What do you feel weighs heavier: animal rights or religious rituals/customs?

I’ll consider animal rights when animals present them to me.

I’ll consider rituals/customs when those that perform them can empirically demonstrate the benefit out “weighs” the cost.

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

Animals do not have the natural pre-requisites to possess rights.
They may, depending on the time and place, be granted by law a particular standard of treatment.
If some religious group wants their food to be prepared a certain way, they are entitled to to pay for the practice, and request certification that it actually occurred. Why make it more complicated than that?

Well, Aragorn, I don’t see the comparison between animal rights and religion at all but..

I’d be interested in hearing what the actual butchers have to say about it. They are the ones given the gruesome task that most people ignore. They are the ones who have to change how they do things if the law changes.

Do no harm. That should be the basis of all religions. Religion is an idea. An animal is a living, breathing being. There isn’t even a choice, IMO.

@wonderingwhy ”...treating your dinner humanely”

I’ve always wondered about that word… “humane”.

Does that mean personifying animals with human characteristics?

or…

Does that mean that all humans share some innate level of being that we all agree is the distinguishing factor of being human?

the real fate of living beings that can feel pain and cling to life outweighs the traditions sprung from delusion.

This Q is on the same topic.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies It means to treat with compassion; and in this instance implicitly provides animals with certain characteristics recognized in humans, specifically that they are capable of experiencing suffering.

Thanks @wonderingwhy. Your use of the word sparked this question.

The Dutch parliament approved a measure to stop animals from being slaughtered without anesthesia, but the Dutch senate is faltering. The practice will probably continue, killing animals to be eaten in the same fashion, without anesthesia in the name of religion. To me it’s inhumane and another reason for me to be non religious. I can also understand why some in my family are Vegans. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/12/dutch-will-not-ban-kosher-halal.html

ABSOLUTELY Animal Rights!!! Also – your religion forbids you from treating animals humanely? Find a new religion!

Animal rights. Animals have rights, just because of their very being, of existing, as living creatures. Human rituals, religion, and customs aren’t really a necessity but are creations to fulfill human interests. As a matter of fact, they often get in the way of sensibility and righteousness.

Animal rights.

In this case I definitely consider the animal rights to be more important than the religious customs/traditions. I have no doubt that there will be some people that will continue to find a way of eating meat that was inhumanely killed in the name of religion but that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be illegal to kill animals without anaestetic. I agree with the fact that it is illegal to be a drug dealer but I am fully aware that it still happens. At least if people are caught doing something that is officially illegal (rather than just frowned upon) there can be an appropriate punishment.

This is a GQ by the way!

I think it behoves us greatly to think about how we treat our ´food´. I don´t know if a cow or goat that has lived it´s life free range and not in a feeding lot or stuck in a cage with no space to stand or turn around but then meets with a very sharp blade at the very end of that hasn´t had a better life than the veal or chicken or feedlot beef most people eat. As a living breathing being myself, I would rather have months of happiness leading up to that one fateful day than a life of agony and sadness and be quietly snuffed out.