• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Slaughtering Rules Pit Dutch Religious Freedoms Against Animal Rights

Blue_State

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
5,411
Reaction score
2,228
Location
In a Blue State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Observant Jews and Muslims follow religious laws that dictate that they eat the meat of animals that have been slaughtered according to strict rules, including that the animals are conscious and healthy when their throats are cut. Animal rights activists say the practice causes unnecessary suffering.

There is only one slaughterhouse in the Netherlands where meat is slaughtered for kosher consumption, and that is done only one day a week.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/world/europe/netherlands-kosher-halal-animal-rights.html

War on religion? Do you think they will try to regulate small farms as well?

I believe this is the war on religion and that these actions will be coming to America.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/world/europe/netherlands-kosher-halal-animal-rights.html

War on religion? Do you think they will try to regulate small farms as well?

I believe this is the war on religion and that these actions will be coming to America.

From the article

Of the 500 million animals slaughtered every year for consumption in the Netherlands only 3,000 are for kosher meat.

This isn’t even about religious freedom it’s just straight up anti-Semitism
 
War on religion would be to pass laws that intend to specifically place a tougher standard on religious people than others. Holding them to the exact same standard as everyone else is not war on religion. It is just refusing to give them special treatment.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/world/europe/netherlands-kosher-halal-animal-rights.html

War on religion? Do you think they will try to regulate small farms as well?

I believe this is the war on religion and that these actions will be coming to America.

The Jews are a small minority that is easily suppressed. The Dutch have done it before. At present the Jews can probably get kosher meat from Germany, though. I wouldn't expect civil resistance. As to the Muslims, that could be more interesting.

As to America, I would say it already is being introduced in related areas like abortion and et alias the baker crushed by gays.
 
War on religion would be to pass laws that intend to specifically place a tougher standard on religious people than others. Holding them to the exact same standard as everyone else is not war on religion. It is just refusing to give them special treatment.

The burden could also be such that it was only a burden to those whose religions considered it so. Forbidding head scarves or burkas does not impose on Catholics for instance.
 
Screw the religious. They need to grow up and deal with reality.
 
The burden could also be such that it was only a burden to those whose religions considered it so. Forbidding head scarves or burkas does not impose on Catholics for instance.

But specifically banning burkas or habits is an obvious targeting of them. But if you pass a law for security reasons that says you can’t cover your face in public so as to conceal your identity, then that isn’t targeting religions even though it would affect some religions more than others.

I think laws should be passed with no consideration of religions whatsoever. Is there a real need for a given law? If there is, then pass it. If a particular act is innocuous enough that you would allow a particular special interest group to keep doing it, then it shouldn’t be illegal in the first place.
 
This is the exactly bigotry the OP is warning of

No, it's expecting people to be smarter than they have been in the past. It's expecting adults to grow up. Time to get out of the bronze age.
 
No, it's expecting people to be smarter than they have been in the past. It's expecting adults to grow up. Time to get out of the bronze age.

Well you are clearly still in it with your backwards attitude
 
This is the exactly bigotry the OP is warning of

Why should religious beliefs get people special treatment? Why does having certain beliefs exempt you from the rules the rest of society must follow?
 
Last edited:
Why should religious beliefs get people special treatment?

Not special treatment, protection from infringement. Are you seriously so ignorant of history to not understand why the freedom to practice religion is important?

As to the specific law, Skeptic Bob said it best

Skeptic Bob said:
If a particular act is innocuous enough that you would allow a particular special interest group to keep doing it, then it shouldn’t be illegal in the first place.
 
Not special treatment, protection from infringement. Are you seriously so ignorant of history to not understand why the freedom to practice religion is important?

As to the specific law, Skeptic Bob said it best

If a muslim woman can have her drivers license picture wearing a burka, then I can too. Or maybe a ski mask. Depends on the weather. There is a point where a religion and a free society meet. The free society cannot possibly accommodate all religions so at the juncture, which is sometimes kind of fuzzy, free society wins.
 
Not special treatment, protection from infringement. Are you seriously so ignorant of history to not understand why the freedom to practice religion is important?

As to the specific law, Skeptic Bob said it best

It is special treatment. You have the right to practice your religion within the the laws of society, your religion does not exempt you from society's rules. Is a law forbidding the removal of children form education before 16 also anti-semitism because it infringes on the beliefs of ultra-Orthodox Jews?
 
If a muslim woman can have her drivers license picture wearing a burka, then I can too. Or maybe a ski mask. Depends on the weather. There is a point where a religion and a free society meet. The free society cannot possibly accommodate all religions so at the juncture, which is sometimes kind of fuzzy, free society wins.

I can offer a 20-year-old eye witness account. When I was getting my Egyptian driver's license in 1997, the woman behind me had to remove her face covering for her photo. Apparently the rule of law can trump religion, even in a majority Muslim country.
 
I can offer a 20-year-old eye witness account. When I was getting my Egyptian driver's license in 1997, the woman behind me had to remove her face covering for her photo. Apparently the rule of law can trump religion, even in a majority Muslim country.

Wow. 1997 WAS 20 dann years ago...


I'm getting old.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/31/world/europe/netherlands-kosher-halal-animal-rights.html

War on religion? Do you think they will try to regulate small farms as well?

I believe this is the war on religion and that these actions will be coming to America.

I don't think it's a war on religion at all but that also doesn't mean I support it either. Based on the article if kosher is " animals are conscious and healthy" I guess my question is how are 100s of millions of animals slaughtered. Im sure its not a matter of "healthy" but its a matter of "conscious" . .

That really doesn't bother me either way if they are or aren't conscious but if that's the sticking point I certainly don;t see that as a war on religion, it simply a disagreement between animal activists and people who don't really care. So IMO if somebody wants to have a farm that does it to conscious animals that is fine by me but nobody should be forced to do so or forced not to do so unless some other rational argument can be made?

Is there a rational argument to not allow the animals to be conscious?
 
It is special treatment. You have the right to practice your religion within the the laws of society, your religion does not exempt you from society's rules. Is a law forbidding the removal of children form education before 16 also anti-semitism because it infringes on the beliefs of ultra-Orthodox Jews?

It could be.
There are religious conscious exemptions-- the Amish and Quakers are not subject to a draft ( the Amish in Pennsylvania are allowed to remove their children from school at a certain age).
 
The Jews are a small minority that is easily suppressed. The Dutch have done it before. At present the Jews can probably get kosher meat from Germany, though. I wouldn't expect civil resistance. As to the Muslims, that could be more interesting.

As to America, I would say it already is being introduced in related areas like abortion and et alias the baker crushed by gays.

They ended the export of Kosher meat. Probably wouldn't be to hard to end the import.
 
I don't think it's a war on religion at all but that also doesn't mean I support it either. Based on the article if kosher is " animals are conscious and healthy" I guess my question is how are 100s of millions of animals slaughtered. Im sure its not a matter of "healthy" but its a matter of "conscious" . .

That really doesn't bother me either way if they are or aren't conscious but if that's the sticking point I certainly don;t see that as a war on religion, it simply a disagreement between animal activists and people who don't really care. So IMO if somebody wants to have a farm that does it to conscious animals that is fine by me but nobody should be forced to do so or forced not to do so unless some other rational argument can be made?

Is there a rational argument to not allow the animals to be conscious?


Their argument is animal cruelty.
 
Perhaps telling Muslim men that they're not allowed to beat their wives despite what God tells them in verse 4:32 of the Qur'an is also a war on religion.
 
War on religion would be to pass laws that intend to specifically place a tougher standard on religious people than others. Holding them to the exact same standard as everyone else is not war on religion. It is just refusing to give them special treatment.

They are changing the standard to what they want. Who is to say whose standard is correct?
 
Back
Top Bottom