Religious Sensibilities Vs Animal Rights

[mushroom25]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17966327

which should take priority?

[mikey4444]

Ah...Vegetarians ! People that sometimes enthuse but rarely persuade.

[pixie373]

It's legal to kill animals for food, but not to cause them suffering.

[steg]

not everyone is perfect like you atheists thou mike ;)

[steg]

sorry i thought ritual killing for food was also legal

[RATTER15]

Killing animals for food has been perfectly natural since man first breathed, it is just the way in which we do it and the reasons we do it that is in question.

[LazyGun]

I would agree with Professor Reilly in this. Stunning animals prior to slaughter is preferable, and I do not think religious sensibilities should take precedence when it comes to humane slaughter.

[sp1814]

A cow living in the Serenghetti who is killed by a hyena (because she has wandered on to his veranda or something) is going to face a much more grisly death than we could ever inflict.

I say that those of faith who need animals to be ritually slaughtered can do so...but they've got to do it themselves.

I mean individuals....they have to go out to Shropshire (I believe this is where the biggest UK cow ghetto is located) and kill their own dinner.

I'm not really adding to this debate, am I?

[Baldric]

I'm not really bothered if the first Jews or the first anyone else's arrival predated our laws on abattoir practices, the point I was making is that if you want to live in the UK you live by our rules not expect us to roll over and relax them because you're a special case and want to carry on as you did at home, we must be a laughing stock in some countries.

[ludwig]

// I'm not really adding to this debate, am I? //

You've introduced the concept of a cow ghetto. That's good enough for me.

[naomi24]

//we must be a laughing stock in some countries. //

Never mind some countries - in some sections of the community we're a laughing stock in this country!

[mikey4444]

I agree with Baldric. If its cruel to slaughter an animal with out stunning first, than it is equally cruel whether that animal goes on to be eaten by a Jew, a Muslim, or a anybody else. Its either cruel or its not.

[naomi24]

From the link: //Ritual slaughter is lawful in the UK and the EU to satisfy the dietary requirements of Jews and Muslims.//

The question is one of principle. Should ritual slaughter be lawful simply to satisfy the dietary requirements of religion?

[RATTER15]

and the answer to that Naomi: if we have an ounce of compassion in us then it has to be a categoric "NO"

[mikey4444]

I will answer your question naomi....no, it isn't. But that is applying logic and rational to organisations that are inherently illogical and irrational.

[naomi24]

But the question is, is the law right to support it simply because some religions require it?

[quizzkid]

Animals rights everytime. This is the 21st Century. We kick up about bullying of children and vulnerable people but seem to think that this is ok, well it is not. These poor creaturs feel pain and suffering just as we do and should be killed humanely not in this barbaric manner.

[naomi24]

But children are abused in the name of religion too, and that’s also deemed acceptable. Every Jewish and Muslim boy is circumcised and no one turns a hair. If a non-religious parent asked a surgeon to circumcise a baby, that surgeon would want a valid medical reason for doing it.

[tamborine]

Jno, majority HR dictate humane slaughter in UK. We have placated religious rights with prayers; but weve moved beyond chasing chickens with knife in hand.

[mikey4444]

Naomi is right. Circumcision of little baby boys in the name of religion is entirely unnecessary. It may not be anything as bad as FGM but its barbaric nethertheless. But doing away with its practise in the UK will be a lot harder than just stopping the ritual slaughter of animals.

[jomifl]

//Ritual slaughter is lawful in the UK and the EU to satisfy the dietary requirements of Jews and Muslims.//
But it isn't a dietary requirement is it? it is a religious requirement. Cutting an animals throat doesn't make it more nutritious or in this age safer to eat. The reason animals are bled is because the koran prohibits eating or drinking blood. This sounds OK in principle except that of course all meat contains blood even if the donor has been bled. The only way to avoid ingesting blood is to become a vegetarian.