Religious beliefs or reduced cruelty to animals?

[Bugz]

Namely the situation revolving around halal meet.

For those not educated on the news matters, basically some muslims (jews too i think) require all blood to be drained from an animal before they'll eat it. They achieve this by cutting the throat of the cow and letting it's blood drain out. 1 in 5 of these acts are carried out without a stunning. So basically, the cow dies a slow agonizing death. Some newspapers report up to 2 mins before they are knocked unconscious.

In the UK, it is illegal to not stun UNLESS the intentions are halal-based, then it is okey.

Is this right? This isn't a case of "humans vs animals." To me, as an atheist, it appears to be a case of "religious tradition vs animals."

Am I alone here in my thoughts?

 

[chipper]

tbh i just believe in a quick kill bolt to head etc i just think its the most humane way of killing an animal as its practically instant death

that been said it doesnt really bother me how they get halal meat its not something i pay any attention to more important things to worry about than how an animal is killed for its meat.

lets be honest tho 90% of meat eaters dont really want to know how their meat is prepared they just want it nicely packaged and dumped in a carton and put on display in tesco

 

[Scouse]

You're right. Halal meat can be slaughtered legally in the UK without the same due care and attention to animal welfare rules that non-religious meat producers have to adhere to.

It's a case of religion vs animal welfare vs legal system and the result, in order of importance, seems to be:

Islamic Law > British Law > Animal Welfare > Christian Dogma

 

[Ch3tan]

Couldn't care less, chipper hits the nail on the head.

 

[rynnor]

In fairness Kosher meat is slaughtered in the same way - perhaps if every other form of cruelty had dis-appeared it would be worth looking at but tbh its not high on the list if you look at things in proportion.

Much of the suffering for slaughtered animals occurs before the actual killing act - transport, storage on the way etc. - throat cutting is a quick way to go - the blood loss means the animal loses consciousness very quickly even if the body is still not 'dead'.

Save your concern for real cruelty tbh.

 

[Scouse]

Save your concern for real cruelty tbh.

I hear what you're saying, I also don't really care myself, but on balance I disagree.

You've got to hold a "zero-tolerance" approach to cruelty IMO.

I think that if humans turn a blind eye to some types of cruelty then they're much more likely to let other types of cruelty pass them by. It's a choice thang - like the dark side of the force forever dominating your destiny...


Also, yes, there are '"more cruel" things, but it doesn't mean it's OK...

 

[nath]

I hear what you're saying, I also don't really care myself, but on balance I disagree.

You've got to hold a "zero-tolerance" approach to cruelty IMO.

I think that if humans turn a blind eye to some types of cruelty then they're much more likely to let other types of cruelty pass them by. It's a choice thang - like the dark side of the force forever dominating your destiny...


Also, yes, there are '"more cruel" things, but it doesn't mean it's OK...

True, but it does mean efforts would be better put elsewhere such as improving conditions of caged chickens etc. I think it's entirely appropriate to focus efforts where the biggest cruelty offences are and when one is sorted the other can be looked at.

However, if true, it does fuck me off that there are special dispensations for religion.

 

[yaruar]

tbh i just believe in a quick kill bolt to head etc i just think its the most humane way of killing an animal as its practically instant death

Stunning and bolts don't always work first time.

 

[Zenith.UK]

These animals are bred for food.
As long as I get the meat on my table, I don't give stuff how the animal is killed. I personally find the idea of imbuing animals with the same characteristics as people to be ridiculous.

Save your indignant outrage for the real cruelties in the world... rape, dismemberment and murder.

 

[Scouse]

However, if true, it does fuck me off that there are special dispensations for religion.

It's true, and yes, there are areas that we should be focusing on first.

However this one is an easy fix IMO - remove the special dispensations in law.

Simple eh?

 

[nath]

Save your indignant outrage for the real cruelties in the world... rape, dismemberment and murder.

I wasn't aware that indignant outrage was a finite resource?

 

[Bugz]

It's a case of religion vs animal welfare vs legal system and the result, in order of importance, seems to be:

Islamic Law > British Law > Animal Welfare > Christian Dogma

This was one of the biggest things that stood out to me as I read about it.

If I create a religion and deem that people from my religion will only eat cows if <insert form of cruelty here> due to my 'religious beliefs' then should that be enforced too?

 

[Scouse]

If I create a religion and deem that people from my religion will only eat cows if <insert form of cruelty here> due to my 'religious beliefs' then should that be enforced too?

Unless you can make your religion as bolshy and full of threats of violence and as well supported as Islam then, no


This ties in nicely to the thread about that twat who wanted to burn the Koran. We're too scared of Islam to tell them "in our country animals are protected from cruelty by law".

We say "unless you follow Islam". 'cause we're a bunch of pussies.


Burn the book tbfh

 

[nath]

Unless you can make your religion as bolshy and full of threats of violence and as well supported as Islam then, no


This ties in nicely to the thread about that twat who wanted to burn the Koran. We're too scared of Islam to tell them "in our country animals are protected from cruelty by law".

We say "unless you follow Islam". 'cause we're a bunch of pussies.


Burn the book tbfh

This is what I was getting at. Don't burn the book, repeal the law. Pissing off a bunch of religious folks is WORTH IT if it means sticking up for our commonly held ideals of animal welfare. It's not worth it just to be an inflammatory twatbox with an awesome moustache.

 

[rynnor]

I think that if you really wanted to ban all cruelty to animals you would probably morally have to ban meat.

If people want a big standoff with religion then go burn down a place of worship but please dont pretend to be taking an animal welfare stance.

 

[nath]

I think that if you really wanted to ban all cruelty to animals you would probably morally have to ban meat.

Sure, if you want to be black and white. However if you look at it in black and white then we either all become vegans or we eat meat and quite happily torture animals as much as we like. I think a little middle ground is reasonable, it's fair enough to treat our livestock well enough and try to reduce (as much as is feasible) their suffering when being slaughtered.

 

[Scouse]

I think that if you really wanted to ban all cruelty to animals you would probably morally have to ban meat.

If people want a big standoff with religion then go burn down a place of worship but please dont pretend to be taking an animal welfare stance.

I don't want to ban all cruelty to animals - I think that is unrealistic. But I'm all for minimising their pain.

All I'm saying is, we've got "a standard" of animal welfare in this country that everyone should have to abide by - regardless of what crackpot belief system they adhere to.

Don't burn the book, repeal the law. Pissing off a bunch of religious folks is WORTH IT if it means sticking up for our commonly held ideals of animal welfare. It's not worth it just to be an inflammatory twatbox with an awesome moustache.

I see what you mean, however I don't think that we can win the battle without some people being inflammatory twatboxes

 

[rynnor]

I think a little middle ground is reasonable, it's fair enough to treat our livestock well enough and try to reduce (as much as is feasible) their suffering when being slaughtered.

Yes but your basically splitting hairs - both methods are about as good as we can get without stopping eating animals altogether. If you want to feel outraged point your indignation at china - many animals there would love to be killed as humanely as having their throats slit.

 

[Scouse]

Yes but your basically splitting hairs - both methods are about as good as we can get without stopping eating animals altogether. If you want to feel outraged point your indignation at china - many animals there would love to be killed as humanely as having their throats slit.

Your argument seems to say "there's worse things in the world, so don't worry about these bad things".

I dislike rape, but does that mean I have to be OK with burglary?


Anyway, I've already answered this by saying we should enforce our legal animal welfare standards in the UK across the board with no exceptions for religious belief...

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Those pesky foreigners with their foregin ways, THEY'RE SAVAGES DONTCHOONO.

Getting bored of this debate.

 

[nath]

Yes but your basically splitting hairs - both methods are about as good as we can get without stopping eating animals altogether. If you want to feel outraged point your indignation at china - many animals there would love to be killed as humanely as having their throats slit.

I'm not outraged by this. I dislike that the law can be changed to make way for religious practices when I absolutely disagree with that. Now I don't know how cruel Halal and Kosher slaughtering practices are - it sounds unpleasant but then slaughtering an animal is. *IF* it turns out that it's more cruel than our animal/livestock welfare rules allow then I'm pretty pissed off that it's allowed because it's a religious practice. Obviously we wouldn't let pagans sacrifice a virgin (assuming they did that) so I certainly don't think something relating to the welfare of animals should be brushed aside for religion either.

I do know about some of the cruelty to animals in China and yeah that's pretty terrible too. As I said, indignation isn't a finite resource and I'm quite comfortable getting grumpy about both things.

Those pesky foreigners with their foregin ways, THEY'RE SAVAGES DONTCHOONO.

Getting bored of this debate.

Thanks for letting us know!

 

[Ch3tan]

It's true, and yes, there are areas that we should be focusing on first.

However this one is an easy fix IMO - remove the special dispensations in law.

Simple eh?

And harm the economy? Hardly likely to happen is it.

also, I don't think that the Halal or Kosher way of butchering animals is particularly cruel, certainly no more so than any form of butchering. I've not ever heard of outrage at this form of killing before - I'd suggest that these stories appearing in the media now has more to do with their anti-islam agenda than anything else, certainly backed by the sketchy post that Bugz (OP) made without any real evidence to back it.

 

[Kami]

As long as it's tasty I don't care. I eat meat - lets not make it into some civilised action which it isn't. Drained of blood or shock to the head, neither kills instantly and pain free (regardless of claims).

It's an animal, it's dead, it's great when cooked. Job done. This has nothing to do with religion for me. As long as it'd done in a clean, hygenic environment that's good enough for me.

 

[nath]

It's an animal, it's dead, it's great when cooked. Job done. This has nothing to do with religion for me. As long as it'd done in a clean, hygenic environment that's good enough for me.

I vaguely recall reading about a practice in china where they put masses of stress (and pain) on the cow before slaughter as they thought it improved the taste of the meat. Are you saying if this practice were introduced in Britain and you saw a steak in the supermarket labelled as such, you'd happily buy it over the one that was treated humanely?

 

[DaGaffer]

I vaguely recall reading about a practice in china where they put masses of stress (and pain) on the cow before slaughter as they thought it improved the taste of the meat. Are you saying if this practice were introduced in Britain and you saw a steak in the supermarket labelled as such, you'd happily buy it over the one that was treated humanely?

If that's true, then they're idiots; adrenalin makes meat tough and stringy.

I'm torn on the whole Halal/Kosher thing; on the one hand I don't believe in special cruelty exemptions on the grounds of wearing a silly hat and a beard, but on the other, give the veggies an inch and they'll take a mile.

 

[Scouse]

And harm the economy? Hardly likely to happen is it.

also, I don't think that the Halal or Kosher way of butchering animals is particularly cruel, certainly no more so than any form of butchering. I've not ever heard of outrage at this form of killing before - I'd suggest that these stories appearing in the media now has more to do with their anti-islam agenda than anything else, certainly backed by the sketchy post that Bugz (OP) made without any real evidence to back it.

I think that hanging an animal from its back legs before slitting its throat and letting it bleed to death is probably more painful than a bolt through the brain. However, if we take both as equal - why should I get prosecuted if I want to slit a goats throat when muslims don't?

But either way - "harm the economy"! Lol!

People have to eat. If they refuse to eat meat killed in England's legally proscribed fashion then they'll eat more veg instead. Same amount of money going into the economy - just slight redistribution.

 

[Ch3tan]

No, it will just get exported in instead.

 

[nath]

I think that hanging an animal from its back legs before slitting its throat and letting it bleed to death is probably more painful than a bolt through the brain. However, if we take both as equal - why should I get prosecuted if I want to slit a goats throat when muslims don't?

Will you be prosecuted if you want to slit a goats throat? Assuming the goat is yours and you're butchering it, not just getting in to some kinky sex to suppress your innate need to molest children .

 

[Scouse]

No, it will just get exported in instead.

You mean imported then, Ch3t?


Make it illegal to sell meat in the UK that hasn't been treated to our standards of animal welfare. That'll get rid of huge swathes of hypocrisies - not just the "halal exemption"...

 

[rynnor]

People have to eat. If they refuse to eat meat killed in England's legally proscribed fashion then they'll eat more veg instead. Same amount of money going into the economy - just slight redistribution.

Nah - without meat people will swiftly degenerate to cannibalism and next thing you know theres a zombie horde at the door...

I warned ye!