights. While I'm sure a lot of people are concerned about the welfare of animals, I bet the fact that this might force some of the largely segregated immigrant communities to accept Dutch/Christian/Western traditions and practices in some way is an added bonus for some. Posted by annakb8[/QUOTE]
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:29c66b9b-ee9d-43a8-8ffd-e9c52d9f4dfd">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : There's quite a bit of literature on CAFOs, which I assume Celles was refering to, not family-owned farms. They actually have outlawed any sort of unecessary cosmetic surgery in my city, includin declawing, docking, etc. Posted by msmerymac[/QUOTE]
Yes there is. And I think a lot of the literature out there on CAFOs is propaganda.
Love is like infinity: You can't have more or less infinity, and you can't compare two things to see if they're "equally infinite." Infinity just is, and that's the way I think love is, too.
Fred Rogers
I'm a little skeptical of the measure. It sounds more like it's targeting particular groups of people and pushing them to westernize than any care about animal health. I see it as being similar to the hijab/headscarf laws in France that were passed a number of years ago keeping Muslim girls from wearing head coverings in public schools.
I get that people consider animals important. I do also, and if they're going to die to be my dinner or my new purse, I'd like them to go out as humanely as possible (as "humane" as animal slaughter can be). But I have yet to see definitive evidence that halal or kosher slaughter is any less humane than modern slaughter practices. And regardless of if one believes in religion or God(s) (I'm not a Muslim or Jew but I know people who are), I feel that as long as it's not hurting others, people should be able to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) they wish without unnecessary government interference.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:dd1ad1b1-9b1c-4128-85b4-405df90c8603">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : Yes there is. And I think a lot of the literature out there on CAFOs is propaganda. Posted by aggiebug[/QUOTE]
There are several CAFO's near my old house in Pinal County. From the road, they look absolutely miserable -- no different from the pictures you'd see online or in the literature. And you can smell them from <em>miles</em> away. I wasn't one of the crazy people complaining because the town reeked of manure 24/7 when the CAFO's where there first... but if I hated living 12 miles upwind of them, I can't imagine what living conditions were like on the farms themselves.
Sorry, Aggie, but I think you have a overly idyllic idea of farming based on your experiences, which were not universal.
Just like not every regular slaughter house follows the ethical humane guidelines they claim to, i dont think its hard to believe that some "kosher" slaughter houses may not be following the humane practices that they claim to either.
I also dont see the connection regarding wanting to get muslims and jewish people out of the country.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:d0e30580-d0b8-467a-923f-bdc743a2ef77">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]And regardless of if one believes in religion or God(s) (I'm not a Muslim or Jew but I know people who are), I feel that <strong>as long as it's not hurting others</strong>, people should be able to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) they wish without unnecessary government interference. Posted by marinabreeze[/QUOTE]
Isn't this the crux of the matter? If you define "others" to include all living creatures as opposed to just humans, then that is exactly what this legislation aims to accomplish.
I understand the skepticism regarding the motives behind the legislation, and it may be true of the extreme right wing. But I rather seriously doubt that the Party for the Animals (<a href="http://www.partyfortheanimals.nl/">link</a>) is a cover for an anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim activist organization.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:7884c928-9b4c-4537-aa64-72b50c2af884">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : WTF does this even mean? Posted by LessThanZero[/QUOTE] relax, there's a winky face meaning it shouldn't be taken seriously.
And I think your desire for the food industry is a little to idllyic.
Actually my opinions have come from years of research and interaction with the industry. I have just delved myself deep into the industry, researched a lot of the reasons behind their practices and done welfare audits at all types of facilities in the animal industry. I have no personal gain from the industry, in fact I am just a city girl that has an appreciation for the farm life. These are just the opinions I have picked up along the way.
No I do not think feed lots are perfect, but I do not think the cattle are treated poorly or there welfare iscompromised in their situation. I think it is just hard for a lot of people to see the entire picture. Why did food production develop this system? Why was it so much more productive this way? For one, there was a lot less disease in animals with food produced the way it is today. The public health risk from our food supply is a lot lower than it used to be in large part because of these production practices that mainstream media has thrown under the bus.
If people disagree with that and would prefer to eat meat that is raised the way they feel is best. Go for it, that is totally fine by me. If there is a market farmers will gladly produce it for you.
But to feed the masses affordably, efficiently and humanely food animal production cannot change too much
Love is like infinity: You can't have more or less infinity, and you can't compare two things to see if they're "equally infinite." Infinity just is, and that's the way I think love is, too.
Fred Rogers
oh and uhh sorry I took this thread in an entirely different direction. oops.
Love is like infinity: You can't have more or less infinity, and you can't compare two things to see if they're "equally infinite." Infinity just is, and that's the way I think love is, too.
Fred Rogers
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:e9fa26b2-0b54-491b-9f23-d4778d46a5d0">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]Just like not every regular slaughter house follows the ethical humane guidelines they claim to, i dont think its hard to believe that some "kosher" slaughter houses may not be following the humane practices that they claim to either. I also dont see the connection regarding wanting to get muslims and jewish people out of the country. Edited for clarity. Posted by Blueyed228[/QUOTE]
But then how is banning kosher or halal butchering tha answer if they are neither better nor worse than other methods or butchering?
Aggie, I'd seriously like to know your opinion on Monsonto, for starters. Also, because ground meat can come from hundreds of different animals, how it is safer than having smaller, regionally butcherplants and slaughterhouses where a possible outbreak can be more readily contained? And what is your opinion on the use of routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock and corn-fed beef, which is unique mainly to the US?
ETA: and worker's rights, but I guess we can go on all day here.
Speaking of ground meat: My mom worked at a well-known, "name brand" slaughterhouse when she first immigrated to this country, close to 40 years ago. She plucked and dismembered chickens by hand, and tells really icky stories about how sawdust (used to soak up blood on the floor), blood and entrails were harvested from the floors to be made into hot dogs and sausages.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:ae4670d3-a14d-4fbc-a365-9c1bb5382393">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]Speaking of ground meat: My mom worked at a well-known, "name brand" slaughterhouse when she first immigrated to this country, close to 40 years ago. She plucked and dismembered chickens by hand, and tells really icky stories about how sawdust (used to soak up blood on the floor), blood and entrails were harvested from the floors to be made into hot dogs and sausages. D: Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]
I don't eat kosher, but I do think that it can be done as humanly as other forms of killing animals. Namely they can knock out the animal first.
I don't believe this is about animal rights at all, its about not wanting people to feel welcome or be able to eat easily and follow their religious laws.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:66d006e5-6ed3-40b1-bd4a-517e5210289f">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : But then how is banning kosher or halal butchering tha answer if they are neither better nor worse than other methods or butchering? Aggie, I'd seriously like to know your opinion on Monsonto, for starters. Also, because ground meat can come from hundreds of different animals, how it is safer than having smaller, regionally butcherplants and slaughterhouses where a possible outbreak can be more readily contained? And what is your opinion on the use of routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock and corn-fed beef, which is unique mainly to the US? ETA: and worker's rights, but I guess we can go on all day here. Posted by msmerymac[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't know enough about monsonto to start a discussion or give my opinoin here. But I find it interesting you bring it up and will now be doing more research on it.
Small slaughterhouses are not monitored by the USDA like the large production facility, so a lot of times their production practices are dirtier, less efficient and the meat is practically untraceable once it leaves the factory. The large production facilities have at least one USDA representative on hand every single day. They inspect every carcass and are able to monitor the processing to make sure regulations are being followed, and corners are not being cut. Also their meat is tracked from the time they get on premise tilll it gets put on your plate. So if an outbreak is noted it is much easier to notify the public and recall meat before it is eaten by the consumer. If we go back to the small farm, it can take months before we realize what is happening instead of days to weeks. And even longer to get the outbreak under control.
The antibiotic used in food animal production have been long off the market for human medicine. Those antibiotics were chosen because of the fact that they are not used or considered effective in human medicine, and also because there is no absorbtion of the antibiotic by the animal. This means that there is no antibiotic that get into the meat, it all leaves the cow through the feces before it gets to the production facilities. It is shown to have a large effect on the efficiency of the cattle but a minimal effect on the resistance of the normal flora in the cattle rumen. The only thing I am truly concerned about become resistant to those antibiotics are those normal flora of the cattle. And if that happens then what would we be out just the efficiency that those antibiotics provided us in the food animal industry. Antibiotic use in food animals is one of the strictest control areas in our daily life, and rightfully so. I am a staunch advocate of jusdicous use of drugs people and animals alike, but especially with food animals. And honestly our biggest concern of antimicrobial resistance should be the lack of discretion by a large number of human doctors.
Love is like infinity: You can't have more or less infinity, and you can't compare two things to see if they're "equally infinite." Infinity just is, and that's the way I think love is, too.
Fred Rogers
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:e9fa26b2-0b54-491b-9f23-d4778d46a5d0">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]Just like not every regular slaughter house follows the ethical humane guidelines they claim to, i dont think its hard to believe that some "kosher" slaughter houses may not be following the humane practices that they claim to either. I also dont see the connection regarding wanting to get muslims and jewish people out of the country. Edited for clarity. Posted by Blueyed228[/QUOTE] You're right Blue, that's quite possible that they might not follow all the humane practices they claim to. However, <em>if </em>there is in fact no significant difference between these types of slaughter, then why target religiously-based food slaughter over secular methods?
The reason I linked the two is because both this measure and the one about the veil in France touch on religious customs that are specific to certain religions, and governments' aim at restricting them ostensibly for a greater good (like animal rights for this measure or women's rights for the veil measure).
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:e88c83cf-996b-4324-8509-09af5e61eb1e">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : I honestly don't know enough about monsonto to start a discussion or give my opinoin here. But I find it interesting you bring it up and will now be doing more research on it. Small slaughterhouses are not monitored by the USDA like the large production facility, so a lot of times their production practices are dirtier, less efficient and the meat is practically untraceable once it leaves the factory. The large production facilities have at least one USDA representative on hand every single day. They inspect every carcass and are able to monitor the processing to make sure regulations are being followed, and corners are not being cut. Also their meat is tracked from the time they get on premise tilll it gets put on your plate. So if an outbreak is noted it is much easier to notify the public and recall meat before it is eaten by the consumer. If we go back to the small farm, it can take months before we realize what is happening instead of days to weeks. And even longer to get the outbreak under control. The antibiotic used in food animal production have been long off the market for human medicine. Those antibiotics were chosen because of the fact that they are not used or considered effective in human medicine, and also because there is no absorbtion of the antibiotic by the animal. This means that there is no antibiotic that get into the meat, it all leaves the cow through the feces before it gets to the production facilities. It is shown to have a large effect on the efficiency of the cattle but a minimal effect on the resistance of the normal flora in the cattle rumen. The only thing I am truly concerned about become resistant to those antibiotics are those normal flora of the cattle. And if that happens then what would we be out just the efficiency that those antibiotics provided us in the food animal industry. Antibiotic use in food animals is one of the strictest control areas in our daily life, and rightfully so. I am a staunch advocate of jusdicous use of drugs people and animals alike, but especially with food animals. And honestly our biggest concern of antimicrobial resistance should be the lack of discretion by a large number of human doctors. Posted by aggiebug[/QUOTE]
oh and sorry I did not touch on the corn beef aspect. Its a taste, efficiency of the cattle and a cost of the farmer thing. I do not think it is bad for the cattle if done properly, but honestly with the likes of biodiesel and other (inefficient) uses for corn the cost of corn is rising and the use in the animal industry is declining and other sources of protein and carbohydrates are gaining popularity
Love is like infinity: You can't have more or less infinity, and you can't compare two things to see if they're "equally infinite." Infinity just is, and that's the way I think love is, too.
Fred Rogers
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:206daa10-f835-404a-bc18-31e9b47cf787">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]oh and sorry I did not touch on the corn beef aspect. Its a taste, efficiency of the cattle and a cost of the farmer thing. I do not think it is bad for the cattle if done properly, but honestly with the likes of biodiesel and other (inefficient) uses for corn the cost of corn is rising and the use in the animal industry is declining and other sources of protein and carbohydrates are gaining popularity Posted by aggiebug[/QUOTE]
I honestly feel like if our government didn't subsidize corn so much, there would be no need/reason to use it in so many things, like agricultural feed, HFCS, ethanol, etc. I think that's the root of the whole "corn problem" if you want to call it that. I personally think it's not cool that over 1/4 of all food in the grocery store has some kind of corn product in it. It just seems unnnatural.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:3f02e067-2edf-4430-9da7-e4124029973f">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : <strong>Isn't this the crux of the matter? If you define "others" to include all living creatures as opposed to just humans, then that is exactly what this legislation aims to accomplish. </strong>I understand the skepticism regarding the motives behind the legislation, and it may be true of the extreme right wing. But I rather seriously doubt that the Party for the Animals ( link ) is a cover for an anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim activist organization. Posted by Celles[/QUOTE] I would agree with this to a point.
If the slaughter carried out by religious groups was significantly worse/more torturous than secular slaughter, then I can see supporting the measure on that basis. But I have yet to see evidence that this is the case.
Also, if we really valued animal life as the exact same as a human life, then why not abolish all forms of animal food slaughter, making no distinction between religious and secular food slaughter (since kosher and halal slaughter are food slaughter and not just ritualistic slaughter)? However, this measure doesn't seek to do this. It is targeting kosher and halal slaughter specifically, which affects the way that the people in these religions practice their faith, but doesn't save the animals from torturous death.
Marina -- I'm not saying that animal life is as valuable as human life. I am not a vegan, nor do I have no problem with the humane slaughter of livestock for food.
Of course, the key word for me is humane.
As I understand it, the legislation would make it illegal to slaughter an animal that is still awake. It is not targeting kosher and halal slaughter so much as it is refusing to make exceptions for them -- which is fine, IMO. Halal and kosher slaughter can go the way of ritual human sacrifice. Religious whims do not trump human compassion.
I have no doubt that the Party for Animals is sincere in their desire to end needless cruelty -- just as I have no doubt that the openly xenophobic Freedom Party is on board because its members are largely anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:afcb9a1a-db5b-40f9-88dd-bed8a18cf84b">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]I'd reframe this question as: Do religious groups have the right to treat animals in a cruel manner? I don't know enough about the process in question to answer whether or not it is cruel. Posted by jasmineh7777[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. While I all for animal welfare and humane treatment, I don't feel like I know enough about the actual processes to make an informed judgement here.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:1a8d16c9-8f5d-40f1-a2b0-9b55c9ea0789">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]Marina -- I'm not saying that animal life is as valuable as human life. I am not a vegan, nor do I have no problem with the humane slaughter of livestock for food. Of course, the key word for me is humane . As I understand it, the legislation would make it illegal to slaughter an animal that is still awake. It is not targeting kosher and halal slaughter so much as it is refusing to make exceptions for them -- which is fine, IMO. Halal and kosher slaughter can go the way of ritual human sacrifice. <strong>Religious whims do not trump human compassion. I have no doubt that the Party for Animals is sincere in their desire to end needless cruelty -- just as I have no doubt that the openly xenophobic Freedom Party is on board because its members are largely anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim.</strong> Posted by Celles[/QUOTE] I would probably have to read more into the method of slaughter beyond whether or not said animals are still awake, including how quickly they die. If they die quickly, I don't see how it would make that much of a difference in terms of humaneness.
Beyond this, I'm not sure if, in the case of secular slaughter, if it's inherently better. If the bill just mentions that they should be put to sleep before slaughter, that doesn't address practices like allowing cattle and other animals to be housed in cramped quarters in their own feces, fattening up animals with so many hormones they can barely walk or mate, etc.
I will also say, too, that in the absence of clear evidence that the suffering is significantly greater with religious as opposed to secular slaughter, that I am wary of laws like this that would affect certain groups significantly more than others. Without that, I can't see supporting something that restricts the religious "whims" of others, as you call it.
Whether you or I believe in said religions or not, many religions, including Islam and Judaism, are steeped in centuries, even millenia, of tradition, and their practices are well thought out and full of symbolism. It's not just something that some random imam or rabbi woke up one day and thought of merely because it sounded cool at the time. I know you don't believe in God or religion, but you should give these religions just a tiny bit of credit.
The Party of Animals may have their hearts in the right place - to be honest I don't know much about them. But I am sure that like any other party or interest group, they have their own agenda and long-range plan. They may not be on board with this measure for xenophobic reasons, but it doesn't mean that the law itself doesn't have xenophobic or religiously-biased intent. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Considering that much of Western Europe is having issues with their influx of immigration from Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (places that are predominately Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other minority religions), I am very skeptical that this law is just about animal rights.
Marina -- I give religion exactly as much credit as I feel it's due.
Other than that, I agree with you on most points. Like I told Aggie (which started the whole "CAFO's are actually humane" tanget -- which I still don't buy), kosher and halal slaughter do not strike me as significantly crueler than most factory farming practices in the US. That said, I don't know anything about the prevailing standards in Western Europe, where animal cruelty tends to be more broadly defined than it is in United States. Given that, it's hard for me to comment on this measure specifically. However, in general, I don't feel that religious rights should trump animal welfare when a particular religious practice is demonstrably cruel.
Obviously, a large part of this comes from being an atheist. Religion in general baffles me; cruelty in the name of religion even more so.
This is a post and run since I'm heading home from work and seldom knot in the evenings.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:730f013c-a900-415a-b1d9-b22f3ee26f5f">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : relax, there's a winky face meaning it shouldn't be taken seriously. Posted by CassandraPotter[/QUOTE]
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:046e8bab-4994-4615-945c-edafebc370b1">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? :<strong> I would probably have to read more into the method of slaughter beyond whether or not said animals are still awake, including how quickly they die. If they die quickly, I don't see how it would make that much of a difference in terms of humaneness</strong>. Beyond this, I'm not sure if, in the case of secular slaughter, if it's inherently better. If the bill just mentions that they should be put to sleep before slaughter, that doesn't address practices like allowing cattle and other animals to be housed in cramped quarters in their own feces, fattening up animals with so many hormones they can barely walk or mate, etc. I will also say, too, that in the absence of clear evidence that the suffering is significantly greater with religious as opposed to secular slaughter, that I am wary of laws like this that would affect certain groups significantly more than others. Without that, I can't see supporting something that restricts the religious "whims" of others, as you call it. <strong>Whether you or I believe in said religions or not, many religions, including Islam and Judaism, are steeped in centuries, even millenia, of tradition, and their practices are well thought out and full of symbolism. It's not just something that some random imam or rabbi woke up one day and thought of merely because it sounded cool at the time. I know you don't believe in God or religion, but you should give these religions just a tiny bit of credit.</strong>The Party of Animals may have their hearts in the right place - to be honest I don't know much about them. But I am sure that like any other party or interest group, they have their own agenda and long-range plan. They may not be on board with this measure for xenophobic reasons, but it doesn't mean that the law itself doesn't have xenophobic or religiously-biased intent. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Considering that much of Western Europe is having issues with their influx of immigration from Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (places that are predominately Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other minority religions), I am very skeptical that this law is just about animal rights. Posted by marinabreeze[/QUOTE]
Marinabreeze, the first bolded part I can comment on. From what I've read, it is the process of stunning the animals in an abattoir so that they are unconscious when they are killed which some Muslims and Jews object to. Their objection is based on the idea that the animals must be fully conscious.
But I think the second bolded part regarding religion is a large part of argument as well. But what about the Santeria religion where animal sacrifice is a required part of religious ritual? The animal is not eaten or used for anything beyond the ritual.
This is only based off of my readings of this topic, so if someone has more information to add then please do so.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:3365ba4a-e541-4755-86d7-5fad4e27e442">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]Marina --<strong> I give religion exactly as much credit as I feel it's due. ;)</strong> Other than that, I agree with you on most points. Like I told Aggie (which started the whole "CAFO's are actually humane" tanget -- which I still don't buy), <strong>kosher and halal slaughter do not strike me as significantly crueler than most factory farming practices in the US.</strong> That said, I don't know anything about the prevailing standards in Western Europe, where animal cruelty tends to be more broadly defined than it is in United States. Given that, it's hard for me to comment on this measure specifically. <strong>However, in general , I don't feel that religious rights should trump animal welfare when a particular religious practice is demonstrably cruel.</strong> Obviously, a large part of this comes from being an atheist. <strong>Religion in general baffles me; cruelty in the name of religion even more so.</strong> This is a post and run since I'm heading home from work and seldom knot in the evenings. Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]
I really think you are letting your "bafflement" of religion sway your judgement. If the religious slaughter of the animals does not strike you as any more cruel than a regular animal slaughter, why would you support a law not allowing the religious slaughter? Just to be anti-religious? Also, since you have already stated that you don't think the religious slaughter of the animals is any more cruel than the regular slaughter, why even bring up that religion baffles you and cruelty in the name of religion even more so? You don't think they are being cruel to animals, or at least not any more so then anyone else slaughtering animals, so why bring it up? This baffles me.
It makes me feel as if you want to take religious rights from people just for the sake of taking away the rights? I'm not saying that is how you feel, I'm saying that is what I am getting from what you wrote.
In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_snarky-brides_animal-welfare-vs-religious-rights?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:17Discussion:15f542cb-32d1-4ed0-9d01-be86fa97c9b3Post:1958d9a0-1957-43eb-8b33-c39c383c6609">Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?</a>: [QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : I really think you are letting your "bafflement" of religion sway your judgement. If the religious slaughter of the animals does not strike you as any more cruel than a regular animal slaughter, why would you support a law not allowing the religious slaughter? Just to be anti-religious? Also, since you have already stated that you don't think the religious slaughter of the animals is any more cruel than the regular slaughter, why even bring up that religion baffles you and cruelty in the name of religion even more so? You don't think they are being cruel to animals, or at least not any more so then anyone else slaughtering animals, so why bring it up? This baffles me. It makes me feel as if you want to take religious rights from people just for the sake of taking away the rights? I'm not saying that is how you feel, I'm saying that is what I am getting from what you wrote. Posted by luckyme502[/QUOTE]<div> </div><div>It sounds to me like she's for humane slaughter regardless of the situation. The third part you bolded even stated that she didn't think religious traditions should trump humane treatment of animals when it IS crueler, not that this particular case was. I'm pretty sure none of that implied that she didn't think people should be allowed to practice their religions for no reason.</div><div> </div>
Re: animal welfare vs religious rights?
[QUOTE]I wouldn't be surprised if this legislation stemmed from some Dutch people's concerns about growing (largely African and muslim) immigrant population as much as animal rights. While I'm sure a lot of people are concerned about the welfare of animals, I bet the fact that this might force some of the largely segregated immigrant communities to accept Dutch/Christian/Western traditions and practices in some way is an added bonus for some.
Posted by annakb8[/QUOTE]
This is pretty much what I think is going on too.
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : There's quite a bit of literature on CAFOs, which I assume Celles was refering to, not family-owned farms. They actually have outlawed any sort of unecessary cosmetic surgery in my city, includin declawing, docking, etc.
Posted by msmerymac[/QUOTE]
Yes there is. And I think a lot of the literature out there on CAFOs is propaganda.
Fred Rogers
I get that people consider animals important. I do also, and if they're going to die to be my dinner or my new purse, I'd like them to go out as humanely as possible (as "humane" as animal slaughter can be). But I have yet to see definitive evidence that halal or kosher slaughter is any less humane than modern slaughter practices. And regardless of if one believes in religion or God(s) (I'm not a Muslim or Jew but I know people who are), I feel that as long as it's not hurting others, people should be able to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) they wish without unnecessary government interference.
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : Yes there is. And I think a lot of the literature out there on CAFOs is propaganda.
Posted by aggiebug[/QUOTE]
There are several CAFO's near my old house in Pinal County. From the road, they look absolutely miserable -- no different from the pictures you'd see online or in the literature. And you can smell them from <em>miles</em> away. I wasn't one of the crazy people complaining because the town reeked of manure 24/7 when the CAFO's where there first... but if I hated living 12 miles upwind of them, I can't imagine what living conditions were like on the farms themselves.
Sorry, Aggie, but I think you have a overly idyllic idea of farming based on your experiences, which were not universal.
I also dont see the connection regarding wanting to get muslims and jewish people out of the country.
Edited for clarity.
DX: PCOS/Recurrent losses/MTHFR mutation (compound hetero)
5 hysteroscopies/2 surgical
3 Inject IUIs = 2 m/c's and 1 BFN
IVF #1= BFP. m/c at 7w6d. Needed 2 D&C's and scar tissue removal. Mild OHSS
IVF #2 = BFP. Severe OHSS. 4 Drainings. TWINS!
[QUOTE]And regardless of if one believes in religion or God(s) (I'm not a Muslim or Jew but I know people who are), I feel that <strong>as long as it's not hurting others</strong>, people should be able to practice whatever religion (or lack thereof) they wish without unnecessary government interference.
Posted by marinabreeze[/QUOTE]
Isn't this the crux of the matter? If you define "others" to include all living creatures as opposed to just humans, then that is exactly what this legislation aims to accomplish.
I understand the skepticism regarding the motives behind the legislation, and it may be true of the extreme right wing. But I rather seriously doubt that the Party for the Animals (<a href="http://www.partyfortheanimals.nl/">link</a>) is a cover for an anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim activist organization.
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : WTF does this even mean?
Posted by LessThanZero[/QUOTE]
relax, there's a winky face meaning it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Actually my opinions have come from years of research and interaction with the industry. I have just delved myself deep into the industry, researched a lot of the reasons behind their practices and done welfare audits at all types of facilities in the animal industry. I have no personal gain from the industry, in fact I am just a city girl that has an appreciation for the farm life. These are just the opinions I have picked up along the way.
No I do not think feed lots are perfect, but I do not think the cattle are treated poorly or there welfare iscompromised in their situation. I think it is just hard for a lot of people to see the entire picture. Why did food production develop this system? Why was it so much more productive this way? For one, there was a lot less disease in animals with food produced the way it is today. The public health risk from our food supply is a lot lower than it used to be in large part because of these production practices that mainstream media has thrown under the bus.
If people disagree with that and would prefer to eat meat that is raised the way they feel is best. Go for it, that is totally fine by me. If there is a market farmers will gladly produce it for you.
But to feed the masses affordably, efficiently and humanely food animal production cannot change too much
Fred Rogers
DX: PCOS/Recurrent losses/MTHFR mutation (compound hetero)
5 hysteroscopies/2 surgical
3 Inject IUIs = 2 m/c's and 1 BFN
IVF #1= BFP. m/c at 7w6d. Needed 2 D&C's and scar tissue removal. Mild OHSS
IVF #2 = BFP. Severe OHSS. 4 Drainings. TWINS!
Fred Rogers
[QUOTE]Just like not every regular slaughter house follows the ethical humane guidelines they claim to, i dont think its hard to believe that some "kosher" slaughter houses may not be following the humane practices that they claim to either. I also dont see the connection regarding wanting to get muslims and jewish people out of the country. Edited for clarity.
Posted by Blueyed228[/QUOTE]
But then how is banning kosher or halal butchering tha answer if they are neither better nor worse than other methods or butchering?
Aggie, I'd seriously like to know your opinion on Monsonto, for starters. Also, because ground meat can come from hundreds of different animals, how it is safer than having smaller, regionally butcherplants and slaughterhouses where a possible outbreak can be more readily contained? And what is your opinion on the use of routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock and corn-fed beef, which is unique mainly to the US?
ETA: and worker's rights, but I guess we can go on all day here.
40/112
[QUOTE]Speaking of ground meat: My mom worked at a well-known, "name brand" slaughterhouse when she first immigrated to this country, close to 40 years ago. She plucked and dismembered chickens by hand, and tells really icky stories about how sawdust (used to soak up blood on the floor), blood and entrails were harvested from the floors to be made into hot dogs and sausages. D:
Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]
<div>
</div><div>Why Celles, why?!</div>
I don't believe this is about animal rights at all, its about not wanting people to feel welcome or be able to eat easily and follow their religious laws.
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : But then how is banning kosher or halal butchering tha answer if they are neither better nor worse than other methods or butchering? Aggie, I'd seriously like to know your opinion on Monsonto, for starters. Also, because ground meat can come from hundreds of different animals, how it is safer than having smaller, regionally butcherplants and slaughterhouses where a possible outbreak can be more readily contained? And what is your opinion on the use of routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock and corn-fed beef, which is unique mainly to the US? ETA: and worker's rights, but I guess we can go on all day here.
Posted by msmerymac[/QUOTE]
I honestly don't know enough about monsonto to start a discussion or give my opinoin here. But I find it interesting you bring it up and will now be doing more research on it.
Small slaughterhouses are not monitored by the USDA like the large production facility, so a lot of times their production practices are dirtier, less efficient and the meat is practically untraceable once it leaves the factory. The large production facilities have at least one USDA representative on hand every single day. They inspect every carcass and are able to monitor the processing to make sure regulations are being followed, and corners are not being cut. Also their meat is tracked from the time they get on premise tilll it gets put on your plate. So if an outbreak is noted it is much easier to notify the public and recall meat before it is eaten by the consumer. If we go back to the small farm, it can take months before we realize what is happening instead of days to weeks. And even longer to get the outbreak under control.
The antibiotic used in food animal production have been long off the market for human medicine. Those antibiotics were chosen because of the fact that they are not used or considered effective in human medicine, and also because there is no absorbtion of the antibiotic by the animal. This means that there is no antibiotic that get into the meat, it all leaves the cow through the feces before it gets to the production facilities. It is shown to have a large effect on the efficiency of the cattle but a minimal effect on the resistance of the normal flora in the cattle rumen. The only thing I am truly concerned about become resistant to those antibiotics are those normal flora of the cattle. And if that happens then what would we be out just the efficiency that those antibiotics provided us in the food animal industry. Antibiotic use in food animals is one of the strictest control areas in our daily life, and rightfully so. I am a staunch advocate of jusdicous use of drugs people and animals alike, but especially with food animals. And honestly our biggest concern of antimicrobial resistance should be the lack of discretion by a large number of human doctors.
Fred Rogers
[QUOTE]Just like not every regular slaughter house follows the ethical humane guidelines they claim to, i dont think its hard to believe that some "kosher" slaughter houses may not be following the humane practices that they claim to either. I also dont see the connection regarding wanting to get muslims and jewish people out of the country. Edited for clarity.
Posted by Blueyed228[/QUOTE]
You're right Blue, that's quite possible that they might not follow all the humane practices they claim to. However, <em>if </em>there is in fact no significant difference between these types of slaughter, then why target religiously-based food slaughter over secular methods?
The reason I linked the two is because both this measure and the one about the veil in France touch on religious customs that are specific to certain religions, and governments' aim at restricting them ostensibly for a greater good (like animal rights for this measure or women's rights for the veil measure).
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : I honestly don't know enough about monsonto to start a discussion or give my opinoin here. But I find it interesting you bring it up and will now be doing more research on it. Small slaughterhouses are not monitored by the USDA like the large production facility, so a lot of times their production practices are dirtier, less efficient and the meat is practically untraceable once it leaves the factory. The large production facilities have at least one USDA representative on hand every single day. They inspect every carcass and are able to monitor the processing to make sure regulations are being followed, and corners are not being cut. Also their meat is tracked from the time they get on premise tilll it gets put on your plate. So if an outbreak is noted it is much easier to notify the public and recall meat before it is eaten by the consumer. If we go back to the small farm, it can take months before we realize what is happening instead of days to weeks. And even longer to get the outbreak under control. The antibiotic used in food animal production have been long off the market for human medicine. Those antibiotics were chosen because of the fact that they are not used or considered effective in human medicine, and also because there is no absorbtion of the antibiotic by the animal. This means that there is no antibiotic that get into the meat, it all leaves the cow through the feces before it gets to the production facilities. It is shown to have a large effect on the efficiency of the cattle but a minimal effect on the resistance of the normal flora in the cattle rumen. The only thing I am truly concerned about become resistant to those antibiotics are those normal flora of the cattle. And if that happens then what would we be out just the efficiency that those antibiotics provided us in the food animal industry. Antibiotic use in food animals is one of the strictest control areas in our daily life, and rightfully so. I am a staunch advocate of jusdicous use of drugs people and animals alike, but especially with food animals. And honestly our biggest concern of antimicrobial resistance should be the lack of discretion by a large number of human doctors.
Posted by aggiebug[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info!
40/112
Fred Rogers
[QUOTE]oh and sorry I did not touch on the corn beef aspect. Its a taste, efficiency of the cattle and a cost of the farmer thing. I do not think it is bad for the cattle if done properly, but honestly with the likes of biodiesel and other (inefficient) uses for corn the cost of corn is rising and the use in the animal industry is declining and other sources of protein and carbohydrates are gaining popularity
Posted by aggiebug[/QUOTE]
I honestly feel like if our government didn't subsidize corn so much, there would be no need/reason to use it in so many things, like agricultural feed, HFCS, ethanol, etc. I think that's the root of the whole "corn problem" if you want to call it that. I personally think it's not cool that over 1/4 of all food in the grocery store has some kind of corn product in it. It just seems unnnatural.
40/112
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : <strong>Isn't this the crux of the matter? If you define "others" to include all living creatures as opposed to just humans, then that is exactly what this legislation aims to accomplish. </strong>I understand the skepticism regarding the motives behind the legislation, and it may be true of the extreme right wing. But I rather seriously doubt that the Party for the Animals ( link ) is a cover for an anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim activist organization.
Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]
I would agree with this to a point.
If the slaughter carried out by religious groups was significantly worse/more torturous than secular slaughter, then I can see supporting the measure on that basis. But I have yet to see evidence that this is the case.
Also, if we really valued animal life as the exact same as a human life, then why not abolish all forms of animal food slaughter, making no distinction between religious and secular food slaughter (since kosher and halal slaughter are food slaughter and not just ritualistic slaughter)? However, this measure doesn't seek to do this. It is targeting kosher and halal slaughter specifically, which affects the way that the people in these religions practice their faith, but doesn't save the animals from torturous death.
Of course, the key word for me is humane.
As I understand it, the legislation would make it illegal to slaughter an animal that is still awake. It is not targeting kosher and halal slaughter so much as it is refusing to make exceptions for them -- which is fine, IMO. Halal and kosher slaughter can go the way of ritual human sacrifice. Religious whims do not trump human compassion.
I have no doubt that the Party for Animals is sincere in their desire to end needless cruelty -- just as I have no doubt that the openly xenophobic Freedom Party is on board because its members are largely anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim.
I don't know enough about the process in question to answer whether or not it is cruel.
[QUOTE]I'd reframe this question as: Do religious groups have the right to treat animals in a cruel manner? I don't know enough about the process in question to answer whether or not it is cruel.
Posted by jasmineh7777[/QUOTE]
I agree with this. While I all for animal welfare and humane treatment, I don't feel like I know enough about the actual processes to make an informed judgement here.
House / Baby blog
[QUOTE]Marina -- I'm not saying that animal life is as valuable as human life. I am not a vegan, nor do I have no problem with the humane slaughter of livestock for food. Of course, the key word for me is humane . As I understand it, the legislation would make it illegal to slaughter an animal that is still awake. It is not targeting kosher and halal slaughter so much as it is refusing to make exceptions for them -- which is fine, IMO. Halal and kosher slaughter can go the way of ritual human sacrifice. <strong>Religious whims do not trump human compassion. I have no doubt that the Party for Animals is sincere in their desire to end needless cruelty -- just as I have no doubt that the openly xenophobic Freedom Party is on board because its members are largely anti-Semitic and anti-Muslim.</strong>
Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]
I would probably have to read more into the method of slaughter beyond whether or not said animals are still awake, including how quickly they die. If they die quickly, I don't see how it would make that much of a difference in terms of humaneness.
Beyond this, I'm not sure if, in the case of secular slaughter, if it's inherently better. If the bill just mentions that they should be put to sleep before slaughter, that doesn't address practices like allowing cattle and other animals to be housed in cramped quarters in their own feces, fattening up animals with so many hormones they can barely walk or mate, etc.
I will also say, too, that in the absence of clear evidence that the suffering is significantly greater with religious as opposed to secular slaughter, that I am wary of laws like this that would affect certain groups significantly more than others. Without that, I can't see supporting something that restricts the religious "whims" of others, as you call it.
Whether you or I believe in said religions or not, many religions, including Islam and Judaism, are steeped in centuries, even millenia, of tradition, and their practices are well thought out and full of symbolism. It's not just something that some random imam or rabbi woke up one day and thought of merely because it sounded cool at the time. I know you don't believe in God or religion, but you should give these religions just a tiny bit of credit.
The Party of Animals may have their hearts in the right place - to be honest I don't know much about them. But I am sure that like any other party or interest group, they have their own agenda and long-range plan. They may not be on board with this measure for xenophobic reasons, but it doesn't mean that the law itself doesn't have xenophobic or religiously-biased intent. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
Considering that much of Western Europe is having issues with their influx of immigration from Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (places that are predominately Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other minority religions), I am very skeptical that this law is just about animal rights.
I think religious rights should be protected before animal welfare.
2011 Reading Challenge
Other than that, I agree with you on most points. Like I told Aggie (which started the whole "CAFO's are actually humane" tanget -- which I still don't buy), kosher and halal slaughter do not strike me as significantly crueler than most factory farming practices in the US. That said, I don't know anything about the prevailing standards in Western Europe, where animal cruelty tends to be more broadly defined than it is in United States. Given that, it's hard for me to comment on this measure specifically. However, in general, I don't feel that religious rights should trump animal welfare when a particular religious practice is demonstrably cruel.
Obviously, a large part of this comes from being an atheist. Religion in general baffles me; cruelty in the name of religion even more so.
This is a post and run since I'm heading home from work and seldom knot in the evenings.
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : relax, there's a winky face meaning it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Posted by CassandraPotter[/QUOTE]
I'm relaxed, thanks.
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? :<strong> I would probably have to read more into the method of slaughter beyond whether or not said animals are still awake, including how quickly they die. If they die quickly, I don't see how it would make that much of a difference in terms of humaneness</strong>. Beyond this, I'm not sure if, in the case of secular slaughter, if it's inherently better. If the bill just mentions that they should be put to sleep before slaughter, that doesn't address practices like allowing cattle and other animals to be housed in cramped quarters in their own feces, fattening up animals with so many hormones they can barely walk or mate, etc. I will also say, too, that in the absence of clear evidence that the suffering is significantly greater with religious as opposed to secular slaughter, that I am wary of laws like this that would affect certain groups significantly more than others. Without that, I can't see supporting something that restricts the religious "whims" of others, as you call it. <strong>Whether you or I believe in said religions or not, many religions, including Islam and Judaism, are steeped in centuries, even millenia, of tradition, and their practices are well thought out and full of symbolism. It's not just something that some random imam or rabbi woke up one day and thought of merely because it sounded cool at the time. I know you don't believe in God or religion, but you should give these religions just a tiny bit of credit.</strong>The Party of Animals may have their hearts in the right place - to be honest I don't know much about them. But I am sure that like any other party or interest group, they have their own agenda and long-range plan. They may not be on board with this measure for xenophobic reasons, but it doesn't mean that the law itself doesn't have xenophobic or religiously-biased intent. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. Considering that much of Western Europe is having issues with their influx of immigration from Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (places that are predominately Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and other minority religions), I am very skeptical that this law is just about animal rights.
Posted by marinabreeze[/QUOTE]
Marinabreeze, the first bolded part I can comment on. From what I've read, it is the process of stunning the animals in an abattoir so that they are unconscious when they are killed which some Muslims and Jews object to. Their objection is based on the idea that the animals must be fully conscious.
But I think the second bolded part regarding religion is a large part of argument as well. But what about the Santeria religion where animal sacrifice is a required part of religious ritual? The animal is not eaten or used for anything beyond the ritual.
This is only based off of my readings of this topic, so if someone has more information to add then please do so.
[QUOTE]Marina --<strong> I give religion exactly as much credit as I feel it's due. ;)</strong> Other than that, I agree with you on most points. Like I told Aggie (which started the whole "CAFO's are actually humane" tanget -- which I still don't buy), <strong>kosher and halal slaughter do not strike me as significantly crueler than most factory farming practices in the US.</strong> That said, I don't know anything about the prevailing standards in Western Europe, where animal cruelty tends to be more broadly defined than it is in United States. Given that, it's hard for me to comment on this measure specifically. <strong>However, in general , I don't feel that religious rights should trump animal welfare when a particular religious practice is demonstrably cruel.</strong> Obviously, a large part of this comes from being an atheist. <strong>Religion in general baffles me; cruelty in the name of religion even more so.</strong> This is a post and run since I'm heading home from work and seldom knot in the evenings.
Posted by Celles[/QUOTE]
I really think you are letting your "bafflement" of religion sway your judgement. If the religious slaughter of the animals does not strike you as any more cruel than a regular animal slaughter, why would you support a law not allowing the religious slaughter? Just to be anti-religious? Also, since you have already stated that you don't think the religious slaughter of the animals is any more cruel than the regular slaughter, why even bring up that religion baffles you and cruelty in the name of religion even more so? You don't think they are being cruel to animals, or at least not any more so then anyone else slaughtering animals, so why bring it up? This baffles me.
It makes me feel as if you want to take religious rights from people just for the sake of taking away the rights? I'm not saying that is how you feel, I'm saying that is what I am getting from what you wrote.
2011 Reading Challenge
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: animal welfare vs religious rights? : I really think you are letting your "bafflement" of religion sway your judgement. If the religious slaughter of the animals does not strike you as any more cruel than a regular animal slaughter, why would you support a law not allowing the religious slaughter? Just to be anti-religious? Also, since you have already stated that you don't think the religious slaughter of the animals is any more cruel than the regular slaughter, why even bring up that religion baffles you and cruelty in the name of religion even more so? You don't think they are being cruel to animals, or at least not any more so then anyone else slaughtering animals, so why bring it up? This baffles me. It makes me feel as if you want to take religious rights from people just for the sake of taking away the rights? I'm not saying that is how you feel, I'm saying that is what I am getting from what you wrote.
Posted by luckyme502[/QUOTE]<div>
</div><div>It sounds to me like she's for humane slaughter regardless of the situation. The third part you bolded even stated that she didn't think religious traditions should trump humane treatment of animals when it IS crueler, not that this particular case was. I'm pretty sure none of that implied that she didn't think people should be allowed to practice their religions for no reason.</div><div>
</div>