Posted on 03/08/2014 11:20:10 PM PST by Olog-hai
Britain’s Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, said on the weekend he disagreed with the call of the incoming president of the British Veterinary Association (BVA), John Blackwell, to ban shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter) and Islamic halal slaughter.
Clegg said, according to the BBC, that stopping this type of slaughter would “remove the right of Jewish communities in this country, Muslim communities in this country, to stick to their religious beliefs about how they prepare food and how animals are slaughtered.”
The Jewish Chronicle quoted Clegg as having said that “no government of which I’m part” would ban shechita. …
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
As a Christian, I’d remind Mr. Rosindell that British traditions include drawing and quartering. He was ill-advised to go there.
Define “humane”. Don’t use your own definition.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
This is not inhuman, it just doesn’t fit into your fancy pants. This is no more painful than stunning.
Your cavalier dismissal of religious law is instructive. True religion does not bend to your whims, nor should you ask it to.
It doesnt matter what Clegg thinks. The Liberal democrats in the UK are an irrelevence. They will be lucky to survive the next Electoral cycle.
Agreed. Technology has advanced quite a lot since the middle of the iron age, and what may have been one of the more rational and humane methods of slaughter thousands of years ago is by no means so today.
There truly is no comparison in terms of safety (for both humans slaughtering the animal as well as the animal) or in terms of pain between the use of modern captive-bolt stunners to incapacitate and render insensate and the archaic proscribed methods of slitting an animal’s throat and letting it bleed to death while conscious.
Early Judaic law was heavily influenced by the practice of neighboring tribes in the holy land, which also had religiously proscribed practices of slaughter. Much as the biblical prohibition against drinking heathen wine, the strict dietary and slaughter laws of the ancient Hebrews encouraged them to remain apart from their neighbors and it’s likely that the priesthood codified these proscriptions for that very reason.
As for your comment about faiths changing, as Jesus demonstrated with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, such proscriptions may serve a purpose for a time, but times change.
Judaica ping.
If you outlaw kosher food, and also circumcision (as many countries have done), you have effectively outlawed Judaism.
Whether this was the intent or not, this is the result.
And THAT is not “progress”, but “regress” (back to the days of the Maccabees).
The canary in the mine is starting to feel faint...
Actually, I like this idea for unusual reasons.
That is, truly devout Muslims and Jews would reject eating meat that is not properly prepared, but it is far more likely that at least for a time, the Jews as a group could import so much Kosher meat that it would only marginally increase the price they paid for it. That is, they would plan ahead and get the logistics sorted out to work around the law. Smart people do this.
But Muslims would never think ahead, so their alternatives would be either to become vegetarians, *or* to leave Britain. Importantly, the more devout, and likely radical, they are, the harder it would be on them.
And if they tried to tough it out by becoming vegetarian, it might do much to curtail their aggression.
Either way, an outflow of Muslims from Britain, or the Muslims becoming less prone to violence, is a win-win.
That is not likely to happen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.