Diegetics

Ban is strongly supported by and strongly opposed by religious Muslims and Jews.

Ms Thieme says religious-liberty rights do not extend to harming other people or animals. Most in parliament back that view. A government-commissioned report by the University of Wageningen cited the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe and humane-slaughter expert Temple Grandin in support of the ban.

Ms Thieme’s proposal was backed by Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV), and the mainly secular Liberal party. The opposition Labour party also supported it, favouring its animal rights wing over its substantial Muslim constituency. Ironically, the main opponents of the ban are the Christian Democrats, along with a tiny Calvinist party, the SGP. Both empathise with conservative religious groups out of step with secular norms.

I find myself persuaded by Spengler's points and welcome my Muslim bedfellows into an alliance against Mordor's hellish food mines. Its disheartening to understand the politics: are kosher traditions included so that this is not so outwardly xenophobic, only anti-semitic?

Whoops, spoke too soon! I had to goto Wikipedia and now it doesn't seem quite so clear. From my gentile eyes, these practices both sound great.

re: halal:

re: kosher:

Anyone else feel that you can't read about this issue without thinking the FDA is actually the sinister force in the background? You have the image of holymen going above and beyond to carefully slaughter animals. And then you have the bolt-gun factories...

?
She doesn't really have an issue with either method. I don't really see what the fuss is about. If Muslims or Jews want to have their meat slaughtered according to their religious requirements, and it can be done just as efficiently and humanely as in a "secular" slaughterhouse, what's the problem? Dead is dead. Meat is meat.

Temple Grandin supports the Dutch ban on ritual slaughter (according to the article linked in the first post and according to the ).

Too bad for them they can't be halal meat....

But seriously, this is demented stuff; and i'm not even a vagetarian!

It's a good sign that people are concerned with humanitarian issues surrounding the slaughter of animals.

.

Religious rules, including slaughtering animals, and hygiene and and and .. were all good for 1000s of yrs ago

Religion (Zoroastrian and later copied by Abrahamite) tried to bring ethic and civility to what was an animal kingdom

But all that was 1000s yrs ago

If one would still adhere to those 1000s of yrs old religious rules, it would mean one is stuck in 1000s of yrs old mindset

but

civilization has progressed

Meaning

Those religiosity rules must be used as starting point, examined one by one, and amended as needed

Slaughtering animals a good point to start

If present form of slaughtering animals does not function well, fix it

But, that weirdo, David, defending Jewish kosher slaughtering means accepting civilization can not find a better mousetrap then was found 2000+ yrs ago


.

I have just enough experience with industrial farming to think that any law claiming to be about "animal cruelty" that ignores factory farms and focuses on small-scale traditional slaughter is missing the bigger picture.

For some reason this makes me think of the foxhunting ban in the UK, in that the majority are kind of sticking it to a minority they aren't crazy about (rich toffs, muzzies and yids).

Indeed. This legislation is pointlessly, antagonistically illiberal. The slaughter of animals for meat can be done perfectly humanely, whether it be done according to halal or kosher principles, or entirely irreligiously. If there are problems in Holland with poorly run slaughterhouses then surely that is the issue that should be addressed.

I dare say some are.

Am I the only one who thinks that stunning the animals is more about assuaging human guilt than it is about actually making it less horrible for the animal?

.

What is the fundamental difference between modern western slaughtering of animals and Jewish/Muslim slaughtering ?

Concern for pain and suffering for the animal

Well ..

- Jewish slaughter is a surprise sudden beheading, in full awareness of the animal

- Western method, is , to knock out the animal (with an electric shock or otherwise) .. and when that animal is sedated (unconscious), to behead


Now

Let's see which one more painless, or somehow human

Is somehow somebody suddenly jumping on you in plain awareness .. or .. Sedated first .. less painless and human ?


Jewish (and Islamic) slaughter is inhuman .. Dutch, rightly so, forbid it


What is so pervert with this David, he looks one straight in the eye and says all those rubbish

Once I cornered him to whether Jewish is a people, ethnicity .. or .. a religion

He said both

I said how can Mr. Goldschmidt (calling himself Goldsmith) be from Hebrew tribe ? ethnically not possible

He very funny .. said through a MIRACLE Mr. Goldschmidt becomes son of Sarah


Well ..

Not that he believes in that garbage

He knows very well, you too consider this rubbish

But , he challenges you to dare to disagree


In FT and ATOL, only Azari told bluntly .. very politely and with fact .. he saying garbage


.

There is no possible way that religious or other small-scale slaughter operations are more cruel than factory farms or industrial slaughterhouses. Scale alone ensures that the suffering of individual animals is almost entirely lost in the shuffle.