Why select another (closely connected) religion when terrorism has so many faces? Terrorism is not a religious trait, it just uses religion as a mask.
Don't get me wrong. I am against it and would ban it. You can be sure that if this way of slaughter was purely a practice of a section of Christianity it would be banned. What I was saying is there is nothing wrong with having a choice if this sort of slaughter is allowed, what is wrong is it being served up without the person eating it being made unaware of what it is. They don't allow additives and chemicals without consumers being made aware.
We are talking of recent terrorist attacks in Europe. Who, other than Muslims are to blame? Your reference to "the Jews" suggests you are racist yourself. Any examples of Jewishnterrorist attacks on this country?
Whilst I agree to a point, how many people do you think know the process involved in the breeding and non-religious killing of meat for us anyway to then be able to make an informed choice even if they did have the ability to select one type over another?
The only answer is for everyone to become vegetarian. Then there wouldn't be most of the animals anyway, other than dairy ones.
We have laws regarding the welfare of animals at the point of slaughter. Exceptions to these laws are made for religious ritual slaughter. IMO this is wrong. It's not a religious issue its a secular moral issue.
Huge leaps forward have been made in agriculture regarding the breeding and slaughter of animals, but now due to the wishes of a small minority we are going back to the middle ages. Sheep are shipped live half way round the world to have their throats cut whilst fully aware of whats going on around them and then left to bleed to death. If thats what their religion requires i am prepared to accept it whilst thinking it barbaric and stupid. However when in order to prevent a muslim being sold meat not killed as their religion says all the rest of us are now getting meat killed this way, its a huge step backwards.
Firstly, "huge leaps forward regarding the breeding and slaughter of animals" So you seem to imply that factory farming along with its cruel, inhumane practices is an advance? Did you know that Cows are not supposed to consume grain? They should be grazing on grass, the feeding of grain causes internal dammage to their liver and intestines. Factory farmed cows are also injected with a combination of anti-biotics and drugs of which if you then eat them, you contaminate yourself into the bargain. Consuming stressed, maltreated and sick aimals is not good for your health. What's more, modern agricultural methods destroy local ecosystems and most importantly, the topsoils wherever it is deployed. Topsoil once eradicated leads to soil erosion, lack of bacteria and organic materials in the soil and renders the monocrops nutrient deficient. Secondly, I'm not targetting yourself in particular but this is a prime example of religious practices being awarded an free pass. If anything you should reject these practices for the animals sake.
Have we? This is going on at a Victorian Knackery with approval by the Government and RSPCA. www.horseracingkills.com/undercover-knackery-investigation
Going back further than the middle ages. The roots of all ritual slaughter goes back to nomadic tribes codifying their behaviours over 5000 years ago. Then the very sensible food preparation rules were absolutely necessary in hot environments with no refrigeration or understanding of microbiology. Under those conditions, the rules, which became laws, which became religious observations, were essential to the wellbeing of the tribe, literally keeping them alive. This is no longer the case today. I cannot accept the argument that it is a necessary religious observance. It was once a necessary survival observance but is now outdated. I cannot see why legal exceptions are made. When the motorcycle helmet law came in, no exceptions were made for Sikhs. And whilst I'm on the subject of legal exceptions why the **** don't Taxi drivers have to wear seatbelts? And why are they allowed to use bus lanes? And talk ****e?
That's disgraceful. We have laws regarding animal slaughter. Unfortunately they are not humane enough.
We could ( can't really cos the neighbours complain ) go back a few hundred years when everyone kept a cow, pig a few chickens and grew what they ate but as the population grows and earth doesn't we have to try and find a compromise between affordable food and the way its produced. The leaps forward i was thinking of were in the killing of animals. rather than just cutting its throat and letting it die, a least now they are stunned and killed with a single shot through the forhead. ( don't get all animal rights on me, i know you can find on the internet all kinds of abuse but that is what it is abuse of the system put in place for the humane killing of animals and its illegal ) As for the last part i agree 100% but you get called racist for saying it.
The second question was in connection with the first. So you think Brevil was behind the recent attacks?
Are you saying you wouldn't criticise a known violent *****phile? Are you saying you wouldn't take the piss out of one of your mates if as an adult, they announced they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? If people are offended by others criticising their beliefs or ideological stance, then I'm afraid they're very insecure about whatever they believe in. They need to develop a thicker skin or go somewhere else. France is a secular republic, so ridiculous 7th century blasphemy laws don't apply there.
