Animal Welfare or Veiled Racism?

[thir]

"The Dutch government is close to banning Jewish and Islamic ritual slaughter of livestock, raising the ire of religious groups in Europe."

"Both Kosher and Halal slaughtering methods require that an animal be bled to death without being stunned first. Most livestock animals are stunned with a device such as a captive bolt gun that renders the animal senseless before it is killed."

"Groups advocating for animal welfare in Europe support the ban because they say that killing an animal without stunning it first is cruel."

"Jewish and Islamic groups make the argument that there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that ritual slaughter is more cruel than the standard European method of stunning before slaughter. They say that this is an infringement on their rights to practice their religion, while proponents of the bill say that the welfare of animals trumps religious practices."

"The idea that slaughter is ever "humane" or kind is and has always been a myth. Slaughter is slaughter; flesh is flesh"

"At best the advocates of this ban are misguided in their belief that banning ritual slaughter will mean less misery for the animals killed, at worst they're pushing a thinly-veiled racist agenda that uses concern for animals as a tool to paint immigrants and religious minorities as cold-hearted and bloodthirsty."

So what to think of this?

Is there a difference between stunning before slaughter or not?

Is the call for banning animal welfare or a racist agenda?

Should we be eating domestic animals or not?






http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/animal-welfare-or-veiled-racism/

[denuseri]

Humm, those a toughies, in so far as how one draws up their own ethical paramaters. IE should human ethics apply to animals, or should animals have rights to begin with etc.

Though evolution also made us into the dominant specis of the planet via our omnivourous capacity. With out the eating of cooked meat we wouldnt have developed the higher levels of intellegence we currently pocess today as a species.

Additionally, it looks as if everything living, feeds off something else that is living to sustain itself in a similar manner.

The animals are still being killed, so I assume from their point of view they would rather not, everything living after all as a natural drive to survive. From that perspective I dont think the animals give a flip wether they get stunned first or not, they just want to live period. If peta really wants to go after something evil being done to animals, they should perhaps be more focused on the industrialization methods used in chicken factories and pig farms where conditions are abhorant from beinging to end for the animals.

Is it a veiled attack against certian religions and cultures? I suppose it could be viewed as such, depending upon just what the real motivations of the group behind it are.

[Thorne]

Is there a difference between stunning before slaughter or not?
Who cares? As I understand it, the ritual killing involves severing the carotid and jugular veins. It is supposed to be very quick and relatively painless.

Is the call for banning animal welfare or a racist agenda?
I doubt that it's intended to be racist. I do think there are some people who are genuinely concerned over animal welfare.

Should we be eating domestic animals or not?
Absolutely! I know, technically I'm supposed to be an omnivore, but give me meat! Lots of meat! Vegetables are what food eats.

[leo9]

Is there a difference between stunning before slaughter or not?
Who cares? As I understand it, the ritual killing involves severing the carotid and jugular veins. It is supposed to be very quick and relatively painless.

When I first started raising livestock, I believed people who told me that cutting a conscious animal's throat was quick and painless. After the first try I knew that anyone who said so must be totally hardened. It is horribly obvious to anyone with a grain of empathy that the animal spends its last ten or twenty seconds in pain and terror as its life drains away. I'm speaking here of a sheep: I'm told it can take two minutes for a steer, and I can all too vividly believe it.

Since then I have killed a good many meat animals with a clear conscience, because I made sure that they never knew what hit them and were unconscious when their arteries were opened.

I am not a vegetarian, because I accept that we're made to live on meat as well as plants. But I rarely eat meat I haven't raised myself, because it's one thing to be party to the death of an animal that had a comforable life, and quite another to be party to the abuse and torture of animals, which factory farming and mass slaughter so often are.

One of the many irritating things about this debate is that, like so many things that people claim are a religious necessity, kosher and hallal slaughter actually have no basis in scripture. The only thing the scripture says is that one shouldn't eat a sick animal, which (like many of the dietary laws) is obvious good sense. But at some time in the unrecorded past some theological hair-splitter decided that was far too simple a reading to be holy, and it had to mean something difficult and different from what any other people did: so they declared that "sick" included an animal that was unconscious through having just been knocked on the head. Hence the rule.

But, like the burqa and female genital mutilation, it's now considered a religious requirement simply because they've done it that way for so long.


Is the call for banning animal welfare or a racist agenda?
I doubt that it's intended to be racist. I do think there are some people who are genuinely concerned over animal welfare.
It's not like you to be naive. Animal welfare groups have been complaining about ritual slaughter for some fifty years, but suddenly governments act on it? Just when being nasty to Muslims is fashionable? And you seriously think racism has nothing to do with it?

The only surprise here is that they're causing trouble for Jews as well, and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the authors of this law were so ignorant that they didn't realise kosher slaughter is the same as hallal. It would be in keeping with that kind of dumb prejudice.

Should we be eating domestic animals or not?
Absolutely! I know, technically I'm supposed to be an omnivore, but give me meat! Lots of meat! Vegetables are what food eats.
I've no problem with eating animals. I do have a problem with abusing animals, and most factory farming is grossly cruel; I've been a farm relief worker (an agency hand,) and seen places that you don't want to hear about. So at the moment, when I'm not in a position to raise my own meat, I try to stick to what I can be sure has been raised humanely. This is not only rare but expensive, so in practice I'm semi-vegetarian.

[leo9]

Is there a difference between stunning before slaughter or not?

Who cares?


Well, let's see, anyone who doesn't see other beings as things?



As I understand it, the ritual killing involves severing the carotid and jugular veins. It is supposed to be very quick and relatively painless.


It is neither quick nor painless, as I have seen both on farms in my childhood and heard. There is a reason we say 'scream like a stuck pig' - and it goes on and on and on!

If you had the choice, would you prefer to be stunned, or would you like to have your throat cut, being hung up by a leg, and hang there writhing in pain and fear for the next five minutes? That is if the butcher can be bothered to wait to cut on until after you are dead? Time is money, after all.




Is the call for banning animal welfare or a racist agenda?

I doubt that it's intended to be racist. I do think there are some people who are genuinely concerned over animal welfare.


So do I. I think the hue and cry over religion is far out, animal welfare people have been after this, as well as other things, for a long time.

Humanism - or animal welfare - has to come before religion. That is why this should not be happening nor, not to forget, all the other shit done to domestic animals for reasons of expediency. It does not matter why.

[thir]

UPs! Above was from me, thir. Sorry!

[thir]

Humm, those a toughies, in so far as how one draws up their own ethical paramaters. IE should human ethics apply to animals, or should animals have rights to begin with etc.

Though evolution also made us into the dominant specis of the planet via our omnivourous capacity. With out the eating of cooked meat we wouldnt have developed the higher levels of intellegence we currently pocess today as a species.


As I see it, we do eat animals, and that is not the problem. The problem is how we treat them, because I do not believe with the bibel that all the world was given to us to do with as we pleased.

I see nothing wrong with hunting, if done in a proper way. By that I mean you eat and use what you kill, not for 'sport'. Killing and not using is dishonourable and wasteful.

As for domestic animals, as is said, we raise them and we kill them, but in between birth and death we have a responsibility. And for the death itself. Everything else is dishonourable.


Additionally, it looks as if everything living, feeds off something else that is living to sustain itself in a similar manner.

Yes, so it is.


The animals are still being killed, so I assume from their point of view they would rather not, everything living after all as a natural drive to survive. From that perspective I dont think the animals give a flip wether they get stunned first or not, they just want to live period.


Having seen it, I strongly disagree. The method does matter. Think about the ways we try to make death penalty humane.



If peta really wants to go after something evil being done to animals, they should perhaps be more focused on the industrialization methods used in chicken factories and pig farms where conditions are abhorant from beinging to end for the animals.

Agreed! But one thing does not rule out another.

[denuseri]

Well by that vien hunting is far more cruel, the animal is shot at , stabbed, or hit with a weapon from a distance or up close and as in the case with deer hunting most likely running in terror for a couple miles while they bleed out if the hunter made even the slightest mistake.

The most humane thing would be not to kill them at all.

It doesnt matter to me one way or the other if our dominance comes from the bible or its self justification through evolution, it doesnt relieve us of the responsibility inherient in assuming said dominion and doing it compasionately and wisely.

And even believers in the bible should know, that the bible itself tells them to be goods stewards of the earth, which means being as humanely christian as poosible which in effect means not being cruel soo...

... like in other threads, were religion and such meet, it isnt the religion thats being naughty...its the people themselves twisting what their dogma entails.

Additonally I believe, the Governemnt, would be making a mistake by letting Peta influence it to make some kind of hard stance against the cultural practices of any single cross section of society that isnt doing anything any worse that other cross sections, or failing that they should start with restrictions against those doing the "worse: things, like not going after ritual sluaghter while industrialized animal proccessing is left alone or hunting is allowed.

[thir]

Well by that vien hunting is far more cruel, the animal is shot at , stabbed, or hit with a weapon from a distance or up close and as in the case with deer hunting most likely running in terror for a couple miles while they bleed out if the hunter made even the slightest mistake.

That is why I said done properly, but you are right, of course. However, from the other angle, there is the argument that they have had a natural life first.

Let me put it this way: If we were fewer people and it were possible, I would prefer hunting to the kind of domestic animal abuse we live on now.

As it is, seems to me the idea is to keep animals in as much as natural situation as possible before killing them.



The most humane thing would be not to kill them at all.


I am in doubt here. Anything living has their natural enemies, and that keeps the population down so there is enough food - hopefully. To be killed is natural.

There seems a bit of a collusion between 'humane' and 'natural' -?

Exception is humans, and that is why we are too many.



It doesnt matter to me one way or the other if our dominance comes from the bible or its self justification through evolution, it doesnt relieve us of the responsibility inherient in assuming said dominion and doing it compasionately and wisely.


Absolutely!



And even believers in the bible should know, that the bible itself tells them to be goods stewards of the earth, which means being as humanely christian as poosible which in effect means not being cruel soo...

It does? Well, sadly we do not hear an awful lot about that :-((



Additonally I believe, the Governemnt, would be making a mistake by letting Peta influence it to make some kind of hard stance against the cultural practices of any single cross section of society that isnt doing anything any worse that other cross sections, or failing that they should start with restrictions against those doing the "worse: things, like not going after ritual sluaghter while industrialized animal proccessing is left alone or hunting is allowed.

If we argue like that, nothing will ever be done, because every time you try to change something, a lot of people will claim that XWZ should come first.

Surely the Peta is working on other fronts as well.

It is possible that it is the political climate that favours the possibility of banning the halal/kosher slaughter, but if so, that is the first and only postive thing that has ever come out of it.

Politically, it would be very smart to follow it up with better animal protection laws for the rest of the field as well, in fact, that should have been a part of the whole thing.

[denuseri]

Well coming when it is, as leo mentioned, it looks like a thinly veiled attempt to yet again attack the people of the middle east, just like with the burka thing in France.


And it just plain seems hypocrtical to me, for peta to go after these people and get legal backing for it, when hunting and industrialized animal production and sluaghter is still going on.

I dont mean PEta themselves being the hypocrits, so much as the politicians. Though I do meet a lot of individual hypocritcs who support Peta. (Wearing leather while handing out their fliers)


Are they going after people who practice the sacrifce of chickens as part of their religion? Like in the caribiean?


Are they stopping different kinds of pagan and Wiccan sects from the exact same kind of blood letting rituals?

Who's next? Do we stop the Masai from drinking the blood of their cows?

[leo9]

Additonally I believe, the Governemnt, would be making a mistake by letting Peta influence it to make some kind of hard stance against the cultural practices of any single cross section of society that isnt doing anything any worse that other cross sections, or failing that they should start with restrictions against those doing the "worse: things, like not going after ritual sluaghter while industrialized animal proccessing is left alone or hunting is allowed.

If the move against ritual slaughter were included in a general cleanup of slaughterhouse practices, I would believe that it was motivated by an honest concern for animal welfare. A law specifically targeting ritual slaughter is a blatant piece of headline-grabbing by politicians wanting to have it both ways - please the right wing by bashing Muslims, while staying cool with the left by promising they're only doing it for the good of the animals.

If I were a parliamentary member wanting to stop this, I'd put down an amendment to add bans on a raft of other cruel and profitable factory farming practices, and let the media watch the government tap-dancing as they try to explain why their new-found concern for animal welfare stops at the door of the hallal butcher's.

[denuseri]

If the move against ritual slaughter were included in a general cleanup of slaughterhouse practices, I would believe that it was motivated by an honest concern for animal welfare. A law specifically targeting ritual slaughter is a blatant piece of headline-grabbing by politicians wanting to have it both ways - please the right wing by bashing Muslims, while staying cool with the left by promising they're only doing it for the good of the animals.

If I were a parliamentary member wanting to stop this, I'd put down an amendment to add bans on a raft of other cruel and profitable factory farming practices, and let the media watch the government tap-dancing as they try to explain why their new-found concern for animal welfare stops at the door of the hallal butcher's.

I agree with what your saying wholeheartedly when it comes to the politicians being ass hatts on this, too bad no one is calling them out... yet I do not see prejudice against cultures of the middle east as being a "right wing" thing anymore than support of muslim extremiests and terroristsa as a "left wing" thing, if you catch my meaning.

[rocco]

in both the Karan and Bible, although the quotes are somewhat different. it states not only about not eating sick animals as leo9 so rightly said, but the main thing was, "its blood you must not eat" "this belongs to me". and so on. but misinterperating this is easy to do, as a lot of people dont believe in what any religious book says. at most all i see is religion causes more suffering to both man and animal, then any animal killing factory! unfortunatley its mans way again of making money, by mass slaughtering animals for the demand of the masses! its typical that yet again we see a goverment using propergander to fuse hate using peoples emotional consciousness! and they rise to the bait! even though they go out and buy meat, not knowing the horrors the animal suffered! i personally accept the "bolt method" this is far more "humane" then hallal. id prefer if offered to be put to death quickly rather than slowly. but again this whole thing is a mask, tensioning up an already unstable world!
i hope one day we wake up and become more friendly, towards animals. just like when all of a sudden, the world, [apart from a couple of nations] banned whalling!!

[Lion]

A couple of months ago, when the weather was -10 C outside, I passed a truck on the highway with goats or cows inside. It smelled bad. It was not insulated, I can't imagine how cold those animals felt.

How about we treat them right when they're alive, and worry about the killing part later?

[thir]

Are they stopping different kinds of pagan and Wiccan sects from the exact same kind of blood letting rituals?

Pagan and Wicca do not have blod rituals.

[thir]

A couple of months ago, when the weather was -10 C outside, I passed a truck on the highway with goats or cows inside. It smelled bad. It was not insulated, I can't imagine how cold those animals felt.

How about we treat them right when they're alive, and worry about the killing part later?

I do see your point! But, as I see it, one thing does not exclude another. Whenever you have a chance to do something for animals, grab the chance. If you keep saying 'but something else is more important' you'll never get anywhere, as you cannnot reform everything in one big go.

As for the religious protests, I see no reason for religious people to be allowed to abuse animals, just because they are religious. If you are into protecting animals, then the animals are the thing on the agenda, not people.

Of course it would be much better if a lot more areas were tanken into this law, but in reality, the more you try to include in a law, the harder it becomes to get through - the more lobbyists/interest groups you have to deal with.

[denuseri]

Are they stopping different kinds of pagan and Wiccan sects from the exact same kind of blood letting rituals?

Pagan and Wicca do not have blod rituals.

Ive personally witness two rituals that including bloodletting of people (in one the participants even drank each others blood mixed with wine in a chalice for their handfastening, in the other mensteral blood was used, and Ive seen more than one ritual preformed where a simple "finger prict" was used to get a drop of blood, and I wont bother going into the use of other bodily fluids, even though they are also quite common in rituals of many tribal societies as well as some pagan/wiccan sects) and one coven event I attended included a full on animal sacrifice complete with a stone altar upon which the animals throat was cut, a libation was poured on the ground and the organs were burned after auspices were taken.

Not all pagan/wiccan sects have the same standardized practices you know, some of them like the hallal, jews and other tribal societies, still follow what they consider to be the old path in their rituals over politically correct contemporary practices.

[denuseri]

I’ve personally witness rituals that including the use of blood (in one the participants even drank each others blood mixed with wine in a chalice for their hand fastening, in the other menstrual blood was used, and I’ve seen more than one ritual preformed where a simple "finger prick" was used to get a drop of blood, and I wont bother going into the use of other bodily fluids or rituals involving the afterbirth from one's pregnancy, even though they are also quite common in rituals of many tribal societies as well as some pagan/wiccan sects) one coven event I attended included a full on animal sacrifice complete with a stone altar upon which the animals throat was cut, a libation was poured on the ground and the organs were burned after auspices were taken.

Not all pagan/wiccan sects have the same standardized practices you know, some of them like the hallal, jews and other tribal societies, still follow what they consider to be the old path in their rituals over politically correct contemporary practices.

[thir]

Not all pagan/wiccan sects have the same standardized practices you know, some of them like the hallal, jews and other tribal societies, still follow what they consider to be the old path in their rituals over politically correct contemporary practices.[/QUOTE]

I have never heard about that before.

But it is true that pagan beliefs are very diverse, but IME blod sacrifice is extremely rare. But if they do, of course that should also be forbidden!

As for sacrificing your own blod or parts of yourself, I do not see that that has a bearing on the topic of animal abuse.

[denuseri]

I only provided that information in responce to your statment that pagan/wiccan's do not have blood rituals and that it is in fact not as rare as you may think and involves more than just animals.

[rocco]

i think the reason for the out pouring of blood in the ancient times, was something to with the sacredness of it. it was instructed by the hewbrew God, not to eat it, but to pour it onto the ground before the consumption of the animal. {we are talking about what is known as lifes blood} what runs through the artaries, not the plasma surrounding the inside of the flesh. and i would suppose some beliefs have taking things out of contents etc. i dont know about the pagan/wicca side though. i would like to know though, if you have the answer? thanks.

[Lion]

I do see your point! But, as I see it, one thing does not exclude another.

Theoretically, you're correct. But my problem with the proponents of this ban is that it does nothing to do for the rights of the animals in day to day activities. Personally, it just seems like a law to deflect from whatever current issues are really important (Economy, crime, foreign policy, etc). Of course, I'm not a Dutch citizen, so I stand to be corrected in my assessment.

[thir]

I only provided that information in responce to your statment that pagan/wiccan's do not have blood rituals and that it is in fact not as rare as you may think and involves more than just animals.

I do not know where you have your information from, can only say that IME it is rare. Maybe it is different in US. Around here usually offerings are ale, corn, honey, cakes or the like.

As for whether it concerns humans as well as animals, again, that has no bearing on a topic on animal abuse. If people want to sacrifice their own blood or use it in a ritual, then that is their business and nothing to do with any kind of abuse.

[thir]

i think the reason for the out pouring of blood in the ancient times, was something to with the sacredness of it. it was instructed by the hewbrew God, not to eat it, but to pour it onto the ground before the consumption of the animal. {we are talking about what is known as lifes blood} what runs through the artaries, not the plasma surrounding the inside of the flesh. and i would suppose some beliefs have taking things out of contents etc. i dont know about the pagan/wicca side though. i would like to know though, if you have the answer? thanks.

If you are asking me: Pagan/Wicca is a diverse mob of people with each their ways, so there is no one answer.

The only example I know of is (some) Asatru who sacfrifice an animal (blot) at Midwinter and Midsummer. It is done without pain or fear, and only animals which have had a reasonable life are chosen. The animal is then processed and eaten.

[denuseri]

I do not know where you have your information from, can only say that IME it is rare. Maybe it is different in US. Around here usually offerings are ale, corn, honey, cakes or the like.

From academic books conserning the subject, from books written by wiccans, and different wiccan/neo-pagan writtings and the practicioners themselves, not only do I have several wiccan friends, my owner/husband is one too, plus I personally witnessed it, I used to hang out with a group that practiced blood magic.

They do non-blood sacrifices too.

As for whether it concerns humans as well as animals, again, that has no bearing on a topic on animal abuse.

I agree, it was only mentioned in responce to your saying they have no blood use in their rituals for informantional purposes only, not a slander, lots of religions cultures have similar religious practices conserning the use of blood, both human and animal.

If people want to sacrifice their own blood or use it in a ritual, then that is their business and nothing to do with any kind of abuse.



Again, it was a simple FYI not a slander against anyones faith.

If you dont believe me about its commonality in both modern neo-pagan practices in some groups and historical accounts, just do a simple google search conserning such practices, or crack any anthropology book open that deals with the importance of blood in sacrifcial practices, or read some of the wiccan writtings on blood magic and how its to be practiced.

I personally dont believe its "animal abuse" to sacrifice them or use their blood in a ritual eaither. To me its far more humane than hunting them, though truth be told I have no problem with animals being hunted, or with using them in farming so long as they are treated well.

My issue is with the industrialization proccesses used by the big corperate farms that cast aside all manner humane treatment for the sake of profits.

Additonally I tend to view PETA in and of itself as a fringe group oft filled with misguilded hypocrits, who are blithefully allowing themselves to be used for a hateful political agenda to attack other peoples cultural practices; especially when it comes to the topic of the thread.

[TwistedTails]

Vegetables are what food eats."

Couldn't have said that better! LOL

Cheers
Twisted