Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

frazzled

(18,402 posts)
6. Wrong question
Tue Feb 18, 2014, 03:58 PM
Feb 2014

Both Muslim and Jewish reaction has been negative within Denmark (and elsewhere).

The question is: Should a government be able to interdict religious practice absent clear scientific evidence that a practice is actually detrimental. Is using a "device the size of a hand-held drill (that is) is brought to the animal's head, a trigger pulled and a four-inch bolt shot into its brain" more humane than a procedure in which "the animal's neck is cut with a surgically sharp knife, severing its major arteries, causing a massive drop in blood pressure followed by death from loss of blood. Supporters say unconsciousness comes instantaneously - the cut itself stunning the animal." See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14779271

Who knows. The description of either method is enough to make one abandon meat altogether. My grandmother used to slaughter her own chickens. I never asked how she did it.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Denmark bans halal and ko...»Reply #6