My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Would you support the Home Religious Acts?

yes
9
7%
no
119
92%
maybe
2
2%
 
Total votes: 130

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue May 31, 2011 8:14 pm UTC

It is hard to say whether this would be a good idea. Mainly because as others have said, it was a short post. But I don't think it is an outright terrible idea. France has taken baby steps towards this. At the end of the day, this wouldn't make that much of a difference. Churches would become a little more drab looking, those people who stand on street corner and scream about end times would be forced to stop, but other than that not much change. It would make religion follow basically the same rules as sex.

Adults can have as much sex as they want in their own home.
There are places where adults can get together to have lots of sex with like minded people.
Adults can't have sex with children.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Tue May 31, 2011 8:22 pm UTC

Maybe I'm probably misreading things, but I read the argument thusly:

* Vellup asserts that no "'powerful'" country has ever severely restricted religious freedom.

* Viae knightsexemplar asserts that France's headscarf ban disproves Vellup's claim

* Vellup sort of skips around this, saying that America is different because it is multicultural (presumably this extends to religion), unlike other countries which have large religious majorities - so severe restrictions of religious freedom would never be tolerated by American citizens

* Viae disputes Vellup's assertion that America is uniquely diverse and that other countries have large majorities of a single religion - that, in short, suppression of religious freedom is impossible in America

So, in short, Viae's argument seems to be more "the majority may stomp on the religious rights of the minority" and Vellup's argument is "the majority will react badly when their way of life is being impinged" (correct me if I'm wrong, though).
Last edited by Cheezwhiz Jenkins on Tue May 31, 2011 8:35 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Tue May 31, 2011 8:24 pm UTC

Wasn't me going on about the headscarf to start with. I'm basically taking issue with the idea that the US is special in its multiculturalism and stuff.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Tue May 31, 2011 8:34 pm UTC

Oh! That was another user. Sorry about that.

Accurate otherwise?
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Tue May 31, 2011 8:44 pm UTC

Cheezwhiz Jenkins wrote:So, in short, Viae's argument seems to be more "the majority may stomp on the religious rights of the minority and are more likely to do so when challenged by a more visible minority" and Vellup's argument is "the US is unique in that it is multi-cultural, and so will not discriminate in the aforementioned circumstances" (correct me if I'm wrong, though).

I think that's right.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby gmalivuk » Tue May 31, 2011 9:47 pm UTC

Viae wrote:I suppose the seventh century doesn't count, then.
For a country that was created in the last century? Yeah, the seventh century doesn't count.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

fr00t
Posts: 113
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:06 am UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby fr00t » Tue May 31, 2011 11:04 pm UTC

samusaran253 wrote:This morning I thought of a new idea for a law, the Home Religious Acts, I shall call it. It would respect people's freedom of religion, but absolutely kill off any control religion still has. It would allow religious worship, but only in one's own home. It would eliminate the display of religion in public,


Violates our freedom of assembly.

samusaran253 wrote:It would disallow parents from forcing their teenagers and children to convert to a religion or follow a religion's teachings of morality.


Indoctrination is not the same thing as forcing someone to convert; moreover, parents have to have some standards of morality and value to give their children.

I believe organized religion is a problem and a thing to be abolished, but through reason and secularization, not legislation. Plus, it's already happening anyways.

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Enuja » Tue May 31, 2011 11:12 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:It is hard to say whether this would be a good idea. Mainly because as others have said, it was a short post. But I don't think it is an outright terrible idea. France has taken baby steps towards this. At the end of the day, this wouldn't make that much of a difference. Churches would become a little more drab looking, those people who stand on street corner and scream about end times would be forced to stop, but other than that not much change. It would make religion follow basically the same rules as sex.

Adults can have as much sex as they want in their own home.
There are places where adults can get together to have lots of sex with like minded people.
Adults can't have sex with children.
France's baby steps towards this make me very concerned about the future of France!

You've run with the sex analogy in the OP, and I'm still not buying it. For one thing, I think that our whole society would be much better if we were more open about sex. For another thing, the OP was trying to get rid of places (outside the home) "where adults can get together to have lots of sex [practice religion] with like minded people," so that part of your analogy doesn't align.

When you use the line that "Adults can't have sex with children" to convince the reader that kids need to be sheltered from religion, I think your reasoning is depending on an incorrect naturalistic assumption about sex. I'm guessing that you think sex is "natural" and springs from some internal, biological knowledge. But the sex acts that people do are different in difference societies, and we learn the possibilities, from which we then decide which ones we like, from other people.

The same is necessary in religion. We need to meet other people's religious ideas in order to figure out what works best for us. I'm not making an argument that adults should be having sex with children, but I am arguing that both religion and sex should be ideas legally allowed to be in the public sphere.

User avatar
Vellup
Posts: 48
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 9:16 pm UTC
Location: With other Vellups

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Vellup » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:08 am UTC

This statement from the thread's owner initiator* should probably be mentioned for reference:

samusaran253 wrote:I don't even truly support this idea, I mean in theory it's a great idea, but people do have the right to peacefully spread their own ideas, plus I don't trust the government. I just wanted to throw this idea out there for others to toy with.


* No one 'owns' threads. Once you post, they are not 'yours'. It's a somewhat pedantic quibble, but important nonetheless.

- Az
Honorable clean-upper of the (always in progress) Magi-Nation Wiki.

User avatar
Enuja
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:40 pm UTC
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Enuja » Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:18 am UTC

Because the OP can longer participate in this conversation, I really don't think that that post is super relevant. nitePhyyre is arguing that there is some good in the proposal, and that's what we're arguing about now (in addition to society comparisons, which I'm not participating in).

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:30 am UTC

In addition to the fact that the OP stated that while they didn't support it, they felt it was good in theory. Which it isn't. It's horrible in theory and in practice.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Wed Jun 01, 2011 1:46 am UTC

^^ Pretty much this.

About the only point in favor of it seems to be "I won't have to see or hear people who do things because of beliefs I personally don't share." I don't think you have to be a genius to see where this seemingly brilliant plan falls apart. :roll:
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
TheStrongest
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Philadelphia, USA
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby TheStrongest » Wed Jun 01, 2011 2:19 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
It seemed obvious what your personal view would be, I just don't like to see the appeal to the US constitution arguments*. I just thought it was important to stress they reasons we have the 1st amendment instead of using it as the argument.

*to be honest its probably because I'm strongly pro gun rights and have to deal with a lot of people who think a sufficient argument for gun rights is "the second amendment says we can have them". Its rather grinding to hear an intellectual discussion reduced to citing (great) documents.


Apologies, but it's the best pillar for my argument to stand on I thought of at that point. And yes, it's an appeal to authority. It shows that this was the idea that a certain nation was founded upon, it's a good idea and has worked, so on, so forth. Others have pointed out why this proposal is a bad idea, which are partly the reasons why the 1st Amendment was enacted.

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Sprocket » Mon Jun 06, 2011 1:20 am UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I don't see a conflict. I didn't support the bailout, but I recognized that it helped your decadent capitalist society survive a little longer.

Yeah cuz Australia totally isn't a first world nation?
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:14 am UTC

The world economy doesn't consist of individual countries isolated from one another. It's all connected. If the United States' economy imploded, the way it was careening towards (and rest assured, it would have imploded sans bailout), it would have dragged down who knows how many countries with it (and not necessarily directly, either). None (well, perhaps excluding very tiny island countries) would have escaped unscathed.
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:03 pm UTC

Sprocket wrote:
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I don't see a conflict. I didn't support the bailout, but I recognized that it helped your decadent capitalist society survive a little longer.
Yeah cuz Australia totally isn't a first world nation?
Yeah cuz "first world nation" totally means at all the same thing as "decadent capitalist society"...
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby DSenette » Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:45 pm UTC

Whimsical Eloquence wrote:
Glass Fractal wrote:
But what is the alternative? Obviously no one would willing to have the state teach children morality and I can't really picture a world where parents cannot tell their children what to do (since that would alter the development of their morals). I'm pretty sure abusing children to force them into a belief is already illegal.


The alternative isn't anything really! Parents still instruct their children - just as they feed, clothe, love and care for their children. That's parenting. But in no other area of parenting is the parent afforded a right to do it "as they see fit". I'm not arguing for any particular state intervention. But if a parent wants to instruct their child that Racism is Good than that's bad and they don't have a legal to do so.

How is it just that the only right in relation to the upbringing of a child isn't that "A Child has a right to moral instruction" or any positive right for the child; it's a right for the parent to do what they wish in an area of parenting with no reference to the welfare of the child. How than can that be considered good?

uh actually it's perfectly legal to raise your child to be a racist. people do it every day. it's also perfectly legal to raise them to be homophobic, or sexist, or bullies, or not like broccoli.

you can legally raise your child with anything thats considered a belief, because, you know....the first amendment.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

black_hat_guy
Posts: 111
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby black_hat_guy » Thu Jun 23, 2011 9:51 pm UTC

Is it, though? Parents can and should be allowed to share what they believe with children, but they shouldn't be allowed to make children behave in racist, homophobic, or sexist ways, or force them to take part in their religion. The first amendment does not protect such actions. Constitutionally, there is nothing saying that children have to do what their parents say. Obviously, emancipating all children is insane, but that doesn't mean parents should have complete control over children.
Billy was a chemist.
He isn't any more.
What he thought was H2O
was H2SO4.

User avatar
Cheezwhiz Jenkins
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:52 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Cheezwhiz Jenkins » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:58 pm UTC

black_hat_guy wrote:Is it, though? Parents can and should be allowed to share what they believe with children, but they shouldn't be allowed to make children behave in racist, homophobic, or sexist ways, or force them to take part in their religion. The first amendment does not protect such actions. Constitutionally, there is nothing saying that children have to do what their parents say. Obviously, emancipating all children is insane, but that doesn't mean parents should have complete control over children.


Um...that's not true. That's like saying that constitutionally, I do not have to do what my boss says. It's not even wrong. There is also nothing saying I have to eat every day, but guess what? I do! And it has nothing to do with the Constitution! It's not illegal to disobey my parents or starve myself. The Constitution deals with matters of federal law, not micromanaging the nitty-gritty of everything we ever do. You're allowed to be stupid, bigoted, or idiotic.

Sorry, but hate speech is protected under the first unless there is the danger of imminent lawless action, and the first amendment most certainly protects freedom of religion, and as part of that, freedom to teach your child religion. Under the first amendment, members of the KKK are perfectly free to raise their children to believe in the inherent inferiority of blacks, WBC are perfectly free to raise their children to believe in the inherent inferiority of gays, and misogynists are perfectly free to raise their children to believe in the inherent inferiority of women. The Constitution is irrelevant to child-rearing techniques and philosophies.
That explosion was so big it blew off his mullet :-O

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby DSenette » Fri Jun 24, 2011 12:14 pm UTC

black_hat_guy wrote:Is it, though? Parents can and should be allowed to share what they believe with children, but they shouldn't be allowed to make children behave in racist, homophobic, or sexist ways, or force them to take part in their religion. The first amendment does not protect such actions. Constitutionally, there is nothing saying that children have to do what their parents say. Obviously, emancipating all children is insane, but that doesn't mean parents should have complete control over children.

i'm not a big fan of indoctrination, or racism, or sexism, etc...

but i am a HUGE fan of the government not telling me what i can/can't do.

it's not about making the act of teaching your children your beliefs illegal, it's about making it so that you yourself don't have damaging beliefs to begin with (like homophobia, sexism, etc...) so you have no reason to teach those things to your kids. that's done through social change, not legislation
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
Sanjuricus
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:02 am UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Sanjuricus » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:29 pm UTC

Seems to me as if the OP was actually aiming for a different result than the one his act would seem to engender.
I'm goi ng out on a limb here but it seems that OP might have been aiming at keeping religion out of politics (an arena in which religion has no place IMHO!).
In the US, it is folly to think that there is a seperation of church and state. Sure, the clergy may be barred from pushing political agendas but the majority of 'mericans are christians and they push christian agendas: the whole abortion issue being a prime example. I see no way of legislating such a seperation though, religion is usually something that is core to a persons psychological make-up.

As for France, I applaud them for having bollocks enough to pass the law banning the burqa. Islamification in europe is becoming a real problem, multi-culturalism in Europe no longer means tolerance of other cultures, it means pandering to the tantrum child that is islam. I have just enjoyed a fantastically tasty roast lamb shoulder for my tea...but it was soured by the knowledge that the lamb in question was slaughtered in line with halal (throat cut and allowed to bleed out while some himmam speaks gibberish over it). This was done to pander to a social minority simply because of the fuss caused if someone dares to offend islam.
In the city of Oslo in Norway 65% of all rape cases were commited by non-western immigrants who comprise a mere 14.5% of the population. A dutch cartoonist was killed for having the bare faced temerity to draw a picture of mohammed.Muslims have, on much more than one occasion, had rather violent protests preaching death to all who insult islam...yet a peaceful non-muslim protester in London who dared to use the word "cult" on his sign (epic nose guy) was arrested by police.

...and all the while our Basically Decent pussy fucking governments just sit idly by and pander to Islam.

My point (now I've got down off my soapbox!!)is, don't make the mistake of thinking the religious situation in Europe is anything like the religious situation in the US. They are nothing alike...

(Re-read this just before posting and I think it's a bit on the ranty side but I'm gonna post it as is anyway!!)
Mostly kind of almost...ish.

The Mighty Thesaurus
In your library, eating your students
Posts: 4399
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:47 am UTC
Location: The Daily Bugle

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby The Mighty Thesaurus » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:15 pm UTC

You couldn't make it up! It's Basic Human Decency gone mad!
LE4dGOLEM wrote:your ability to tell things from things remains one of your skills.
Weeks wrote:Not only can you tell things from things, you can recognize when a thing is a thing

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby DSenette » Fri Jun 24, 2011 8:23 pm UTC

yeah cuz "man i love being able to post whatever the shit i want on the internet, whenever i feel like it, without worrying about anything, but hijabs? yeah fuck those!"
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:01 pm UTC

Islamification in europe is becoming a real problem, multi-culturalism in Europe no longer means tolerance of other cultures, it means pandering to the tantrum child that is islam.


:shock: :shock:

Oh well, I'm not surprised that Islamaphobia exists. I'm just disappointed whenever someone proves to me that it exists and is a real problem.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Plasma Man » Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:19 pm UTC

Sanjuricus wrote:I have just enjoyed a fantastically tasty roast lamb shoulder for my tea...but it was soured by the knowledge that the lamb in question was slaughtered in line with halal (throat cut and allowed to bleed out while some himmam speaks gibberish over it).
If you didn't want to eat Halal meat.... why did you eat Halal meat?
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:40 pm UTC

Plasma Man wrote:
Sanjuricus wrote:I have just enjoyed a fantastically tasty roast lamb shoulder for my tea...but it was soured by the knowledge that the lamb in question was slaughtered in line with halal (throat cut and allowed to bleed out while some himmam speaks gibberish over it).
If you didn't want to eat Halal meat.... why did you eat Halal meat?


I'm more curious how knowing that something was Halal actually changes the dining experience.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby lutzj » Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:42 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Plasma Man wrote:
Sanjuricus wrote:I have just enjoyed a fantastically tasty roast lamb shoulder for my tea...but it was soured by the knowledge that the lamb in question was slaughtered in line with halal (throat cut and allowed to bleed out while some himmam speaks gibberish over it).
If you didn't want to eat Halal meat.... why did you eat Halal meat?


I'm more curious how knowing that something was Halal actually changes the dining experience.


He said it was "fantastically tasty," so we can only assume it enhanced his.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
Plasma Man
Posts: 2035
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:27 am UTC
Location: Northampton, Northampton, Northampton middle England.

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Plasma Man » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:05 pm UTC

Well, from now on I'm going to order all my meat with suffering and incantations.
Please note that despite the lovely avatar Sungura gave me, I am not a medical doctor.

Possibly my proudest moment on the fora.

fuzzycuzzy
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:11 am UTC
Location: more of a state-of-mind really... hmm? what?
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby fuzzycuzzy » Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:54 pm UTC

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:You couldn't make it up! It's Basic Human Decency gone mad!

I'm biting my tongue on some faux pas I might have made earlier... this door swings both ways
and I realize you're talking law instead of ethics, but... the world is starting to seam them together once more

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:41 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm more curious how knowing that something was Halal actually changes the dining experience.
Perhaps people don't want to contribute to the suffering involved in being hung up feet-first and bleeding to death?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
GraphiteGirl
Alpha Male
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:45 pm UTC
Location: South-East Snakeville

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby GraphiteGirl » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:09 am UTC

As I understand it, the halal slaughtering process, like the kosher slaughtering process, is designed with animal cruelty ethics in mind. The animal is meant to be killed with one clean cut to the neck with a very sharp knife, ensuring quick unconsciousness and death. If you're not a vegetarian, I'm ... not sure I see the problem with halal slaughter as opposed to any other kind.
Sandry wrote:Man, my commitment to sparkle motion is waaaaay lower than you are intimating.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:56 am UTC

GraphiteGirl wrote:As I understand it, the halal slaughtering process, like the kosher slaughtering process, is designed with animal cruelty ethics in mind.
And in the 7th century, it quite possibly was more humane than other slaughtering processes.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
GraphiteGirl
Alpha Male
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:45 pm UTC
Location: South-East Snakeville

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby GraphiteGirl » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:01 am UTC

Some preliminary research indicates that the only major difference between halal and non-halal slaughtering in most abattoirs is that some interpretations of halal rules don't allow for the animal to be stunned before slaughter. Pretty much nothing else is different in terms of the actual slaughtering process, and there's been a great deal of debate within religious communities about the ethics of using the stunning technique, with some authorities permitting it and others not.

Edit: from wikipedia:
Various halal food authorities have more recently permitted the use of a recently developed fail-safe system of head-only stunning where the shock is less painful and non-fatal, and where it is possible to reverse the procedure and revive the animal after the shock.
Last edited by GraphiteGirl on Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:03 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Sandry wrote:Man, my commitment to sparkle motion is waaaaay lower than you are intimating.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:03 am UTC

GraphiteGirl wrote:Pretty much nothing else is different in terms of the actual slaughtering process
I don't know about you, but my personal preference would be to be stunned before getting hung upside down and having my throat slit.

In other words, I really don't think the stunning is just a minor difference in how humane slaughtering is.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
GraphiteGirl
Alpha Male
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:45 pm UTC
Location: South-East Snakeville

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby GraphiteGirl » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:05 am UTC

(note the edit above)
Sandry wrote:Man, my commitment to sparkle motion is waaaaay lower than you are intimating.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby lutzj » Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:24 am UTC

It's worth noting that most religious and cultural taboos/practices regarding food have (or had in postindustrial times) various health and economic benefits in addition to their spiritual reasons. An American would probably cringe at the thought of eating horse meat or dog liver, in part because both animals have been prized historically for their work value. The bans on pig meat in kosher and halal (doctrines that originated in the Near and Middle East, the home of domesticated pigs) probably have a lot to do with the various diseases prevalent in undercooked pork.

Of course, food taboos can have serious negative consequences. Jared Diamond stipulated in Collapse that the early Greenland Norse wasted valuable grazing cover on cattle and, incredibly, did not eat fish. They didn't survive the Little Ice Age.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:01 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
GraphiteGirl wrote:Pretty much nothing else is different in terms of the actual slaughtering process
I don't know about you, but my personal preference would be to be stunned before getting hung upside down and having my throat slit.

In other words, I really don't think the stunning is just a minor difference in how humane slaughtering is.

For starters, the stunning method is hardly precise, and it's pretty common for animals to not be stunned, at all, before they're strung up and slaughtered. I don't say this to suggest that the meat packing industry is horrible because it slaughters animals, but to suggest that perhaps the non-industrialization of the process is the most humane way of doing it.

An animal with it's throat slit is going to die very rapidly, and as close to painlessly as possible. Were I allowed to choose my method of execution, the technique that most rapidly deprives my brain of oxygen is the one I'd take.

Halal and kashrut meat preparation both include some sections about how the knife must be free of nicks or burrs, and must be very, very sharp. That's not because god likes knives.

As for the rest of that dudes rant, all I can say is 'whoa'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Jun 25, 2011 3:18 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:I'm more curious how knowing that something was Halal actually changes the dining experience.
Perhaps people don't want to contribute to the suffering involved in being hung up feet-first and bleeding to death?


I guess I could see from that perspective, but the way I read his post, it seems more like the meat was "tainted by dirty muslims", as opposed to some sort of humanitarian reason.

I'll resign this point, to clarify that my intent was to troll his post more or less. I did not wish to start a "is Halal food ethical killing" debate.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Viae
Posts: 306
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm UTC
Location: Albion

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby Viae » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:59 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:For starters, the stunning method is hardly precise, and it's pretty common for animals to not be stunned, at all, before they're strung up and slaughtered. I don't say this to suggest that the meat packing industry is horrible because it slaughters animals, but to suggest that perhaps the non-industrialization of the process is the most humane way of doing it.

An animal with it's throat slit is going to die very rapidly, and as close to painlessly as possible. Were I allowed to choose my method of execution, the technique that most rapidly deprives my brain of oxygen is the one I'd take.

Halal and kashrut meat preparation both include some sections about how the knife must be free of nicks or burrs, and must be very, very sharp. That's not because god likes knives.

As for the rest of that dudes rant, all I can say is 'whoa'.

Yeah, stories of cows not being stunned/killed properly using the EU regulation method (never mind the US one) and then waking up halfway along the production line, skinned and dismembered, are not uncommon. Wish I could source that, but it's from this article, which has expired.
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:Also, I think your title should be "colossus", and I don't care if nobody agrees.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: My Proposal For A New Law; The Home Religious Acts

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:01 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I don't say this to suggest that the meat packing industry is horrible because it slaughters animals, but to suggest that perhaps the non-industrialization of the process is the most humane way of doing it.
Agreed. But are you also suggesting that ritual slaughter is never an industrialized process?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests