Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter(economist.com)
economist.com
Europe is in a muddle over ritual slaughter
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/10/21/europe-is-in-a-muddle-over-ritual-slaughter
101 comments
I find the appeal to religious freedom contemptible. An animal does not suffer any less if it has to be conscious during its slaughter for religious reasons, rather than secular ones.
I would agree. IMHO, religious freedom is an individual freedom that applies to your own private life only. The treatment of animals is not seen as a matter of private life and individual freedom by society and in law, and therefore does not depend on a person's religion or beliefs.
I'm not sure if they do it the same way everywhere, but at the only (industrial) slaughterhouse i've ever been at, they use a special kind of gun on the head of the animal, which basically destroys the brain, before they actually slaughter the animal. Compared to traditional methods (cutting the throat of a conscious animal), this seems a better solution.
I've started mentally translating all instances " because of my religion" to "because I really really want it", as that is what it effectively translates to.
There's just no easy line to draw otherwise between "because religion" and any other personal desire. It's not an appeal to any logic or meaning or external truth or specialness or benefit of humankind or world etc. But it's become this magic phrase that causes us to pause and consider requests that would otherwise be automatically denied on their own ground.
There's just no easy line to draw otherwise between "because religion" and any other personal desire. It's not an appeal to any logic or meaning or external truth or specialness or benefit of humankind or world etc. But it's become this magic phrase that causes us to pause and consider requests that would otherwise be automatically denied on their own ground.
But even then, if the better part of a population [1] just really, really wants something even if it objectively makes no sense at all, on which ground do you oppose the desire of the majority? I am not sure if you could justifiably oppose the majority, but if you can, it requires probably quite a bit of philosophical work to make that case.
[1] Just to be clear, I am not talking about this specific case, there is no majority here, but about the general case where a majority has some unreasonable ideas.
[1] Just to be clear, I am not talking about this specific case, there is no majority here, but about the general case where a majority has some unreasonable ideas.
I can oppose the desires of the majority on exactly the same grounds as I can oppose the desires of a single person. Being in the majority doesn't give anyone the right to impose their desires on everyone else. There is really nothing morally special about a majority.
You have the constitution setting the framework of what's permissible. Some countries like Germany have portions of the constitution that can't legally be changed, relating to human rights or the state being a democracy.
Of course a sufficiently large majority can just ignore that.
Of course a sufficiently large majority can just ignore that.
Our democratic model will bend to the unreasonable demands of the majority.
But religious people are increasingly not the majority in Europe, certainly not the ones that demand special animal abuse privileges.
But religious people are increasingly not the majority in Europe, certainly not the ones that demand special animal abuse privileges.
I wouldn't even want to restrict this to religion, there are other topics like taxation, climate change, capital punishment, gun laws, and what not where I can easily imagine that the majority opinion might be flawed because people don't think the issues through carefully enough. And I would guess that it is actually not too uncommon that politics acts against the majority opinion or at least the opinion of large groups. I don't think that this is necessarily bad, after all they are - at least supposed to be - the experts. And that is why I commented to begin with, there is probably some interesting philosophy going on in this area as the majority opinion is not necessarily the correct opinion.
It's easy to over simplify things to the point of absurdity.
This is like saying that when you read "because science tells us" that you translate it to "because I believe anything that scientists say" as that is what is effectively happening.
This is like saying that when you read "because science tells us" that you translate it to "because I believe anything that scientists say" as that is what is effectively happening.
Why does this get downvoted? Does there exist a reasonable counterargument to this? I'd really like to hear it.
Because it makes a show of pointing out that religious views are arbitrary and capricious to a degree that implies that isn't the case with any number of non religious views.
Freedom of conscience is a tricky thing. There are a lot of things that one person might see as falling under that while another might see as affecting the rights of some third party.
Freedom of conscience is a tricky thing. There are a lot of things that one person might see as falling under that while another might see as affecting the rights of some third party.
On the contrary. Law in most places gives religion credit above arbitrary and capricious.
If I want to murder an animal in particular way, wear a hat for license photo, take time off work, interact with people in a specific way, get exceptions or accommodations in workplace, restaurants, schools, public institutions, or do any number of things that may or may impact others, for any number of arbitrary and capricious reasons, I may receive a negative answer. But that answer changes solely because I append "because my religion tells me so".
My method reminds me there isn't actually some different less arbitrary reasoning automatically worth of respect and consideration. I just really want it.
In other words, I am not claiming (here) religion is more arbitrary. I am saying it is no less arbitrary, and due to my cultural conditioning and social norms in Western world, it takes conscious effort to remind myself of that.
If I want to murder an animal in particular way, wear a hat for license photo, take time off work, interact with people in a specific way, get exceptions or accommodations in workplace, restaurants, schools, public institutions, or do any number of things that may or may impact others, for any number of arbitrary and capricious reasons, I may receive a negative answer. But that answer changes solely because I append "because my religion tells me so".
My method reminds me there isn't actually some different less arbitrary reasoning automatically worth of respect and consideration. I just really want it.
In other words, I am not claiming (here) religion is more arbitrary. I am saying it is no less arbitrary, and due to my cultural conditioning and social norms in Western world, it takes conscious effort to remind myself of that.
It completely ignores the fact that it's possible to have deep religious beliefs about something.
Not even remotely. I am completely aware people have deep religious beliefs. (I've been on the receiving side of deeply religious beliefs multiple times in my life across cultures, religions, countries and continents :-).
My method for putting things in perspective though, is that when people say "let me do this because of my deeply held religious beliefs", on its own and with no other supporting arguments, that should hold no more, and no less, sway than "I really really want it" (and again, that takes me some work, because emotionally I too am conditioned to give religion extra sway and credit, with no supportive reason I can come up with, hence the need for internal conscious translation)
I am eager to hear non circular arguments otherwise.
Edit: semi jokingly but completely seriously: I am willing to grant another "really" for each instance of "deep",e.g.:
I want this due to my religious beliefs = I really want this
I want this due to my deep religious beliefs = I really really want this
I want this due to my particularly deeply held deep religious beliefs = I really really rreaaallly want it.
Again it comes down to religion in actuality being a personal choice and decision rather than immutable property beyond person's control. Any argument of immutability tend to become circular and refer to specific religion itself.
My method for putting things in perspective though, is that when people say "let me do this because of my deeply held religious beliefs", on its own and with no other supporting arguments, that should hold no more, and no less, sway than "I really really want it" (and again, that takes me some work, because emotionally I too am conditioned to give religion extra sway and credit, with no supportive reason I can come up with, hence the need for internal conscious translation)
I am eager to hear non circular arguments otherwise.
Edit: semi jokingly but completely seriously: I am willing to grant another "really" for each instance of "deep",e.g.:
I want this due to my religious beliefs = I really want this
I want this due to my deep religious beliefs = I really really want this
I want this due to my particularly deeply held deep religious beliefs = I really really rreaaallly want it.
Again it comes down to religion in actuality being a personal choice and decision rather than immutable property beyond person's control. Any argument of immutability tend to become circular and refer to specific religion itself.
It doesn't. It simply makes the argument that deep religious beliefs are not different from other deep beliefs. At it's face, this appears to be a pretty reasonable take.
Why would religious beliefs be special?
Why would religious beliefs be special?
The OP used the expression "because I really really want it", which doesn't describe religious belief. You might do something that your religion tells you to do even if you don't want to do it.
>> "You might do something that your religion tells you to do even if you don't want to do it."
That merely pushes recursion one quick and easy level further. As an individual with agency, you choose to adopt and obey a particular religion. You "want to". It should not excuse you from your actions or give extra special credence to your demands.
That merely pushes recursion one quick and easy level further. As an individual with agency, you choose to adopt and obey a particular religion. You "want to". It should not excuse you from your actions or give extra special credence to your demands.
I don't think this is a valid argument. If you have a conflict between what your religions says and what you conclude by other means and you decide - for whatever reasons - to follow the religion, then you still want this thing. It might not be a case of I really, really want this but it is still a case of I just want this.
Case in point: "Really really wanting" to make an animal suffer is only possible for people with a certain level of cruelty. Religious prescription makes it possible for otherwise not cruel people to make animals suffer. Blurring the distinction is not helpful or smart in any way.
I deny you the distinction.
If There are people who demand certain level of cruelty upon living beings, whether animals or people, "I really want it" and "I choose a framework of ethics that demands / enables me to do it" and "voices told me to do it" and "I persuaded myself it's ok" and "I choose religion that tells me to do it" boil down to equivalent statements.
You are making a statement that religion excuses people from cruel actions and I will fight you to end of the earth on that one.
If There are people who demand certain level of cruelty upon living beings, whether animals or people, "I really want it" and "I choose a framework of ethics that demands / enables me to do it" and "voices told me to do it" and "I persuaded myself it's ok" and "I choose religion that tells me to do it" boil down to equivalent statements.
You are making a statement that religion excuses people from cruel actions and I will fight you to end of the earth on that one.
> You are making a statement that religion excuses people from cruel actions
Well then you completely misunderstood me
Well then you completely misunderstood me
well then - help me out :)
I've re-read your post several times.
"Religious prescription makes it possible for otherwise not cruel people to make animals suffer. Blurring the distinction is not helpful or smart in any way."
I think there exist valid distinctions; e.g. a vet who needs to make an animal suffer temporary pain while providing long term relief is an important distinction.
However, what I've put forward is that currently, we are giving TOO much credit and distinction for people who desire cruelty upon animals (and many other things) due to religion alone; vs other arbitrary personal desires and preferences. I think we need to blur that distinction, or support it with something else than "because religion".
In other words, to me:
Group A: Inflicts temporary pain to animals for purpose of long term relief or some other quantifiable objective benefit to something or somebody somewhere
Group B: Inflicts pain to animals for no good reason / for enjoyment of cruelty / for fun / for religion. I deny your claim that people who desire harm upon animals for religious reasons alone, are "otherwise not cruel people". I think "Cruel" is precisely what they are, and I deny them using religion as valid ethical excuse that means anything else than "because I wanted to", because religion is freely chosen and freely obeyed and we remain agents of free will. Or to put it another way - what about humans? If people want to harm other humans for only religious reasons, are we still treating them as "otherwise not cruel"?
I'm willing to listen what your alternative hypothesis/point/statement is - why are people who desire cruelty upon animals for religious reasons alone "not otherwise cruel", or how DO you narrowly define cruelty then?
(and again, it took me personally 30 years to stop giving religion a culturally-conditioned, social-norms free pass on these things; and I still have to fight this ingrained reflex to not instinctively believe that "because religion" is a superior reason to "because I want to". I don't expect anybody else to make that journey in 15 minutes debating internet strangers even if they want to).
[Final note: IF your point is more along the lines of "we should understand the details of reasoning and motivations", absolutely; but I did not see that line of reasoning in your original post. My point is I see no moral distinction or superiority between "because religion" and "because I want to", and one should not be given more credence than the other -- which is not to deny that understanding the motivations in detail is a useful and positive effort]
I've re-read your post several times.
"Religious prescription makes it possible for otherwise not cruel people to make animals suffer. Blurring the distinction is not helpful or smart in any way."
I think there exist valid distinctions; e.g. a vet who needs to make an animal suffer temporary pain while providing long term relief is an important distinction.
However, what I've put forward is that currently, we are giving TOO much credit and distinction for people who desire cruelty upon animals (and many other things) due to religion alone; vs other arbitrary personal desires and preferences. I think we need to blur that distinction, or support it with something else than "because religion".
In other words, to me:
Group A: Inflicts temporary pain to animals for purpose of long term relief or some other quantifiable objective benefit to something or somebody somewhere
Group B: Inflicts pain to animals for no good reason / for enjoyment of cruelty / for fun / for religion. I deny your claim that people who desire harm upon animals for religious reasons alone, are "otherwise not cruel people". I think "Cruel" is precisely what they are, and I deny them using religion as valid ethical excuse that means anything else than "because I wanted to", because religion is freely chosen and freely obeyed and we remain agents of free will. Or to put it another way - what about humans? If people want to harm other humans for only religious reasons, are we still treating them as "otherwise not cruel"?
I'm willing to listen what your alternative hypothesis/point/statement is - why are people who desire cruelty upon animals for religious reasons alone "not otherwise cruel", or how DO you narrowly define cruelty then?
(and again, it took me personally 30 years to stop giving religion a culturally-conditioned, social-norms free pass on these things; and I still have to fight this ingrained reflex to not instinctively believe that "because religion" is a superior reason to "because I want to". I don't expect anybody else to make that journey in 15 minutes debating internet strangers even if they want to).
[Final note: IF your point is more along the lines of "we should understand the details of reasoning and motivations", absolutely; but I did not see that line of reasoning in your original post. My point is I see no moral distinction or superiority between "because religion" and "because I want to", and one should not be given more credence than the other -- which is not to deny that understanding the motivations in detail is a useful and positive effort]
When a person inflicts pain out of cruelty, (mostly) they are to blame. When they inflict pain because of religion, (mostly) religion is to blame.
I do not think that there is necessarily a conflict - you could really, really want this animal killed in this specific way for religious reasons and still not want the animal to suffer. You might believe that animals can not suffer, you might believe that god makes the animal not suffer in this case, or whatever. So I think one should be careful to not mix up really, really wanting to kill an animal in a certain way and really, really wanting the animal to suffer. But I will happily accept that there are at least some people facing a conflict.
With regard to your more general point that those desire are not exceptionally strong and involve conflicts - sure, notwithstanding me arguing against this in this specific case, I will grant you that, this is certainly possible. But I am not sure that you could make this point in the general case, I do not see why there could not be strong religiously motivated desires without conflicts.
Finally and notwithstanding the points above, I still think we are focusing to much on the really, really aspect. I do not think that the focus of the original comment was on the strength of the desire but on the lack of rational justification.
With regard to your more general point that those desire are not exceptionally strong and involve conflicts - sure, notwithstanding me arguing against this in this specific case, I will grant you that, this is certainly possible. But I am not sure that you could make this point in the general case, I do not see why there could not be strong religiously motivated desires without conflicts.
Finally and notwithstanding the points above, I still think we are focusing to much on the really, really aspect. I do not think that the focus of the original comment was on the strength of the desire but on the lack of rational justification.
Because it sounds antagonistic, it's counter indicated by modern culture, plus large proportion of any given audience IS religious and firmly believes they are entitled to special treatment, which is indeed enshrined in laws of most countries.
I've been atheist all my life and it took Me 30 years to get beyond my own cultural conditioning and allow myself to To think "religion is not special belief above all others". Still sounds like a sacrilege even to me and I have to fight the instinct to give it special privilege mentally and automatically.
Note that most other protected features are assumed to be ingrained and largely immutable for the purpose of the law (race, age, etc). The law treats religion the same, as opposed to personal choice that it is like all others. One of my light-bulb moments was when I started replacing phrase "Christian /Muslim / Etc child" with "child of Christian / Muslim / Hindu /etc parents". We should not pretend we do not have agency and freedom of belief... And thus be judged upon that chosen belief like all others.
"I want to hurt that animal / abuse women / disrespect others /etc" should be treated no differently whether suffixed by "because religion" or "because I want to".
I've been atheist all my life and it took Me 30 years to get beyond my own cultural conditioning and allow myself to To think "religion is not special belief above all others". Still sounds like a sacrilege even to me and I have to fight the instinct to give it special privilege mentally and automatically.
Note that most other protected features are assumed to be ingrained and largely immutable for the purpose of the law (race, age, etc). The law treats religion the same, as opposed to personal choice that it is like all others. One of my light-bulb moments was when I started replacing phrase "Christian /Muslim / Etc child" with "child of Christian / Muslim / Hindu /etc parents". We should not pretend we do not have agency and freedom of belief... And thus be judged upon that chosen belief like all others.
"I want to hurt that animal / abuse women / disrespect others /etc" should be treated no differently whether suffixed by "because religion" or "because I want to".
I'm not religious either, that's why I recognize that protected features are not some immutable law of nature but a social construct.
As a society we have long come to the conclusion that, for good or bad, limiting religious expression leads do disastrous consequences.
That doesn't mean that religion should have free reign (we have for example long decided that church and state should be separate), but any change of the status quo needs to go largely through general social agreement, not mandated from first principles.
As a society we have long come to the conclusion that, for good or bad, limiting religious expression leads do disastrous consequences.
That doesn't mean that religion should have free reign (we have for example long decided that church and state should be separate), but any change of the status quo needs to go largely through general social agreement, not mandated from first principles.
change is difficult
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html
I remember this back in the 1980s in Miami, regarding Santería.
Ahh, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lukumi_Babalu_Ay... .
Basically, the Hialeah City Council thought Santería practices were un-American, un-Cuban, and "abhorrent to its citizens", so banned "sacrifices of animals for any type of ritual", but made sure to allow: "Kosher slaughterhouses, regular slaughterhouses, hunting, fishing, pest extermination, euthanasia of stray animals, and feeding live rabbits to greyhounds."
The Santería church sued, and in 1993 the Supreme Court "concluded that the city's ordinances violated the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution."
The Wikipedia entry also points to the more recent Merced v. Kasson from 2009, where the judge ruled the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act meant that the city's prohibition on the slaughter of four-legged animals "substantially burden plaintiff's free exercise of religion without advancing a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means."
> ... Somewhat similarly in 2009, a freedom of religion case related to animal sacrifice was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Merced v. Kasson ... The court ruled that the ordinances "substantially burden plaintiff's free exercise of religion without advancing a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means", as required by the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Ahh, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Lukumi_Babalu_Ay... .
Basically, the Hialeah City Council thought Santería practices were un-American, un-Cuban, and "abhorrent to its citizens", so banned "sacrifices of animals for any type of ritual", but made sure to allow: "Kosher slaughterhouses, regular slaughterhouses, hunting, fishing, pest extermination, euthanasia of stray animals, and feeding live rabbits to greyhounds."
The Santería church sued, and in 1993 the Supreme Court "concluded that the city's ordinances violated the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution."
The Wikipedia entry also points to the more recent Merced v. Kasson from 2009, where the judge ruled the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act meant that the city's prohibition on the slaughter of four-legged animals "substantially burden plaintiff's free exercise of religion without advancing a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means."
> ... Somewhat similarly in 2009, a freedom of religion case related to animal sacrifice was taken to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Merced v. Kasson ... The court ruled that the ordinances "substantially burden plaintiff's free exercise of religion without advancing a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means", as required by the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Why would a religion dictate how you should kill animals, and why do people believe this is a religious matter rather than an animal-rights matter? I just can't understand people sometimes.
Religion means different things to different people.
For example, religion to a modern protestant-descended American means something very different to a Salafi Muslim. To one, religion is law. To the other, it's superficial pomp.
If your ancestral law (Salafi religion) dictates that you will slaughter animals a certain way lest the wrath of God and your kin and your ancestors strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger, that to violate such a tenet is to violate the law, then by God you will do it.
A rationalist (protestant religion) might divine the religious practice has roots as a hygienic practice that was useful for stone age peoples in a desert climate, but today has no practical use, and he might be right, but that doesn't matter to the Salafist. The Salafist's "why" for doing things is very different and much more personally compelling than the protestant's "why".
The protestant would be well-served in realizing that, although he distinguishes religion from state or law, many others in this world do not.
For example, religion to a modern protestant-descended American means something very different to a Salafi Muslim. To one, religion is law. To the other, it's superficial pomp.
If your ancestral law (Salafi religion) dictates that you will slaughter animals a certain way lest the wrath of God and your kin and your ancestors strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger, that to violate such a tenet is to violate the law, then by God you will do it.
A rationalist (protestant religion) might divine the religious practice has roots as a hygienic practice that was useful for stone age peoples in a desert climate, but today has no practical use, and he might be right, but that doesn't matter to the Salafist. The Salafist's "why" for doing things is very different and much more personally compelling than the protestant's "why".
The protestant would be well-served in realizing that, although he distinguishes religion from state or law, many others in this world do not.
Chesterton's fence probably applies here.
Yes, trichinosis was probably the reason for not eating pork. Similarly this method of slaughter probably had hygienic benefits in the desert countries where it was instituted.
Circumcision probably had hygienic benefits back then, too.
But we no longer live in these circumstances.
Circumcision probably had hygienic benefits back then, too.
But we no longer live in these circumstances.
Quite. No scholar on this matter but they presumably began at least in part as a welfare measure.
"Chesterton's fence" doesn't mean that you should never change or abandon an existing tradition. It means that you shouldn't do that until you understand why the "fence" was put up in the first place.
There are plenty of religious diktats in the Bible and other books that nobody follows.
For instance, if you curse at your parents, the Old Testament calls for you to be stoned to death. This one is conveniently overlooked though
For instance, if you curse at your parents, the Old Testament calls for you to be stoned to death. This one is conveniently overlooked though
It actually isn't. Orthodox Jews, who are the most literal devotees of the Old Testament (as interpreted by the Talmud), do consider this a capital offence. For technical reasons the death penalty is not administered today (and even when it was, the conditions that needed to be met meant that it hardly ever happened in practice). But this doesn't take away from the severity of the offence.
I'm saying that the vast majority of people who live by a book will only follow the parts of said book that they like or find appropriate.
How many Christians have you ever seen laying hands on bodies at funerals, trying to resurrect the dead?
How many Christians have you ever seen laying hands on bodies at funerals, trying to resurrect the dead?
Maybe you could study religion some more, why and when it emerged as it did, etc.
There is plenty of common sense in the holy books.
There is plenty of common sense in the holy books.
Maybe you should consider that we no longer live in the period in which those books were written? How religion emerged has nothing to do with how things should be in secular societies today.
It could not matter less that the advice given in these books used to make sense at some point.
It could not matter less that the advice given in these books used to make sense at some point.
> How religion emerged has nothing to do with how things should be in secular societies today.
This assumes literally everything is different today. Which of course is nonsense.
This assumes literally everything is different today. Which of course is nonsense.
Why would it mean that? Slight differences in one thing can result in dramatic changes elsewhere.
How could you use "hygiene" to justify the unnecessary torture of animals with outdated butchery techniques? 2000 years ago there probably were great health reasons for doing so. We're in 2021, there's simply no excuse.
How could you use "hygiene" to justify the unnecessary torture of animals with outdated butchery techniques? 2000 years ago there probably were great health reasons for doing so. We're in 2021, there's simply no excuse.
And maybe you should consider the power of religion, the sense of belonging and origin it gives you, and the good it is doing to this world today (despite many missteps as well), before being so judgemental. I am saying this as someone not religious but grown up with religion.
Some religions evolve faster than others. I would hope the different faiths can come up with iterative improvements to their standard operating procedures that still meets the requirements. I believe the Jewish religion even has a concept about creatively outsmarting the religious rules as being a virtuous thing (eg women wearing wigs).
Some religions evolve faster than others. I would hope the different faiths can come up with iterative improvements to their standard operating procedures that still meets the requirements. I believe the Jewish religion even has a concept about creatively outsmarting the religious rules as being a virtuous thing (eg women wearing wigs).
You bring up a good point about religion, it does make millions of people feel better by belonging to a group they see as being benign.
But my question still stands, specially on the light of such view of religion: if religion is, these days, meant to give people internal piece, does it need to dictate such practical things as how you should kill animals?! How do you reconcile that with your view on religion?
But my question still stands, specially on the light of such view of religion: if religion is, these days, meant to give people internal piece, does it need to dictate such practical things as how you should kill animals?! How do you reconcile that with your view on religion?
GP asked a fairly direct question. Can you cite any of the “common sense” you mentioned as a response instead of dismissing the question outright?
Probably hygiene. A lot of the common sense was about keeping the community alive.
There's a lot written about this in other places, but the gist of it: many ancient "rituals" are based around pre-medicine hygiene practices. In this specific case, live slaughter was the norm because of the health risks of eating carrion: if you haven't seen the animal alive, you don't know how long the meat has been dead before consumption.
Well this does at least demonstrate why it was so necessary for Jesus to come along and say "look, you're following these old laws slavishly, just try to love each other and you'll probably be fine".
The price you pay in striving for social integration!
Yes, if you strife for integration you have long discussions in your society how to weigh opposing interests.
I'm not sure what reasonable alternatives exist.
I'm not sure what reasonable alternatives exist.
I mean, we've just had two male priests lose their job because they refused to work with female priests[1][2], citing the bible as reason.
Pretty sure that would have been considered quite radical a hundred years ago.
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/vestland/etter-avtale-med-biskopen_-mikae...
[2]: https://www.nrk.no/mr/omstridd-prest-i-orskog-gar-av_-ville-...
Pretty sure that would have been considered quite radical a hundred years ago.
[1]: https://www.nrk.no/vestland/etter-avtale-med-biskopen_-mikae...
[2]: https://www.nrk.no/mr/omstridd-prest-i-orskog-gar-av_-ville-...
They lost their salary and legal employment, but the thing about religion is that you are not beholden to any authority other than the one you choose, so they can continue to practice being priests.
Striving for keeping the homogeneous culture that has existed for centuries and ejecting those who do not accept it is a reasonable alternative.
Honest question: has any empire (or powerful nation) ever been homogenous without genocide?
Japan? Their natives were few in numbers (less than 2%), so it can be considered a Homogenous nation.
I think we can keep out immigrants who do not want to fit in without having to resort to genocide.
I think several millennia of European history show that they actually cannot do this without resorting to genocide. This has literally happened in Europe within my lifetime so forgive me if I ignore your unfounded assertions that 'this time' Europe will get it right.
How many centuries-to-millennia do Jews have to live in Europe before theyre viewed as having the same rights as all other Europeans, rather than being immigrants in need of assimilation?
If this is the baseline level of Othering involved in the thinking around this, you understand why people view this as an expression of anti-semitism. “Respect other people’s cultures and beliefs, unless they’re Jewish” isn’t a good look for the left wing.
If this is the baseline level of Othering involved in the thinking around this, you understand why people view this as an expression of anti-semitism. “Respect other people’s cultures and beliefs, unless they’re Jewish” isn’t a good look for the left wing.
Apartheid has been tried before. Like communism it doesn’t work out in practice the way the theory predicts.
You have it backwards: ethnic violence is more prevalent in diverse countries without boundaries separating different groups: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Look at ex-Yugoslavia. Is it not working out? Are the people worse off in their separate countries, than when they were genociding each-other under a common flag?
"Good fences make good neighbors" wasn't invented out of thin air.
Look at ex-Yugoslavia. Is it not working out? Are the people worse off in their separate countries, than when they were genociding each-other under a common flag?
"Good fences make good neighbors" wasn't invented out of thin air.
People in Yugoslavia weren't genociding each other in regular times (outside of WW2 and the Yugoslav wars), there was just ethnic tension. Furthermore, present post-Yugoslav countries aren't homogenous, and there's still ethnic tensions there ( in Bosnia, or Serbia and Kosovo). I'm not sure "working out" is how I'd put it.
Interesting standard. So only genocides during "regular times" count? And as long as there are tensions, you can't say things are working out? Anything short of perfect harmony might as well be civil war and genocide?
brabel(1)
Ancient writings make for good Hollywood movies and bad 21st century laws.
If you don't see this as a conflict of faiths, you better check your privilege about what you believe.
I'm quite happy that there are few who believe animals should be sacrificed with maximal suffering and their pain displayed for the congregation to participate in.
If we're going to give full faith and credence to the religious tho, we'll have to admit there's some out there who do need to splatter some critters, and they've as much right to their interpretation as we do to our gentler notions.
Of course if we're just deciding that there should be just one set of beliefs and you can be whatever faith you like so long as you think speak and behave like everyone else, that's different.
I'm quite happy that there are few who believe animals should be sacrificed with maximal suffering and their pain displayed for the congregation to participate in.
If we're going to give full faith and credence to the religious tho, we'll have to admit there's some out there who do need to splatter some critters, and they've as much right to their interpretation as we do to our gentler notions.
Of course if we're just deciding that there should be just one set of beliefs and you can be whatever faith you like so long as you think speak and behave like everyone else, that's different.
You can outlaw it but they will still just do it anyways but with more stealth. Religion is damn stupid but we have bigger fish to fry I think for workers and health of humans.
Illegal behavior is no excuse not to act. Many things are done illegally, it doesn't mean they should just be legalized. Outlawing these practices will inevitably lead to a decline in its use, just not by 100%.
So what? The scale will be slashed. If you ban the sales of such meat, the business will be in a really tough spot.
Fascinating that this is flagged. Any other reason than religious folks who want to sweep it under the rug?
Because letting people do whatever they want is not even on the radar of these bureaucrats.
Let the religious people do whatever they want or the animal rights activists?
The former obviously. The latter are the ones who want to restrict the freedoms of others.
The latter would argue that the former are violating the animal's right to a pain-free death.
I don't understand the obsession with the 'pain-free' death. Surely the animal feels something in all slaughter methods, and either way it's getting killed and eaten. Frankly unless you have even been slaughtered by a Jewish butcher, how can you truly judge how much pain the animal feels?
Besides, most people have experienced a cut by a sharp edge where they don't feel pain or even realize they are bleeding for some time. This is actually a goal of Jewish and Halal butchering methods. And frankly, I'm not sure attempting to perform some 'pain-free' slaughter via impersonal machine is more humane than having another sentient being in close proximity to the animal perform the act. Modern factory slaughter is humane in the same sense a drone strike is humane.
Besides, most people have experienced a cut by a sharp edge where they don't feel pain or even realize they are bleeding for some time. This is actually a goal of Jewish and Halal butchering methods. And frankly, I'm not sure attempting to perform some 'pain-free' slaughter via impersonal machine is more humane than having another sentient being in close proximity to the animal perform the act. Modern factory slaughter is humane in the same sense a drone strike is humane.
>Surely the animal feels something in all slaughter methods
So you really believe that every level of "feeling something" is the same?
So you really believe that every level of "feeling something" is the same?
Of course not, but I kinda feel like this discussion is splitting hairs. If you accept that killing and eating another being is fine, as long as you aren't going out of your way to cause excessive pain I don't think it's a problem.
And I kinda feel like the difference between factory farming and pasture farming probably has a larger suffering delta than industial slauighterhouses vs Jewish butchers. But for whatever reason people don't care all that much.
And I kinda feel like the difference between factory farming and pasture farming probably has a larger suffering delta than industial slauighterhouses vs Jewish butchers. But for whatever reason people don't care all that much.
Animals are... animals.
I guess it comes down to whether you think of animals as soulless automata or as beings with conscious thought and emotions, worthy of (some amount of) empathy.
And while I can't say much about sheep, in the last ~50 years we have found that some kind of animals are remarkably far on the latter side
And while I can't say much about sheep, in the last ~50 years we have found that some kind of animals are remarkably far on the latter side
Right? You can argue that it is immoral for a human being to inflict needless suffering on animals, but I don’t know where right enter the picture. Ever watch a nature show? You think the alligator tearing pieces off a living zebra is violating the rights of the zebra? Or even that it’s immoral for it to do so?
[deleted]
Yes, freedom should be restricted, and it is in many ways already and for good reason.
Bleedind animals to death is not remotely something that is linked to private sphere of freedom.