New Zealand bans kosher slaughter

[marksman]

The fundamentalist who can't understand that these strictures are actually primitive public health regulations, enshrined in scripture, not God-given religious duties.

While I don't disagree with much of what you're saying I would hesitate to say that the laws of kashrut can be chalked up to Bronze Age health regulations. Some of the laws do improve health -- washing of hands, no pork, no shellfish, etc. But a lot of it is simply ritualistic, and the health benefits may be incidental. the rule against mixing and meat, apparently, was designed not for health, but to distibguish the Hebrews from a nearby tribe who had a ritual where they literally boiled a cal fin her mother's milk. The prohibition on blood is not health-related (or only incidentally) -- it emphasizes that blood is a sacred representation of the miracle of life -- and should be treated with care.

you can't dismiss these superstitions by convincing people they were primitive health coes becuase the folks who follow them know that's not true and the argument will sound hollow.

 

[Rolfe]

OK, I was being simplistic. However, not all health regulations are actually correct or beneficial even now - stuff gets enshrined in the regs that might even be harmful, simply because someone made the wrong post hoc ergo propter hoc deduction. Just because it isn't beneficial doesn't mean someone didn't think it was at some point.

I take your point about some of the strictures being sociological, though. What is so difficult to understand is why, once the origins are understood, people still insist on following the rules "religiously". Of course if you still want to avoid mixing milk and meat because it's your culture and your tradition, well why not? It doesn't do anyone any harm. But when it comes to insisting on hideously inhumane slaughter, it's a different matter.

Rolfe.

 

[Thunder]

I'd like to see 60 Minutes do an expose on kosher certified slaughter houses.

I wonder if they actually have a trained guy do the slaughter as instructed, or if they just pay a Rabbi to sit in some office to rubber stamp the whole operation.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Rolfe -

Thanks for your explanation. It's interesting that you wave your hands and dismiss the animal's right to life. The logical extension of that would be to think that you should then not object to somebody who raises puppies and kittens, then puts them to sleep at 18 weeks. Litter after litter, year after year. After all, they are not suffering, and they don't know anything about their life ahead of them.

It's also interesting that you use the word humane. I looked it up to see how the dictionary definition compares to my perception of the word:
characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed:

That seems to describe your position, but it puts no value on life. The word itself comes from human, presumably because it lends itself to thinking of animals as humans in some way. We don't want humans to suffer, so we extend that to animals and effectively treat them "humanly."

My etymological digression has a point. As humans we value live above all else. We'll endure suffering and pain to live. We'll inflict pain and suffering rather than kill. We considering killing as a last resort (we, being humanity in general). And yet you talk about being "humane" with little regard what humans value most.

That puts a lot of cognitive dissonance in my head.

 

[Leif Roar]

Rolfe -

Thanks for your explanation. It's interesting that you wave your hands and dismiss the animal's right to life. The logical extension of that would be to think that you should then not object to somebody who raises puppies and kittens, then puts them to sleep at 18 weeks. Litter after litter, year after year. After all, they are not suffering, and they don't know anything about their life ahead of them.

Not speaking for Rolfe, but I think it would be fair to say that while the above might be acceptable in a strict animal welfare point of view, there are other point of views in which the above becomes perverse.

Fundamentally, I think we should treat animals with a certain amount of respect. Animal welfare concerns spring from this, but so does other concerns such as that we should not treat living, sentient beings as toys or fashion accessories (nor, for that matter, as erzats humans), we shouldn't kill them without a worthwile reason and we shouldn't just abandon care for an animal that's in our care.

In a sense animal welfare isn't centrally about the welfare of animals as such; we don't send riflemen out on the savannah to follow lions around and mercifully shoot the animals the lions attack to spare them the agony of being bitten to death. Rather, animal welfare is about human interaction with animals -- it's less about what's absolutely good for animals and more about what's a good way for humans to treat animals.

 

[Rolfe]

What he said. I mentioned in a previous post that a lot of this is about the effect on us, and our own humanity.

Perdators catch prey and rip it apart all the time. They'd starve if they didn't. We don't try to stop this. (Nevertheless, when we witness it, we do usually experience feelings of revulsion and become upset.)

However, when it comes to people deliberately setting a pack of dogs to run down a fox and tear it apart, and stand around whoopeeing as the animal breathes its last, and then anoint the children present with the fox's blood and give its body parts out as trophies - well. It used to be accepted as perfectly normal. Now it isn't. That's what I mean by advances in our approach to animal welfare. The issue is at least as much about the barbarism of the human involvement as the suffering of the fox, and the realisation by society that we'd just as soon move on from this position, thank you.

Same with slaughter. People have always tried to kill food animals as humanely as possible. Homo sapiens has the facility of feeling sympathy and empathy, even with animals. The "clean kill" is a virtue. (Yes, there are horrible exceptions to this, but in general, it's honourable to try to give the animal a clean death.) Shechita was a genuine attempt to do that, 4000 years ago.

So we move on. We try to do better. Now it's the captive bolt. In 50 years, people could be railing about the inhumanity of the captive bolt compared to a newer and better method, possibly nitrogen. If so, good.

And it's also about the reason for the kill. Just as we accept the lion's right to kill the zebra for food, we accept the right of our own species to kill livestock for food. At present. (A strange and diminished landscape it would be, without the cattle and the sheep, but that's a consideration for the future, maybe.) We also accept the necessity for killing vermin. And for culling excess populations in some circumstances, to allow the remainder to flourish, and for ending the suffering of sick and injured animals, as I did with the ram on Wednesday. But we believe this should all be done with no or minimal pain and suffering. Or most of us do, and we're trying to persuade the remainder.

Killing for fun is still quite widespread, and likely to remain so for some time. But look at the stuff that's been banned in recent years. Cock fighting. Badger baiting. Dog fighting. Fox hunting. (And who would have predicted that last, even 40 years ago?) Will we get round to ending the shooting of pheasants and grouse and deer? Rabbits? Where do killing for fun and pest control intersect? What about angling? I think all these things are being looked at with a more and more critical eye, so who knows.

We don't accept the idea of killing for no reason. It's not illegal to kill any animal you own, so long as it's done with no suffering, but someone breeding kittens to kill at 4 months old would probably find themselves talking to a psychiatrist. If for no other reason than that a penchant for killing animals has been linked to future atrocities against human beings.

Will there come a time when we revere all life to the extent of absolutely not killing anything in the animal kingdom, for any reason at all? In the very long term, I have no idea. It's been a vision of mankind for a long time, see Buddhism for example, and even to the extent of dreaming that predation in the animal kingdom might end.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

And look which civilisation that vision of paradise came from.

The idea that since we haven't reached that yet, there's no point in trying to do better because it's "cognitive dissonance", seems to me to be simply perverse.

Rolfe.

 

[Meadmaker]

A while back I read an article in Reform Judaism magazine about Kashrut and the Reform movement. The point of the article fits in with something a lot of people have said here. The intent of most of Jewish law made sense at the time it was written down. For example, kosher slaughtering techniques are both more humane and more healthy than many other methods, so it made sense to adopt them at the time. However, today, we have even better methods that would fulfill the intent even more effectively than those written down by goatherders 3,000 years ago. Therefore, adopting the new, modern, methods is an even better way of keeping the Law than adherence to the exact letter of the law.

Of course, that article was written by and for Reform Jews. The Orthodox don't see it that way. They insist that the Law be followed to the letter. Not only that, but if there is any ambiguity, you have to choose the stricter interpretation, so as to not take a chance that you might do it wrong, in those cases where you aren't sure what God really meant.

Unfortunately, the article noted, the kosher certification process is dominated by the Orthodox. In order to get a kosher label slapped on the food, it has to meet Orthodox standards, and someone will say that a paralyzing blow that penetrates the skin is now a "blemish", even though that interpretation seems absurd to most people.

Of course, the idea that God cares how you kill a cow might strike some people as fairly odd in the first place.

 

[rwguinn]

Dispatch the animal as quickly and painlessly as possible.
While I have seen a deer continue browsing after being grazed with a (very sharp!) arrow, then keel over from loss of blood, I don't think that the way its done kosher style is very painless.

 

[marksman]

Of course, the idea that God cares how you kill a cow might strike some people as fairly odd in the first place.

Really? Because of all the silly religious rules out there, the notion that the Creator mandated the most humane method of killing (at the time the rule was implemented) one of its creatures for sustenance seems like one of the things a deity might legitimately care about.

What's absurd is the notion that these rules cannot recognize techonlogical development. Even the ultra-orthodox won't go that far, thought their review process is excruciatingly slow.

 

[Thunder]

Of course, the idea that God cares how you kill a cow might strike some people as fairly odd in the first place.

If there is a God, I want him to care about animal suffering.

 

[Slayhamlet]

[snip]
Animal welfare concerns spring from this, but so does other concerns such as that we should not treat living, sentient beings as toys or fashion accessories (nor, for that matter, as erzats humans)...

What do you mean "erzats [sic] humans"? You're not against pet ownership, are you? I agree we shouldn't treat animals like toys, at least insofar as we shouldn't be allowed to break them or take them apart at will. But what's wrong with humane pet ownership?

Also, it's not clear what you mean when you say "fashion accessories". Are you referring to furs or Paris Hilton carrying her little toy chihuahua around? I find the former abhorrent in a society where there are much cheaper and more effective alternatives for heat retention. As for the latter, while I can't help but see it as silly I'm at a loss as to what actual harm is being done to the animal or anyone else.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Sorry, Rolfe, but your logic is somewhat circular. That we have "banned" something like cock fighting can also be said to demonstrate a retreat in the respect for diversity and an advance of mob rule. In order for you to claim that society is somehow advancing towards enlightenment, you need more evidence. Having part of society band together and overrule a minority's cultural practice doesn't cut it. Cock fighting, for example, had to be banned because people still did (and do) it. Just because part of society (ab)uses their power to control others is not evidence of advancement.

Furthermore, much of what you describe could be explained the natural squeamishness of humans. As we became more industrialized, the slaughter of animals was relegated to a small minority of the developed society. Very small, actually. People stopped growing their own livestock simply because it was cheaper and easier to just buy it from the store.

People like myself grew up never seeing an animal slaughtered. To this day I have never been present at a butchering (not a hunter, but friends hunt). Most people have not. Most have never seen animals in the wild kill, and when seen on TV, many avert their eyes. We've become very far removed from it.

Therefore, slaughtering of animals is strange and unfamiliar to most of us, and we have a natural tendency to reject those things. The few animals we have contact with are pets, with whom we develop very different relationships with than a farmer does with his livestock. Combine all that with our natural squeamishness, and it's not surprising that people are using political power to control things.

This is not evidence of an enlightened society. It's evidence of a society that has no experience in something (you're excluded) telling everyone else how they should do it. Those societies which are still close to nature and/or dealing with livestock on a personal basis (my in-laws, who raise and slaughter pigs, chickens, ducks, and the occasional deer), don't see things the same way. I'd say that's because they view livestock for what it actually is: Stock (goods) that are Alive.

I have no doubt that you and others feel genuine empathy for the welfare of animals, but I believe your arguments about others has a healthy dose of wishful thinkings. You see, I'm among those who would prefer animals be slaughtered humanely, but when I really look at why I think that, it's not for the same reasons.'

As I said, my Hungarian in-laws slaughter their own pigs. When I went to visit them the first time, I was actually worried that my father-in-law would ask me to slaughter a pig to prove my mettle. I wondered if I could do it. I realized that I really wasn't so concerned about the pig. I was worried about how I would feel emotionally and physically. If I really cared about the pig, I wouldn't be throwing slabs of ribs on the grill. Every rack of ribs I eat means another pig suffers a miserable existence and gets slaughtered, maybe humanely, maybe not.

I used to fish a lot (don't anymore because of time). I hated it how I felt when a hook was swallowed or otherwise hooked in a "painful" place. It didn't stop me from fishing, though, because deep down I didn't care enough about the fish. It was just my emotional reaction, which became less stressful the more I saw it.

I contrast this with my stance against the death penalty. I respect that others are in favor, and that's not the issue. My issue is that there are those I really and truly would like to see killed. I would want them to know it. Thing is, I object to it in principle, not because of my emotions about how I would feel being killed or how I would feel doing the killing. I can't say the same for animals.

So, when I see this overwhelming confidence that you have the moral high ground, I just don't buy it. When I see you arguing from popularity (we're advancing as a civilization) I scoff not just because numbers don't mean you're right but because I don't believe the reasons you cite are universal or even common. It's a natural extension of being removed from the cycle of life. Interestingly, our views on sex are probably affected in a simlar way, but that's another discussion.

 

[Rolfe]

someone will say that a paralyzing blow that penetrates the skin is now a "blemish"

That's really the crux of the matter. If the "blemish" rule were strictly enforced, one might at least see the consistency in the rulings, even as one disagreed. However, it's very far from being enforced.

Almost all meat animals have ear tags. That is, their ears have been pierced. The majority of male meat animals have been castrated. A large number of lambs have their tails docked.

So far as I know, kosher certification does not exclude meat from castrated or docked animals. It can't exclude meat from ear-tagged animals or there would be no such thing as kosher beef.

Hell, maybe they should just class the cutting of the throat in the slaughter process as a "blemish" and go vegetarian. It's about as sensible.

I don't know why the decision came down against pre-stunning, when it seems to have allowed all sorts of other blemishes as still being kosher. Maybe someone can explain?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

UncaYimmy, I'm not going to argue with you. We will simply have to agree to disagree. I have been present at lots of slaughters. I've killed animals myself. I spend a lot of my time at work up to my elbows in animal viscera. I'm not at all removed from the cycle of life. Also, I don't meet farmers who merely see "stock goods that are alive". Sympathy for the animals is common and widespread. One was caught last month by the post-mortem attendant weeping over the body of a dead sheep.

Every rack of ribs I eat means another pig suffers a miserable existence

If that is true, that is as wrong as inhumane slaughter. I would agree that for pig production especially, there is still a lot of room for improvement. That too needs to be addressed.

If you don't care enough to address any of it, then I'm not going to argue with you. I don't care enough to refuse to eat meat when invited to my Jewish friends' houses. Maybe I should.

Rolfe.

 

[Beerina]

How's the chemical bath lab-grown meat coming along?

 

[Uncayimmy]

UncaYimmy, I'm not going to argue with you. We will simply have to agree to disagree. I have been present at lots of slaughters. I've killed animals myself. I spend a lot of my time at work up to my elbows in animal viscera. I'm not at all removed from the cycle of life. Also, I don't meet farmers who merely see "stock goods that are alive". Sympathy for the animals is common and widespread. One was caught last month by the post-mortem attendant weeping over the body of a dead sheep.

Well, it's a good thing you're not going to argue with me because otherwise I would point out that I specifically excluded you from those I consider removed from the cycle of life. My argument is that you are claiming people are on "your side" because they think like you, but those people don't know what you know. For you to argue, "But I know this" makes no sense.

My father-in-law would argue that for generations his family has slaughtered pigs by slitting their throats, and he knows, just as you know otherwise, that this is perfectly acceptable. Where you argue an advance in civilization he might argue a decline because people stop thinking of meat as coming from an animal and simply view it as stuff that comes in a package.

If that is true, that is as wrong as inhumane slaughter. I would agree that for pig production especially, there is still a lot of room for improvement. That too needs to be addressed.

There's no "if" about it if you value a "natural" life over a life controlled by benevolent overlords who artificially inseminated Mommy Pig to make Baby Pigs solely for the purpose of slaughtering them so that humans can eat something they don't need to eat.

If you don't care enough to address any of it, then I'm not going to argue with you. I don't care enough to refuse to eat meat when invited to my Jewish friends' houses. Maybe I should.

I do address it, just in a different way. I don't get on my high horse telling people they can't follow what they believe are the direct orders of their god because *I* don't like how the final 30 seconds of an animal's life goes even though I'm okay with the years before that being terrible.

My issue with the religious argument stems from the fact that I disagree with their belief in the religion in the first place. However, if I stipulate that their god is real, then their arguments make perfect sense. The "why" behind their arguments is some probably a combination of a form of respecting their creator and ensuring their afterlife is pleasant. Seems like sound logic to me.

Your arguments are much more tenuous and filled with inconsistencies. I've challenged you to do more than just assert that we shouldn't slaughter them in a certain way, but you've really offered no moral guidelines for me to follow. The "rules" you've established seem contradictory to me in many regards.

It's really your moral certainty that bothers me more than anything else. You see black and white where I see shades of gray.

 

[Thunder]

Its too bad we don't have a Talmudic scholar here.

 

[Rolfe]

UncaYimmy, it seems to me this boils down to the fact that I believe people shouldn't slaughter animals in an unnecessarily painful way even if it is perceived as for religious reasons, and you think they should. OK. We agree to differ.

We all see shades of grey. You want to continue musing about which shade goes best with your curtains, I urge moving as far towards the "white" as we can. OK. We agree to differ.

Rolfe.