New Slaughtering Rules Pit Dutch Religious Freedoms Against Animal Rights

[Peter King]

If you cannot slaughter by kosher rules? Hoq can the sources be Dutch?

As to the amount of anti semitism yoy seem to have a more optimistic view than some of the more serious sources in the internet as a short three word Google in either French, German or English. They go back some way. Here is a link to a Jewish site, but Huffington, Le Monde or Die Welt are also less than happy Anti-Semitism and Hypocrisy in Dutch Society - Manfred Gerstenfeld .

As to the Muslims, Geert Wilders does okay on them. Of course in official measures like forbidding headdress Holland lags its neighbors, which is not surprising given continental European sentiment. After all, the members of the EU (actually Schengen group) agreed to pay North African strongmen to capture refugees to prevent them from crossing the Mediterranean, which was obviously going to run more or less as it did whith horrendous living conditiins and Blacks auctioned off as slaves.

An article of 14 years ago? That is the big claim?

This is the latest CIDI report on anti-semitism in the Netherlands

https://www.cidi.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/English-summary-CIDI-Monitor-2016.pdf

Don't get me wrong, every instance is too many, but 3 instances of violence and assault due to anti-semitism in the Netherlands in 2016 (17 million people, one full year) and again, each one of those instances is one too many.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Well, the idea is that ritually killing animals is worse than regular slaughter practices.

But, in reality, it's not worse. A cow doesn't care about a ritual or a prayer or a pagan spell -- whatever -- it does not change the fact that the animal's life is ending. I discourage all killing and eating of animals, unless one must do so in order to survive.

That said, there are lot more horrific ways of slaughtering animals than by kosher methods.

 

[jmotivator]

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.

LOL. Wut.

Outlawing a religious practice is a attack on that religion.

By your stupid argument you could also argue that outlawing abortion isn't an unequal impact on women since it applies the same rules to men as it does to women. :lamo

 

[jmotivator]

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.

YOu can't be serious, can you? Do you even read what you write? :roll: Banning halal and kosher butchering practice specifically targets religions with halal and kosher requirements for meat preparation.

 

[joG]

An article of 14 years ago? That is the big claim?

This is the latest CIDI report on anti-semitism in the Netherlands

https://www.cidi.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/English-summary-CIDI-Monitor-2016.pdf

Don't get me wrong, every instance is too many, but 3 instances of violence and assault due to anti-semitism in the Netherlands in 2016 (17 million people, one full year) and again, each one of those instances is one too many.

You are right. I am glad you noticed. I chose an older article, as it shows that the problem is not totally new. It is from a time before the recent Schengen blow out, you see.and regarding a lower number of hits? That is, what one would expect. Rates fluctuate. That is, what taking an older article showed.
As to the 3 incedents, I doubt the number, as it does not correspond with the numbers I had seen. They were all higher. But I will check later in the day.

 

[MrWonka]

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

If your religion requires you to cause completely unnecessary pain and suffering to innocent beings, human or otherwise then sorry, but you don't have that right. Do you need to be asking yourself what is wrong with your ****ty god that he would require you to do such a terrible thing?

What's really funny about this to me though is that kosher concepts originated as a result of the fear of meat contamination. Today, of course, we can use science to figure out the best and most healthy ways to slaughter an animal and bring meat to market we don't need religion.

 

[MrWonka]

Outlawing a religious practice is a attack on that religion.

Only if it's an attack on that religion specifically, and not done for a generally sensible reason. The Bible tells us that if a woman has sex before marriage we're supposed to throw rocks at her until she's dead. Obviously we've outlawed that practice as it's ****ing insane, and evil. It's not an attack on Judeo-Christian religions, it's an enforcement of basic human decency. If your religion is ordering you to cause unnecessary harm to innocent people that have done nothing to hurt you then it's your religions problem.

 

[jmotivator]

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.

Kosher and Halal slaughter is a clean and safe method of butchery that isn't as subject to contamination as mass produced modern meat packing. Are you opposed to it because you think animals are people, or something?

 

[jmotivator]

Only if it's an attack on that religion specifically, and not done for a generally sensible reason.

LOL. "Generally sensible reasons". It is amazing how easily you water down freedoms to meet your own personal whims.

The Bible tells us that if a woman has sex before marriage we're supposed to throw rocks at her until she's dead. Obviously we've outlawed that practice as it's ****ing insane, and evil.

Actually, no The Bible doesn't. Jesus is very specific on that. Try not to pretend you know about something that you clearly don't. You fall in to the same ignorant trap that so many others do trying to judge the Bible in the absence of the New Testament.

It's not an attack on Judeo-Christian religions, it's an enforcement of basic human decency.

As defined by you. You realize you are acting no differently than a religious zealot trying to impose their religion on you, right?

If your religion is ordering you to cause unnecessary harm to innocent people that have done nothing to hurt you then it's your religions problem.

"People"? WTF do you think Kosher and Halal are? Are you trying to argue that Halal and Kosher butchery cause harm to animal rights activists?

 

[stevecanuck]

Women are equivalent to animals in your opinion?

No, why do you ask? We are speaking of laws that prohibit religious practices, and I added wife-beating to the original topic of animal slaughter. Was that too nuanced for you? Sorry.

 

[stevecanuck]

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

Seriously? Do you REALLY not understand the concept of law making??????

 

[Grand Mal]

There is a demonstrable negative correlation between IQ/education and religious belief.

Really. And that means you're smarter than religious people. If I listed some of the most intelligent people in history, people who believe in God, you'd be smarter than them all, so for sure you're smarter than every religious person here.
That about right?

 

[cuban smokes]

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.

so, what's wrong if some Muslims & some Jews wanna see their animals suffer, in the name of religion, of course? No problem here. Why don't we do that with humans too?

 

[Carjosse]

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).

This is the kind of thing I am talking about, why should having certain religious beliefs allow them to harm their child? Should we allow Muslims to stone their wives too?

It is not anti-semitism to protect all children from horrible parents. Just because a law more heavily impacts a certain group does not mean it is anti-Muslim or anti-semitic.

 

[Peter King]

You are right. I am glad you noticed. I chose an older article, as it shows that the problem is not totally new. It is from a time before the recent Schengen blow out, you see.and regarding a lower number of hits? That is, what one would expect. Rates fluctuate. That is, what taking an older article showed.
As to the 3 incedents, I doubt the number, as it does not correspond with the numbers I had seen. They were all higher. But I will check later in the day.

Well, it is the information/date provided by the Center Information and Documentation Israel (CIDI). Now the real numbers can be a bit higher because some people do not report but not to that level that it is way way higher than the report from CIDI infers.

 

[Cephus]

Kosher and Halal slaughter is a clean and safe method of butchery that isn't as subject to contamination as mass produced modern meat packing. Are you opposed to it because you think animals are people, or something?

My statement was in relation to religion period, not any specific practices.

 

[Cephus]

Really. And that means you're smarter than religious people. If I listed some of the most intelligent people in history, people who believe in God, you'd be smarter than them all, so for sure you're smarter than every religious person here.
That about right?

Unfortunately, it's clear that you had no idea what the words I typed meant. Maybe that says something.

 

[cuban smokes]

LOL. "Generally sensible reasons". It is amazing how easily you water down freedoms to meet your own personal whims.



Actually, no The Bible doesn't. Jesus is very specific on that. Try not to pretend you know about something that you clearly don't. You fall in to the same ignorant trap that so many others do trying to judge the Bible in the absence of the New Testament.



As defined by you. You realize you are acting no differently than a religious zealot trying to impose their religion on you, right?



"People"? WTF do you think Kosher and Halal are? Are you trying to argue that Halal and Kosher butchery cause harm to animal rights activists?

I have heard it from nearly every Protestant denomination & from the Catholic faith that the Old & New Testaments are inseparable so, everyone just pick & choose which 'laws' to uphold & which 'laws' to deny
Besides the point, if the god of The Bible is perfect as claimed then why would there be a need for a New Testament? The Old should contain perfection & it says to stone unmarried, non virgins to death.

 

[Grand Mal]

Unfortunately, it's clear that you had no idea what the words I typed meant. Maybe that says something.

Oh? Did I misunderstand this..."Adults having imaginary friends are idiots."?
Or this..."There is a demonstrable negative correlation between IQ/education and religious belief."?
Both seem pretty unambiguous. Tell me where I misunderstood.

 

[JMaximus]

I'm very suspicious of laws that seem to place "animal welfare" above human rights.

Not that I view all such laws as illegitimate, but I believe their justification ought to be very good, their value to society high, and their reasoning very compelling.

What, exactly, is the secular value to this law?

 

[MrWonka]

LOL. "Generally sensible reasons". It is amazing how easily you water down freedoms to meet your own personal whims.

Your right ends, when they interfere with the rights of others. Whether you like it or not animals do have them. They may not be the same as ours, but they exist, and you can't just flaunt them because you think an invisible magic sky giant said so.

Actually, no The Bible doesn't. Jesus is very specific on that. Try not to pretend you know about something that you clearly don't. You fall in to the same ignorant trap that so many others do trying to judge the Bible in the absence of the New Testament.

Nope, you don't get to ignore the old testemant when it's inconvenient for you. It's a part of your bible whether you like it or not. What do you think god just got things wrong in the old testement, but then Jesus came along to correct it all? If god can be wrong once, he can be wrong again.

As defined by you. You realize you are acting no differently than a religious zealot trying to impose their religion on you, right?

No, as defined by the majority of people on the planet as well as scientific fact. No decent human being wants to see animals put through unnecessary pain and suffering. If there is no scientific justification for the necesity of kosher meat, and kosher practices do in fact inflict unnecessary suffering on an animal, then your rights in this area are void.

"People"? WTF do you think Kosher and Halal are? Are you trying to argue that Halal and Kosher butchery cause harm to animal rights activists?

Animals have rights too.

 

[apdst]

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.

Killing livestock intended for food in a manner consistent with a person's religion doesn't have any effect on me, so let'em get after it.

 

[Cephus]

Oh? Did I misunderstand this..."Adults having imaginary friends are idiots."?
Or this..."There is a demonstrable negative correlation between IQ/education and religious belief."?
Both seem pretty unambiguous. Tell me where I misunderstood.

Now take those words and reason out how you got from what I said to what you responded. There's a serious disconnect there.

 

[Cephus]

Killing livestock intended for food in a manner consistent with a person's religion doesn't have any effect on me, so let'em get after it.

It doesn't bother me either, although anyone having a religion at all is idiotic, hence my response.

 

[apdst]

It doesn't bother me either, although anyone having a religion at all is idiotic, hence my response.

Then you aren't in a position to make demands on what people should do. There's nothing wring with s9meone excercising their natural rights.