This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Poland's parliament votes to uphold ban on kosher [and halal] slaughterhouses

#1awittyusernamePosted 7/17/2013 7:12:27 AM
Should halal and kosher methods of slaughter be prohibited? - Results (107 votes)
Yes
47.66% (51 votes)
51
No
52.34% (56 votes)
56
This poll is now closed.
Poland's parliament on Friday rejected a government-backed bill that would have allowed slaughterhouses to produce kosher meat, angering Jewish groups who say the decision violated their religious rights. [...]

Usually, slaughterhouses stun livestock before killing them, while kosher rites demand an animal is killed by slitting its throat while it is alive and allowing it to bleed to death. The halal meat consumed by observant Muslims is killed the same way.

The government had hoped the proposed law would allow Polish abattoirs to resume production of kosher meat, which was forced to stop last year by the constitutional court.


http://www.haaretz.com/1.535485

Probably motivated by racism in this case, but the law itself is justified. Religion is not an acceptable excuse for inhumane actions, in my opinion. The US government apparently disagrees because it has a blanket exemption from the requirement of humane methods for "ritual slaughter": http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/07C48.txt

I'm not sure why Jewish and Islamic law prohibits stunning before slaughter, though. I imagine the method didn't even exist when those customs were developed, so surely it's just a matter of interpretation? Are there any progressive factions of Judaism/Islam that are working to change this apparent consensus view? Perhaps someone could enlighten me.
---
awittysignature
#2Nitro378Posted 7/17/2013 7:14:02 AM
Fair next, your religion has nothing do with your freedoms to harm
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015 --- (Zombie) FDR/Sanders 2016
If you want friends in Washington, get a lobbyist - me
#3AnclationPosted 7/17/2013 7:34:48 AM
Nitro378 posted...
Fair next, your religion has nothing do with your freedoms to harm


This. Your freedom to believe in whatever nonsense you want should be protected, but that should not allow you to harm those who never consented (or lacked the ability to consent) to be a part of it.
---
We Endorse The Creation of Majora's Mask 3D:
http://www.facebook.com/OperationMoonfall
#4IShall_Run_AmokPosted 7/17/2013 7:36:40 AM
I voted "No", but meant to vote "Yes".
---
...and it ain't a fit night out for ma-a-an or beast.
#5Masta CroutonPosted 7/17/2013 7:37:56 AM
no. I hold the right of religious freedom higher than an animals right to not suffer for 3 seconds.
---
"I know, it's a bad habit. In an unrelated matter, I also can't help but point out when people crap themselves in public."
-Flashman,on being trolled
#6JIC XPosted 7/17/2013 7:43:46 AM
Masta Crouton posted...
no. I hold the right of religious freedom higher than an animals right to not suffer for 3 seconds.


i.e. you support unnecessary suffering. Call it what it is.
There's no good reason not to stun a sentient creature before slaughter. The technology exists.
---
And that is why the age of magic is at an end. {WoT}, Emeritus
#7Masta CroutonPosted 7/17/2013 7:49:09 AM
I consider it necessary to not set the precedent that we can ban reasonable religious expression because it's distasteful. Freedom to follow a very old and very ingrained religious tradition is perfectly fine with me.

Before the normal idiots come out of the woodwork, yes, there are limitations, clearly I don't support human sacrifice. But the line should be drawn somewhere past "kosher is evil". But if you consider that "unnecessary", feel free to. But don't be caught eating corporate-farm meat, because I'm certain they don't exactly have a life free of suffering, even if their eventual death is faster than a kosher animal.
---
"I know, it's a bad habit. In an unrelated matter, I also can't help but point out when people crap themselves in public."
-Flashman,on being trolled
#8Nitro378Posted 7/17/2013 7:50:32 AM
Masta Crouton posted...
no. I hold the right of religious freedom higher than an animals right to not suffer for 3 seconds.

If you're going to sniffy about it then I could just as easily say that a meaningless religious dictat with no purpose is far less important than preventing many thousands of animals a year from dying in horrendous pain.
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015 --- (Zombie) FDR/Sanders 2016
If you want friends in Washington, get a lobbyist - me
#9Masta CroutonPosted 7/17/2013 7:51:52 AM
And I would disagree.
---
"I know, it's a bad habit. In an unrelated matter, I also can't help but point out when people crap themselves in public."
-Flashman,on being trolled
#10Nitro378Posted 7/17/2013 7:52:55 AM
Masta Crouton posted...
I consider it necessary to not set the precedent that we can ban reasonable religious expression because it's distasteful.


It's banned for contravening established rules of animal welfare, not because it's a religious belief, if someone wanted to kill all their animals this way just because they wanted to they would/should be treated the same way.
---
Zombie Clement Attlee 2015 --- (Zombie) FDR/Sanders 2016
If you want friends in Washington, get a lobbyist - me