A friend mentioned last week that kosher butchers are illegal in Sweden. I thought to myself, that can’t be right, that would be, well, not kosher. It turns out I didn’t have the whole story: the traditional forms of both kosher and halal slaughter (where the animals are not pre-stunned) are banned here, on the grounds that they constitute cruelty to animals.
Two interesting papers on the web helped me to flesh out the details: This paper on immigration and multiculturalism in Sweden identifies animal rights considerations as the cause for the prohibition:
Consider the issue of kosher and halal slaughter. These forms of religious slaughter are prohibited in Sweden, as they require that an animal be conscious up until the point of slaughter. This is considered inhumane in Scandinavia, where it is required that an animal be anesthetized before slaughter. This difference of opinion regarding the most appropriate method of preparing an animal for human consumption illustrates the most basic type of cultural conflict that can be expected.
In Britain this conflict was resolved by allowing religious slaughter to provide for those religious groups requiring it, while in Sweden, Orthodox rabbis have agreed that animals stunned before slaughter still meet with the spirit of the kosher requirements. Nonetheless, in practice, much kosher meat is imported from abroad.
A paper on the legal status of Islamic minorities in Sweden [PDF, 252K], presented at a migration research conference this summer, looks more broadly at the state’s involvement:
Halal slaughter without pre-stunning the animal is not permitted, but it is legal to import halal slaughtered meat from other countries. If pre-stunning is accepted (and most Muslim public voices in Sweden seem to accept it), halal slaughter is legal, and during the autumn of 2001 the first all Islamic slaughtering house was opened. Before that (and still) Muslim butchers have slaughtered according to halal laws (with pre-stunning) in other slaughtering houses. Poultry is an exception to the rule; it has always been legal to slaughter poultry without pre-stunningWhy do chickens get such a raw deal? Does this reflect our own cultural disdain for chickens? (And going way off topic, what exactly is the difference between a pig and a dog when it comes to choosing which to eat?).
During the 1990’s, two official reports on ritual slaughter (both Jewish and Muslim) were made pointing in different directions. The first one, Slakt av obedövade djur (Slaughter of not stunned animals, 1992) was conducted by Jordbruksverket (Swedish Board of Agriculture), generally in charge of questions related to slaughter. This report has been criticised for not considering the value of religious plurality and liberty of religion. The second one was conducted by an historian of religions commissioned by the Government Commission on Swedish Democracy, and was published as a Statens Offentliga Utredningar (SOU, Government’s Official Reports) in 1999 (SOU 1999:9). It paints a far more complex picture than the first one and also comments on some relevant EU laws that have changed the basis for Swedish legislation. This includes laws designed to protect religious diversity and for example suggesting exemptions regarding pre-stunning and ritual slaughtering. It is rumoured that a change is on its way, but one must not underestimate the animal rights lobby that is both strong and influential.
Even though Sweden is an urbanised country and most farms are semi-industrial there are still a number of smaller farms. I know through personal information and through media that a few Muslim families have aligned themselves with farmers, buying and slaughtering animals at such farms. This is however done on a very small scale, only for personal use.
Clearly, importing meat butchered without pre-stunning is a cop-out — if you think it’s inhumane, you should not export the problem. Redefining kosher and halal slaughter to include the killing of unconscious animals is clever, but there doesn’t seem to have been much volunteering for this option (on the part of religious leaders, of course, not the animals). And driving religious rituals underground is hardly a long-term solution, and can lead to terrible press.
So, when human rights and animal rights clash, which should triumph?On another occasion, I might have brought Peter Singer into the debate at this point, and held forth at great length about how much of a distinction can be made between the suffering of humans and animals and how we should act towards animals as a result. Personally, I’m convinced we’ll all be vegetarians in 500 years time, but for now, I’ll take the steak and the blue pill. It’s an obvious question, but it is not the question I’m interested in right now. Instead, I want to know: In Sweden, is the invocation of animal rights considerations to limit traditional animal slaughter selective?
Exhibit A: Sámi school. What a cute website! Sámi children write in English about learning how to be good Sámi, including how to decapitate a reindeer. Not a stun gun in sight.
Exhibit B: Elk hunting, which according to this AFP news article on Sweden.se is “a ritual that is much more than a national pastime — hunting the elk is part of the Swedish identity.“Yes, the lure of the elk is powerful. So much so that authorities in northern Sweden have noticed a sharp, yet not entirely unexpected, increase in the number of fathers who take their mandatory paternity leave not just any old time, but precisely during hunting season.””
Taking a break for lunch, Tomas Rudenstam, a lawyer, checks his e-mail on his hand-held computer. But his thoughts are elsewhere, as he recalls the calf he knows he shot this morning but which darted away.
“Two yearlings and their mother appeared about 80 meters (yards) in front of me. I aimed at one of the yearlings and fired. I’m sure I wounded it,” says Tomas, who has already killed one other elk as the spruce twig in his cap testifies.
That elk is probably wishing it was being turned into a very halal kebab by now, rather than slowly bleeding to death in the forest somewhere.
The answer, then, is a resounding yes, Sweden does selectively apply animal rights considerations to limit traditional animal slaughter. These rituals are only barbaric, it turns out, if they’re practiced by non-indigenous Swedes with less clout than the animal rights lobby.
To remedy the situation, I propose the following: Either we pre-stun elk and have them lying around on the forest floor during hunting season so that when hunters find one they can humanely shoot it in the head, preserving “the spirit” of the hunt. If that is not acceptable, we should allow Muslims and Jews their own food rituals, unmitigated by this sudden selective concern for animal rights. To do anything else is to be culturally patronizing.
There’s no mandatory paternity leva for Heaven’s sake! That’ll do wonders for our national image.
“Not a stun gun in sight”
Huh? That reindeer has clearly been dead for a good while. I assumed there were some other information on the website supporting your theory, but there isn’t. You haven’t established that reindeers aren’t pre-stunned. Does the photo give us any particular reason to even suspect they are not?
Is there something wrong with my eyes?
Good post overall, though.
Obviously having to pre-stun game is much more impractical than is the case with cattle, but giving more weight to these practival/financial concerns than to religious ones is not obviously right.
Wouldn’t it be kind of hard to pre-stun an elk, since they’re not cattle, in line at a slaughter house. Why even have religious slaughter? (I’m not trying to put any religion down or anything, I’m just wondering what the purpose of religious slaughter is). It seems to me that the whole business of slaughtering animals in the name of a god seems somewhat outdated. Sacrifice something not alive instead and the problem is solved.
Circumcision is a bigger issue.
I agree with David. Circumcision is an even hotter topic. I don’t think we are too far away from legally banning the practice of chopping of various body parts from our newborn babies. There was a serious debate about it in parliament last year. Of course the affected religious groups and US citizens living here were in an uproar. Very amusing. And a future business potential to fly newborns to the US, Jerusalem or Mecca for a quick snipp snipp. What do you say Stefan? Or we could just have a flying clinic and perform the act in international airspace, befor we fly the remains back again. I fly and you snipp. What do you say?
The image of Stefan as international moil of mystery is too much. Surely a case for the international court of justice.
Talysin,
The pre-stunning of elk was a rhetorical flourish; instead, humane hunts could involve tranquilizer darts and then a bullet in the head. They can catch lions and Elephants that way, surely an elk is feasible? The point is that Swedes do have their own indigenous animal slaughter rituals that have a strong cultural component and where animals suffer.
Making animals suffer as a product of a cultural trait may or may not be ethical, but once we’ve decided either way the decision should be applied equally to all cultures that constitute society. As far as the animal is concerned, it does not care whether it suffers because of religion or because of Swedish machismo.
Joachim, if you fly I might be snipping off more than I intended. All in all, a terrible idea.
Funny you should bring up circumcisions, Joachim. I agree with you that circumcisions, like all cultural rites performed on children, should be banned, because children cannot protect themselves. By all means allow circumcisions on consenting adults. Of course, the same goes for baptisms.
Why do religious leaders oppose this? Because they think 18-year olds are less likely to want them? Are they admitting then that the only way they can maintain influence is by getting to them while they’re young?
Stefan “The flying Flemmish moil”. Sounds good doesn’t it? Who wouldn’t trust him with their little newborns?
Stefan,
I don’t think either baptism or circumsizing infants is a violation of human rights. Parents are allowed to make certain decisions for their children based on their societal norms or religion.
As an American born to a certain generation, I was circumsized; I think at the time it was a health issue – my lineage is Christian, and my father retains his foreskin (he was born into a Catholic family, if that is relevant).
But it hardly matters. It’s not like I go around wondering about my poor lost foreskin. It’s not even a question. The idea that European men – friends, colleagues – have a foreskin is rather a shock, even though it should not be, had I bothered to reason about it. Still I find it as hard to imagine having one as you obviously find it hard to imagine not having one.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you may rest assured that a pistol without its holster still fires just as well. Demographic trends in the US and Europe will bear this fact out.
So does that mean that I can chop your earlobes off if I want to, Jame? Or what about the little tiny toe that doesn’t really fill any function? If someone had chopped that off when you were a baby you probably wouldn’t miss it either. I really like my foreskin. In fact it’s one of my best friends. I would be very upset if my parents were to cut it off.
jame, actually with a flick of our foreskins, unmutilated men can pretend we have been snipped too. gay friends have confirmed it: it’s more fun with one. it’s you who are deprived. the health issue is total crap — give it a periodic wash and your risk of willy cancer is the same.
there is no justification for american men to have been mutilated as a matter of course, any more than somali women to have their clitorises removed, which is just a more extreme extension of the same weird phenomenon. but do you think parents should be allowed to do that to their daughters too?
Don’t pester Jame too much. He is clearly in denial. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all those who are circumcised defend circumcision. What are you going to do otherwise, blame your parents? You can’t undo it. Better to justify it by doing it to your own offspring. Isn’t culture a wonderful thing?
I agree Swedish law is a bit arbitrary on these issues. However, since most legislators in Sweden are white Christian males, I am not surprised to find that they acknowledge the macho value of hunting elk, but see no “preserving male egos reason” for such non-Christian traditions as kosher butching.
Kosher Butching. Lesbians who dress up as hasidic toughs. I like it. (sorry, unfair, I don’t speak a word of Swedish and here am I making fun… apologies).
Charles,
Apologies certainly accepted – although I can’t help but thinking that maybe you felt you had to make a joke about a sarcastic remark about fragile male egos…
Whose “rights” trump whose?
Stefan Geens asks the question, between human rights and animal rights, and answers it honestly. I am not sure of Stefan’s politics, but he does something that so many folks have a hard time doing: admitting that a double standard exists and that it ne…
Is animal rights that much different in other western countries? I think you are wrong in saying laws are applied selectively in Sweden.
I think it’s very simple: killing wild animals is ok (if you have a permit and use legal methods). No stress or torture is allowed. When you kill animals in a slaughterhouse you can’t avoid a certain amount of stress so then the rules are a bit stricter, you have to stun the animal etc.
What is it you find inconsistent? Some animal issues are under constant debate in Sweden, such as if hunting wolves should be allowed or not. (Wolves attack reindeer but on the other hand there aren’t many wolves left.) However this debate mostly is about making laws stricter — not the other way around.
Speaking only for myself, I feel very strongly against both animal cruelty and cutting babies foreskin or sewing their vaginas only because of some very vague “cultural reasons”.
But Jonas, the question is precisely what is a legal method and who gives the permits.
It’s clear to me that animals can suffer more being hunted than being butchered wiithout being stunned. If animal welfare is such a big deal when it comes to religious slaughter, why is it not a big deal when it comes to hunting?
Back to foreskins. I mean, to hell with the god damn elks already.
If gay men say it’s better with the skin than without, who am I to say different? Although now that my brain has turned to the subject, all I can think of is the scene from “Alien” where the big mouth opens and the little mouth comes out. Ugh.
There is a difference between losing a foreskin and losing a clitorus, which reduces the enjoyment of sex. The foreskin, contrary to Eurof and Stefan’s insistence that I am in denial, does not have any impact.
The health argument is probably bogus, I don’t see tons of European men succumbing to horrible diseases; I offered that only as an explanation of what drove the trend.
I’d argue that if a culture was really into getting rid of ear lobes, it wouldn’t matter, would it? If everyone was on the same page? If you never had one and no one else did, would you miss it? The toe comparison is not valid, even the little toes play a role in balance and walking.
Stefan, I am sure animal rights activists would like to know more about your view. Killing a wild animal with a hunting rifle is most often an instant kill. Only in some cases when the hunter misses is the wound non-fatal.
I am sure if these misses would be more common, hunting rifles would not be a legal hunting method. For example the way people used to fish before with a latern and spear (which is probably of cultural value too) is illegal today since it is an unnecessary cruelty.
The key point here is stress.
Now, I understand your point: Who says which methods are too stressful? I mean, it’s hard to ask them. This is of course a matter of debate. But from that to saying laws are applied selectively I think is wrong: the underlying principles are quite clear.
Jonas,
With all due respect, I think you have a very romantic view of hunting. The drive party certainly stresses the animal before it’s finally surrounded. But that may not be end of it: Hunters miss and unintentionally only wound the animal – and there’s nothing so heartbreaking as the scream from a wounded animal. I’m not so sure being hunted down is so much less cruel than being slaughtered.
Jame,
Do you think we should or shouldn’t cut our earlobes off? Which is it? I just don’t see the reason to start snipping off various body parts in the first place. Especially not on little babies that can’t protect themselfes. And I have heard that the little toe actually does not help your balance, so it could go just as well as the other bits if you feel like parting from more of your own extremities than just your foreskin. I would recommend an axe rather than a knife for the toe given the bones inside, and scissors for the earlobe.
On the issue of foreskin and babies, shouldn’t the moil have to use a stun gun on the poor infants to reduce the stress they must feel at having their little foreskins cut away. I mean if cattle has the right to it shouldn’t babies? Or should we keep on treating them just as cruelly as all those elk that Stefan keeps on whining about?
Trust me Joachim, if Little Baby Alpen had been freed of all that unnecessary skin, he wouldn’t remember a thing. Your mental scars at having to watch, however, might be a little more enduring.
well matty, if i was to chloroform you and while you were under whip one of your kidneys out, which after all you don’t need, or in fact one of your bollocks, might you not be a bit resentful when you woke up, even though you didn’t remember the operation?
the fact is, me and joachim have had a fuller life with our foreskins. not together, of course. the fact that little joachim wouldn’t know what he was missing isn’t a good reason to lop it off.
Elisabeth, I’m not saying wild animals don’t suffer when hunted — but industrialized slaughter houses are in a completely different league. I would like to see much stricter rules for them. If we were to allow them to slaughter the animals alive it would definitively be a step in the wrong direction.
“slaughtering the animals alive”. Interesting concept. But I think I know what you mean.
There is an idealized form of hunting — man against nature, the quick shot, the sudden death. And there is messy reality. Same goes for slaughterhouses. In reality, animals go in, know what’s up and panic before it’s their time to die. But I think that religious slaughter ceremonies, when praticed in family situations or on a small scale, say equivalent to traditional slaughter of reindeer by the sami, this slaughterhouse stress is not present. It certainly only takes 15 seconds to kill a calf by cutting its throat, and this has got to be a saner way to die than a bad shot in the woods.
I’m not arguing for animal rights or for religious slaughter. I’m just arguing against the inconsistent application of principles.
Joachim, aka Pung, I’m not arguing that one should or should not slice off the earlobe. No more than I’d argue that one should or shouldn’t pierce various parts of the body. It’s a cultural standard. If everyone lopped off the little toe as, say, a sign of reaching adulthood, or a mark at birth for entering a religious order, it wouldn’t be a question.
Infants don’t remember incidents or understand sensation; they scream and move on; it’s not a form of torture. You blow this out of proportion by making it seem like a crime against humanity. I highly doubt that the existance of your foreskin has contributed in any way to your sex life.
I don’t know why Americans practice circumcision. (Do we still?) It may have had a basis in medical fashion; back in the day, European hygenic standards weren’t perceived to be as high so there could have been a legitimate reason that is no longer necessary. Or we’re just freaks (an equally plausible explanation). Either way it doesn’t really matter.
I’ll stick to my pung AND my foreskin Jame…
I live in Sweden and grew up with my parents having lots of sheeps (just for fun, they had real jobs too) and still live at their place now and then (I’m still young). When we slaughter lambs there has never been any use of a stun gun.
The agricultural authorities are very picky about how you handle the animals but never write anything about stun guns. We also sold to muslims for halal slaughter. They do just their traditional way, never been any problems.
Basically the halal slaughter is done with a knife by the throat, the animal turned to Makka and the animal must not be thirsty or hungry before slaughter and may not be slaughtered in front of the eyes of the other animals and the words “Bismillah Allah-u-Akbar” are said, it means like “by name of god, god is great”.
If there indeed are any laws like those you said, I don’t know about anyone who follows them, and I know many who own sheep. Maybe big slaughter corporations do follow the rules, but no private farmers. It sounds very strange, because even with halal method of slaughter, the animal is gone in less than a second. I really think it is more cruel to pack them up in a truck and drive them to a slaughter house for some stun gun treatment and later slaughter.
It think this is something made up by Stockholm people who usually make up laws about farming, which they know nothing about.
Also I wanted to add about moose hunting (not elk, elks are some other species of animals that live in USA/Canada)
It was said above as if a male macho thing, but growing up in the country and all, the only persons I know personally that actually do moose hunting, are women (my mother and her friends). I don’t know about the whole population but I can not believe that it is that much of a male dominance in this field as it sounded by Elizabeth G above.
There is one group of hunters that I guess fit in the male macho group, upper class men from the big cities, who do not belong in the forests at all. They pay to hunt at someone’s property or buy their own piece of forest if they are rich enough.
I had no idea about the moose-elk confusion:
“If you’re from the United States , there is no confusion between elk and moose. Moose are the bigger ones with the big flat antlers that are loners and eat water plants. Elk are just a tad smaller and have antlers that look like tree branches and they hang around in herds grazing. No problem.
But the animal we call moose (Alces alces) in the U.S. is called an elk in Europe . And scientists refer to our elk (Cervus elaphus) as Wapiti (a native American term) to avoid confusion. So, if you are from Europe be sure to point at the animal you know as an elk and call it a moose.
The important thing is that elk and moose know who they are. And they are rarely confused about the issue.”
For swedes, I think this confusion rather comes from the fact that moose is “elk” in german and of the similarity to the swedish word for moose “älg”.
Interesting commentary on “multiculturalism” in Sweden written by Swedish national Fredrik Haerne for the American site Vanguard News Network. (Here’s the home page.)
Please visit the Reader Mail pages for further comments.
Comment, allez vous?
How would you deal with comments that link to racist rags, when the link is topical but offensive? In its defense, that is more than you can say about comment spam, which is both offensive and off-topic. I remove spam…
All I see in this discussion is the usual human inconsistency. I live in Sweden now. A country that supposedly loves animals and the environment, but they , like the U.S.A. and everywhere else, are selective about how this shows up in the culture. Almost all the products on the cleaning and bath products on the shelves here are from American corporations and are tested on animals. Most are from the most notorious animal abusing companies. Blood pudding and liver spread are common foods for children and adults here and people seem to either love dogs or think of them as vicious killers who need to be constantly controlled. The environment is talked about all the time, while almost every house leaves inside and outside lights on constantly…even summer houses with no one staying in them. As it was when I lived in the U.S., I am surrounded by inconsistencies here. It is the human way, it seems. I have led workshops on compassion for many years now and I find that it is the same all over the world. When I ask “how many of you are animal lovers?” Almost everyone raises their hand. When I ask which animals are included in this circle of caring, most people only mention dogs, cats and horses. We are very limited and often illogical in our choices and how they reflect our values.
Understand something please. The circumcision rite, is not optional for Jews. We have literally been willing to give up our lives for this. It is one of the core beliefs of our religion, and it has a significance of far greater impact then simply a “health issue”
Personally, I have always felt it silly to justify the act based on health or pleasure issues. It is not a game to us.
I am not going to mince words with you. If you ban it from your country, you can congratulate yourselves on banning religious Jews from your country. If you feel that is a good thing, then by all means please go right ahead.
You will of course be trading a non-existent problem (the idea that Jews performing the circumcision on their children being an issue), for a real one, the reality that the people whose ethics have influenced the world towards good will have nothing to do with you. Don’t be so hasty in saying which you prefer, take a long look at those countries that threw us out and ask yourselves how they treated their own people.
Further, don’t pretend to yourselves that you will be doing anything else other than throwing us out. Remember, the “brit milah” or circumcision is CENTRAL to our beliefs. This is something that G-d commanded our ancestors to do from the very first among us. It’s not something in the way of “kosher”, a man doesn’t have to eat meat to survive. It is NOT something that we can compromise on, even assuming we wanted to. Many Jews have literally been willing to be murdered over this.
I will relate an anecdote that was told to me, I can’t confirm it of course, but it has “the ring of truth”, so I believe it. In Soviet Russia, a couple had quietly become religious Jews. Of course, circumcision is something that would be dangerous to perform. Nevertheless, after they had their first boy, they waited for a moment for which they could gather a few friends and perform the sacred act. The moment came, the young mother immediately kissed her baby boy and fainted. The assembled guests were shocked of course, and when she woke up they asked her what happened. She replied that she knew how dangerous it was to do this, and to make herself certain that she would have the ritual performed she resolved not to kiss her child until he had been given a brit.
There are many, many, confirmed stories like this one in nearly every country were Jews have been oppressed.
Another anecdote. This is one I witnessed, but not as dramatic as the above. I was at a brit, and after the baby was circucised a very old wizened man in a suit and plain hat picked up the child, kissed him then wiped away a tear. I asked if he was the grandfather, he replied “no, the great-grandfather.”
If this is something which you find barbaric, then by all means, don’t do it among yourselves. But be careful if you try to tamper with what we do among ourselves. Our customs are not like the “hijab” something which was invented in the ’70s. They are come from G-d. They are ancient. They have withstood the test of time and culture in literally every country, every culture, every time. Both in cultures that were victorious in murdering us, and cultures that were victorious in treating us kindly. They say the key to determining the truth of a thing is whether it can withstand the test of time. I let you judge for yourselves.
You will be in good company by the way. It was told to me that in Hitlers writings he regarded the act of circumcision as the greatest evil my people ever foisted on the world, and I know very well why he said it.
Again, it is your choice. But in the end, lets face it, everything is up to G-d. Not me, and not even you. We like to pretend it’s up to us, but it really isn’t. However, I hope you choose to be on the side of good rather than oppression and evil.
Thank you.
-ron
I personally have no problem with circumcisions performed on consenting adults for religious or any other reason. The problem I have is with religious rite performed on children, because as minors they have not yet had the opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not there is a god, which religion they would like to affiliate themselves with, and to what extent they would want to follow its rites. In a liberal society, it is the individual that is the fundamental building block of legitimacy, and protecting children from irreversible procedures until they are old enough to decide for themselves is a logical consequence of this. Baptisms, circumcisions, and female genital mutilation are all procedures which I have no qualms about for consenting adults. I do for children, but also want to note that baptisms do not irreversibly alter the physical body, so there is no real damage done, should the grown up child decide their parents’ beliefs are not his own.
Why can’t circumcisions be performed, as G-d commands, when one is 18?
Because Stefan, that is simply not the law as G-d gave it to us. If you have an issue with it, I suggest that you take it up with Him, not me. The trouble with that though, is that G-d tends to listen and act more than talk.
As to whether a practice is from G-d, well Stefan, that is a different story altogether. I believe it is, my people are very firm in this belief as well. Jews have been accused of many things, but the two things no one has accused us of is of being fools or cowards.
In any case, I reiterate what I posted before. This is not something we have any choice with. The law is simple. 8th day after the child is born, he must be circumcised. There are no options regarding this, it is not a recent invention, and no, it is not going away any time in the near, or long future.
You can pass whatever laws you wish Stefan, and make criminals out of us if that is important to you, but we will continue this practice as we have for, literally, millenia.
I personally am not a big fan of multiculturalism. If I know that someone has a practice of mutilating the genitals of girls, I will, frankly, put a stop to it if possible. Further, I would try to stop it even if the girl was over the age of 18, and a consenting adult.
However, if someone is performing a baptism on a child, I could care less, and would in fact have admiration for the parent who does so.
The difference? I could say that one is causing true harm to a human being, the other isn’t. But that wouldn’t be honest.
The real difference is that one is not permitted to harm a human being in that manner, and the other one is praising G-d in an acceptable manner.
In other words, I am making a judgement call. I hope that I can justify that. I believe I can. I believe that I have to do so. I further agree that you also have to do so. But just because we have to use our judgement, doesn’t mean we are absolved if we do so incorrectly.
-ron
As far as I’m concerned, if a given piece of legislation stops 80% of the suffering (Halal & Kosher slaughter), but misses another 20% (Elk hunts), it’s better than nothing.
Taking my numbers as a hypothetical — once we get that initial 80% in our pocket, we can work on the remaining 20%. If we try to do all 100% at once, which is what you are proposing, then it will never happen in our lifetime. If you think it’s all right to let the 80% suffer because we don’t have a law that will stop the suffering of the other 20%, then shame on you.
Very interesting comments on circumcision, but I was under the impression that the type of circumcision in biblical times was one in which only the tip of the foreskin was cut off, leaving only the tip bare and this was changed to stop Jews trying to assimilate by pulling the remaining foreskin forward. The practice of periah was introduced when after the initial bris when the originally mandated amount is removed there is another step where the rest of the foreskin is taken from the penis, completely baring the glans in the way we now have it.
So in a way, while circumcision may be a commandment from God, it is the religious leaders who decided that more should be taken.
u want scientific experiment? Here you go… open your mind and think…
German Research Studies Pain
It therefore may come as a surprise to those who have made such acclimations to learn of the results of a study carried out by Professor Wilhelm Schulze and his colleague Dr. Hazim at the School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover University in Germany. The study: ‘Attempts to Objectify Pain and Consciousness in Conventional (captive bolt pistol stunning) and Ritual (halal, knife) Methods of Slaughtering Sheep and Calves’ concludes that Islamic slaughtering is the most humane method of slaughter and that captive bolt stunning, practiced in the West, causes severe pain to the animal.
In the study, several electrodes were surgically implanted at various points of the skull of all animals, touching the surface of the brain. The animals were allowed to recover for several weeks. Some animals were then slaughtered by making a swift, deep incision with a sharp knife on the neck cutting the jugular veins and the carotid arteries as well as the trachea and esophagus (Islamic method). Other animals were stunned using a Captive Bolt Pistol (CBP). During the experiment, an electroencephalograph (EEG) and an electrocardiogram (ECG) recorded the condition of the brain and the heart of all animals during the course of slaughter and stunning.
The results were as follows:
I – Islamic Method
1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter, thus indicating that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.
2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep – unconsciousness. This is due to the large quantity of blood gushing out from the body.
3. After the above-mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.
4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving a maximum amount of blood from the body thus resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer.
II – Western method by C.B.P. Stunning
1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after stunning.
2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.
3. The hearts of animals stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Islamic method resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer.