Why is halal legal?

[fr0d0]

If we're going to eat meat we should make the practice as humane as possible.

If we want our meat as humane as it gets... why don't we eat humans?

QFT

[Napoléon]

Rights, rights, rights, rights, rights, rights...

My gods I wish people would shut up about them. Oh that sense of entitlement... that really does get on my nerves.

Just because morals are valueless to you Sae doesn't mean they are to other people.


As for the rest of this, I think Rhythm and Faith have hit the nail on the head a couple of times.

Laws as has been said before, are often very hypocritical, that doesn't make it right however to have rules for some and not for others, for frankly ridiculous reasoning.

[Rayaan]

Halal is barbaric.
The wiki article I quoted itself, gave sources and quotes from reputable people in the fields of medicine, science and animal welfare, that slitting the throat of an animal and letting it bleed out for up to 2 minutes in excruciating pain is NOT humane. It is NOT on a level par with stunning an animal first. Don't even go there. It's an argument which has been disproven already by people with far much more expertise than you and I.

This doesn't mean that what you saw in the wiki article is correct. As it happens in many studies in the field of science, you'll see that there are scientists who come up with different and even contrary results. You have to decide for yourself which is more sound and reasonable. For example, Dr. Temple Grandin, an animal scientist from Colorado, has done a tremendous amount of research on the subject of animal slaughtering and suffering. Here's a study of hers and I think it's well worth the read (or a brief glance at least):

Religious Slaughter and Animal Welfare: A Discussion for Meat Scientists

Quote from the Article:

---

Scientific researchers agree that sheep lose consciousness within 2 to 15 seconds after both carotid arteries are cut (Nangeroni and Kennett, 1963; Gregory and Wotton, 1984; Blackmore, 1984). However, studies with cattle and calves indicate that most animals lose consciousness rapidly, however, some animals may have a period of prolonged sensibility (Blackwore, 1984; Daly et al, 1988) that lasts for over a minute. Other studies with bovines also indicate that the time required for them to become unconscious is more variable than for sheep and goats (Munk et al., 1976; Gregory and Wotten, 1984). The differences between cattle and sheep can be explained by differences in the anatomy of their blood vessels.

Observations by the first author of both calf and cattle slaughter indicate that problems with prolonged consciousness can be corrected. When a shochet uses a rapid cutting stroke, 95% of the calves collapse almost immediately (Grandin 1987). When a slower, less decisive stroke was used, there was an increased incidence of prolonged sensibility. Approximately 30% of the calves cut with a slow knife stroke had a righting reflex and retained the ability to walk for up to 30 seconds.

Gregory (1988) provided a possible explanation for the delayed onset of unconsciousness. A slow knife stroke may be more likely to stretch the arteries and induce occlusion. Rapid loss of consciousness will occur more readily if the cut is made as close to the jaw bone as religious law will permit, and the head holder is loosened immediately after the cut. The chin lift should remain up. Excessive pressure applied to the chest by the rear pusher gate will slow bleed out. Gentle operation of the restrainer is essential. Observations indicate that calm cattle lose consciousness more rapidly and they are less likely to have contracted occluded blood vessels. Calm cattle will usually collapse within 10 to 15 seconds[/i].

---

Also, here's a lecture by her on humane animal slaughter (Part 1): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoNErsJNPzw

Just saying a word before killing is as meaningless as it gets in my book. Talk about religious in words only.

Of course ...

It's not only the words that matter, but especially the faith and intention in our hearts - and the two are not necessarily exclusive - we have to say the words and know the reason for saying them at the same time.

Its a question of suffering. A shot to the head is less painfull than a slit throat.

The suffering of the animal ends very quickly and it doesn't matter once it is killed and eaten. As I said before, we do this as a sacrifice, and we believe that there is a greater blessing in the food when God's name is mentioned upon the slaughtering.

[Violet]

I don't disagree here either. I don't like the fact that most animals are raised in terrible environments and that should be illegal too. I'm not going to dedicate my life to ending it like I won't dedicate my life to ending Halal, but when given the opportunity to voice my opinion on the subjects, I will.

Then stop ranting on about Halal, and argue your actual point

---

Rights, rights, rights, rights, rights, rights...

My gods I wish people would shut up about them. Oh that sense of entitlement... that really does get on my nerves.

Just because morals are valueless to you Sae doesn't mean they are to other people.

Morals aren't valueless to me. But your morals are mostly so.

This isn't about them though. This is about "It's my right to have babies", "It's her right to eat spaghetti", "It's a god's right to decide fate". Bullshit, and that's what my irritation over 'rights' is about.

As for the rest of this, I think Rhythm and Faith have hit the nail on the head a couple of times.

Laws as has been said before, are often very hypocritical, that doesn't make it right however to have rules for some and not for others, for frankly ridiculous reasoning.

Existence isn't 'right'... it's confusing and it's always going to bite you in the ass somehow someway. It is ridiculous in all facets. One can embrace that as I do, deny it as many do, or sing kumbaya until Sol goes nova.

[Napoléon]

You have to decide for yourself which is more sound and reasonable.

Absolutely. And I've decided that halal is most definitely barbaric and unnecessary.

Morals aren't valueless to me. But your morals are mostly so.

This isn't about them though. This is about "It's my right to have babies", "It's her right to eat spaghetti", "It's a god's right to decide fate". Bullshit, and that's what my irritation over 'rights' is about.

What we percieve as 'rights' are largely based on our moral codes. Rights in society are granted by law and legislation whether you agree with that or not. If you want to live by your own rights, wrongs, morals, whatever, that's fine. As long as you don't break the law ofcourse, then you're gonna get fucked.
In essence an animal, humans and whatever else has rights because the LAW says so. So why is halal allowed when it is in direct contradiction with these laws? Because of religious rights?
You may disagree but I think the 'rights' of a living being are more important than the practices of some fucked up cult.

Existence isn't 'right'... it's confusing and it's always going to bite you in the ass somehow someway. It is ridiculous in all facets. One can embrace that as I do, deny it as many do, or sing kumbaya until Sol goes nova.

Ignoratio elenchi - irrelevant conclusion

[Rayaan]

Absolutely. And I've decided that halal is most definitely barbaric and unnecessary.

Okey dokey artichokey.

[Violet]

What we percieve as 'rights' are largely based on our moral codes. Rights in society are granted by law and legislation whether you agree with that or not. If you want to live by your own rights, wrongs, morals, whatever, that's fine. As long as you don't break the law ofcourse, then you're gonna get fucked.

I have one of the best moral codes in the world, and yet I know of nothing to which I am entitled. Regardless: I shall take what I consider myself worthy of possessing.

Rights in society are not granted by law and legislation.

I do live by my own morals (what the hell are my own rights and wrongs?). Sometimes this is not legal.

Infact going with the legal course happens to have not only fucked me over more, but to be fucking me over as we speak.

Ignoratio elenchi - irrelevant conclusion

Seemingly to you. You give me a nonsensical statement: I give you a sensical answer.

[The Grand Nudger]

If they would allow all processors to claim halal and forgo the investment in equipment, and inspections to that effect, then I would have no problem with it whatsoever.

[Rayaan]

Here's a video of the animal sacrifice (which is called "Qurbani"):



First, they tie the cow's legs with a rope, then they drop it on it's side, then Muslims get on top of the cow (to hold it in place), and then comes the slaughtering with a knife.

[The Grand Nudger]

Something tells me people will be offended. Can I post a video of me hitting a deer in the head with the stock of my rifle? It was a clean hit.

Fuck man that one had some life in it didn't it. lol.