Keeping away from the right or wrongs of the matter, it is interesting to note that all the furor l've seen in the media this week seems a bit late.
It was in the Daily Mail 4 YEARS AGO!!
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315278/Top-supermarkets-secretly-sell-halal-Sainsburys-Tesco-Waitrose-M-S-dont-tell-meat-ritually-slaughtered.html
Still, every cloud, at least we know that no-one reads the Daily Mail.
|
|
I read the DiM every day, but I don't eat dead birds, or dead animals.
|
|
I can picture that scene from the sci-fi spoof 'Paul' where the alien gobbles up a bird whilst its still alive having brought it back to life.
Last edited by: TheManWithNoName on Thu 8 May 14 at 14:09
|
Seems to be some confusion about this. Reportedly 90% of halal slaughtered animals in UK, and nearly all NZ lamb are 'stunned' - by implication, before killing, but I have also heard suggestions on the wireless today that it is better if the animals are stunned immediately after the throat has been cut to minimise the duration of pain and suffering.
I don't think the great British public are going to be too chuffed to learn that most of the animals they eat are stunned afterwards if that is the case. Or maybe they just don't wnat to know too much about it.
Denmark (noted for intensive pig rearing) has just banned halal and kosher slaughtering altogether - imagine the furore here is that happened.
It seems the default for supermarkets is now halal meat. Sikhs, who must not eat ritually slaughtered meat, are not happy.
goo.gl/7ePwtn (Independent, "Denmark bans kosher and halal slaughter")
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 8 May 14 at 14:16
|
>>Or maybe they just don't wnat to know too much about it.
That'd be where my money is.
I eat meat, although not that much as it goes. And I don't think too closely about what happens to get it to me.
Actually, if it wasn't for sausages, bacon and kebabs I'd go vegetarian. Oh, and chilli.
|
>Actually, if it wasn't for sausages, bacon and kebabs I'd go vegetarian. Oh, and chilli.
And pork pies.
|
>> Or maybe they just don't wnat to know too much about it.
Well, exactly. Unless you've been raised on a livestock farm you have to be quite hungry to maintain appetite while doing your own butchering.
It does make me laugh contemptuously when indignant British mothers complain that their nippers have been upset by witnessing halal slaughter in the street, carried out by exhibitionist ill-mannered Muslims at the Eid festival. The heartlessness and gruesome curiosity of children know no bounds... but perhaps they have become more squeamish since my young day. I blame television.
|
It does make me laugh contemptuously when indignant British mothers complain that their nippers have been upset by witnessing halal slaughter in the street, carried out by exhibitionist ill-mannered Muslims at the Eid festival. The heartlessness and gruesome curiosity of children know no bounds... but perhaps they have become more squeamish since my young day. I blame television.
Perhaps that is why I've not been invited to give a repeat performance of how to gut and fillet fish to the local cubs! Fish were dead mind you, but the leader was a bit dubious whether it would be too much for the kids. Perhaps the parents were horrified when told later.
It wasn't of course, I've met some squeamish children but there is not that many of them.
I then showed how to cook the fish in newspaper and quite a few tried it. Dovetailed well with backwoods cooking where I also achieved a first, more that 20 foil packages put on the embers and they all got their own one back.
I'm not in the same league as Ray Mears but I do try at times!
|
>> Perhaps that is why I've not been invited to give a repeat performance of how to gut and fillet fish to the local cubs!
I can do it, but I'd just as soon leave it to a professional. Fish are damn slippery and you have to have a sharp knife. The two big risks are cutting yourself and cutting the fish's innards, which should be exposed undamaged and scooped out by hand...
Really fresh fish is best. Same with oysters which can also make drunken gourmets cut themselves. Worth the trouble but you have to take care unless you're a pro and do it all the time.
|
One can gut quite well with most sharp knives, but it's certainly easier with a filleting knife (which of course I have). The fun starts buying whole fish, although mackerel are probably the easiest to get complete although fishmongers do express surprise that one is happy to gut etc. Any sharp knife has risks, but fish gutting is so easy I'd be happy to teach a kid older than about 11.
Oysters - there's a trick to doing them and while you do need a small, sharp, and strong knife you'd be surprised how easy it is once you understand it. Some waiters in oyster bars make it look harder than it is to put one off, others I think genuinely don't understand and have a battle royal with them.
|
I must fess up that when I was a beefeater (for 59 years!) I didn't concern myself with how it was slaughtered.
Bought organic chic & meat mainly for the last 20 years or so, where poss.
|
I don't want someone else's religious customs thrust on me, whoever or whatever they are.
This country leads the world in respect for animals and I find it somewhat incongruous that combined with that we allow an animals throat to be cut whilst still alive.
I like meat, but as a member of the so called more intelligent species, would like the animals to live as healthy and happy a life as possible before I scoff it.
As far as I am concerned, it's the same principle as rights for women. We should be proud of our work in that area...yet we are letting elements of Sharia law creep in for some. So some women in this country will not have the same rights as others? That is shameful.
|
>> I don't want someone else's religious customs thrust on me, whoever or whatever they are.
>>
I'd love to know why I got the scowly. Anyone willing to explain?
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 8 May 14 at 20:03
|
"I'd love to know why I got the scowly. Anyone willing to explain?"
It certainly wasn't me; I thought it was a very good post that replicated my own views! In fact, I'll go back and give it a 'thumbs-up'!
|
As I understand it, the reason for halal and kosher slaughter dates back to the times when it was done to ensure the meat was fresh and not some beast that had died long ago.
I'm not aware of anything in the Koran that states the beast cannot be stunned before slaughter.
What does worry me is that anything destined for halal consumption and found to have any imperfection during butchery (tumours etc) is deemed unfit for moslems. Guess where that meat ends up?
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Thu 8 May 14 at 14:39
|
>> As I understand it, the reason for halal and kosher slaughter dates back to the
>> times when it was done to ensure the meat was fresh and not some beast
>> that had died long ago.
So the Koran etc needed to be updated when fridges/freezers became common?
|
>>Guess where that meat ends up?
Boygers, sossidges, pies, etc. etc. ?
|
As far as reports today advise the vast majority of halal slaughter in UK is done after stunning. Other than fact that slaughter man may be/be attended by a Muslim and religious incantations are spoken it's no different in principal from non halal slaughter.
I believe one or two sub sets of Islam, and there are several bodies 'authenticating' Halal slaughter, reject pre stunning but are a tiny minority. In so far as say 5% of Halal Lamb and 10% of Halal chicken (figures I saw earlier today) is slaughtered without stunning then it's to satisfy that market and it's not likely to be finding its way into mainstream supermarkets.
New Zealand lamb is a 'world wide' product and is reportedly all pre-stunned Halal slaughter.
I'd prefer to know that my food is from pre stunned animals but I don't give a flying fig if the slaughter man says a prayer or not.
Kosher is another story as pre stunning is not allowed. Whether animals suffer more than being electrocuted or having a bolt in the brain I really don't know.
Not, IMHO, a big enough issue to pick a fight over.
|
Geezer on the wireless earlier (Radio Quornwall) reckons he used to 'dispatch' sheep using a lump hammer & chisel.
That would stun 'em alright.
|
Is it true that pigs cry tears when moments away from slaughter?
|
Ambo....please don't say that, I love pork crackling and pork pies.
...and mucky pigs in fields all covered in mud.
Pat
|
|
At least you can be sure that bacon is unlikely to be halal. Or kosher.
|
Fifty years ago I earned a little money by working in a chicken slaughterhouse.
They were hung by their legs on a moving rack and were supposed to have their heads pushed between a couple of electrodes before having their throats cut.
After every dozen or so, the electrodes became clogged with feathers and would need clearing. The line would have to be stopped to do this and the power to the electrodes switched off to avoid getting a 'jolt', severely slowing the rate of production.
The majority of birds were never stunned.
|
>> The majority of birds were never stunned.
And plenty contemporary reports suggest stunning of poultry is still hit/miss today.
|
>> Geezer on the wireless earlier (Radio Quornwall) reckons he used to 'dispatch' sheep using a
>> lump hammer & chisel.
>>
>> That would stun 'em alright.
Similar principle to the slaughterman's pole-axe.
|
|
When I were a nipper back in Ireland I watched my mother, a farmer's daughter (And a gentle soul) wring a chicken's neck without a second thought.
|
|
No problem if it was her chicken. Bit antisocial if it was just a random thing.
|
|
The great bebop alto sax player Charlie Parker was known as 'the Bird'. Not because of his sax playing though, but because on the road in his early years the car he was in hit a chicken, and he insisted that it stop so that he could go back and get 'that bird'. A carload of black big-city hipsters - all from fairly recent rural roots however - hammering from gig to gig across the vast American plains in the late 1930s or early 40s, when the world was a bit younger than it is now.
|
>>No problem if it was her chicken. Bit antisocial if it was just a random thing.
That really is a cracking comment. Keeps making me chuckle.
|
|
I don't care. All the meat (bar the pig meat) is from a local slaughter-house/factory. It claims all the meat is local to the Island and the next county on the mainland. I noticed that the label on the chicken is marked as Halal. It really doesn't bother me. I became a veggie for a few weeks in 1995, too much like hard work. Halal or not Halal - not bothered.
|
>> Halal or not Halal - not bothered.>>
Shame on you. One day you might come back as an animal about to be slaughtered.......
|
It's an interesting idea that this is just a matter of improving consumer information.
Do people really want slaughter information on the labelling on meat products?
"Organic neck-wrung chickens"
"Farm-fresh produce - killed by throat-slitting"
"Don't buy inferior fish left to die by suffocation - all our fish are bashed on the head in the traditional way"
|
|
Would they prefer "Died peacefully in its sleep due to natural causes"?
|
>> Would they prefer "Died peacefully in its sleep due to natural causes"?
>>
...of old age. All our animals have a full and happy life.
|
A rant from a friend of mine which I thought I'd pass on....
Dear The Sun, Daily Mail, Nigel Farage and anyone else who feels compelled to tell me what to be outraged by:
Please stop. Just... Stop.
See the attached photo.
This sensationalist, jingoistic nonsense serves to do nothing more than rile up the easily-led idiots who require tabloid journalists to tell them what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Halal chicken? On my pizza? What difference does that make? There is absolutely no reason why this should be considered news. Pizza Express have clearly come to the conclusion that by using meat prepared this way that it means they can sell their products to people of any religious background and have all bases covered. Makes perfect sense to me.
If you find yourself growing ever angrier amid the alleged "Islamification" of this country, the benefits system, unemployment figures, same sex marriage or the death of Princess Diana, question why that might be the case. Then, put down the tabloid rag, turn off Jeremy Kyle, stop complaining about how things were better "back in the day" and start getting outraged about the important things in life, such as poverty, a lack of appropriate education for all, support for those who have lost someone, whether that be in war or peace, the savaging of Police and Emergency Services budgets and pensions, the continued shenanigans of the elected Members of a Parliament that claims to serve this country and the inexplicable rise to something approaching prominence of UKIP.
Take a moment to think about things. Is this really more newsworthy than 200 kidnapped girls being sold into slavery in Nigeria? Or how a young lad who has raised an extraordinary amount of money for the Teenage Cancer Trust is now coming under fire from spittle-flecked, knuckle-dragging idiots for "duping" them into donating to charity only for him to continue to not be dead yet? His cancer is still terminal, you barbaric simpletons. He isn’t going to recover. Spare a thought for the boy.
Is this more newsworthy than the volatile position in Ukraine, which could perceivably have a knock-on effect on the rest of Europe, not least as far as the impact if has on energy prices? The potential for loss of life in the continued civil war in Syria? No. It isn't. I suspect that if you opened this "news"paper to the next page, these stories wouldn't greet you there either, rather you would instead find yourself looking at a young girl with no blouse on telling you what she/the Editor thinks about the latest goings on in the House of Commons in 20 words of 5 letters or less.
If same sex marriage offends you, I would remind you that you can still marry someone of the opposite sex. As for this news story, Halal chicken tastes like chicken. That is because it is made of 100% chicken. If it is the Halal nature of it offends you, I'm surprised you're eating pizza in the first place, damned foreign muck that it is. go away and suck a Yorkshire pudding instead.
Feel free to disagree with my point of view on this, by the way. I don't care. if this creates debate, then all the better. We're all entitled to our opinion.
I merely suggest you think about what your opinion might be before letting The Sun, or the Mail, or anybody else tell you what it is.
Feel free to Share this story by the way. I'm off to calm down.
Rob
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 19 May 14 at 02:03
|
|
Cracking piece Mark, spot on.
|
>> A rant from a friend
Forgive me if I'm missing something FMR, but is there anything at all there that hasn't been rehearsed here over and over again, quite often with the same rather tiring vehemence?
Just asking.
|
>> Pizza Express have clearly come to the conclusion
>> that by using meat prepared this way that it means they can sell their products
>> to people of any religious background and have all bases covered.
Apart from the unintentional weak joke in that sentence, clearly Pizza Express have either not consulted widely, or don't actually care about meat eating Sikhs, for whom halal meat is forbidden.
So much for "any religious background".
Last edited by: Crankcase on Sat 10 May 14 at 06:23
|
|
Maybe this halal thing isn't so bad after all. I'm starting to warm to the idea of not educating women, and stoning those who commit adultery and, well, generally returning to the Middle Ages. I guess I'm just an old-fashioned guy at heart.
|
I will happily eat kosher meat, halal meat and "traditional" meat.
I DO want to know what I am buying.
I do think it is an imposition, although I understand, but disagree with, the commercial reasons, to force (almost) everyone to eat ritually slaughtered meat to satisfy the prejudices of a vocal minority.
If it really is to satisfy minority religious needs, why has not kosher meat been introduced nationally previously, using the same argument?
Last edited by: Roger. on Sat 10 May 14 at 12:12
|
>>why has not kosher meat been introduced nationally previously, using the same argument?
According to the 2011 census, 263,346 people answered “Jewish” to the voluntary question on religion.
By 2011 the total Muslim population had reached 2.7 million, 4.8% of the total population.
Wiki.
|
................so 95.2% of the population (alright - less the non-eaters of meat, less other dietary needs, less other religious requirements) is subject to the prejudices of 4.8% of the population.
Bit of an imbalance there.
|
These companies will make an economic business driven decision. They will try to make the right one, although they may not necessarily do so.
If they feel that economically it is better for them to do one thing rather than another, why does anyone think that matters particularly? Unless they're a shareholder, of course.
Because I'm not really seeing loads of people (although there are some) up in arms about whether or not its kind to the animal. And if they don't care about the animal welfare, then what is there to care about?
Also it seems to me that if people were worried about it being unkind to animals they'd be all over the Green Protect Our Furry Animals party.
I seem to be seeing people up in arms about it being "foreign", "another religion", or whichever adjective they prefer. It seems to be outrage is caused by these other religions, cultures, etc, being involved and it seems to me that those 'outraged' people are all over the UKIP party.
And then people wonder why I have concerns about UKIP's people contents.
|
Would the red frownie face person who found my note offensive be prepared to help me understand in what way he/she was offended?
However, if you prefer to remain under a rock, don't worry I do understand,
|
>> it seems to me that those 'outraged' people are all over the UKIP party.
Not my rff but I'm interested to know what led you to the above conclusion ie. where did you see/hear these people?
|
Well, a bit of a generalisation really, but it does seem to me that the people who've discussed it with me or in my hearing, outside this forum, are using the same points that they used whether we were talking about UKIP, Anti-EU, laws made by Europe, or this meat thing.
Specifically where would be a couple of bars of ex-pats and endless e-mails with family & friends & associates.
In any cases it seems to be about foreigners (or culture or religion or whatever) perceived as telling the offended what to do which bothers that person for no good* reason that he can vocalise.
*my definition of "good", of course.
e.g.
I can't see how it matters whether a law is made in Europe or Westminster. Surely it only matters whether it is a good law or not?
I can't see how it matters whether or not a particular method of killing an animal is supported by one religion where another religion doesn't care, surely it only matters whether that is a good method of killing or not?
I cannot for the life of me see how it matters whether the person claiming benefits is foreign or not. Surely it only matters that it is appropriate and within the rules that they claim. Who cares whether the abuser is foreign or British, Christian or Muslim, etc.
Really, I wish it was called the UK "Doing the right thing" party and not the UK Independence Party.
|
>> I seem to be seeing people up in arms about it being "foreign", "another religion",
>> or whichever adjective they prefer.
I am one of the people who doesn't like the idea.
I'm not exactly 'up in arms', but yes it does bother me... because... someone else's religion and a religion not concerned with the history of this country should not have very much to do with the rest of us here.
I have no problem with other people's faith and their churches and equivalent and their ways etc, we are a free country and I'm proud of that...but it should not impact me.
There is an added problem with Islam, in that there is a significant minority within it who would wish for their religion and ways to take over the rest of us and they look down their noses at us as being somewhat unworthy...so unsurprisingly I do not find that acceptable... so why would I wish that faith to be dictating to me what I buy/eat?
So me having to eat halal meat because it appeases 5% of the population in the circumstances I've mentioned above is a problem.
|
>> There is an added problem with Islam, in that there is a significant minority within
>> it who would wish for their religion and ways to take over the rest of
>> us and they look down their noses at us as being somewhat unworthy...so unsurprisingly I
>> do not find that acceptable... so why would I wish that faith to be dictating
>> to me what I buy/eat?
How do you define significant? Tiny but vocal is, I suspect, nearer the mark. And anyway, why judge the rest of UK Islam by the actions of the extreme group.
>> So me having to eat halal meat because it appeases 5% of the population in
>> the circumstances I've mentioned above is a problem.
Does it affect the taste or keeping quality?
|
Westpig, I accept that it bothers you.
But I truly don't understand why. Its clearly not the welfare of the animal, nor the foodstuff. It is simply that a foreign religion is involved.
>>we are a free country and I'm proud of that...but it should not impact me.
So, not really free then? Free as long as nobody says or does something you don't like? Because that may be how you wish the country to be. Maybe that is even what the country will become. But don't call it "free". Because true freedom comes irrespective of whether or not someone likes what you are doing.
And what will you do if one day lots of people don't like something you believe, think or do? Stop thinking it, or believe its your right in a free country to think it?
Or do you believe that being born here makes a difference? Because many Muslims were born in the UK. Or do you think that they are still of immigrant families? And if so, where do you think your heritage comes from? Because way back when it almost certainly wasn't the UK.
And given that Jesus was a Jewish Arab, you may have to accept that Christianity is not "from here" either.
Fancy a quick naked dance around Stonehenge next December? I will if you will.
Nobody is being "appeased", why use such emotive language? Simply a commercial entity is trying to reduce its costs and increase its revenue.
>>Why would I wish that faith to be dictating to me what I buy/eat?
Its not. Nor is anybody or anything else. If you don't like it, then don't go to [in this case] Pizza Hut. Because if, as you say, its a tiny majority who want things this way and a huge majority who do not, then Pizza Hut will change their strategy instantly.
Do you object to non-smoking pubs (if you smoke)? Or what about vegetarian restaurants, or are those restrictions ok ? And if so, why?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 10 May 14 at 17:27
|
Interesting how this seems to be far more about "Islamification" than the simple matter of animal welfare.
I try to avoid Halal food merely because I (along with many vets and animal charities) consider it a cruel method of death for large animals.
But what do I know?
|
"Or what about vegetarian restaurants,………."
I don't object at all to vegetarians having special restaurants; however, I would not be happy if they tried to gradually introduce the restrictions to other omnivorous establishments.
Some people, on the other hand, are quite prepared to be told what to eat.
|
>>I don't object at all to vegetarians having special restaurants; however, I would not be happy if they tried to gradually introduce the restrictions to other omnivorous establishments.
1) They are not. Not. As in *NOT*.
A chain of restaurants has seen what it believes is a cost reduction / revenue increasing opportunity. No religion, no foreigner, and no foreign religion has forced or even asked for this change.
2) You would not be changing what you eat. You would only be eating meat killed differently. But seemingly you don't care about that.
3) You do not have to go there, and if you are correct, either Pizza Hut will change or close.
Vegetarian restaurants exist because someone is meeting what they believe is a business opportunity. Same thing, but not foreign and not a "foreign" religion I guess.
|
>> "Or what about vegetarian restaurants,………."
>>
>> I don't object at all to vegetarians having special restaurants; however, I would not be
>> happy if they tried to gradually introduce the restrictions to other omnivorous establishments.
>>
>> Some people, on the other hand, are quite prepared to be told what to eat.
But nobody is forcing you to change what you eat. I understand the animal welfare argument about pre-stunning but what difference does it make if the slaughterman says a prayer while extinguishing life?
|
I can understand why the Sikhs are not happy.
Isn't it Pizza Express, not Hut? Who wants chicken on a pizza anyway, stick to ham and salami and you should be OK:)
Tesco etc is a different case. Can't live on pork, so it seems that many omnivores have been eating ritually slaughtered meat without their knowledge or any reason to think it might be the case. A very cynical attitude from the supermarkets if that is what they have been up to, especially after the horse scandal.
I expect that I will be eating halal meat when I go for a curry, but it's not for the supermarket, or pizza express, to decide whether I care or not that they sell it by default - they should be more upfront and leave the decision to me.
Actually I suspect this will die down, but it shouldn't. The default should be humane, non-ritualised slaughter.
|
There are costs involved with Halal monitoring.
www.halalhmc.org/CostsandFees.htm
Last edited by: Roger. on Sat 10 May 14 at 18:31
|
I wonder why no supermarket is taking the opportunity of display "we only sell non halal meats".
That should massively increase their market shares.
Wish UK had the backbone like Denmark to prohibit halal.
|
"I wonder why no supermarket is taking the opportunity of display "we only sell non halal meats". "
Because the media haven't taken it up as a campaign, and your average punter doesn't know what it means. Tell 'em it's 'got a trace of horse in it', and they'll go bonkers. It's only because they understand the word 'horse'.
|
>>Tell 'em it's 'got a trace of horse in it', and they'll go bonkers. It's only because they understand the word 'horse'.
Absolutely spot on. Sad, but spot on.
|
>>"I wonder why no supermarket is taking the opportunity of display "we only sell non halal meats". "
Because a very large percentage (no I don't have the figures to hand) of animals slaughtered in the halal way are subsequently found to be unsuitable for moslems due to 'imperfections'. Mostly tumours I understand.
That meat goes into the general market.
|
>> Because a very large percentage (no I don't have the figures to hand) of animals slaughtered in the halal way are subsequently found to be unsuitable for moslems due to 'imperfections'. Mostly tumours I understand.
>> That meat goes into the general market.
Cobblers I suspect bt. Truth of the matter is we don't really know or usually really care about what we eat and how it has been killed. Muslims, Jews, gentiles, all cynical slobs highly unlikely to throw out valuable meat for silly ideological reasons.
Life's too short and too expensive already. Business is business. Best not to worry about it too much or you may contract an eating disorder like some silly little chick.
|
"The default should be humane, non-ritualised slaughter."
That's how I feel, but some people seem awfully protective of a cruel ritual carried out in compliance with a particular culture (or is that religion?).
|
>>"The default should be humane, non-ritualised slaughter."
The default should be "humane". Who gives an FF whether it is ritualised or not?
>>some people seem awfully protective of a cruel ritual carried out in compliance with a particular culture (or is that religion?).
Why did you bother with the second half of that statement? The first half is clearly correct, but what is the relevance of what it is or is not in compliance with?
|
>> >>"The default should be humane, non-ritualised slaughter."
>>
>> The default should be "humane". Who gives an FF whether it is ritualised or not?
We seem to have established that you don't, but that's not the point. The Sikhs care, for a start.
If a supermarket chooses not to say otherwise, we are entitled IMO to think it has been killed humanely and non ritually. It's it for the vendor, or you, to decide whether another purchaser will care or not, is it?
Let them label it halal and I can either decide I don't give a FF or shop elsewhere.
And I didn't do the scowl, but it's pretty obvious what it's for since you seem to imply that the poster you are replying to is racist or xenophobic.
|
>> it's pretty obvious what it's for since you seem to imply that the poster you are replying to is racist or xenophobic.
I do not believe it, but I certainly wonder about it. although I would add whatever "ist" it is that pertains to religion.
First, I asked a question, to understand something I do not understand.
Insofar as the killing of animals is concerned I do not care whether there is ritual or there is not ritual. I care only that it should be humane. If it was not humane, then I would try to avoid it.
But, can you explain to me why people who AFAIK have no religious driver towards animal killing style, keep bringing up religion when all that really matters is whether or not it is humane?
Explain to me, simply so that I can understand, *any* reason for caring whether or not a particular religion is involved?
Why is not not *just* "humane" that matters?
>>Let them label it halal and I can either decide I don't give a FF or shop elsewhere.
Fair enough, I think a shop or restaurant *should* be open about what they sell. However, most of what I see is not humanity or openness, its the dreaded "other religion".
And for the record I believe that there are racists and xenophobes in here, some of whom do not believe that they are.
I'd like to understand more about that rather than simply pretend it isn't so. However, I will be much relieved if you or anyone else can show me, or even give me reason to hope, that I am wrong.
|
>> First, I asked a question, to understand something I do not understand.
>>
>> Insofar as the killing of animals is concerned I do not care whether there is
>> ritual or there is not ritual. I care only that it should be humane. If
>> it was not humane, then I would try to avoid it.
>>
>> But, can you explain to me why people who AFAIK have no religious driver towards
>> animal killing style, keep bringing up religion when all that really matters is whether or
>> not it is humane?
>>
>> Explain to me, simply so that I can understand, *any* reason for caring whether or
>> not a particular religion is involved?
Not my job, it's up to the buyer to decide, but to decide they have to know about it. I suspect though that for some at least it will be that they do not accept without question that halal (or other ritual slaughter if applicable) is equally as humane as other methods. And of course there are the Sikhs whose religion actually forbids the eating of ritually slaughtered animals.
>> And for the record I believe that there are racists and xenophobes in here, some
>> of whom do not believe that they are.
>>
>> I'd like to understand more about that rather than simply pretend it isn't so. However,
>> I will be much relieved if you or anyone else can show me, or even
>> give me reason to hope, that I am wrong.
All 'normal' people are more or less xenophobic aren't they? What matters is how we behave.
|
>>All 'normal' people are more or less xenophobic aren't they?
I don't know. I don't think I am.
>>What matters is how we behave.
Well, I guess that's what matters *most*.
|
"Why did you bother with the second half of that statement? The first half is clearly correct, but what is the relevance of what it is or is not in compliance with?"
Sorry, I thought this was pretty straightforward, but I'll explain…….
What was considered unacceptable on animal welfare grounds suddenly becomes deemed acceptable because a vocal religious sect arrives who demand that it is made acceptable.
I take a dim view of that.
|
>>What was considered unacceptable on animal welfare grounds suddenly becomes deemed acceptable because a vocal religious sect arrives who demand that it is made acceptable.
Sorry, I didn't see what you meant.
I agree with you. I don't think it is acceptable that religion justifies any unacceptable behaviour.
If it is unacceptably cruel to an animal, then its unacceptably cruel. Religion doesn't make a difference.
|
I know some of you here whose views are on the left, (or who are indifferent) have a poor opinion of Pat Condell as an atheist and Libertarian - or in your heads - "Right Wing" voice, but here is a video of him and his views on Halal - posted a while ago.
www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3gYq2DQG1zI
Last edited by: Roger. on Sat 10 May 14 at 18:45
|
This was a good one Dodger, nothing to do with killing and eating poor animals though:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3QzfrnsQkE
|
What exactly is wrong with humane slaughter combined with a ritual prayer?
95% of Halal meat is killed in EXACTLY the same way as non Halal meat. The animal is stunned and it's throat is then cut and it bleeds to death.
A small proportion of Halal meat is produced by first cutting the animals throat and then the animal is stunned. There is some concern that animals killed in this way suffer a certain amount of pain.
Thus the question to ask for those concerned with animal welfare is "not"was the slaughter Halal or non Halal"but "was the animal pre stunned".
|
>>Jesus was a Jewish Arab
Jesus was a Palestinian Jew.
|
You say tomato...
Its a difference too subtle for me since neither are criteria I attach much importance to.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 10 May 14 at 19:38
|
>> Westpig, I accept that it bothers you.
>>
>> But I truly don't understand why. Its clearly not the welfare of the animal, nor
>> the foodstuff. It is simply that a foreign religion is involved.
I think very strongly that there's a double standard applied to Islam, in that no one dare say anything negative about it....so some of them can treat their women worse than cattle and in this instance they can kill animals in a fashion that the rest of us would be liable for prosecution under animal cruelty laws (as can followers of the Jewish faith).
I think the laws and common decent practices in this country should apply to all.
So there's an element of animal cruelty in my disquiet...but the main thrust of my point is a dominant religion that has some in it wish to enforce that religion on everyone else ..and I do not want that religion's mechanisms thrust on me or the rest of my mainly Christian or secular society.
So if a company takes a rational business decision on putting halal meat in things on the quiet in the hope that the 5% will buy it for being halal and the rest of us won't notice or care... then what I'm saying is this person does care ...and it remains to be seen what the outcome will be for that business decision over the coming weeks and if more people than just me care.
I suspect things will change.
>>
>> >>we are a free country and I'm proud of that...but it should not impact me.
>>
>> So, not really free then? Free as long as nobody says or does something you
>> don't like?
Any decision will affect someone. You very well knew what I meant. A follower of Islam can buy and eat halal meat anywhere they like here, they can worship in a mosque, etc, etc ..and rightly so, I have no problem with it. We are a tolerant people and a tolerant country. We are a free country, as free as one can be anyway.
Trouble is tolerant shouldn't mean walked on...and those followers of Islam that wish it to dominate everyone else need to know that the gradual sneaking in of their priorities and principles will not be the norm ...and for me us all eating halal meat is part of that or could be, even if it was purely a business decision by a supermarket...so I find it unacceptable.
|
>> I think very strongly that there's a double standard applied to Islam,
Yes, I think that there is. I also think that it works in several ways;
The PC, offend no-one brigade who think that something should be allowed because of a religion Or at least we shouldn't do or say something in case it upsets another religion.
The media driven group who think that the fact that it is another religion makes it unacceptable and somehow worse.
*SOME* Muslims who believe that their religion is sufficient justification for an otherwise unacceptable behaviour..
I think that they are all wrong. Really, really wrong.
>> I think the laws and common decent practices in this country should apply to all.
Absolutely. Follow the laws and accepted behaviour of this country or get out. Whatever your religion, race, culture, nationality or bra size.
And then we step apart...
>> .but the main thrust of my point is a dominant religion that has some in it wish to
>> enforce that religion on everyone else ..and I do not want that religion's mechanisms
>> thrust on me or the rest of my mainly Christian or secular society.
They can thrust away, no different to any politican for example. However, insofar as the following applies and is followed....
"the laws and common decent practices in this country should apply to all."
then why should I bother what religion, nationality etc. etc. it is?
>> So if a company takes a rational business decision on putting halal meat in things
>> on the quiet in the hope that the 5% will buy it for being halal
>> and the rest of us won't notice or care.
And that's what they did. And if they're wrong, and I think that they are, then their business should suffer if enough people think so.
But this particular "news" story is about the misbehaviour of that company, not of any religion.
However, the outrage seems to be oriented with the religion.
>>.. then what I'm saying is this person does care
Me too. But my unhappiness comes from the commercial behaviour verging on deception, not on any religious group. And I think that the killing process is wrong because it is inhumane, not because it comes from any one group of people.
>> ...and it remains to be seen what the outcome will be for that business decision over the coming weeks and if more people than just me care.
And let us hope that;
1) it has a substantial effect
2) that people do care
3) and that they care for "good" reasons
>> Free country blah blah
> You very well knew what I meant.
No, I did not.
In fact, I took your point to illustrate one of the things that I do not like about today's people. There seems to be a growing belief that society is all about rights, and brings no duties.
Whereas of course there are both. You behaviour should be tolerated within reason, as should the behaviour of someone else. Someone not liking your behaviour, or you not liking theirs, should not be sufficient reason for it to be stopped.
>> Trouble is tolerant shouldn't mean walked on...and those followers of ..........
I agree, but as long as we use ;
" the laws and common decent practices in this country should apply to all"
then it should be fine.
And that standard should be applied to all, ignoring the motivations of the ridiculously politically correct at one end, or the bigoted at the other.
Like I said, pity its not called the UK Doing The Right Thing Party.
|
I think we are nearly there NoFM2R...the only bit left is the religion 'taking over' angle.
I agree that it is the supermarkets that have done this latest thing 100%.... however, they made that decision commercially (as they would do) without any regard to any wider picture (why would they at that time).
All I'm saying is I am conscious of the wider picture and disagree with their commercial decision because of the reasons previously stated. If enough people agree with me, the businesses will alter their decision for commercial reasons.
|
I agree with this last note of yours.
I would just like us to target and change things that are wrong. Not get side-tracked by race, religion, culture etc. etc.
And I would like to see ...
"I think the laws and common decent practices in this country should apply to all"
....adopted by everybody in the UK, and applied to EVERYBODY in the UK, wherever they come from, including the British.
We should dislike what is wrong and not make up reasons for it.
In this case, products, including meat, should be sold openly and honestly and we should boycott those who do not.
Not because of *what* they sold, but because of the way they did it.
|
>> Not because of *what* they sold, but because of the way they did it.
For me it's both.
|
>> I agree that it is the supermarkets that have done this latest thing 100%.... however,
>> they made that decision commercially (as they would do) without any regard to any wider
>> picture (why would they at that time).
Now I'm sort of there too except that I don't quite grasp the 'wider question' thing.
If the animal is pre-stunned and the only difference is that it's killed by slitting of its throat while speaking an incantation rather than by a bolt in the head (while uttering profanities?) I'm not bothered.
Until I'm told different I assume there's no difference in flavour, keeping quality etc. either way.
Bleeding beasts at slaughter isn't an Islam v rest issue, as anyone in an an area they make black pudding will tell you.
And while I respect the reported difficulty for Sikhs I'm mildly amused at the political and ethical conflicts some of those raising the point might find themselves experiencing.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 May 14 at 22:21
|
If the animal is pre-stunned and the only difference is that it's killed by slitting of its throat while speaking an incantation rather than by a bolt in the head (while uttering profanities?) I'm not bothered."
"There seems to be a continuing confusion here. The process of slaughter in a non Halal slaughterhouse involves
1 stunning , either electrically or by a bolt in the head
2 bleeding to death by either cutting the animal' throat or sticking I.e inserting a chest stick close to the heart
The bolt in the head does not kill the animal - it dies of blood loss just the same as a Halal slaughtered animal does.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sat 10 May 14 at 22:44
|
>> And while I respect the reported difficulty for Sikhs I'm mildly amused at the political
>> and ethical conflicts some of those raising the point might find themselves experiencing.
>>
Why are you mildly amused?
|
>> Now I'm sort of there too except that I don't quite grasp the 'wider question'
>> thing.
The wider picture for me is:
- people may not wish to eat halal meat because of the animal cruelty implications
- people may not wish halal meat to be exclusively supplied to all, because of the implication of Islam and its principles being applied to a load of people in a Christian/ Secular country, together with the aims of some within Islam being the Islamification of all.
|
>>- people may not wish to eat halal meat because of the animal cruelty implications
Quite understandable.
And the companies should have been more open. Although I assume that you realise this story was front page of the Daily Mail in September 2010?? So it hasn't bee a secret for the last 4 years.
>>- people may not wish halal meat to be exclusively supplied to all, because of the implication of Islam and its principles being applied to a load of people in a Christian/ Secular country, together with the aims of some within Islam being the Islamification of all.
A truly ridiculous reason. But clearly one that won't get shifted easily.
|
>>Although I assume that you realise this story was front page of the Daily Mail in September 2010?? So it hasn't bee a secret for the last 4 years.>>
Yes, but it's been revived in recent days:
tinyurl.com/obe5yet
tinyurl.com/pfyky4w
One or two similar stories during this period.
|
>> >>- people may not wish halal meat to be exclusively supplied to all, because of
>> the implication of Islam and its principles being applied to a load of people in
>> a Christian/ Secular country, together with the aims of some within Islam being the Islamification
>> of all.
>>
>> A truly ridiculous reason. But clearly one that won't get shifted easily.
Ridiculous only if you restrict yourself to considering just the immediate consequences.
I think it would be foolish not to consider the implications, regardless of whether there is a fundalmentalist Islamification movement.
There is nothing of course for most of us to worry about in eating halal meat, especially if as CGN says it actually complies with the normal standards of humane slaughter. But for some it is an oppression.
Most people in Britain are not at all religious as regards observances. Hence I suppose the suggestion that we shouldn't care. We are also, on the whole, protective of religious freedom, and rightly so.
But should we be protective, or even tolerant of, of those aspects of any religion that apply to, willy nilly, everybody else? How far does that go? What happens when there is a conflict? (as in indeed there already is here if you are a Sikh)?
The sensible starting point, to me, is to permit people to follow their religion to the extent that it does not impose itself on others. We know that there is a legacy situation with the CofE, but of course that existed before any of us did, and I expect that the church will in time be disestablished anyway as the trend is a decline.
There is no degree to which creeping 'religiousisation' of any flavour can be regulated. You either have it, or you don't. If you decide to have it, I don't see how it won't end in conflict somewhere down the track.
The odd thing here of course is that it is not Islam promoting the practice, which should make it easier to deal with now.
We must all have debated whether Britain should involve itself in fighting 'religious' compulsion elsewhere in the world. Better to start here, by making sure that such a situation can never arise in the first place?
I doubt if it will happen at this time, but it will become an issue at some point if there isn't a clarification of exactly what religious freedom is.
|
|
If I am allowed to use it - +1 :-)
|
" I'm mildly amused at the political and ethical conflicts some of those raising the point might find themselves experiencing."
Could you explain this please? Where exactly are you seeing the conflicts, and could you give us some indication as to who you see experiencing this conflict?
My view is quite clear, as I explained before
"What was considered unacceptable on animal welfare grounds suddenly becomes deemed acceptable because a vocal religious sect arrives who demand that it is made acceptable.
I take a dim view of that."
I get the impression that many others feel similarly.
|
>>"What was considered unacceptable on animal welfare grounds suddenly becomes deemed acceptable because a vocal religious sect arrives who demand that it is made acceptable."
Where has that view been, in one of the newspapers?
|
Our local Tesco Extra ( newish ). Certainly sells Halal meat...and makes it known to all their customers....and has done since opening.
Along the back wall are various shops...optician, phones, hair salon, butchers, fish, etc. With them, next to the fish is a Halal meat butcher manned by a couple of Asian butchers. Always a good display of meat on the counter. I assume then that the other butcher is non Halal . So, in our case, the customer has choice.
I've yet to see a customer at the Halal place although there are a large amount of Asian families shopping there. Perhaps they prefer their own regular local outlets.
I have no objection to eating Halal, I have done in Asian restaurants, presumably. I would prefer the animal to be slaughtered humanely but I'll never know...so I won't worry too much about it.
|
>> I would prefer the animal to be slaughtered humanely but I'll never know...so I won't worry too much about it.>>
You disappoint me.
|
I struggle a bit with the concept of meat eating. Not enough to give it up, but enough to be bothered by it. And certainly enough to get very cross if an animal is being mistreated [IMO] and somebody tries to hide the fact.
And much as I have become accustomed to the fact, things like battery hens, Halal meat and many other similar things tend to push me over the edge.
I quite sympathise with the vegetarian cause though not enough to join it.
One of my daughters is similar, the other would chew on a wounded donkey she loves meat so much. Funnily enough it is the one that's not that keen on meat, although she eats it, who goes hunting and fishing.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 11 May 14 at 00:04
|
We've not eaten meat or poultry for over a year now, I didn't really plan for it, although I have toyed with the idea of becoming vegetarian at various times in the last 20 years, but it never lasted long.
I think the thing that really did it for me was seeing Milo swallow a whole turtle dove 'in one sitting'.
Christ! - I was soooooo enraged I almost dispatched HIM, and it got me to thinking, well, I do similar when we eat organic chicken 2 or 3 times a week but, get someone else to do the killing.
So I just stopped eating meat or poultry from that day on and don't miss it at all, don't even think about it.
I did the same with smoking 20 years ago have been a puffer since I was about 13.
I might add that having lived in an agricultural area for the last 17 years, I have nothing but respect for the way most farmers treat their livestock, in Cornwall anyway.
|
"I think the thing that really did it for me was seeing Milo swallow a whole turtle dove 'in one sitting'."
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIniVfY-ptg
|
Put me orf my toast and peanut butter, almost. I must be becoming more spiritually aware in my later life.
I wont even kill the flies in the kitchen anymore, I'll just open the window instead and let them fly away.
They have as much right to be here as any other sentient being IMO.
|
Flies are no more sentient than beetroot.
Discuss.
|
>>Flies are no more sentient than beetroot.
Tibetan and Jap Buddhists see all beings including plant life and even inanimate objects as being sentient beings.
I put this to some veggie friends some 16 years ago and they said they're not so much against eating meat.
It's more the way the animals suffer for our consumption that, um, gets up their noses.
I did happen to mention at the time that lettuce has feelings too!
|
>> I did happen to mention at the time that lettuce has feelings too!
>>
That's a shame, 'cos I eat lots of 'em.
|
>>That's a shame, 'cos I eat lots of 'em.
+1
:o}
|
|
Are you a fruitarian, Perro?
|
|
Even when they crap on your food?
|
>>Are you a fruitarian
No, but I like fruitcake.
>>Even when they crap on your food?
I believe the term is regurgitate? .. I'll have to read-up on that to see why they do it.
We live in a farming area so surrounded by crap (don't mention the horses!) and, the top of the stable-type door is open most of the time but, I haven't really seen too many flies so far this year.
I wonder if they are tuned-in to the fact that I'm a closet Buddhist.
|
>> Could you explain this please? Where exactly are you seeing the conflicts, and could you
>> give us some indication as to who you see experiencing this conflict?
Simply that those I'd normally regard as 'the usual suspects' when it comes to opposing minority rights are suddenly chirping up about Sikhs.
If the question was right to carry the Kirpan or adaptations to dress codes for the turban?
|
"If the question was right to carry the Kirpan or adaptations to dress codes for the turban?"
I recall some objections from turban-wearers when the crash-helmet law was brought in for riding motor-bikes. I can't remember how that one was concluded - anyone help me?
Certainly I would be a bit miffed if I went down to the hat shop for a new Christys' Newsboy Cap to be told that they had decided only to stock turbans.
|
>> I recall some objections from turban-wearers when the crash-helmet law was brought in for riding motor-bikes. I can't remember how that one was concluded - anyone help me?
The law is I believe, all people must wear a helmet, unless they are Sikh.
My viewpoint is, any law should cover all individuals which two exceptions.
1/ medical.
2/emergency personal, in the cause of their duty. (including training.)
If you don't like a law, fight for it to be repealed, don't do the activity it covers, move somewhere where the law doesn't exist or don't cry when you get caught!
|
"The law is I believe, all people must wear a helmet, unless they are Sikh."
A law is a law, but as far as wearing a crash helmet is concerned, anyone who doesn't wear one when riding a motorbike is an idiot.
I recall that shortly before the crash helmet law was brought in, a non helmet-wearing rider was seriously injured in a crash that was caused by a car driver. I believe the payout borne by the driver's insurance was reduced by some 10% or so because of 'contributory negligence' on the part of the biker for not wearing a helmet.
Presumably this rule would still be applied for anyone not wearing a helmet on religious grounds.
|
A law is a law, but as far as wearing a crash helmet is concerned, anyone who doesn't wear one when riding a motorbike is an idiot.
The campaign to make helmet wearing compulsory started with the accident that killed T E Lawrence in 1935. It's thought had he been wearing one, he'd not have had the head injuries he died from.
Didn't happen till 1973 though.
|
>> The campaign to make helmet wearing compulsory started with the accident that killed T E
>> Lawrence in 1935. It's thought had he been wearing one, he'd not have had the
>> head injuries he died from.
Then perhaps the choice between turban or helmet must lie in the Seven Pilaus of Wisdom.
|
I confess I have ridden motorcycles without a helmet and certainly without protective clothing in countries and times when it was legal to do so. On reflection, that was not wise and I think I'd not do it now.
However, I still have a small part of me which believes that while it is quite right to advise and even strongly recommend their use it still seems a bit odd to me to have a law forcing people to wear them when the only potential victim of not doing so is themselves.
We have plenty of freedom to make other bad choices so why pick on that one?
|
>> Simply that those I'd normally regard as 'the usual suspects' when it comes to opposing
>> minority rights are suddenly chirping up about Sikhs.
>>
>> If the question was right to carry the Kirpan or adaptations to dress codes for
>> the turban?
>>
Presumably they are doing what you do all the time...using an argument that supports their stance.
|
Anyone who believes they live their lives entirely ethically is deluded. Not to say there aren't those who at least try or think they do.
I was closely involved in a project some years ago to bring ethically produced footwear to the market. Sponsored and financed by an industry philanthropist, the products were manufactured in state of the art factories run with every care to their staff, made from ethically sourced materials, from recycled components where possible, packaged in in bio-degradable / recyclable boxes, shipped with only the most provably ethically compliant freight forwarders etc etc...
They were priced to sell at little more than a break-even margin but even so they were approximately double the price of equivalent products brought to the high street in more conventional ways.
Unsurprisingly, they didn't sell despite considerable effort having been made to draw attention to why they were special.
Ultimately, we want cheap things and are prepared to be hypocritical to get them cheap.
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Sun 11 May 14 at 11:42
|
>> Presumably they are doing what you do all the time...using an argument that supports their
>> stance.
I know that but it still gave me a wry grin!!
|
>> >> Could you explain this please? Where exactly are you seeing the conflicts, and could
>> you
>> >> give us some indication as to who you see experiencing this conflict?
>>
>> Simply that those I'd normally regard as 'the usual suspects' when it comes to opposing
>> minority rights are suddenly chirping up about Sikhs.
That must be me then!
>>
>> If the question was right to carry the Kirpan or adaptations to dress codes for
>> the turban?
A question for later. Not aware that either creates problems?
|
>> A question for later. Not aware that either creates problems?
Both are overt expressions of religion and seem therefore to raise same issues for some about 'takeover' of our culture as does Halal meat. The kirpan can also be an issue where legislation on carrying knives is being concerned and lead to 'exceptions'.
|
Looking at this again a couple of points arise.
I suspect from the reporting the volume item that's Halal in the big supermarkets is NZ lamb. The fact that it's Halal has nothing to do with 'Islamification' of the UK and everything to do with Islamic countries being a growing market. As it's all pre stunned and only difference is the saying of a prayer there's no point in maintaining two product lines.
Second is that exclusive use of Halal in catering is nothing new. Responsibilities of my last job included organising conferences and events, obviously we asked delegates about dietary needs and some were Muslim. Ten years ago Halal meals were 'on request' and supplied pre plated. From around 2005/6 on standard response from venues was that all meat is Halal - again too much trouble to separate supply chains.
Kosher OTOH was, at least for strict observers, bought in from outside at considerable cost.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 11 May 14 at 21:25
|
>>
>> again too much trouble to separate supply chains.
>>
I think a similar principle is applied to other varied dietary needs.
It is said that most cheese is vegetarian now, because the rennet is only a minor component of the process, and it's cheaper to standardise with something everyone can eat.
But they don't tell you because they can put a markup on "vegetarian" and sell it through health food shops.
Conversely, there was a joke that all crisps are suitable for vegetarians because they don't use real meat, only artificial flavouring. But not cheese & onion, because it's not guaranteed vegetarian cheese, but it probably is.
|
>> Looking at this again a couple of points arise.
>>
>>As it's all
>> pre stunned and only difference is the saying of a prayer there's no point in
>> maintaining two product lines.
>>
>> Second is that exclusive use of Halal in catering is nothing new.
>> From around 2005/6 on standard response from venues was that all meat is Halal -
>> again too much trouble to separate supply chains.
Plot lost.
The "one supply chain" theory only works when there is a common denominator.
And making everything halal in say Tesco is of no help to anybody, including observant muslims unless it's labelled as such.
I'm pretty sure that the majority of British muslims eat non-halal meat anyway, which is not forbidden (I exclude pork).
Grauniad says only a proportion of supermarket meat is halal anyway, which doesn't help muslims at all, and most of that has been pre-stunned, which would be no good for the most particular ones.
www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/08/why-does-supply-halal-meat-outstrip-demand
The Mail carries an informative artcile by a muslim who thinks it is creeping fundamentalism - something about which the majority of muslims are even more concerned about than non-muslims, I should imagine.
www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2623879/We-Muslims-appalled-sale-halal-meat-stealth.html
In particular, the article states that while meat can be made halal (permitted) by the prayer at slaughter, it can also be made halal by a prayer at the time it is consumed. Well I didn't know that.
|
>>it can also be made halal by a prayer at the time it is consumed.
Oh I would so run into a restaurant, bless (or whatever is the term) Westpig's food and then run out again.
8-)
|
>> Oh I would so run into a restaurant, bless (or whatever is the term) Westpig's food and then run out again.
Brilliant FMR. Let us know when you're going to do it and you may have an audience observing from a discreet distance.
Fast runner are you?
:o}
|
>> Oh I would so run into a restaurant, bless (or whatever is the term) Westpig's
>> food and then run out again.
Yes, you can have a green thumb for that one
|
Manatee,
The only plot I've lost is the one I never subscribed to; the one that says spread of Halal meat is deliberate creeping 'Islamification' of the UK.
Let me reiterate again that in discussing this I'm referring to Halal meat from abattoirs where pre-stunning is used. It's an issue the 'antis', including Dr Hargey in the Mail, are keen to avoid when conflating Halal with allegations of cruelty etc.
The Guardian article explores the numbers but ultimately comes to same conclusion as I do - it's about supply chains. Why meat is not specifically labelled as Halal by Tescoburys I don't know, though I suspect it's down to the 'not stunned' issue not being understood by the public. It is though something that should be addressed.
I don't find Dr Hargey's article particularly informative. It's typical Mail fodder. A few points that are at least arguable facts, some unsubstantiated assertion and then deliberate evasion of other inconvenient but relevant facts and topped off by froth and indignation. He appears to be linked to the Muslim Educational Council of Oxford (www.meco.org.uk/default.htm ). While I welcome it's ecumenical outlook it's clearly the Islamic equivalent of Liberal/Reform Judaism rather than orthodoxy and it's mistaken to assume it or he speak for all Islam.
We have the fact that Halal slaughter is not prescribed directly by the Koran but the Hadith. I think that's a bit like liberal Christians accepting that some of the Bible is God's word and other bits were added later by his followers. It may be a distinction accepted by some but I'm pretty sure there will be another Islamic scholar who will tell us the Koranic interpretation does require the word of God to be pronounced at the time of slaughter.
He goes on to assert that 'one reason' what he appears by that paragraph to accept is a customary Halal method has become prevalent in the UK is down to influence of extremist/fundamentalist sects. Note the complete lack of evidence.
He says it's the Hadith that also insists on draining of blood but mixes it with another alleged Hadith direction about stoning – presumably to devalue the requiremt to drain. Hang on a mo though. Pretty much all butchery involves draining blood surely? Not an exclusively Islamic practice is it?
As an aside he's mistaken about Haggis having blood as an ingredient though the offal may be equally objectionable to the observant.
As a final flourish he speaks of 7th century practices - dog whistling the myth that UK (stunned) Halal slaughter is somehow more barbarous than that practised in non Halal commercial abattoirs.
It’s a piece commissioned by the Mail to keep the ‘Halal outrage’ kettle boiling until the next issue comes along.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 12 May 14 at 21:11
|
Bromp,
The Mail's rabble-rousing motives are not in question here.
Whilst Hargey is clearly on one side of the argument, he can clearly see the sense in not defaulting to halal for reasons of commercial convenience. I'm rather relieved about that, the majority of muslims who who not believe in withholding education from girls for example have very much more to fear from extreme fundamentalism than the rest of us.
I also doubt whether, as a prominent individual and an imam, even one who courts controversy, he would compromise his beliefs and his position for the Daily Mail and I see no reason to suppose he is insincere in his stated views. I don't think you have actually contested any point in the article, have you?
You compare Hargey's brand of Islam with liberal Judaism - no argument there, in fact he is probably an extreme liberal, if there can be such a thing. The point is that the majority of muslims presumably want to remain moderate, or liberal, not to become fundamentalists. (No I do not offer you any proof, I have simply observed that the majority of muslims I meet do not wear beards or sport the niqab).
More here re Hargey. He is indeed at odds with those who insist on the niqab etc.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5126155/Imam-wins-landmark-battle-against-Muslim-McCarthyism.html
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-imam-who-took-on-the-muslim-mccarthyists-1666126.html
Moderate or liberal muslims have been criticised here and elsewhere for not speaking out.
You can see why -
www.islamophobiawatch.co.uk/taj-hargey-jumps-on-muslim-grooming-bandwagon/
Here is one that does, but you seem to prefer the extreme variety?
We need to stop beating ourselves up and insist on a truly free society, where it is oppression that is unacceptable, not saying what one thinks.
|
Manatee,
I need to think about above, both message and medium, before replying. I will however deal with one point - your suggestion that I prefer the extreme variety.
I've no time for fundamentalists of any religion whether American Christians, the outer sects of Judaism or Islamists. I do however question whether Hargey speaks for the majority of UK Muslims any more than Lionel Blue speaks for majority of UK Jews.
|
>>I will however deal with one point - your suggestion that I prefer the extreme variety.
Yes that was provocative, or at least badly phrased - sorry.
|
>>
>> it can also be made halal by a prayer at the time
>> it is consumed. Well I didn't know that.
>>
We have that rule too. You can lead a bad sinful life, and then confess and repent and God forgives you. He's just doing his job.
|
>> We have that rule too. You can lead a bad sinful life, and then confess
>> and repent and God forgives you. He's just doing his job.
>>
And those who lead blameless lives but don't accept the Lord God can go burn in Hell for eternity. Nice God, that one. Makes sense.
|
It has its advantages.
My current plan is to live my life as I choose and then prepare for some *serious* and sincere repenting on my death bed.
Now I just have to have a plan for sudden death - hit by a bus I didn't see coming for example, since then I might not have sufficient time. I wonder if you get credit for intending to repent even if you didn't quite get around to it.
My wife, a serious catholic, says I'm going down whatever I do from here on in.
|
So is she, according to the Catholic priest who refused to marry my Catholic mother to my non-C father, told her she's never to set foot in a C church ever again and will suffer the torments of hell eventually. However, the brainwashing is strong and my Mother will still say she is C, although does refuse to enter their buildings.
I'll never understand it. Swiss cheese. Don't bother with the repenting, spend your last minutes enjoying a kebab.
|
The Bishop who married us insisted I attend Catholic training lessons. Seriously! Every week for about 2 months, I think it was.
He must be God-approved because he's a Cardinal now.
|
I became God approved to marry in a Catholic church. I was told that I would have to make 2 visits to see the priest to check that I was sutable material. After 5 minutes of the first visit he left the room and came back carrying 2 cups of coffee strongly laced with Irish whisky. His first words were - 'good to see you again', and went on to explain that that this was obviously my second visit.
Well I suppose that it ensured that got his fees for carrying out the wedding.
|
There are these yokel Catholic priests who bang on horribly about mortal sin and eternal damnation, but they aren't all like that. My non-Catholic (and I believe atheist or agnostic although he wouldn't say) father complained bitterly about the treatment he had been given when he was marrying my Catholic mother who wanted a church marriage some time after their first registry office job. He had to promise the children would be raised as Catholics, which he felt to be unfair.
As I say, they aren't all like that. My mother's uncle, a distinguished Jesuit educator, often came to stay and he and my father got on well, playing chess whenever they had the time. My father liked him a lot and used to say approvingly that he was a 'wicked old man' on the strength of his evil chess techniques.
The Jesuit uncle had two lawyer brothers, one of them my grandfather, whom I never met. They were both appalling fellows.
|
|
Surely, in the context of eating a piece of lamb say, where it lived, how far it travelled to slaughter, etc would be much more useful than whether or not someone said some words in the name of a (non existent?) deity.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 13 May 14 at 21:01
|
>> Surely, in the context of eating a piece of lamb say, where it lived, how
>> far it travelled to slaughter, etc would be much more useful than whether or not
>> someone said some words in the name of a (non existent?) deity.
>>
Bromptonaut,
You just don't get it, do you?
It's not the religion, or the prayer that's the problem...it's the religion that wants to dominate everyone else that is the issue.
So if it were a Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Catholic, Jewish, etc, angle to it..so what, not on my radar.
The fact that it is Islam and there's plenty in their religion that think the rest of us are 'kaffir' and that their way of doing things is the only way and they are more important than anyone else ..then they can shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
...and before you decree that the 'many' are the same as the rest of us and the 'few' are the problem.... I 100% agree with you... except that the many don't object loud enough to the few.. so until they do, if a supermarket chain through financial prudence think they can get away with halal meat for all... then as far as this consumer is concerned, they are very much mistaken... and I suspect I am not alone.
|
|
I'm with Wp on this one; but I'm outa the thread now - it's taking too long to scroll down!
|
>> The fact that it is Islam and there's plenty in their religion that think the
>> rest of us are 'kaffir' and that their way of doing things is the only
>> way and they are more important than anyone else ..then they can shove it where
>> the sun doesn't shine.
Sounds very much like (some) Catholics to me. "There's Catholics and there's everyone else, and everyone else has got it wrong", as one of them put it to me a few years ago.
|
>> Bromptonaut,
>>
>> You just don't get it, do you?
No, I've considered 'it' and filed it alongside 'Reds Under the Bed'. As I said to Manatee on Monday I don't buy the idea that spread of Halal meat is deliberate creeping 'Islamification' of the UK
>> The fact that it is Islam and there's plenty in their religion that think the
>> rest of us are 'kaffir' and that their way of doing things is the only
>> way and they are more important than anyone else ..then they can shove it where
>> the sun doesn't shine.
There are some in their religion who call the rest of us 'kaffirs'. Like those who think their Catholicism or whatever is the only way they can be ignored. Telling them to park it by the seventh planet is unnecessarily provocative though!!
>> ...and before you decree that the 'many' are the same as the rest of us
>> and the 'few' are the problem.... I 100% agree with you... except that the many
>> don't object loud enough to the few.. so until they do, if a supermarket chain
>> through financial prudence think they can get away with halal meat for all... then as
>> far as this consumer is concerned, they are very much mistaken... and I suspect I
>> am not alone.
When there's something serious to speak about the 'moderate' Muslims speak out. I don't think this is on their radar - for why read on.
I think you'll find that if the majority of the population understand Tesco Halal is exactly same as other stunned slaughter, except somebody said a prayer for the beast, they're not bothered. That's why the vexatious articles in the press and elsewhere keep conflating it with the tiny minority of slaughterers catering for the sects that insist on unstunned.
This stuff has been in the news for over a week and I'm not hearing the 'Boycott Tesco Halal' twitterstorm.
Are you?
|
>> >> Bromptonaut,
>> >>
>> >> You just don't get it, do you?
>>
>> No, I've considered 'it' and filed it alongside 'Reds Under the Bed'. As I said
>> to Manatee on Monday I don't buy the idea that spread of Halal meat is
>> deliberate creeping 'Islamification' of the UK
You have inserted the word deliberate I think.
I don't think it is deliberate Islamification, but there is no denying it is Islamification.
Is that likely to be unhelpful in the long run, or should it just be ignored?
As I said before, the muslim majority has in the first instance more to worry about from fundamentalism and the sometimes violent imposition of extreme religious observances than than non-muslims. I don't think that is alarmist rabble rousing - there is no shortage of examples elsewhere.
It might be OK, it might not be, but we should walk blindly down this road. Why have several European countries enacted, or are considering, legislation against the wearing of face coverings - it isn't to persecute muslims.
There are aspects of some cultures that are incompatible with generally accepted values in all countries.
It's very difficult to discuss this without appearing alarmist or worse. But I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at what has happening elsewhere (albeit usually in countries that are predominantly of the religion in question (not always Islam) and applying some thought to how it can be avoided in here.
I was in digs decades ago with a friend who was literally afraid of his local church leader at home. He wasn't a muslim, either. I don't like that sort of thing at all.
I'm not a militant anything, and I have no time for anybody who is, including other atheists who sneer at believers.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 14 May 14 at 14:12
|
|
Green thumb from me for that Manatee.
|
Manatee,
I used the word deliberate on Monday too. Partly because that was my understanding of the assertion of some here and because Dr Hargey suggested Wahabi and other militants were behind it.
Certainly true that Muslims have more to fear from extremists in their own communities. While there are examples elsewhere I'm not sure they've any more chance of gaining traction here than the sort of nationalism we're seeing in Ukraine (threats, expulsion of opponents) getting a toehold in Scotland or Wales. I know there are a few examples of people trying to act as religious 'police' in parts of London but, like many of the extremist types, a large proportion are, as with Lee Rigby's killers, mentally unbalanced converts.
I think it's a bit naive to say that the anti hijab laws in mainland Europe have nothing to do with at least bias if not persecution as motive. The Front Nationale in France have enough support for Sarkozy at least to dog whistle them. Where they've gained municipal power FN have gone further and propose removing any religious concession - including serving pork to take or leave. Holland also has its extreme right.
Such laws have little point. The hijab is hardly worn in France, adherents can be counted, IIRC, in low thousands. Bans won't deter them and they're likely to be added to by protesters - next stop 'martyrs'. Similarly UK number wearing the hijab (as opposed to the headscarf) is pretty small in reality although concentrated in areas of London, Birmingham etc.
Much better to tolerate, engage and educate.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 14 May 14 at 16:43
|
>> Much better to tolerate, engage and educate.
Where possible yes. And where there is an overlap in interests, and an accommodation to be reached. That certainly applies to the majority of British muslims, whose intentions are not in question.
What doesn't work is concessions where the position of the other party is simply unacceptable.
Imagine you are mushing a dog sled across Alaska, with a dead elk on your sled, being chased by hungry wolves. You have a brainwave, and hack off a bit of rump, and throw it to the wolves.
What happens next?
I think there's a difference between tolerating ritual slaughter for those to whom it is important (tolerate, engage etc.), and defaulting to it for everybody. A religious state of any kind in which the religion governs what I eat, or do, say, wear, is not acceptable to me.
No doubt you think I have gone all Daily Mail. I haven't, and I think there is much we can do in terms of tolerance and cooperation. Much better to get things right now, than have a Tahrir Square down the road.
|
>> What happens next?
>>
1) The wolves, who are very inteligent, are now confirmed in their suspicions that you are carrying meat, so ignore the hunk and pursue the chase with renewed energy
or
2) One wolf stops for the hunk, the others stop and fight over it, then give up and renew the chase. Vital time has been lost. As the gap closes again, you throw another hunk.
Etc. You reach civilisation still with most of the elk intact.
Next time you carry more ammunition.
|
>> Imagine you are mushing a dog sled across Alaska, with a dead elk on your
>> sled, being chased by hungry wolves. You have a brainwave, and hack off a bit
>> of rump, and throw it to the wolves.
>>
>> What happens next?
I don't think that's really comparable. UK Islam is not, excepting the nutters, predatory on the rest of us.
>> I think there's a difference between tolerating ritual slaughter for those to whom it is
>> important (tolerate, engage etc.), and defaulting to it for everybody. A religious state of any
>> kind in which the religion governs what I eat, or do, say, wear, is not
>> acceptable to me.
I agree in principle about what I eat, wear or drink. If halal slaughter made any difference to the meat I eat then I'd agree about that too but it doesn't so I'm unconcerned. Mildly bothered that some Subway stores are reported to have gone further and don't sell bacon rolls. OTOH that's the franchisee's decision based on local conditions in his street and other franchises nearby continue to sell the full range.
|
>>
>> I don't think that's really comparable.
No, it's not comparable at all. I just couldn't resist following the scenario and imagining what would happen.
|
>> I agree in principle about what I eat, wear or drink. If halal slaughter made
>> any difference to the meat I eat then I'd agree about that too but it
>> doesn't so I'm unconcerned.
You're making a perfectly reasonable tactical decision without regard to the strategic implications.
|
>> You're making a perfectly reasonable tactical decision without regard to the strategic implications.
If there are strategic implications, and I'm very sceptical whether there are, something that makes no real difference isn't and ideal point to anchor your strategy :-P
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 15 May 14 at 19:59
|
>> >> You're making a perfectly reasonable tactical decision without regard to the strategic implications.
>>
>> If there are strategic implications, and I'm very sceptical whether there are, something that makes
>> no real difference isn't and ideal point to anchor your strategy :-P
You and I probably agree on most things, but here I think you are being wilfully obtuse in missing the point - which you are free of course to disagree with but refuse even to recognise.
That is, that the weaving of the laws or rituals of any religion into the lives of all are clicks on a ratchet.
It's difficult to imagine it getting out of hand here, but the results happen every day in other parts of the world - people are essentially no different anywhere.
Equally vile is religious persecution.
We have, in my lifetime, managed largely to shake off the relatively benign social obligation to submit to a weekly (and imposed daily in schools) dose of christianity.
This thread has convinced me that a truly secular state should be established as soon as possible, so that all religions can be kept in their place which is with their adherents, without partiality.
Incidentally, I made my first visit to Tesco for a while this week, not because of this thread. I was cheered to see a halal meat section, which is as it should be.
|
On the money there, M. Big time.
Kudos.
|
>> On the money there, M. Big time.
>>
>> Kudos.
(blush).
A question - were you familiar with Yugoslavia before the conflicts of 1991-99? Could you have imagined what was to come?
Not the same thing, I know.
|
>> A question - were you familiar with Yugoslavia before the conflicts of 1991-99? Could you
>> have imagined what was to come?
I started becoming acquainted in 1988 when I went up to University. The lecturers and professors in my department (Slavonic Studies, mainly Russian with with a heavy Yugoslav/Serbo-Croat element - we had two of the UK's leading experts in the field) were incredulous at what seemed to be about to happen when it started. They knew, of course, of the old tensions and divisions and rivalries, but, like many of my friends and in-laws over there, couldn't conceive of the barbarity which was about to be unleashed. I still hear people say it was like a bad dream, it couldn't possibly have happened................but it did. So many people had a kind of "faith" that Communism had imbued them with - a sense of brotherhood that would prevent neighbour turning on neighbour. There is much grief and devastation at what happened still, even amongst people whose exposure to the horror was limited.
Me? Well, I was still young. I didn't believe it could happen, but I had limited knowledge of the history of the place then, it was all just one big country to me.
There is a famous comedy sketch show on TV there which predicted it all in the late 80s (can't remember its name off the top of my head though) - people used to laugh and joke that its portrayal of the future was too extreme, too ludicrous to come to pass. They were wrong. Viewing episodes in hindsight, it was almost exactly correct.
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 16 May 14 at 11:47
|
This has been nagging at me. Specifically thinking of Manatee's views and trying to place them in a category in my mind insofar as this discussion is concerned - and not finding it easy.
Sitting in a traffic queue just now, I twigged and resolved my little niggle.
There is a difference, a HUGE difference in my mind, in objecting to the weaving of *any* religion into our lives versus objecting to a "foreign", or "not from here" or a specific religion seemingly doing so.
I realise that somebody objecting to all religions equally doesn't grate with me or cause an emotional reaction. Somehow, to me at least, objecting to all religions equally doesn't come across as discriminatory.
Where as objecting to a single religion, on what I perceive as definitely dodgy criteria, is prejudice and offends me.
The problem is, many people from the second case, hide behind the logic and openness of people from the first case.
The sensationalist and reactionary outcry and the media-driven cloth tearing, aren't driven by concerns of cruelty to animals, nor driven by worries about religion as a whole sneaking into our lives, its driven by fear of and prejudice against a single religion.
And that's not only a little bit shameful, its also extremely unlikely to help.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 16 May 14 at 13:25
|
Yes, I could of course be an extreme bigot making my position look as even-handed as possible. Would I even know?
If it helps - I don't actually mind eating halal meat. On the whole I'd prefer it to be the humanely killed variety, halal or not, but it isn't a problem as such.
What is a potential problem, is where adopting it as a default might lead. This doesn't require it to be a conspiracy - I don't think it is, for a second.
Religion is fine for those who have it. You'll just have to trust me (or not) when I say I dislike the fundamentalist variety of any sort of theism. You never know what god will tell them to do next. I was of that opinion long before anybody thought of Islamification.
What would get me seriously worried would be the rise of a militant opposition to the growing muslim population in the UK, so I am certainly not rabble rousing.
All I want is a tolerant society where people are ready to stick up for everybody's rights, not just their own.
Anyway I'll shut up now and examine my conscience.
|
>> What is a potential problem, is where adopting it as a default might lead. This
>> doesn't require it to be a conspiracy - I don't think it is, for a
>> second.
>>
>> Religion is fine for those who have it. You'll just have to trust me (or
>> not) when I say I dislike the fundamentalist variety of any sort of theism. You
>> never know what god will tell them to do next. I was of that opinion
>> long before anybody thought of Islamification.
>>
>> What would get me seriously worried would be the rise of a militant opposition to
>> the growing muslim population in the UK, so I am certainly not rabble rousing.
>>
>> All I want is a tolerant society where people are ready to stick up for
>> everybody's rights, not just their own.
>>
>> Anyway I'll shut up now and examine my conscience.
My view is very closely aligned with what Manatee has just posted...plus... I'm aware that the history of this country is Christian.
So...my default is basically secular, but with a bit of Christian thrown in, purely for the heritage angle...and it is what I was taught as a child.
Now, if we are to be truly tolerant of others, that should also include standing up to those who are intolerant (because by definition someone will be on the receiving end of someone's' intolerance) ...so...I genuinely don't mind what religion people wish to worship... however I'm wary of the intolerant ones ...and currently Islam tops the list (and to state otherwise is real head in the sand stuff).
So to clarify, I am well aware that the very high majority of followers of Islam are no different to the rest of us.. but.. IMO the few that are vocal in their unpleasantness seem to have some sort of sway over the rest, that invokes inaction or a sort of 'head down and ignore it' approach...which I think isn't good enough.
I presume that some people think that makes me a bigot.. such is life.
|
>> I'm aware that
>> the history of this country is Christian.
It is thought (from archeological evidence) that man has lived in Britain for up to 950,000 years. Christianity has been here 1500 years. Chickenfeed.
|
Not continuously it hasn't and the species living here 950,000 years ago weren't Homo sapiens or even Ukip supporters
Continuous settlement dates from about 10,000 years ago when hunters returned after the last ice age. ( the climate change deniers who had chosen to stay as the glaciers rolled in had been wiped out)
|
>> I wonder if you get credit for intending to repent even if you didn't quite
>> get around to it.
>>
You used to be able to. You bought an indulgence from your priest, or if you were wealthy, endowed a chapel, a college, or even a cathedral.
But that service was nationalised years ago.
|
What I've taken from this thread is don't buy your food from any supermarket.
You have no idea what you're getting as they either hide the ingredients or choose not to mention anything you may find relevant to you as an individual when making your choice. Horse meat last year, Halal this year what else do we not know about ?
They'd sell their granny for a penny and now times are tough and the big boys profits are dropping you can expect anything on the shelves if they think the general public will buy it.
I wonder if it was proven Satanic animal slayers stunned the animal before slaughter if goat straight from the altar of death would be acceptable? I think we all know the answer to that one even if the slaughter was identical to that taking place for other sky faeries.
|
If I was still a Beefeater, I'd buy my animal flesh from this geezer who I sold an owse to 7 years ago:
www.kittowsbutchers.co.uk/products/freshmeat/
|
Manatee
Did you go to Holy Communion last Sunday? What about the Sunday before? Or the Sunday before that?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Thu 15 May 14 at 09:44
|
The Quran, which is the sole rule book for Moslems, apparently IS inimical to every person who does not follow Islam completely in every single precept.
It is also written therein that it is particularly good to lie & deceive the kafirs (us) if it is deemed to be to the advantage of Islam
These commands bind all those who profess the Moslem faith, who must be under intense pressure to conform
There are sites which may be found via Google or Bing, in which appear plenty of quotations to support this view.
I do not know if these quotations are right, wrong, or just quoted out of context, as I certainly do not intend to read the tome.
On the other hand - perhaps it is not too unfair to judge Islam by the actions of very many of its adherents.
Last edited by: Roger. on Thu 15 May 14 at 10:02
|
>> There are sites which may be found via Google or Bing, in which appear plenty
>> of quotations to support this view.
>> I do not know if these quotations are right, wrong, or just quoted out of
>> context, as I certainly do not intend to read the tome
>> On the other hand - perhaps it is not too unfair to judge Islam by
>> the actions of very many of its adherents.
So let me get this right. You've Googled a few sites on Islam and found some selective quotations that allegedly support the lie/deceive etc proposition.
But you're not prepared to do any proper reading preferring to take, context free, the actions of a few well publicised adherents.
Do you regard a few similar quotes from Pat Robertson and his acolytes as reason to judge Christianity?
|
Having an "O" level GCE in Religious Knowledge (!) I have read enough of the Bible not to want to read any more religious stuff.
My opinion over the years has changed from mostly belief in a god, to a complete unbelief - is there such a word - should be disbelief, I guess.
The Quaran quotations available on-line do seem to quote chapter and verse - are you saying they are incorrect?
The Christian religion itself, particularly in the OT is full of hate and vengeance, but after a very long time has mostly evolved - yes there are still exceptions - into a rather more tolerant lot whose leaders, by and large eschew forcible conversion as a means of increasing their influence.
|
I was going to give this one a miss having done it ad nauseam in years gone by.
But a couple of things. I have often tried to explain to Muslim and Christian fundamentalists that the texts on which their belief is based are written in what for practical purposes are dead languages, and the translations are iffy to put it mildly. Indeed Muslims believe that the Quran only exists in classical Arabic - a singularly imprecise and flowery language compared to modern English. In any case translations from ancient Hebrew, Aramaic etc. into modern English are not going to be what you might call strictly accurate and faithful. All you can say is that some are probably better than others.
The other thing is that times have changed and so have places. The Arabian Peninsula and Palestine a thousand or two thousand years ago were very rough places where smiting, vengeance, mutilation and so on were frequent and normal events. Hence the immoderate language in which these texts are couched, misleading to halfwits.
Does that help Rastaman? Probably not I know.
|
>>The Arabian Peninsula and Palestine a thousand or two thousand years ago were very rough places where smiting, vengeance, mutilation and so on were frequent and normal events. >>
Not changed much has it?
|
>> Not changed much has it?
Heh heh... nothing much does change in this vale of tears...
|
>> Having an "O" level GCE in Religious Knowledge (!)
Swot.
I deliberately spoiled my RE "O" Level paper and received an E. Which I thought was overly generous, I was aiming for "U". My only ever fail in a public exam. RE teacher was somewhat frazzled after a few years of my objections in his class.
|
>> Manatee
>>
>> Did you go to Holy Communion last Sunday? What about the Sunday before? Or the
>> Sunday before that?
No. ?
|
Piece from Guardian website.
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/may/18/halal-food-uk-ethical-organic-safe
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 18 May 14 at 16:28
|
>> Did you go to Holy Communion last Sunday? What about the Sunday before? Or the
>> Sunday before that?
> No. ?
So why this worry about the halal meat. It isn't offending your Christian sensibilities. It seems rather racist to single out Halal meat.
|
>> >> Did you go to Holy Communion last Sunday? What about the Sunday before? Or
>> the
>> >> Sunday before that?
>>
>> > No. ?
>>
>> So why this worry about the halal meat.
Please read the threads, I have no issue with halal meat per se.
>>It isn't offending your Christian sensibilities. It
>> seems rather racist to single out Halal meat.
I didn't "single it out". It is the subject of the thread, so please adjust your racism detector.
|
|
What is the right "...ism" pertaining to religion? Surely race .neq. religion?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 20 May 14 at 16:26
|
>> What is the right "...ism" pertaining to religion?
It's in a slightly different category, because you can reasonably argue that all other forms of prejudice are simply wrong. But religion is based on faith, not reason, and and we like to pretend that people are free to believe in any faith they like.
So if a particular faith not only believes it is the only righteous one, but that therefore it is correct to be prejudiced against other faiths, then there is an immediate problem of whether to tolerate it or not.
Can you tolerate someone who is intolerant?
|
|
If there's one thing I can't stand it's intolerance.
|
Manatee wrote>>But should we be protective, or even tolerant of, of those aspects of any religion that
>>apply to, willy nilly, everybody else? How far does that go? What happens when there is a >>conflict? (as in indeed there already is here if you are a Sikh)?
>> The sensible starting point, to me, is to permit people to follow their religion to the extent
>>that it does not impose itself on others.
It seems that you do have an issue with halal meat per se, in so far as your New Zealand lamb is, you feel, Islamified.
All laws in this country are given royal assent by HM The Queen who was crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a religious ceremony akin to ordination.
>>I didn't "single it out". It is the subject of the thread, so please adjust your racism detector.
You piled into the thread with great enthusiasm.
FWIW I have grave doubts about the clear Islamification of parts of Britain. Tower Hamlets for one. But I don't consider that being forced to buy halal meat makes any difference to me or them.
|
>> FWIW I have grave doubts about the clear Islamification of parts of Britain. Tower Hamlets
>> for one. But I don't consider that being forced to buy halal meat makes any
>> difference to me or them.
>
And that's a 'who lives there' issue. Before it was Islamified it was Jewish and probably other minorities before that, back to Hugenot refugees?
|
>>And that's a 'who lives there' issue.
Which is fine so long as everybody else continues to be welcome there. Which anecdotally is not the case.
|
>>
>> All laws in this country are given royal assent by HM The Queen who was
>> crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a religious ceremony akin to ordination.
>>
But she became queen with full powers the minute her father died. The coronation didn't alter anything. Edward VIII was never crowned, Edward VII's was postponed because of illness.
|
Subway, Tescos et al with Halal meat.... - Dog
