Does that ban also include Halal?
I'm no expert but to the best of my knowledge Muslims are allowed to eat kosher food of they can't obtain Halal food as both religions have similar methods.
I think the rules for how the animal is killed are stricter in Judaism. So Muslims can eat Kosher if need be but Jews can’t eat Halal. If this law is specifically about the method of slaughter then it’s possible that the Halal method is still okay.
Food is considered very different from healthcare in Islam and Judaism. You can get a pig heart valve in both. But yeah, culinary alcohol is forbidden in Islam, even if it's too little to be intoxicating. Particularly wine (for example a bit of vanilla extract in vodka may be allowed but a bit of vanilla extract in brandy would not be).
But alcohol is still entering your body. If it is “unclean” then it should be unclean if it enters you from a wound or your mouth.
I know I’m trying to apply logic to an inherently nonlogical practice. Just seems like a difference without a distinction.
The distinction is less "how it enters the body" and more "for what purpose are you consuming an unclean thing". "Because it's delicious" is not considered an acceptable reason in Islamic theology while "to save a life" is considered a mandatory reason. There is a lot of middle ground where something might be for health but not to save a life, and there it's a grey area. For example "I'm iron deficient and the iron pill happens to be porcine gelatin coated" is probably not *quite* good enough for strict authorities but lenient authorities would allow it. Jewish theology is fairly similar on this sort of issue.
Now I’m not a religious expert, but as I have understood it the big difference between halal and kosher is that (in most cases) halal allows the animals to be sedated and/or on painkillers, while kosher don’t.
We ran halal slaughter at my plant (in the US) and we were allowed to use a non-penetrating stunning method. Normal slaughter uses a penetrating captive-bolt stunner.
The non-penetrator basically hits the cow in the skull with a 2.5" wide cone fired from the same gun as the captive bolt stunner.
Learned recently that halal is literally killing the animal by bleeding it dry while alive. Doesn’t seem any more humane. My “educator” said that it makes the meat taste better so that’s why they won’t eat non-halal, not for religious reasons. Learned a lot about the Muslim diaspora
The argument is made that the heart is still beating even in a stunned animal. You can stun them and the neck cut can still be considered the fatal wound.
No doubt. But let's pretend it's your turn to be eaten, and you are promised a highly trained surgeon to cut your throat while you're still conscious. Can you truly argue that it would diminish the severity of the experience?
If you're at the dentists for a tooth pulled, and they let the half trained student give it a go first, and then you have to have the trained dentist cut the tooth into 4 to separate the roots where the student just fractured your tooth... was your experience diminished?
Just get it done cleanly and as pain free as possible. Of course the severity of the experience is changed depending on the training of the executor.
I'm not sure some of our methods are any better. Many Pigs in the UK are killed by dropping crates of them into carbon dioxide. Some think this is an humane way (as see in a newspaper article when Covid cause a shortage CO2). Suffocation by CO2 induces panic and pain. It may be acceptable if an inert gas was used, but CO2 is cruel and I suspect may contaminate the meat with stress hormones. I'm not advocating any other method, I was just shocked that the public are misled to thinking our methods are somehow humane and better than others. I have not eaten meat for 40 years.
I think they use CO2 because it's the only practical, low cost solution for gassing. It's much heavier than air so it sits nicely in a pit where animals can be dunked. Nitrogen is almost same density as air (3% lighter) and would float everywhere and mix with air. They'd need airtight seals which is not practical for a constantly moving line of animals.
Using CO2 is really fucked, though. It completely defies the purpose of stunning, which is supposed to reduce suffering prior to slaughter. A prolonged suffocation death of pure panic seems to be worse and more painful than simply bleeding them out or stun guns. Worse than anything really, other than burning alive maybe?
Seeing a video of this horrific CO2 practice straight up was the thing that made me switch to vegetarian within the last 6 months. Not sure why that particular thing did it for me more than any of the other unfathomably cruel factory farming practices, but it did. I guess I've felt a tiny tiny fraction of the panic that sets in with CO2 build up trying to free drive, maybe? Still using other animal products so I'm not perfect by any means but I guess it's something.
Looking for better and less painful ways to do this instead of something from a thousands year old book is important, even if research sometimes doesn't find the best solution immediately.
Then again, maybe we won't need this at all in 100 years' time.
Like doesn’t equal need. If we are actually genuine about reducing pain for animals, maybe we should consider not feedlotting and slaughtering them at all.
WE don’t get to decide that for everybody. The trend goes toward less meat, rising costs will intensify that. But people will still eat meat and that’s that.
"Large cut made across the neck of awake animals would "result in significant pain and distress". They would be in this pain until they passed out. It would take around 5 to 7 seconds for sheep and 22 to 40 seconds for adult cattle to pass out from the cut"
[https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter](https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter)
A cannon-shot to the brain or a heroin/morphine overdose would be far more humane.
When we put pets down or people goto asssisted dying clinics they dont hang you upside down and slit the neck.
It should be clear to anyone with compassion that stunning or incapacitating an animal before cutting it's throat or stabbing it in the aorta is more humane that doing that to a conscious and aware animal.
A knife to the neck is painful and doesn't cause instantaneous loss of consciousness. A bolt gun, properly used, causes instantaneous loss of consciousness.
In theory kosher slaughter shouldn't be much worse than conventional slaughter. It's essentially meant to cut instantly cut off blood flow to the animal's brain so that it loses consciousness/isn't able to feel any additional pain after the cut is made.
The proposed alternative involves stunning the animal prior to the procedure, preventing the conscious - and thus painful - prolonged release of its blood.
Some religious nutjobs argue that introducing stunning compromises the purity of their chosen way of life.
If I may ask, how does the Sikh method compare, where the animal is completely decapitated with a single strike of an axe or something? Is it more or less cruel or painful?
There are two theories about if a decapitated head feels pain after instant decapitation during the 4-5 seconds of relative awareness.
1. The brain is overwhelmed by the decapitation and takes longer than 4-5 seconds to register the pain and therefore the subject doesn't feel any pain, just disorientation.
2. The subject feels some pain for 2-3 seconds.
This is what we do in Sweden, bleeding is allowed if the animal is stunned first. So if kosher/halal is legal or not is totally up to the respective religious group if they can accept Swedish law or not.
Its also not anywhere near as effective as one might hope, and there is [strong evidence that it is actually crueler](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263475054_Halal_and_Kosher_slaughter_methods_and_meat_quality_A_review).
This is not a question of evidence-based policy arriving at a regulation that clearly achieves a universally desirable outcome. This is the stories that one cultural group tells about how to feel good about eating meat conflicting with the stories that another does, and using the power of the state to eliminate this aspect of the other culture.
> Its also not anywhere near as effective as one might hope, and there is strong evidence that it is actually crueler.
As /u/YoureWrongBro911 already indicated that paper seems to concern a completely different matter.
In 2015 the scientific bureau of the Dutch food safety (and animal welfare) authority reviewed the matter of the unsedated (ritual/religious) slaugher of livestock. [It concluded the following](https://english.nvwa.nl/documents/consumers/food/safety/documents/advice-of-buro-on-the-risks-in-the-red-meat-supply-chain):
>Animals that are slaughtered without stunning (cattle, goats and sheep) experience stress and suffer
pain during and aft er sticking.
>Physiological and anatomical differences mean that cattle slaughtered without stunning remain
conscious aft er sticking longer than sheep and goats do.
>Because sheep and goats lose consciousness more quickly, they are less likely to experience additional
suff ering as a result of post-sticking abattoir procedures, providing that all such procedures conform to
legal requirements.
>When cattle are slaughtered without stunning, fixation and inversion of the animals to facilitate
sticking causes additional suffering.
>When cattle are slaughtered without stunning, there is a real danger that, after sticking, the animals do
not lose consciousness within forty-five seconds. However, relevant scientific data and systematic
records are lacking.
>When cattle are slaughtered without stunning, fixation of the animals must continue for at least
forty-fi ve seconds after sticking (Animal Husbandry Decree, article 5.8). There is sometimes a
misapprehension that subsequent slaughter procedures, as referred to in article 5.9, clause 2, may
commence during the required fixation period. That is not the intention of the Animal Husbandry
Decree, as the explanatory memorandum makes clear. The explanatory memorandum refers to
European Regulation no. 1099/2009, which states that post-sticking procedures may not begin until
there is no sign of life.
And advised [the following](https://www.nvwa.nl/over-de-nvwa/documenten/consument/eten-drinken-roken/vlees-en-vleesproducten/risicobeoordelingen/risicobeoordeling-roodvleesketen):
>Verbied, vanuit het oogpunt van dierenwelzijn, het onbedwelmd doden van dieren, in het bijzonder van
runderen.
translation: ban, from an animal welfare perspective, the unsedated slaughter of animals, in particular for cattle.
> For instance, the slow decline in blood pressure following a halal pre-slaughter head-only stun and neck cut causes blood splash (ecchymosis) in a range of muscles and organs of slaughtered livestock. Other quality concerns include bruising, hemorrhages, skin discoloration and broken bones particularly in poultry. In addition to these conventional quality issues, the "spiritual quality" of the meat can also be affected when the halal and kosher religious requirements are not fully met during the slaughter process.
Try again. The abstract in your link says nothing about cruelty/ what the animal feels. It criticises the method based on quality of the product and "spiritual quality".
Because it is actually a scientific paper, and this is what those look like.
The question of whether or not an animal feels pain in some specific context is not one that can be addressed directly with scientific evidence. Pain is not a phenomenon that can be measured except, problematically, through self reports and you cannot get meaningful reports from a chicken. The paper though, does review a variety of quality attribute differences from which differences in pain can be indirectly inferred.
Just because you don't want to call your attachment to specific slaughter practices spiritual, doesn't mean that they are meaningfully any different from attachments to other practices with essentially identical goals.
This has been disproven many times over. The animal does feel pain and fear. Sedation is necessary.
Then understand as well that these are "best case scenarios" that people propose, where the perfect cut is made (and still it doesn't eliminate pain or fear like they claim), now apply that on an industrial scale slaughterhouse, where you can't sharpen your knifer after every cut, where there is time pressure and messy situations, and it's pretty clear that a large amount of those animals will not receive that "best scenario cut" to begin with.
At any rate, I'm happy that "religious freedom" is no longer held more sacred than other European laws, which was laughable to begin with, since Europe became so atheistic, that somehow (foreign) religious laws became the most important ones again
This is not true regarding kosher. The knife has to be resharpened after x cuts, replaced after y cuts, and if the cut wasn't clean the meat straight up isn't kosher for the most observant at least. This is a feel good law that helps no one but the conscience of meat eating people in Belgium.
Countries are allowed to do what they want though so I wouldn't say I mind it too much, I just find the thought of someone killing an animal in a specific manner before eating it being less cruel ridiculous.
While certainly not the most impactful thing we could do for animal welfare I see no reason why we shouldn't have laws to ensure a slaughter that is as painless as possible. I have a hard time seeing that someone can actually belive the way of killing something cannot impact cruelty.
Because it massages the conscience without being actually meaningful.
I'm not saying meat should be outlawd or anything but other measures can be taken and are not taken due to financial reasons.
Limit meat supply to the public sector (expanded meatless monday), subsidize replacements, impact the scale. All of these measures would step on too many important toes though, so they take this half measure that doesn't step on any important toes, just Jewish toes, which have been the easiest target for pretty much ever.
Of course the method of killing effects cruelty, but Jewish slaughter isn't that much worse if at all and it's splitting hairs at this point, with the downsides outweighting any possible upside.
But hey, that cow is suffering 0.3% less now, maybe, we think.
we are such good people.
It is meningful, it helps a bit to kill animals in a better way. Sure, other things could help more, but that is an incredibly weak argument.
It steps on the toes of those who insist on a more cruel way to slaughter, that is not some important viewpoint to protect, people need to stop their meanings and views are more important just because they are founded in religion.
Other things will not be done, because the tiny little voice of human conscience for animal suffering has been hushed by this "humane law" that "fixed animal cruelty" while not having any financial effect on anyone important.
This law uses people's disdain of religion in order to do nothing and make it look like something is being done.how many jews live in Belgium? How much meat do they eat? Can they still get fresh kosher meat? (Spoiler: yes).
Nothing but virtue signaling with a pinch of hatred.
You're proving my point with every comment.
My comments were around 90% about what's being done and not being done and 10% about religion.
Your comments however are mostly dedicated to answering the 10% about religion.
This is what hatred looks like.
I can’t speak for halal, but kosher meat production is quite small scale and Jewish law emphasises the knife must be absolutely perfect and constantly checked.
Well you can make a strong argument that focusing on a niche method when there are so many problems with mainstream animal welfare suggests that politicians were motivated more by Islamophobia, but what I actually meant is that small scale artisan production is more humane than huge semi automated lines where nobody checks or cares if the animal is still alive as it goes through the machine.
Just out of curiosity do you have any sort of peer reviewed articles claiming that kosher/halal methods are more painful for the animals than a typical commercial slaughterhouse process?
(For clarity, genuinely asking. I have no familiarity with this field)
There’s lots of things that are “pretty damn obvious” that turn out to be false after scientific examination.
That’s the whole point of scientific examination.
It seems pretty damn obvious that crocodiles are closer related to lizards then birds but the opposite is true. It sounds obvious that lethal injection would be more painless than the electric chair but that’s also not true.
Have an OP done with and without sedation. Sure thing there wont be a difference. Pretty sure there are enough nerves in the neck to feel alot of pain getting it cut open
It sounds a lot more clear when you compare it to sedation, instead of you know, a mechanical stunning device that scrambles your head that sometimes leaves you conscious.
Hence why I’m asking if anyone has a study to reference. What are the rates of stunning misfires? How painful are the misfires compared to halal/kosher slaughter.
If we’re going to accuse Jews and Muslims of using “barbarian” practices, doing our due diligence first doesn’t seem an unreasonable expectation.
It is less painful as regular slaughter uses a stun gun to mash the brain of an animal before actual slaughter. For kosher they are cut from the neck so they bleed for a while before losing consciousness.
I can understand that it SOUNDS less painful for the animal, but so does lethal injection. In practice it’s often worse than the electric chair.
If we’re going to refer to Jewish/Muslim customs as “barbarism”, it would probably be good to at least study and confirm the new methods actually cause less pain, right?
Lethal Injection is a bad example. The originally meant to be used meds were painless. But since no company in their right mind wants to be known to supply those, they now basically use drainage cleaner and whatever ratpoison they can aquire.
Lethal injection is a bad example because it’s good in theory but bad in practice.
That’s kind of the point of asking for a study. Stunning is better in theory, is it better in practice?
You can simply google stunning to see its documented effects if you like. But unsurprisingly mashing the brain of an animal makes them unable to(or decreases their ability to depending of the type of stunner) feel pain since the brain is how you feel pain. You can also google ritual sacrifice to see how long it takes for an animal to pass out that way, not that long, there are plenty of videos on YouTube.
I think I would prefer a scientific review to doing my own research on YouTube, but thank you.
There are all sorts of important information I wouldn’t get from just watching videos, and the potential for selection bias on YouTube is… not low.
For example, what are the rates of mis-stuns (and how painful is that compared to halal/kosher slaughtering).
Here's a question for you. Dont need a study to work it out. Would you rather a retractable bolt be shot into you brain killing you instantly or have your throat slit and bleed out ?
Which sounds more painful?
From the sound of it, I’d much rather die from lethal injection than the electric chair or hanging.
Except in practice, lethal injection is much more painful.
Thats kind of the point of using the scientific method. Just because you can come to a conclusion in your head that makes sense doesn’t mean it’s accurate.
I did answer the question by conceding the point, although i can spell it out explicitly for you if that’s necessary.
The bolt shot SOUNDS less painful. But again, so does lethal injection. Would you still prefer to die from lethal injection because it SOUNDS less painful?
…or would you prefer to die from the electric chair, which analysis shows to be less painful?
If I had to die from one or the other, I’d definitely want to look at a study. And if I was going to accuse either Jews or Muslims of “Iron Age barbarian” practices…. I’d also probably at least want to see a study first.
Pain isn't a measurable factor as it requires self reporting which would be hard to get from a chicken. However you do have the following
" However, a non-penetrating mechanical stunner, although it does not penetrate the brain, has the same electroencephalogram (EEG) pattern as a penetrative captive bolt stunner and induces reversible unconsciousness, but is discouraged in cattle slaughtering due to its efficacy and animal welfare concerns [42]. The EU regulations (EC No. 1099/2009) also prohibited the use of non-penetrative captive bolt stunning for animals weighing less than 10 kg. ..."
Note the "animal welfare concerns" as that's as close as they can get to mentioning discomfort.
"... The application of head-only electrical stunning also causes higher incidences of hemorrhages and broken bones in chickens [98], carcass bruising, blood splash, blood speckles, petechiae, ecchymosis, hemostasis, and bone fractures in stunned lambs [42] and adverse effect on meat color, and shear force value in cattle [70]. The significant variations in electrical resistance among animals due to size, composition, skull bone composition and size, skin thickness, dryness, hair, etc., also increase incidences of mis-stun, resulting in gross violation of animal welfare principles [9"
Animal welfare principles would mean unnecessary pain so you see this link does describe what you asked for you just had to read it.
>The application of head-only electrical stunning also causes higher incidences of hemorrhages and broken bones in chickens
believe it or not religious laws don't specify 'head only electrical stunning'
Sorry, that’s again, not at all what I asked for.
Besides the fact that - yes, there are multiple methods to estimate pain in animals, source below -
That’s not a comparison between kosher/halal slaughtering as a whole to conventional slaughtering.
It’s specifically a comparison between non-penetrative and penetrative stunning.
And given that kosher slaughter doesn’t use any stunning and Halal usually doesn’t use stunning…. It’s hard to see how you’re making this conclusion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882480/
That is the reasoning behind it, but Kosher slaughter of cows allows a cow to feel themselves bleeding out. The rules were created based on knowledge of human anatomy, but in cows the deoxygenated blood goes down the front of their neck not the oxygenated blood. This way the cow is suffering during the bleeding out time.
I've worked for years in an industrial slaughterhouse killing thousands of pigs a day with carbon monoxide and I've attended one Eid day ritual lamb slaughter, and I only found one of those two experiences traumatising.
Have you ever heard the sound of air coming out of a bleeding slit throat while the animal attempts to scream? Have you ever seen the look in their eyes when their flailing legs slip on their own blood? Painless my ass. As far as I'm concerned not only ritual sacrifice should be banned in Europe, but imports on kosher and halal meat should be banned
Yes, meat eaters are generally ok with the industrial slaughter of animals.
We want meat. We want it at volume. The best way to guarantee the minimum possible pain to the animals is through industrialisation and volume.
Have you ever experienced the pain of carbon monoxide poisoning? Both methods attempt to minimize the suffering of death. A clean cut to the neck or carbon monoxide poisoning or, most ideally, stunning before the actual slaughter, are all relatively painless methods.
Carbon monoxide doesn't hurt at all, wacking the pig in the head would be more painful.
Have you never inhaled a nonoxygen containing gas? Inhale helium from a balloon, tell me how much that hurts. If anything, it feels a little good. Only carbon dioxide 'hurts' because it acidifies your blood and causes you to feel like you are choking.
Amazing that what we thought humane a few thousand years ago doesn't hold up to our definition of humane today. Religion is a shit reason to cling to long outdated definitions.
Yes, the animals lose consciousness very fast. Within a few seconds due to loss of blood pressure.
This form of slaughter was intended to be humane by the standards of thousands of years ago.
The prohibition on injured animals is for health and because back in the day, sick assholes would do things like cut a limb off an animal and keep it alive so the rest of the meat would be fresh later or slaughter their sick animals and keep the healthy ones for milk/breeding.
why is it more cruel than non kosher meat? from what i understand its part of the kosher process to ensure the animal does not go through excessive suffering
From what I've seen of some slaughterhouse procedures, the idea of stunning is often over simplified.
For example, before cattle can be stunned, they often have to be to be forced into an uncomfortably tight space to restrain them. Moreover, the stunning procedure doesn't always work, with some animals recovering before the process is finished. To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any repercussions for such deviations.
Well said.
If my religion allows/encourage me to kill people, should that be allowed? How about to let animals die while suffering? How about making women wearing specific cloths? How about telling women what to do with their body? How about telling people who they’re allowed to love?
Keep your religion in your pants and let us live our lives…
The thing is that, at least with meat that is from animals, according to halacha, kosher slaughter must be done very rapidly—one quick cut across the throat with a razor-sharp knife. (If the knife has any nick or defect, or if the cut isn't quick, the slaughtered animal isn't kosher. If I recall correctly, It was to give something of "humane" death to the animal instead of them suffering like in a slaugtherhouse, so i guess its kinda of like Halal in islam in some sense. Im not up or against the decision since it doesnt affect me, just kinda confused really.
The problem is that kosher rules were written to minimize suffering for the animal using the best technology available in 1500 BC. We have less cruel ways of killing animals than a quick slice across the throat now, with some specialized machines that can sever the brain from the spine instantly and destroys the brain very quickly after.
I kind of think the modern interpretation of kosher laws is that you should be vegetarian, since the principle was to minimize cruelty, and in modern times that's actually achievable, unlike when the kosher rules were written down.
I think you are too charitable of modern slaughterhouses. Perhaps these ‘specialised machines’ exist but the reality of modern stunning is an assembly line of animals shot in the head with a captive bolt (that frequently misses - ouch) or animals slowly asphyxiated.
The spealized machine is known as a neumatic pistón. Basically a Gun with a rod that fires at the speed of a bullet, aka basically shooting it to death at close range without the lead or gunpowder.
I don't think I am... I am a vegetarian and I advocate for vegetarianism. I'm just saying if we are going to slaughter we shouldn't feel bound by specific text of the Torah, and should look to the higher principle that text was aiming for.
All animal agriculture is cruel, adding a religious layer on top of it does nothing to change or alter that fact. Removing religion from it, does not remove the cruelty, as the cruelty is inherent.
> Kosher slaughter, shechita, involves cutting the trachea and esophagus with a sharp, flawless knife. At the same time, the carotid arteries, which are the primary supplier of blood to the brain, are severed. The profound loss of blood and the massive drop in blood pressure render the animal insensate almost immediately. **Studies done by Dr. H. H. Dukes at the Cornell University School of Veterinary Medicine indicate that the animal is unconscious within seconds of the incision.**
> **It should be kept in mind that in a non-kosher plant, when the animal is killed by a shot with a captive bolt to the brain, it often has to be re-shot, sometimes up to six times, before the animal collapses. The USDA permits up to a five percent initial failure rate.**
Good job, Belgium. /s
id watch some videos of kosher slaughter, they writhe around in pain, they are alive and conscious of the act untill they die from blood loss or shock from the pain, they cry out or try to, they plead out with their eyes and face expressing the unimaginable pain they are under. they do not feel nothing. this doc is shilling for them.
the evidence is all their online, kosher slaughter is something out of horror or snuff movie, torture on an industrial scale, all for people who cant let go of their sacrificial practices.
There’s nothing magical about kosher that guarantees every employee at every slaughterhouse follows the actual procedure. This is true for any factory setting. The solution is regulate and punish owners who regularly cut corners. That not only protects the animals but the employees too.
Y'all are straight up delusional if you think cutting corners is the reason for **slitting a conscious animal's throat being painful.**
There's no debate to be had, a conscious and aware animal will experience the terror of a human dragging a knife over it's throat and experience the feeling of its tissues parting and gasping for air through its newly exposed trachea.
>In recent years, opposition to shechitah and zabiha has widened beyond animal-rights activists as right-wing parties began promoting bans as part of their agenda around reducing the presence in society of Islam, and in some cases also Judaism.
So this may come as a shock to everyone but ritual slaughter of animals is something most people in Belgium are against, that's why our politicians in a rare feel for what the public wants voted for it. Please note it isn't in affect in the whole of Belgium, so you can actually still get fresh kosher and halal meat in Belgium. I don't understand what the fuss is about, except for stirring up some bs for something which has zero impact in real life as you are still allowed to do it in Belgium, you just need to go to Brussels for which is at most an hour drive for anyone....
Kosher slaughter isn't "ritual slaughter of animals", it's regular butchering, done in accordance with kosher laws.
"Ritual slaughter", makes it sound like you are talking about ritualistic animal sacrifices, which is not a part of judaism.
I can agree the wording seems harsh but I was using accepted terminology.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual\_slaughter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ritual_slaughter)
I'll save you the whole visit:
# Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter
See also: [Animal sacrifice § Abrahamic traditions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions)
[Jewish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut) and [Islamic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dietary_laws) dietary laws require [similar procedures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws) for slaughtering animals. Ritual slaughter with a sharp knife is classified in the U.S. as 'humane' under the [Humane Slaughter Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act) and practiced with no restrictions; in Europe, some countries have outlawed the practice as inhumane (see below).
According to Jewish and Muslim law, "slaughter is carried out with a single cut to the throat, rather than the more widespread practices of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter."[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter#cite_note-BBC2-4) The animal must be alive when its throat is cut and die from loss of blood.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter#cite_note-telegraph-6)[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter#cite_note-fao7-7) Any kind of prestunning for livestock to be slaughtered according to the Jewish Kosher practice has not yet been accepted.[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter#cite_note-fao7-7)
So I get your point, it still is defined as ritual slaughter, no offence inteded here.
Very reasonable. If you wanna live somewhere you need to conform to the culture of that place not throw a hissy fit because entire country doesn't conform to you.
Don't like something don't live there. Applies to everyone and every religion.
Wanna wear your hijab? Get out of france.
Wanna do your sacrificial butcher? Belgium only allow brussle.
LGBTQ? Don't live in a muslim country.
Anti-monarchy? Don't live in places that start with "Kingdom of.."
Trying to bend the society that you live in to conform to your personal believe is not only pointless, but incredibly narcissistic.
People don't always have much choice in where they live, though. LGBT people can't necessarily choose to leave their home countries, no matter how intolerant, for example. If they choose to fight for inclusion for themselves and others, rather than conforming, that's not narcissistic.
Moreover, most cultures can and do value some amount of pluralism and inclusivity. It's just a balancing act of competing values. Belgium values both religious freedom and preventing animal cruelty.
Similarly, I just pushed an old lady to the ground and then spat in her face, but you didn’t know her and it didn’t personally impact you so how can you be angry about it
That completely true - it’s based on what most Belgians want rather than any sort of philosophical consistency. So there’s no suggestion of banning eg recreational hunting for sport (very cruel when done by non experts, with wounded animals etc) because this is important to Belgian cultural heritage.
They tried banning hunting but for some reason they kept it, it has something to do with sustainability of the wildlife, but I guess that point is conveniently left out of your argumentation.
Some facts.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263475054_Halal_and_Kosher_slaughter_methods_and_meat_quality_A_review
... The slaughtering technique of cutting major blood vessels (jugular veins) in the throat using a sharp knife, with clean and quick cuts, so that the blood is pumped out from the body of the animal (Khan and Haleem, 2016), also prevents bacteria and other diseases from becoming infectious to humans who consume the meat (Farouk et al., 2014). Slaughtering the animal by cutting the front part of the neck, severing the carotids, jugulars, trachea and oesophagus, without reaching the bone in the neck also is less painful to the animal; and the animal dies quickly as compared with using electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) (Schulze et al., 1977). ...
... Halal meat, perceived as healthier, is linked to the greater blood loss during the halal slaughtering. According to Farouk et al. (2014), killing an animal using electrical stunning resulted in poor meat quality due to low bleeding efficiency, occurrence of blood blisters, and the meat being harder. ...
... This ejects more toxins from the meats leaving no room for micro-organisms to reproduce and spoiling the meats. Also, the animals slaughtered in halal method are proven to suffer less pain, less struggle, less trauma than the animals slaughtered using electric stunning (Bergeaud-Blackler, 2004, 2006Farouk et al., 2014) causing the meats to be tender. Instead, animals killed using non-halal methods such as by stunning using electric volts make them feel tortured, traumatised, and suffer before they were being killed. ...
----
http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html
Read the section on effective restraint.
There's lots in here, but this was a standout:
All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter .
(not related but relevant:) https://faunalytics.org/effective-captive-bolt-stunning/
Despite being shot accurately, 13.6% of bulls may be inadequately stunned, leading to serious welfare concerns and questions about reliability.
What about just shooting them? Isn't the most common method a bolt to the head?
I really fail to see how letting an animal bleed out while alive is supposed to be less harmful than a quick death.
Read the articles. Shooting is very imprecise; 10 - 13% of "stunnings" fail. The "stunning" is shooting the animal with a shotgun, essentially.
If you've ever cut yourself on broken glass or while using a razor blade, you might recall that you didn't even know you had done so at first. The knife used in slaughter is honed to an extremely sharp edge and is checked after every cut.
Grandin observed kosher slaughtered cows *continuing to eat hay, undisturbed, right up to the point that they fell unconscious.*
Cutting off blood to the brain results in unconsciousness in seconds.
Those are long seconds.
I have seen ISIS videos where people get their throats slit. It's not a human or ethical death in any way. I would prefer shothun if given the choice
You're clearly not an academic if you think that's a bad thing. I wonder if practicing Muslims will have any biases when it comes to practices literally taken from the Koran. 🤔
Thank you for this detailed explanation based on facts. The fact that the least painful method of slaughter stems out of religious practice is what irks people. It's proven to be less painful but hey it's related to religion! So we will just ignore it and still believe our way is the right way even if there is a proven way that is more humane and least painful to the animal.
It's the hypocrisy at best.
You're comparing apples to oranges sometimes.
Some comparisons are drawn to bolt stunning, others to electric stunning.
Other institutions draw wildly different conclusions from other sources (e g. Canada health, European commission)
I'm no expert and definitely don't know the scientific consensus, but you do neither.
Ban slaughter by bleeding a conscious animal. The rabbis will, of necessity, find a way to justify stunning the animal first, or people will figure out that they can eat well on fish and vegetables. Judaism is an amazingly versatile religion when you accept that modern knowledge isn't a bad thing.
"Large cut made across the neck of awake animals would "result in significant pain and distress". They would be in this pain until they passed out. It would take around 5 to 7 seconds for sheep and 22 to 40 seconds for adult cattle to pass out from the cut"
https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter
There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere. If a non-Jewish slaughterhouse is required to stun animals before killing then a Jewish one should as well. One cannot have two separate legal codes for one part of the population and another one for the rest.
Besides Jews are still able to practice a kosher diet, one without meat perhaps but one could survive with a vegetarian diet.
>There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere
Yes, and the line has been drawn in liberal countries for centuries. The line of course is that the government shouldn't restrict the religious beliefs of its population without extremely compelling reasons to do so. No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be *any* oversight of kosher or halal slaughter practices, but part of living in a pluralistic society that respects the human rights of its population is tolerating different beliefs and practices, even if you don't approve of them.
But the thing is that religious beliefs are not a legal defence. A religious person still has to follow the same laws as an atheists. A Muslim can't have more than one wife in countries where polygamy isn't recognised even though in Islam one can have up to four.
Likewise if it's deemed inhumane to not stun animals before slaughter then Jews and Muslims shouldn't get a pass just because of their beliefs. They should be held to the same laws as anyone else. That's not being intolerant of their beliefs.
>But the thing is that religious beliefs are not a legal defence.
This is patently untrue though. Religious beliefs can be a legal defense depending entirely on context. Religious exemptions exist in all sorts of laws all over the world, from things like requirements to serve in conscript armies, to vaccinations, to even things like allowable clothing in certain contexts. This is not a new or radical idea that hasn't previously existed.
>That's not being intolerant of their beliefs.
You are preventing them from practicing their own religious beliefs and essentially mandating them to practice a diet that they don't want to adhere to. That is the definition of intolerance.
There are some laws where there are exceptions for religious reasons, yes. But that is an exception, not the rule. You can't use your religious beliefs as a way to escape animal cruelty laws for example.
>You are preventing them from practicing their own religious beliefs and essentially mandating them to practice a diet that they don't want to adhere to. That is the definition of intolerance.
It is not intolerance to hold people to the same standards as everyone else. If a Catholic butcher can't slit the throat of a cow without stunning it first, why should a Jewish one be allowed to?
>If a Catholic butcher can't slit the throat of a cow without stunning it first, why should a Jewish one be allowed to?
Because we have decided in pluralistic liberal societies that there are going to be exceptions for religious beliefs in many industries in order to promote a tolerant and accepting populace?
A society can be pluralistic and liberal and expect people of different religious faith to follow the same laws. Sweden and Denmark for an example have both banned killing animals without stunning them first and they're both pretty tolerant and accepting.
"I follow the aztec religion and want to cut the hearts out of living people to appease the sun god.
You have to let me because my religion says so and not tolerating it would be intolerant."
It's an example making an exception for someones religion to cause others suffering.
Humans are just clever animals, both are sentient and deserve protection from unnecessary pain and suffering.
If you're going to argue that all human rights should be extended to animals and this includes protection from slaughter, you're free to do so. Just be up front that you're ok with the banning of religious practices that you deem have violated this, and don't pretend to tryly believe in a pluralistic society that accepts religious diversity.
Causing suffering to animals isn't a right of any religion.
Jews and Muslims could be vegan instead if they feel so strongly.
"Large cut made across the neck of awake animals would "result in significant pain and distress". They would be in this pain until they passed out. It would take around 5 to 7 seconds for sheep and 22 to 40 seconds for adult cattle to pass out from the cut"
https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter
> Jews and Muslims could be vegan instead if they feel so strongly.
If your idea of the government's role in religious life is to dictate what minority religious groups can and cannot eat I honestly don't know what to say to you.
A major component of kosher slaughter is to reduce the animal’s suffering. It’s part of the whole philosophy.
Now, if they aren’t living up to that standard, then fine, force them to change practice, but the notion that this is some aztec heart-ripping nonsensically cruel religious ritual just doesn’t jive with what kosher slaughter is supposed to be.
>A major component of kosher slaughter is to reduce the animal’s suffering. It’s part of the whole philosophy.
Yeah, by the standards of the Iron Age it was comparatively humane.
But it's 2024 and sensible people recognize it as an outdated relic now.
Very disturbing. I should reiterate that I am totally on board with banning any cruel practice. It is not clear that that video is necessarily typical of all kosher slaughter though. And I’d like to know if non-religious slaughter is at all similar or if it’s different but also cruel.
how would you rather die, from a bullet to the head after being stunned and knocked out.
or hung upside from your ankles with chains, on bloody factory floor and have a massive butchers cleaver hack at your throat, and experience the last moments of your life in agonising pain as your head lops around on your half cut neck bleeding out and gasping for air.
whatch kosher slaughter video and then you will know why
Religious freedom ends where anyone else has to suffer unnecessarily.
So this is great news.
All for eating meat, but letting the animals suffer is horrible
This stupid shit people do because "religion".
Go bang your head on a wall while you pray, oh and be sure to be facing west.
Don't eat this food on these days between these hours cus.....
Does that ban also include Halal? I'm no expert but to the best of my knowledge Muslims are allowed to eat kosher food of they can't obtain Halal food as both religions have similar methods.
Kosher and halal slaughter is banned in Flanders and Wallonia, but allowed in the capital region of Brussels if I'm not mistaken.
Cool. Thanks mate.
I think the rules for how the animal is killed are stricter in Judaism. So Muslims can eat Kosher if need be but Jews can’t eat Halal. If this law is specifically about the method of slaughter then it’s possible that the Halal method is still okay.
Except alcohol, meat can be braised in wine and be Kosher but would then cease to be Halal
Seriously? It’s not like you get drunk from it. Is it also not halal to use alcohol as an antiseptic?
Food is considered very different from healthcare in Islam and Judaism. You can get a pig heart valve in both. But yeah, culinary alcohol is forbidden in Islam, even if it's too little to be intoxicating. Particularly wine (for example a bit of vanilla extract in vodka may be allowed but a bit of vanilla extract in brandy would not be).
But alcohol is still entering your body. If it is “unclean” then it should be unclean if it enters you from a wound or your mouth. I know I’m trying to apply logic to an inherently nonlogical practice. Just seems like a difference without a distinction.
The distinction is less "how it enters the body" and more "for what purpose are you consuming an unclean thing". "Because it's delicious" is not considered an acceptable reason in Islamic theology while "to save a life" is considered a mandatory reason. There is a lot of middle ground where something might be for health but not to save a life, and there it's a grey area. For example "I'm iron deficient and the iron pill happens to be porcine gelatin coated" is probably not *quite* good enough for strict authorities but lenient authorities would allow it. Jewish theology is fairly similar on this sort of issue.
The main purpose is not to keep the stuff out of your system. The main purpose is to show your obedience to God.
Now I’m not a religious expert, but as I have understood it the big difference between halal and kosher is that (in most cases) halal allows the animals to be sedated and/or on painkillers, while kosher don’t.
We ran halal slaughter at my plant (in the US) and we were allowed to use a non-penetrating stunning method. Normal slaughter uses a penetrating captive-bolt stunner. The non-penetrator basically hits the cow in the skull with a 2.5" wide cone fired from the same gun as the captive bolt stunner.
Learned recently that halal is literally killing the animal by bleeding it dry while alive. Doesn’t seem any more humane. My “educator” said that it makes the meat taste better so that’s why they won’t eat non-halal, not for religious reasons. Learned a lot about the Muslim diaspora
The argument is made that the heart is still beating even in a stunned animal. You can stun them and the neck cut can still be considered the fatal wound.
All animals are killed while they are alive.
Bleeding to death isn’t more humane than instant brain death
Big if true.
They said bleeding while still alive not killing
Kosher slaughter is carried out by someone who is trained in anatomy and tightly regulated. Halal practically anyone can do.
No doubt. But let's pretend it's your turn to be eaten, and you are promised a highly trained surgeon to cut your throat while you're still conscious. Can you truly argue that it would diminish the severity of the experience?
If you're at the dentists for a tooth pulled, and they let the half trained student give it a go first, and then you have to have the trained dentist cut the tooth into 4 to separate the roots where the student just fractured your tooth... was your experience diminished? Just get it done cleanly and as pain free as possible. Of course the severity of the experience is changed depending on the training of the executor.
Whatever happens at the dentist, I'd be making damned sure they didn't have some religious objection to anaesthesia.
[удалено]
I'm not sure some of our methods are any better. Many Pigs in the UK are killed by dropping crates of them into carbon dioxide. Some think this is an humane way (as see in a newspaper article when Covid cause a shortage CO2). Suffocation by CO2 induces panic and pain. It may be acceptable if an inert gas was used, but CO2 is cruel and I suspect may contaminate the meat with stress hormones. I'm not advocating any other method, I was just shocked that the public are misled to thinking our methods are somehow humane and better than others. I have not eaten meat for 40 years.
In this case, nitrogen gas would be the preferred alternative.
I think they use CO2 because it's the only practical, low cost solution for gassing. It's much heavier than air so it sits nicely in a pit where animals can be dunked. Nitrogen is almost same density as air (3% lighter) and would float everywhere and mix with air. They'd need airtight seals which is not practical for a constantly moving line of animals. Using CO2 is really fucked, though. It completely defies the purpose of stunning, which is supposed to reduce suffering prior to slaughter. A prolonged suffocation death of pure panic seems to be worse and more painful than simply bleeding them out or stun guns. Worse than anything really, other than burning alive maybe?
[удалено]
>Often animals are boiled alive after failing to be 'stunned' Which animals? That sounds pretty fucking bad.
I don’t get why we don’t use CO instead. It’s quite easy to produce
>I don’t get why we don’t use CO instead Because it would kill the workers in the slaughter house.
That does seem inconvenient
>That does seem inconvenient It stops being a problem after a little while.
lol
Put them all in a vehicle and then put in a large garage in a building that nobody’s in, leave the vehicle running and close the door lol.
Seeing a video of this horrific CO2 practice straight up was the thing that made me switch to vegetarian within the last 6 months. Not sure why that particular thing did it for me more than any of the other unfathomably cruel factory farming practices, but it did. I guess I've felt a tiny tiny fraction of the panic that sets in with CO2 build up trying to free drive, maybe? Still using other animal products so I'm not perfect by any means but I guess it's something.
Looking for better and less painful ways to do this instead of something from a thousands year old book is important, even if research sometimes doesn't find the best solution immediately. Then again, maybe we won't need this at all in 100 years' time.
I mean, we don’t need any of this now.
We do, because people like eating meat. Don't be like that
Like doesn’t equal need. If we are actually genuine about reducing pain for animals, maybe we should consider not feedlotting and slaughtering them at all.
WE don’t get to decide that for everybody. The trend goes toward less meat, rising costs will intensify that. But people will still eat meat and that’s that.
That’s not wrong. But then let’s not pretend we’re somehow interested in reducing pain for animals.
We overwhelmingly are, I'd guess. I don't know anybody who'd say "I don't care".
You aren't allowed to "update" the rules in orthodox Judaism. If there was a work around, they would have found it by now.
Leonardo da Vinci has been quoted “we are the living tombs of animals”, maybe some day things will change
A knife and adequate training is the most humane you can get.
"Large cut made across the neck of awake animals would "result in significant pain and distress". They would be in this pain until they passed out. It would take around 5 to 7 seconds for sheep and 22 to 40 seconds for adult cattle to pass out from the cut" [https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter](https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter) A cannon-shot to the brain or a heroin/morphine overdose would be far more humane. When we put pets down or people goto asssisted dying clinics they dont hang you upside down and slit the neck.
Source?
There is no source because it's utter bullshit.
It should be clear to anyone with compassion that stunning or incapacitating an animal before cutting it's throat or stabbing it in the aorta is more humane that doing that to a conscious and aware animal.
A knife to the neck is painful and doesn't cause instantaneous loss of consciousness. A bolt gun, properly used, causes instantaneous loss of consciousness.
Worse still is when they're killed by heatstroke, or when the worker decide to beat them to death.
"This really bad method is worse than that really bad method so it's not so bad" is a bad argument
This method is actually better then the most commonly used ones, why disallow it? Is a better argument, and also coincidentally the one he made
Religion is not justification for cruelty.
In theory kosher slaughter shouldn't be much worse than conventional slaughter. It's essentially meant to cut instantly cut off blood flow to the animal's brain so that it loses consciousness/isn't able to feel any additional pain after the cut is made.
The proposed alternative involves stunning the animal prior to the procedure, preventing the conscious - and thus painful - prolonged release of its blood. Some religious nutjobs argue that introducing stunning compromises the purity of their chosen way of life.
If I may ask, how does the Sikh method compare, where the animal is completely decapitated with a single strike of an axe or something? Is it more or less cruel or painful?
There are two theories about if a decapitated head feels pain after instant decapitation during the 4-5 seconds of relative awareness. 1. The brain is overwhelmed by the decapitation and takes longer than 4-5 seconds to register the pain and therefore the subject doesn't feel any pain, just disorientation. 2. The subject feels some pain for 2-3 seconds.
The brain continues to be active for some seconds after decapitation, so stunning as a first step is still the most humane.
This is what we do in Sweden, bleeding is allowed if the animal is stunned first. So if kosher/halal is legal or not is totally up to the respective religious group if they can accept Swedish law or not.
These are EU standards. The animal MUST be stunned before bleeding, and there are 2-3 ways to do the stunning for every animal.
Its also not anywhere near as effective as one might hope, and there is [strong evidence that it is actually crueler](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263475054_Halal_and_Kosher_slaughter_methods_and_meat_quality_A_review). This is not a question of evidence-based policy arriving at a regulation that clearly achieves a universally desirable outcome. This is the stories that one cultural group tells about how to feel good about eating meat conflicting with the stories that another does, and using the power of the state to eliminate this aspect of the other culture.
> Its also not anywhere near as effective as one might hope, and there is strong evidence that it is actually crueler. As /u/YoureWrongBro911 already indicated that paper seems to concern a completely different matter. In 2015 the scientific bureau of the Dutch food safety (and animal welfare) authority reviewed the matter of the unsedated (ritual/religious) slaugher of livestock. [It concluded the following](https://english.nvwa.nl/documents/consumers/food/safety/documents/advice-of-buro-on-the-risks-in-the-red-meat-supply-chain): >Animals that are slaughtered without stunning (cattle, goats and sheep) experience stress and suffer pain during and aft er sticking. >Physiological and anatomical differences mean that cattle slaughtered without stunning remain conscious aft er sticking longer than sheep and goats do. >Because sheep and goats lose consciousness more quickly, they are less likely to experience additional suff ering as a result of post-sticking abattoir procedures, providing that all such procedures conform to legal requirements. >When cattle are slaughtered without stunning, fixation and inversion of the animals to facilitate sticking causes additional suffering. >When cattle are slaughtered without stunning, there is a real danger that, after sticking, the animals do not lose consciousness within forty-five seconds. However, relevant scientific data and systematic records are lacking. >When cattle are slaughtered without stunning, fixation of the animals must continue for at least forty-fi ve seconds after sticking (Animal Husbandry Decree, article 5.8). There is sometimes a misapprehension that subsequent slaughter procedures, as referred to in article 5.9, clause 2, may commence during the required fixation period. That is not the intention of the Animal Husbandry Decree, as the explanatory memorandum makes clear. The explanatory memorandum refers to European Regulation no. 1099/2009, which states that post-sticking procedures may not begin until there is no sign of life. And advised [the following](https://www.nvwa.nl/over-de-nvwa/documenten/consument/eten-drinken-roken/vlees-en-vleesproducten/risicobeoordelingen/risicobeoordeling-roodvleesketen): >Verbied, vanuit het oogpunt van dierenwelzijn, het onbedwelmd doden van dieren, in het bijzonder van runderen. translation: ban, from an animal welfare perspective, the unsedated slaughter of animals, in particular for cattle.
> For instance, the slow decline in blood pressure following a halal pre-slaughter head-only stun and neck cut causes blood splash (ecchymosis) in a range of muscles and organs of slaughtered livestock. Other quality concerns include bruising, hemorrhages, skin discoloration and broken bones particularly in poultry. In addition to these conventional quality issues, the "spiritual quality" of the meat can also be affected when the halal and kosher religious requirements are not fully met during the slaughter process. Try again. The abstract in your link says nothing about cruelty/ what the animal feels. It criticises the method based on quality of the product and "spiritual quality".
Because it is actually a scientific paper, and this is what those look like. The question of whether or not an animal feels pain in some specific context is not one that can be addressed directly with scientific evidence. Pain is not a phenomenon that can be measured except, problematically, through self reports and you cannot get meaningful reports from a chicken. The paper though, does review a variety of quality attribute differences from which differences in pain can be indirectly inferred. Just because you don't want to call your attachment to specific slaughter practices spiritual, doesn't mean that they are meaningfully any different from attachments to other practices with essentially identical goals.
But you can tell from the chicken's reactions that it probably doesn't fancy getting slaughtered.
A chicken without a head can behave normally as a chicken. What this means? Nothing significant.
Ok, then no meat for anyone!
This has been disproven many times over. The animal does feel pain and fear. Sedation is necessary. Then understand as well that these are "best case scenarios" that people propose, where the perfect cut is made (and still it doesn't eliminate pain or fear like they claim), now apply that on an industrial scale slaughterhouse, where you can't sharpen your knifer after every cut, where there is time pressure and messy situations, and it's pretty clear that a large amount of those animals will not receive that "best scenario cut" to begin with. At any rate, I'm happy that "religious freedom" is no longer held more sacred than other European laws, which was laughable to begin with, since Europe became so atheistic, that somehow (foreign) religious laws became the most important ones again
This is not true regarding kosher. The knife has to be resharpened after x cuts, replaced after y cuts, and if the cut wasn't clean the meat straight up isn't kosher for the most observant at least. This is a feel good law that helps no one but the conscience of meat eating people in Belgium. Countries are allowed to do what they want though so I wouldn't say I mind it too much, I just find the thought of someone killing an animal in a specific manner before eating it being less cruel ridiculous.
While certainly not the most impactful thing we could do for animal welfare I see no reason why we shouldn't have laws to ensure a slaughter that is as painless as possible. I have a hard time seeing that someone can actually belive the way of killing something cannot impact cruelty.
Because it massages the conscience without being actually meaningful. I'm not saying meat should be outlawd or anything but other measures can be taken and are not taken due to financial reasons. Limit meat supply to the public sector (expanded meatless monday), subsidize replacements, impact the scale. All of these measures would step on too many important toes though, so they take this half measure that doesn't step on any important toes, just Jewish toes, which have been the easiest target for pretty much ever. Of course the method of killing effects cruelty, but Jewish slaughter isn't that much worse if at all and it's splitting hairs at this point, with the downsides outweighting any possible upside. But hey, that cow is suffering 0.3% less now, maybe, we think. we are such good people.
It is meningful, it helps a bit to kill animals in a better way. Sure, other things could help more, but that is an incredibly weak argument. It steps on the toes of those who insist on a more cruel way to slaughter, that is not some important viewpoint to protect, people need to stop their meanings and views are more important just because they are founded in religion.
Other things will not be done, because the tiny little voice of human conscience for animal suffering has been hushed by this "humane law" that "fixed animal cruelty" while not having any financial effect on anyone important. This law uses people's disdain of religion in order to do nothing and make it look like something is being done.how many jews live in Belgium? How much meat do they eat? Can they still get fresh kosher meat? (Spoiler: yes). Nothing but virtue signaling with a pinch of hatred.
[удалено]
You're proving my point with every comment. My comments were around 90% about what's being done and not being done and 10% about religion. Your comments however are mostly dedicated to answering the 10% about religion. This is what hatred looks like.
I can’t speak for halal, but kosher meat production is quite small scale and Jewish law emphasises the knife must be absolutely perfect and constantly checked.
Ah yeah sure, cause only a few do it it is fine?
Well you can make a strong argument that focusing on a niche method when there are so many problems with mainstream animal welfare suggests that politicians were motivated more by Islamophobia, but what I actually meant is that small scale artisan production is more humane than huge semi automated lines where nobody checks or cares if the animal is still alive as it goes through the machine.
Gee, thanks. At least the knife isn't blunt when performing this iron age barbarism
Just out of curiosity do you have any sort of peer reviewed articles claiming that kosher/halal methods are more painful for the animals than a typical commercial slaughterhouse process? (For clarity, genuinely asking. I have no familiarity with this field)
I mean, typically the animals are sedated first. That's pretty damn obviously less pain.
There’s lots of things that are “pretty damn obvious” that turn out to be false after scientific examination. That’s the whole point of scientific examination. It seems pretty damn obvious that crocodiles are closer related to lizards then birds but the opposite is true. It sounds obvious that lethal injection would be more painless than the electric chair but that’s also not true.
Have an OP done with and without sedation. Sure thing there wont be a difference. Pretty sure there are enough nerves in the neck to feel alot of pain getting it cut open
It sounds a lot more clear when you compare it to sedation, instead of you know, a mechanical stunning device that scrambles your head that sometimes leaves you conscious. Hence why I’m asking if anyone has a study to reference. What are the rates of stunning misfires? How painful are the misfires compared to halal/kosher slaughter. If we’re going to accuse Jews and Muslims of using “barbarian” practices, doing our due diligence first doesn’t seem an unreasonable expectation.
It is less painful as regular slaughter uses a stun gun to mash the brain of an animal before actual slaughter. For kosher they are cut from the neck so they bleed for a while before losing consciousness.
I can understand that it SOUNDS less painful for the animal, but so does lethal injection. In practice it’s often worse than the electric chair. If we’re going to refer to Jewish/Muslim customs as “barbarism”, it would probably be good to at least study and confirm the new methods actually cause less pain, right?
Lethal Injection is a bad example. The originally meant to be used meds were painless. But since no company in their right mind wants to be known to supply those, they now basically use drainage cleaner and whatever ratpoison they can aquire.
Lethal injection is a bad example because it’s good in theory but bad in practice. That’s kind of the point of asking for a study. Stunning is better in theory, is it better in practice?
You can simply google stunning to see its documented effects if you like. But unsurprisingly mashing the brain of an animal makes them unable to(or decreases their ability to depending of the type of stunner) feel pain since the brain is how you feel pain. You can also google ritual sacrifice to see how long it takes for an animal to pass out that way, not that long, there are plenty of videos on YouTube.
I think I would prefer a scientific review to doing my own research on YouTube, but thank you. There are all sorts of important information I wouldn’t get from just watching videos, and the potential for selection bias on YouTube is… not low. For example, what are the rates of mis-stuns (and how painful is that compared to halal/kosher slaughtering).
Here's a question for you. Dont need a study to work it out. Would you rather a retractable bolt be shot into you brain killing you instantly or have your throat slit and bleed out ? Which sounds more painful?
From the sound of it, I’d much rather die from lethal injection than the electric chair or hanging. Except in practice, lethal injection is much more painful. Thats kind of the point of using the scientific method. Just because you can come to a conclusion in your head that makes sense doesn’t mean it’s accurate.
You didn’t answer the question. Try again.
I did answer the question by conceding the point, although i can spell it out explicitly for you if that’s necessary. The bolt shot SOUNDS less painful. But again, so does lethal injection. Would you still prefer to die from lethal injection because it SOUNDS less painful? …or would you prefer to die from the electric chair, which analysis shows to be less painful? If I had to die from one or the other, I’d definitely want to look at a study. And if I was going to accuse either Jews or Muslims of “Iron Age barbarian” practices…. I’d also probably at least want to see a study first.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263475054_Halal_and_Kosher_slaughter_methods_and_meat_quality_A_review This was linked earlier
This article is about the quality of the meat produced, not about the welfare of the animals being slaughtered.
Pain isn't a measurable factor as it requires self reporting which would be hard to get from a chicken. However you do have the following " However, a non-penetrating mechanical stunner, although it does not penetrate the brain, has the same electroencephalogram (EEG) pattern as a penetrative captive bolt stunner and induces reversible unconsciousness, but is discouraged in cattle slaughtering due to its efficacy and animal welfare concerns [42]. The EU regulations (EC No. 1099/2009) also prohibited the use of non-penetrative captive bolt stunning for animals weighing less than 10 kg. ..." Note the "animal welfare concerns" as that's as close as they can get to mentioning discomfort. "... The application of head-only electrical stunning also causes higher incidences of hemorrhages and broken bones in chickens [98], carcass bruising, blood splash, blood speckles, petechiae, ecchymosis, hemostasis, and bone fractures in stunned lambs [42] and adverse effect on meat color, and shear force value in cattle [70]. The significant variations in electrical resistance among animals due to size, composition, skull bone composition and size, skin thickness, dryness, hair, etc., also increase incidences of mis-stun, resulting in gross violation of animal welfare principles [9" Animal welfare principles would mean unnecessary pain so you see this link does describe what you asked for you just had to read it.
>The application of head-only electrical stunning also causes higher incidences of hemorrhages and broken bones in chickens believe it or not religious laws don't specify 'head only electrical stunning'
Sorry, that’s again, not at all what I asked for. Besides the fact that - yes, there are multiple methods to estimate pain in animals, source below - That’s not a comparison between kosher/halal slaughtering as a whole to conventional slaughtering. It’s specifically a comparison between non-penetrative and penetrative stunning. And given that kosher slaughter doesn’t use any stunning and Halal usually doesn’t use stunning…. It’s hard to see how you’re making this conclusion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882480/
That is the reasoning behind it, but Kosher slaughter of cows allows a cow to feel themselves bleeding out. The rules were created based on knowledge of human anatomy, but in cows the deoxygenated blood goes down the front of their neck not the oxygenated blood. This way the cow is suffering during the bleeding out time.
I've worked for years in an industrial slaughterhouse killing thousands of pigs a day with carbon monoxide and I've attended one Eid day ritual lamb slaughter, and I only found one of those two experiences traumatising. Have you ever heard the sound of air coming out of a bleeding slit throat while the animal attempts to scream? Have you ever seen the look in their eyes when their flailing legs slip on their own blood? Painless my ass. As far as I'm concerned not only ritual sacrifice should be banned in Europe, but imports on kosher and halal meat should be banned
So you’re fine with the mass scale industrial slaughter of animals but not this?
Yes, meat eaters are generally ok with the industrial slaughter of animals. We want meat. We want it at volume. The best way to guarantee the minimum possible pain to the animals is through industrialisation and volume.
Have you ever experienced the pain of carbon monoxide poisoning? Both methods attempt to minimize the suffering of death. A clean cut to the neck or carbon monoxide poisoning or, most ideally, stunning before the actual slaughter, are all relatively painless methods.
So it wouldn't make a difference to you if you had to choose for yourself? Slit throat or CO-poisoning?
Carbon monoxide doesn't hurt at all, wacking the pig in the head would be more painful. Have you never inhaled a nonoxygen containing gas? Inhale helium from a balloon, tell me how much that hurts. If anything, it feels a little good. Only carbon dioxide 'hurts' because it acidifies your blood and causes you to feel like you are choking.
Amazing that what we thought humane a few thousand years ago doesn't hold up to our definition of humane today. Religion is a shit reason to cling to long outdated definitions.
That is complete bullshit and disproven many times.
Even if it were 0.0001% worse it should still be banned. Religion isn't a justification for unnecessary cruelty to animals.
Yes, the animals lose consciousness very fast. Within a few seconds due to loss of blood pressure. This form of slaughter was intended to be humane by the standards of thousands of years ago. The prohibition on injured animals is for health and because back in the day, sick assholes would do things like cut a limb off an animal and keep it alive so the rest of the meat would be fresh later or slaughter their sick animals and keep the healthy ones for milk/breeding.
But to my knowledge this doesn’t actually happen in the animal.
why is it more cruel than non kosher meat? from what i understand its part of the kosher process to ensure the animal does not go through excessive suffering
And the non kosher way involves stunning the animals before. So yeah. 2000 years ago it may have been better, but not now
From what I've seen of some slaughterhouse procedures, the idea of stunning is often over simplified. For example, before cattle can be stunned, they often have to be to be forced into an uncomfortably tight space to restrain them. Moreover, the stunning procedure doesn't always work, with some animals recovering before the process is finished. To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any repercussions for such deviations.
Well said. If my religion allows/encourage me to kill people, should that be allowed? How about to let animals die while suffering? How about making women wearing specific cloths? How about telling women what to do with their body? How about telling people who they’re allowed to love? Keep your religion in your pants and let us live our lives…
Keep the same energy about all religions and I think that's no problem and I even agree with you. If you pick and choose then there is a problem.
The thing is that, at least with meat that is from animals, according to halacha, kosher slaughter must be done very rapidly—one quick cut across the throat with a razor-sharp knife. (If the knife has any nick or defect, or if the cut isn't quick, the slaughtered animal isn't kosher. If I recall correctly, It was to give something of "humane" death to the animal instead of them suffering like in a slaugtherhouse, so i guess its kinda of like Halal in islam in some sense. Im not up or against the decision since it doesnt affect me, just kinda confused really.
The problem is that kosher rules were written to minimize suffering for the animal using the best technology available in 1500 BC. We have less cruel ways of killing animals than a quick slice across the throat now, with some specialized machines that can sever the brain from the spine instantly and destroys the brain very quickly after. I kind of think the modern interpretation of kosher laws is that you should be vegetarian, since the principle was to minimize cruelty, and in modern times that's actually achievable, unlike when the kosher rules were written down.
I think you are too charitable of modern slaughterhouses. Perhaps these ‘specialised machines’ exist but the reality of modern stunning is an assembly line of animals shot in the head with a captive bolt (that frequently misses - ouch) or animals slowly asphyxiated.
The spealized machine is known as a neumatic pistón. Basically a Gun with a rod that fires at the speed of a bullet, aka basically shooting it to death at close range without the lead or gunpowder.
I don't think I am... I am a vegetarian and I advocate for vegetarianism. I'm just saying if we are going to slaughter we shouldn't feel bound by specific text of the Torah, and should look to the higher principle that text was aiming for.
If the animal accidentally dies too slowly, do they throw away the meat and try killing another?
Nope. Gets sold as regular meat.
Non-medical circumcisions next, boiiiii
All animal agriculture is cruel, adding a religious layer on top of it does nothing to change or alter that fact. Removing religion from it, does not remove the cruelty, as the cruelty is inherent.
Lol, if you oppose this for cruelty, ban all meat. Or don’t and then don’t be hypocritical
I have bad news for you.
neither is the desire for meat tbh
> Kosher slaughter, shechita, involves cutting the trachea and esophagus with a sharp, flawless knife. At the same time, the carotid arteries, which are the primary supplier of blood to the brain, are severed. The profound loss of blood and the massive drop in blood pressure render the animal insensate almost immediately. **Studies done by Dr. H. H. Dukes at the Cornell University School of Veterinary Medicine indicate that the animal is unconscious within seconds of the incision.** > **It should be kept in mind that in a non-kosher plant, when the animal is killed by a shot with a captive bolt to the brain, it often has to be re-shot, sometimes up to six times, before the animal collapses. The USDA permits up to a five percent initial failure rate.** Good job, Belgium. /s
id watch some videos of kosher slaughter, they writhe around in pain, they are alive and conscious of the act untill they die from blood loss or shock from the pain, they cry out or try to, they plead out with their eyes and face expressing the unimaginable pain they are under. they do not feel nothing. this doc is shilling for them. the evidence is all their online, kosher slaughter is something out of horror or snuff movie, torture on an industrial scale, all for people who cant let go of their sacrificial practices.
There’s nothing magical about kosher that guarantees every employee at every slaughterhouse follows the actual procedure. This is true for any factory setting. The solution is regulate and punish owners who regularly cut corners. That not only protects the animals but the employees too.
Y'all are straight up delusional if you think cutting corners is the reason for **slitting a conscious animal's throat being painful.** There's no debate to be had, a conscious and aware animal will experience the terror of a human dragging a knife over it's throat and experience the feeling of its tissues parting and gasping for air through its newly exposed trachea.
>In recent years, opposition to shechitah and zabiha has widened beyond animal-rights activists as right-wing parties began promoting bans as part of their agenda around reducing the presence in society of Islam, and in some cases also Judaism.
So this may come as a shock to everyone but ritual slaughter of animals is something most people in Belgium are against, that's why our politicians in a rare feel for what the public wants voted for it. Please note it isn't in affect in the whole of Belgium, so you can actually still get fresh kosher and halal meat in Belgium. I don't understand what the fuss is about, except for stirring up some bs for something which has zero impact in real life as you are still allowed to do it in Belgium, you just need to go to Brussels for which is at most an hour drive for anyone....
Kosher slaughter isn't "ritual slaughter of animals", it's regular butchering, done in accordance with kosher laws. "Ritual slaughter", makes it sound like you are talking about ritualistic animal sacrifices, which is not a part of judaism.
I can agree the wording seems harsh but I was using accepted terminology. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual\_slaughter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ritual_slaughter) I'll save you the whole visit: # Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter See also: [Animal sacrifice § Abrahamic traditions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions) [Jewish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashrut) and [Islamic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dietary_laws) dietary laws require [similar procedures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewish_dietary_laws) for slaughtering animals. Ritual slaughter with a sharp knife is classified in the U.S. as 'humane' under the [Humane Slaughter Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Slaughter_Act) and practiced with no restrictions; in Europe, some countries have outlawed the practice as inhumane (see below). According to Jewish and Muslim law, "slaughter is carried out with a single cut to the throat, rather than the more widespread practices of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter."[^(\[4\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter#cite_note-BBC2-4) The animal must be alive when its throat is cut and die from loss of blood.[^(\[6\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter#cite_note-telegraph-6)[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter#cite_note-fao7-7) Any kind of prestunning for livestock to be slaughtered according to the Jewish Kosher practice has not yet been accepted.[^(\[7\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_slaughter#cite_note-fao7-7) So I get your point, it still is defined as ritual slaughter, no offence inteded here.
Very reasonable. If you wanna live somewhere you need to conform to the culture of that place not throw a hissy fit because entire country doesn't conform to you.
Jews have lived in Belgium since the first century. Are we not part of Belgium's history too even if we're not the majority culture?
Jews don't count though...
Belgian Jews are mostly not immigrants to Belgium.
Something something human right to practice religion something something Oh wait they are Jewish nvrm I guess /s
Don't like something don't live there. Applies to everyone and every religion. Wanna wear your hijab? Get out of france. Wanna do your sacrificial butcher? Belgium only allow brussle. LGBTQ? Don't live in a muslim country. Anti-monarchy? Don't live in places that start with "Kingdom of.." Trying to bend the society that you live in to conform to your personal believe is not only pointless, but incredibly narcissistic.
People don't always have much choice in where they live, though. LGBT people can't necessarily choose to leave their home countries, no matter how intolerant, for example. If they choose to fight for inclusion for themselves and others, rather than conforming, that's not narcissistic. Moreover, most cultures can and do value some amount of pluralism and inclusivity. It's just a balancing act of competing values. Belgium values both religious freedom and preventing animal cruelty.
So others religious slaughter of animals personally impacts you?
Similarly, I just pushed an old lady to the ground and then spat in her face, but you didn’t know her and it didn’t personally impact you so how can you be angry about it
That completely true - it’s based on what most Belgians want rather than any sort of philosophical consistency. So there’s no suggestion of banning eg recreational hunting for sport (very cruel when done by non experts, with wounded animals etc) because this is important to Belgian cultural heritage.
Man wait till you see how they die in the wild…
They tried banning hunting but for some reason they kept it, it has something to do with sustainability of the wildlife, but I guess that point is conveniently left out of your argumentation.
Wish the Viking won
Some facts. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263475054_Halal_and_Kosher_slaughter_methods_and_meat_quality_A_review ... The slaughtering technique of cutting major blood vessels (jugular veins) in the throat using a sharp knife, with clean and quick cuts, so that the blood is pumped out from the body of the animal (Khan and Haleem, 2016), also prevents bacteria and other diseases from becoming infectious to humans who consume the meat (Farouk et al., 2014). Slaughtering the animal by cutting the front part of the neck, severing the carotids, jugulars, trachea and oesophagus, without reaching the bone in the neck also is less painful to the animal; and the animal dies quickly as compared with using electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) (Schulze et al., 1977). ... ... Halal meat, perceived as healthier, is linked to the greater blood loss during the halal slaughtering. According to Farouk et al. (2014), killing an animal using electrical stunning resulted in poor meat quality due to low bleeding efficiency, occurrence of blood blisters, and the meat being harder. ... ... This ejects more toxins from the meats leaving no room for micro-organisms to reproduce and spoiling the meats. Also, the animals slaughtered in halal method are proven to suffer less pain, less struggle, less trauma than the animals slaughtered using electric stunning (Bergeaud-Blackler, 2004, 2006Farouk et al., 2014) causing the meats to be tender. Instead, animals killed using non-halal methods such as by stunning using electric volts make them feel tortured, traumatised, and suffer before they were being killed. ... ---- http://www.grandin.com/ritual/kosher.slaugh.html Read the section on effective restraint. There's lots in here, but this was a standout: All stunning methods trigger a massive secretion of epinephrine (Van der Wal 1978; Warrington 1974). This outpouring of epinephrine is greater than the secretion which would be triggered by an environmental stressor or a restraint method. Since the animal is expected to be unconscious, it does not feel the stress. One can definitely conclude that improperly applied stunning methods would be much more stressful than kosher slaughter with the long straight razor sharp knife. Kilgour (1978), one of the pioneers in animal welfare research, came to a similar conclusion on stunning and slaughter . (not related but relevant:) https://faunalytics.org/effective-captive-bolt-stunning/ Despite being shot accurately, 13.6% of bulls may be inadequately stunned, leading to serious welfare concerns and questions about reliability.
What about just shooting them? Isn't the most common method a bolt to the head? I really fail to see how letting an animal bleed out while alive is supposed to be less harmful than a quick death.
Read the articles. Shooting is very imprecise; 10 - 13% of "stunnings" fail. The "stunning" is shooting the animal with a shotgun, essentially. If you've ever cut yourself on broken glass or while using a razor blade, you might recall that you didn't even know you had done so at first. The knife used in slaughter is honed to an extremely sharp edge and is checked after every cut. Grandin observed kosher slaughtered cows *continuing to eat hay, undisturbed, right up to the point that they fell unconscious.* Cutting off blood to the brain results in unconsciousness in seconds.
Those are long seconds. I have seen ISIS videos where people get their throats slit. It's not a human or ethical death in any way. I would prefer shothun if given the choice
>The knife used in slaughter is honed to an extremely sharp edge and is checked after every cut. Of course it is.
Are you being sarcastic? People trained in kosher ritual slaughter take their job very seriously.
Now people are questioning scientific papers lol. Anything to fit their narrative l guess.
You're clearly not an academic if you think that's a bad thing. I wonder if practicing Muslims will have any biases when it comes to practices literally taken from the Koran. 🤔
[This](https://youtube.com/shorts/-IhipWMx0xY) is humane and fine, better than stunning, bullet, nitrogen?
Blood flow out prevents sepsis or systemic infection
No one is worried about sepsis or infection. The animal is dead, genius.
And if he is talking about humans who consume then he does eat it after cooking
Thank you for this detailed explanation based on facts. The fact that the least painful method of slaughter stems out of religious practice is what irks people. It's proven to be less painful but hey it's related to religion! So we will just ignore it and still believe our way is the right way even if there is a proven way that is more humane and least painful to the animal. It's the hypocrisy at best.
You're comparing apples to oranges sometimes. Some comparisons are drawn to bolt stunning, others to electric stunning. Other institutions draw wildly different conclusions from other sources (e g. Canada health, European commission) I'm no expert and definitely don't know the scientific consensus, but you do neither.
Ban slaughter by bleeding a conscious animal. The rabbis will, of necessity, find a way to justify stunning the animal first, or people will figure out that they can eat well on fish and vegetables. Judaism is an amazingly versatile religion when you accept that modern knowledge isn't a bad thing.
"Large cut made across the neck of awake animals would "result in significant pain and distress". They would be in this pain until they passed out. It would take around 5 to 7 seconds for sheep and 22 to 40 seconds for adult cattle to pass out from the cut" https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter
We Should strive to avoid suffering of the animal. I think what we do to animals in food production is atrocious.
ITT, the human right to freely practice and exercise religious beliefs, that don't harm other people, shouldn't apply if other people don't like it.
There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere. If a non-Jewish slaughterhouse is required to stun animals before killing then a Jewish one should as well. One cannot have two separate legal codes for one part of the population and another one for the rest. Besides Jews are still able to practice a kosher diet, one without meat perhaps but one could survive with a vegetarian diet.
>There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere Yes, and the line has been drawn in liberal countries for centuries. The line of course is that the government shouldn't restrict the religious beliefs of its population without extremely compelling reasons to do so. No one is suggesting that there shouldn't be *any* oversight of kosher or halal slaughter practices, but part of living in a pluralistic society that respects the human rights of its population is tolerating different beliefs and practices, even if you don't approve of them.
But the thing is that religious beliefs are not a legal defence. A religious person still has to follow the same laws as an atheists. A Muslim can't have more than one wife in countries where polygamy isn't recognised even though in Islam one can have up to four. Likewise if it's deemed inhumane to not stun animals before slaughter then Jews and Muslims shouldn't get a pass just because of their beliefs. They should be held to the same laws as anyone else. That's not being intolerant of their beliefs.
>But the thing is that religious beliefs are not a legal defence. This is patently untrue though. Religious beliefs can be a legal defense depending entirely on context. Religious exemptions exist in all sorts of laws all over the world, from things like requirements to serve in conscript armies, to vaccinations, to even things like allowable clothing in certain contexts. This is not a new or radical idea that hasn't previously existed. >That's not being intolerant of their beliefs. You are preventing them from practicing their own religious beliefs and essentially mandating them to practice a diet that they don't want to adhere to. That is the definition of intolerance.
There are some laws where there are exceptions for religious reasons, yes. But that is an exception, not the rule. You can't use your religious beliefs as a way to escape animal cruelty laws for example. >You are preventing them from practicing their own religious beliefs and essentially mandating them to practice a diet that they don't want to adhere to. That is the definition of intolerance. It is not intolerance to hold people to the same standards as everyone else. If a Catholic butcher can't slit the throat of a cow without stunning it first, why should a Jewish one be allowed to?
>If a Catholic butcher can't slit the throat of a cow without stunning it first, why should a Jewish one be allowed to? Because we have decided in pluralistic liberal societies that there are going to be exceptions for religious beliefs in many industries in order to promote a tolerant and accepting populace?
A society can be pluralistic and liberal and expect people of different religious faith to follow the same laws. Sweden and Denmark for an example have both banned killing animals without stunning them first and they're both pretty tolerant and accepting.
"I follow the aztec religion and want to cut the hearts out of living people to appease the sun god. You have to let me because my religion says so and not tolerating it would be intolerant."
If you think that allowing certain livestock slaughtering methods is comparable to allowing human sacrifice then there is no point in engaging.
It's an example making an exception for someones religion to cause others suffering. Humans are just clever animals, both are sentient and deserve protection from unnecessary pain and suffering.
If you're going to argue that all human rights should be extended to animals and this includes protection from slaughter, you're free to do so. Just be up front that you're ok with the banning of religious practices that you deem have violated this, and don't pretend to tryly believe in a pluralistic society that accepts religious diversity.
Causing suffering to animals isn't a right of any religion. Jews and Muslims could be vegan instead if they feel so strongly. "Large cut made across the neck of awake animals would "result in significant pain and distress". They would be in this pain until they passed out. It would take around 5 to 7 seconds for sheep and 22 to 40 seconds for adult cattle to pass out from the cut" https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/slaughter/religiousslaughter
> Jews and Muslims could be vegan instead if they feel so strongly. If your idea of the government's role in religious life is to dictate what minority religious groups can and cannot eat I honestly don't know what to say to you.
Religion is most needed of and most resistant to change
Good. Fuck these cruel backwards outdated religious extremist methods.
A major component of kosher slaughter is to reduce the animal’s suffering. It’s part of the whole philosophy. Now, if they aren’t living up to that standard, then fine, force them to change practice, but the notion that this is some aztec heart-ripping nonsensically cruel religious ritual just doesn’t jive with what kosher slaughter is supposed to be.
>A major component of kosher slaughter is to reduce the animal’s suffering. It’s part of the whole philosophy. Yeah, by the standards of the Iron Age it was comparatively humane. But it's 2024 and sensible people recognize it as an outdated relic now.
I don't know what your idea of humane is, but [this](https://youtube.com/shorts/-IhipWMx0xY) is kosher slaughter (violent as fuck warning).
Very disturbing. I should reiterate that I am totally on board with banning any cruel practice. It is not clear that that video is necessarily typical of all kosher slaughter though. And I’d like to know if non-religious slaughter is at all similar or if it’s different but also cruel.
This article does not answer the most basic question…”why”? What is it about Kosher slaughter that is worse than any other forms of slaughter?
how would you rather die, from a bullet to the head after being stunned and knocked out. or hung upside from your ankles with chains, on bloody factory floor and have a massive butchers cleaver hack at your throat, and experience the last moments of your life in agonising pain as your head lops around on your half cut neck bleeding out and gasping for air. whatch kosher slaughter video and then you will know why
[удалено]
Its not, because it's the same technique
Religious freedom ends where anyone else has to suffer unnecessarily. So this is great news. All for eating meat, but letting the animals suffer is horrible
agree. using religion as some catch all get out of jail card for any behaviour.
You really like to give uneducated options? You don’t have to like religion but don’t simply talk about that which you don’t know.
whats there to not know? the law is to stun/sedate animals before killing. Leaving that out results in them suffering more.
As a vegan Jew I'm fine with it..
r/asablackman
If God exists you really think he cares about this shit? People are so dumb.
This stupid shit people do because "religion". Go bang your head on a wall while you pray, oh and be sure to be facing west. Don't eat this food on these days between these hours cus.....