Should animal slaughter laws excuse peoples religious views?

No, just like having sex with minors shouldn’t be excused, or sacrificing humans etc.

Let me put it this way, once animal cruelty is banned in all aspects of society including how a great deal of the meat on supermarket shelves is slaughtered then, yeah, I think religious institutions should be subject to the same laws. However, considering that religious animal sacrifice is rare in comparison to factory farming and far less cruel yes, maybe the animals die painfully, but for factory-farmed animals, even a painful death is an escape from the horrible lives they lead I think if people are so worried about animal rights, they should look at all aspects of animal cruelty in a society, rather than just using it as an excuse to make more laws limiting religious practices.

I fail to see how religious choice outweighs treating your dinner humanely.

On a small scale, I have no issue with an un-stunned quick kill, on a large/industrial scale I’d be concerned that there’s too much room for abuse and needless suffering, as evidenced by articles documenting inhumane practices occurring now. Perhaps with proper oversight to ensure humane treatment, otherwise, no excuses.

I am more concerned with whether this is yet another example of ‘White countries’ using animal rights or women’s rights or gay rights to position themselves as progressive against a backdrop of ‘barbaric Muslims’ or of people that have different religions. These kinds of projects are never about the issue at hand but are more about creating division in a country that is being ‘threatened by immigration.’ When Israel does this with gay matters, we call it pink-washing. Perhaps, in this case, we can call it cow-washing. And I feel strongly about animals, am a vegan, etc. etc. I just think we’re being sold something here that is different from what’s on paper.

We have strong regulations in terms of stunning animals before they are slaughtered but we also have methods of slaughter that are more compliant with halal and kosher requirements (I believe. I am not expert on what is required). This document outlines the RSPCA position in Australia. These are the government guidelines.

Personally, I would prefer to see all animals stunned but realistically, this does not meet all cultural and religious needs and as such, I believe humane alternatives should be put in place. I would rather see some controls in place to ensure the best outcomes for the animals than putting in place blanket bans that might take the practice underground.

@KatawaGrey, really great point. Perhaps we should all make sure we buy free range eggs and avoid buying factory produced pork etc. We keep pigs and chickens in terrible conditions. The slaughter process is only one part of the food production process that involves animal cruelty.

Where should we draw the line, then?

@Blackberry Always a good question. I believe everyone draws their own line and it’s hard to convince others to do the same, if you believe strongly in your particular way. The point is there are groups whose numbers are larger and they get the privilege of feeling like they’re ‘normal’ and can tell others they’re the ones that have to explain where the line should be drawn. Should the burden have to be on me, a vegan? Or on those who are meat-eaters?

@Blackberry, the line will be in a different place for individuals but for me personally I make sure we buy free range eggs/chicken and I have in the past couple of months been researching where I can get organically/humanely farmed meat. We have had a few docos recently that have alerted me to the conditions pigs are kept in for instance. I realise that for many people the increased cost of buying organically farmed meat would be prohibitive. If you have to feed your family and you are on a strict budget, the need to put food on the table is going to come first.

As voters we can put pressure on governments to ensure regulations are in place to manage the way animals are treated both during their lives and at the time of their death. I think we have a long way to go yet in terms of ensuring animals are treated humanely. At the slaughtering stage, as I have said, I think there has to be compromise but obviously there are ways to ensure at least to ensure animals are not treated cruelly during the slaughter process. In Australia recently, public opinion after the broadcasting of a documentary about the way cattle were being treated in Indonesia led to a halt of live animal exports to Indonesia until changes were made to the abattoir process in that country. The line for most people here in that case was watching animals being treated cruelly.

From what I understand there are already countries that outlaw specific slaughter practices that are considered kosher. I thought there were acceptible ways to kill animals that meet kosher laws and civil laws based on humane treatment of animals.

In the end, if I had to decide one or the other, I would side on being humane. Kosher laws are supposed to treat the animal humanely theoretically, and if there is a better more modern way to do it, I think the Jews should consider it, or at minimum be willing to discuss the issue to accomodate meeting Jewish requirements and the best way to reduce the suffering of the animal.

Just a side note, a lot of our meet is kosher killed. Jews cannot eat certain parts of the cow, so those parts are sold as non-kosher cuts of meat, or “regular” cuts to the general population. In general we have no idea how our meat is killed in America unless we research it I think. Unless there are very specific laws I don’t know about? Possible, I am not well versed on the topic.

IT IS AN ANIMAL, I don’t like seeing animals suffer, but when there is a purpose, it is still and ANIMAL, and usually the tie goes to the humans. People care too much about animals being killed and not nearly enough about all humans.

@Hypocrisy_Central I don’t know if that’s the case. I care about animals and people being murdered senselessly. Is there a purpose if that person is ‘cause it tastes good’?

I am with @Simone_De_Beauvoir on this. I don’t want to see senseless and preventable cruelty being directed at any animal (humans included). Yes we are talking about animals, but we can tend to living and slaughter animals for food with care and consideration for their overall well-being. There are ways to meet the needs of different religious groups without sacrificing the need to be respectful and caring to other animals.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Yeah, I guess. Everyone is trying to do it humanely anyway, it seems.

@Blackberry Who’s everyone? Everyone, to me, could care less about the actual slaughter of animals going on.

Get ready to slap me… I think innocent animals should be left out of religious rituals entirely, and evil humans should be sacrificed instead. Save an innocent life and snuff out a useless one. Of course… the bible doesn’t say to slaughter a serial killer on the altar, it says to slaughter a goat, or whatever. And we should obey every part of the bible, right?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir The people killing the animals, the people in the article I meant.

@Blackberry Yeah, I guess that goes to my original comment. I’m mistrustful of their motives.

@WillWorkForChocolate I don’t really think of it as a religious ritual when the animal is going to be food, but I guess in a way it is a ritual.

@JLeslie In many of the religious rituals, the animal is sacrificed as a “gift” to the gods, and is not used for food. Waste of an innocent life. I was only talking about the religious ritual aspect of it, and not the “I’m eating a hamburger” aspect of it.

@WillWorkForChocolate I think the question is only about slaughter for food. I can’t imagine anyone in the western world supports any type of animal sacrifice to the Gods or similar. I guess maybe there might be a few nuts running around who still think it is ok, but society at large wouldn’t. It did not even occur to me to think of that aspect as part of this Q until you brought it up.

@JLeslie “I can’t imagine anyone in the western world supports any type of animal sacrifice to the Gods or similar.”

You’d be surprised.

And sorry, when I read “religious views” in regards to animal slaughter, I automatically thought of sacrificial rituals.

@WillWorkForChocolate Like I said, I am sure there are some nuts out there, but I think they are a fringe element. There are already laws against that sort of sacrifice I think.

There are laws against a lot of things that go on right under your nose.

@WillWorkForChocolate I agree, but the question is about laws.

Yeah, I get that, but what I’m saying is: laws don’t always make a difference…

I am not bothered by letting religious views trump animal slaughter laws. Partly for freedom-of-religion reasons, partly because animal sacrifice is not the same thing as slaughterhouse work. Heck, the ceremony might leave you with little to no cow whatsoever.

I too buy free range chickens/eggs and organically farmed/humanely treated meat. I don’t like cruelty to people, to animals to any living creature. I find people that do it, always find excuses for the doing. The hunter who, where I lived many years ago, went squirrel hunting, for food? The seller of chickens where my mom bought, had me pick out a chicken and then cut off his head right in front of me, for religious purposes? I couldn’t eat chcken as a child after seeing that. The farmer who places cows so close to each other that they can’t move. Why? I can’t picture a kind caring human being doing any of the above. But they do, in the name of religion, food for eating, kindness by reducing over population, etc., etc., etc.

[mod says] This is our Question of the Day!

@KatawaGrey
I don’t think death is an escape (even though we can’t know anything about death). I agree that we should be helping animals but I’ve always thought of death as the ultimate suffering just in case that’s what it turns out to be.

And I don’t think religion is an argument. When people tell me they need something from me because of their religion I ignore their religion and see if I would have helped them in any other situation.

So I guess I could make a religion that says that thou shalt kill everyone and be given exemption from anti-murder laws, because to ban me from killing would be to restrict my freedom of religion…right?

No, not right. Let the religious do whatever their books tell them to within the confines of the law. Your right to swing your fist around ends where my nose begins.

@Mariah Or snout as the case might be?

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I care about animals and people being murdered senselessly. Is there a purpose if that person is ‘cause it tastes good’? There are differences to wanton killing of animals, and killing animals for a reason. If the killing of an animals came because of right of passage, sacrifice or some other cultural or religious ritual, than that was the purpose. Most of the time it is food. In far too many cases, it is the safety of society, or the public, (though I believe they should use extreme prejudice, and try to take the animal down alive). At the end of the day, even if it was killed for the sport or it, it is still an animal, more consideration should go to humans in general.

@Mariah Interesting. I made the exact same point as you, except about stabbing people in the face, but I got moderated. Also, where is that quote from?

@Mariah It’s a curious conundrum, isn’t it? Ultimately, it comes down to authority, and which entity you give more to. The two are less likely to interfere with one another when the establishment of a government follows the spread of a religion. Christianity has some experience with that. Charged with sharing the Gospel, Christians throughout the ages have gone places where having a different faith (let alone converting anybody to it) was illegal, sometimes even to the point of death. To them, the will of God trumped the will of kings.
Truly, no man can serve two masters.

The laws of a country are made by representatives elected by the people. These laws can have the power to overrule religious laws. A good example is monogamy. All animal laws should ensure a minimum of suffering.

@mattbrowne So you would elevate the State over your god? ‘Cos that’s what you’re proposing.

@Nullo So? And if he was? Is there something wrong with that?

@Nullo State law trumps religious law. Otherwise why would some Christians in America be talking about making a law saying Sharia law is illegal? Under your proposal Muslim extremists should be able to do whatever they want in the name of God, even in America.

@Blackberry Yes, but not without going off topic.
But as a religious person, I’d sooner tell the State what it could do with its laws than abandon my faith if it came down to an either-or choice. I’m sure that there are other people of other faiths that feel the same.

@JLeslie That’s why I called it a conundrum. We have two or more entities that require full allegiance that may, theoretically, operate at cross purposes. Christianity in America not so much, since it shaped the Western civilization where it lives, and anyway tells people to respect authority until that authority tells you to do something un-Chrisitan.
A government that recognized an official religion wouldn’t have this problem.

@Nullo – Yes, of course. There are hundreds of religions with hundreds of different views and there are also hundreds of non-religious worldviews. No supporters of a religion or some other worldview has the right to impose their favored laws upon the rest of a society. This is a fundamental secular principle. Christians are entitled to share their opinions and a Christian representative in a parliament can contribute to the lawmaking process. But the law is what the majority of lawmakers want it to be. Everything else would be an undemocratic theocracy like what we see in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Western societies have evolved.