One likes to think that most reasonable people would condemn cruelty to animals.
However there are varying degrees to which people are prepared to disrupt their lives to put those beliefs into action.
Some publicly demonstrate against live sheep export.
Some go vegetarian and others vegan.
Some pay a few cents more for free-range eggs.
Even meat lovers would like to think that the animal they are eating was killed as humanely as possible.
In Australia this involves stunning the animal prior to killing it.
Halal and kosher foods, however, apparently require that the animal be conscious while it’s throat is cut.
Should animal cruelty considerations be ignored for religious reasons?

A very timely subject. A mass ritual slaughter of over 300,000 animals is scheduled to begin in a village in Nepal on Tuesday.

The slaughtered will include 15,000 buffaloes, and 300,000 birds goats and sheep.

This ritual is a centuries old tradition and is celebrated every five years and is dedicated to the Gadhimai, the Hinda Goddess of power.

There has been strong condemnation from many quarters as to the methods that will be employed to kill these animals.

The idea of animal rights is a recent arrival in countries like Nepal, where ancients beliefs are deeply ingrained in the culture

RE: Above. Obviously Hinda should be Hindu. (very slack self-editing)

In relation to Halal processing, general information can be obtained here: http://www.halalmc.net/resources/issue_stunning.html

Concerning the impact on animals, compared to stunning:

http://www.halalmc.net/resources/stunning_articles/009_islamic_method_slaughtering.html

"ISLAMIC METHOD OF SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS IS BETTER

Al Shaddad Bin Aous has quoted this tradition of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H.)

"God calls for mercy in everything, so be merciful when you kill and when you slaughter, sharpen your blade to relieve its pain".

Many allegations have been made that Islamic slaughter is not humane to animals. However, Professor Schultz and his colleague Dr. Hazim of the Hanover University, Germany, proved through an experiment, using an electroencephalograph (EEG) and electrocardiogram (ECG) that Islamic slaughter is THE humane method of slaughter and captive bolt stunning, practiced by the Western method, causes severe pain to the animal.

The results surprised many.

Results and Discussion

I - Halal 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 a 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 maximum blood from the body: 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 the animal stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to those of the animals slaughtered according to the Halal method resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer."

grateful,
The links you provide seem dubious at best.
The first one merely outlines why Muslims object to stunning:
-the animal might die of the stunning before it's throat is cut thus rendering it haram
-the animal might die of the stunning before it's throat is cut so that it doesn't hear the Tasmiyyah before death
(tangentially related - is that the same Tasmiyyah that terrorists cry out when they're beheading infidels on the internet?)
The second link purports to scientifically prove that halal killing is less cruel than stunning but looks "dubious at best".
I think I'll go with the RSPCA, UK Farm Animal Welfare Council et al on this one.
Hell, I'll even go with Princess Alia bint al-Hussein of Jordan who wrote PM Rudd:
"Contrary to some claims, killing without stunning is not necessary under Islamic principles," and that
"any lowering of animal welfare standards in Australia for religious reasons would be a blow to the country's reputation and undermine progress in the Middle East."
Yes it's hard to progress when you believe that the absolute unchangeable truth was set down
fourteen hundred years ago by the Holy Prophet (F.H.)

I can't find a link to the Hanover study, only third-party references. I'll try an academic database when I return to civilisation.

In any case, comparing Halal slaughter to conventional abbattoir processing is like debating the merits of the gas chamber versus the electric chair. Massive reform is necessary in Australia's food industry standards to prevent the hideous treatment of living creatures in this country (cue runner with a diatribe on abortion).

Aside from the thread topic, I'm interested to see how the OLO regulars will handle the competing ideological goals it presents. For one, we have HermanYutic, who believes in eating the blood and flesh of a Jewish zombie each Sunday, but wants to condemn Islam for the way it treats creatures which HY believes were given to man for whatever maltreatment he deems fit.

Even better, I can't wait to see how it's handled by posters such as Col Rouge and Peter Hume, who are both anti-Muslim and pro-animal cruelty. My bet is that they'll avoid the thread altogether.

Sancho “Even better, I can't wait to see how it's handled by posters such as Col Rouge and Peter Hume, who are both anti-Muslim and pro-animal cruelty. My bet is that they'll avoid the thread altogether.”

Spoken like a small minded nong who has nothing better to write about than anticipating my personal view.

As to “anti-Muslim”, wrong,

Nothing I have written has ever been “anti-Muslim”.

I am anti-moron.. .so I guess SANCHO can consider himself a target.

“Pro-animal cruelty” wrong again.

I have never promoted any action which could ever be perceived, by any "mentally stable" person as “cruel”.

Of course, what Sancho makes of my posts might well qualify as outside the limits of “stable”.

I have observed the notion that critters should have the same cognitive appreciation and rights as humans to be utter nonsense.

Hence, the idea that battery chooks “suffer” is a nonsense but that in itself is not a “pro-animal cruelty” stance, merely the difference between me and the “over sentimental“ and "emotionally cripped", who have no idea of life in the real world.

Speaking personally, I know little of ritual butchery processes, being neither Muslim (Halal) or Jew (Kosher) but having seen the stupid and emotional whining advert regarding pigs recently on TV, I can assure everyone, I still eat pork and I make a point of buying eggs from chooks who live in cages and I would wear a fur coat if the weather were cooler…

my conscience, my choice…

if that gives Sancho or anyone else a problem.. .

I simply do not care…

you can object and criticise me all you want but I devote my efforts to remain free to ignore you and all those other tossers who fund organisations like PETA and btw I will exercise my legal rights to defend myself against any action by any "animal advocate" who disturbed my peace.

Yet another whack-a-mozzie troll.

>>Even meat lovers would like to think that the animal they are eating was killed as humanely as possible.<<

Show me someone who actually gives a tuppeny toss about the method by which the animal they are eating is put to death, and I'll show you a vegetarian.

>>Halal and kosher foods, however, apparently require that the animal be conscious while it’s throat is cut.<<

We all know , HermanYutic, that this is simply code for "let's all have another go at Islam"

You are just not honest enough to admit it.

Pericles,
By your logic then, not only am I an Islamophobe but I'm also an anti-semite,
referring as I did to both halal and kosher killing.
Anti-semitism is presumably acceptable to you then, as you fail to accuse me of whack-a-hymie trolling.
Does this make you an anti-semite?
It also follows from your tuppeny tossing that all the laws and regulations pertaining to animal cruelty were passed by vegetarians.
Are you sure yours isn't just a whack-a-hermie troll?

Nice try, HermanYutic.

>>By your logic then, not only am I an Islamophobe but I'm also an anti-semite<<

Your post history here is a dead giveaway.

From your very first attempts at derogatory sarcasm...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3193#75561

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3193#75623

To your thoughtful provision on some dubious anti-Islamic statistics

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3191#75748

And an exhortation to proactively put the boot in...

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3193#76158

There's more, of course.

So there's not much point pretending that you directed our attention to the suffering of poor widdle animals out of a distaste for cruelty.

We know exactly where you are coming from.

And its somewhere pretty rank, in my view.

Good Evening Herman,

"Should animals suffer to maintain religious
sensibilities?"

I don't know anything about Halal or Kosher
methods of killing. However, the answer to
your question is - I guess it depends on
whether you believe in people having the
right to practice their religious freedom.
That is, whether you place people's rights
above those of animals.

Most of us can only give you an "armchair"
opinion. The best people to answer your
questions would probably be the people who
practice those religions and possibly know
more of what's involved.

As Col pointed out - there are many cruel
practices that occur concerning animals.
They're killed for their fur. They're trained
for our entertainment in circus's et cetera.
Their appearance is altered in breeding to
produce fashionable "toy" breeds. Baby seals
are bashed to death. Whales are hunted
mercilessly - the lists go on. Religion, is only
a small part of what is inflicted on animals in
general - and that's not even counting the damage
that is done to the oceans, forests, and elsewhere
where animals live - by humans.

Perhaps a better question would be - should
animals suffer at all at the hands of humans?

<< I have never promoted any action which could ever be perceived, by any "mentally stable" person as “cruel”. >>

Really, Col? Then I must have hallucinated the thread where you gleefully fantasised about killing dogs.

Or not: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2131&page=0#45502

<< you can object and criticise me all you want but I devote my efforts to remain free to ignore you and all those other tossers who fund organisations like PETA >>

Obviously. Nothing says "I don't care about your opinion" like a 300-word post refuting my opinion.

I enjoyed HermanYutic's posts more when he was calling himself KMB. I guess the whole, "I'm not hardline Catholic, just a secular agnostic who loves Catholicism", schtick fell through.

Ah Sancho “<< I have never promoted any action which could ever be perceived, by any "mentally stable" person as “cruel”. >>

Really, Col? Then I must have hallucinated the thread where you gleefully fantasised about killing dogs.”

A couple of points

One:
In that thread, I did suggest I would take an axe handle, if needed, however, try reading my post, it would have been in defence of myself and my daughter against an uncontrolled and vicious beast.

I see no “cruelty” in defending oneself against any dog which is capable of inflicting death as well as grievous bodily harm.

Two:

On this thread I did include the caveat and you did quote me as saying

“by any "mentally stable" person as “cruel”.”

Now, from the collective body of posts you have contributed to this forum, I doubt your reasoning skills extend beyond the level of an amoeba suffering PMS:

So, I would consider your objections fails on the issue of “mentally stable”

Try again another day

when you feel the compelling urge to being playfully slapped (lets face it anything more than playful, old Sancho's might just become over excited and we would need to throw a bucket of water over him)

I have to confess, I used "ant=rid" to get rid of ants plaqueing my kitchen. It is sweet and the ants take it back to their nests and it kills the Queen and they all die!If I was a Hindu or Buddist would that be genocide?
Who can I say sorry to? Someone like to ask the Dalai Lama while he's in Melbourne.?

Sorry Poirot, there should be a "h"in Budhist. I worked in a meat works in North Qld. for two weeks in 1965 and had to give it away. I broke out in boils.They had a bloke standing over the beast with a big wooden mallet. I never saw him miss! Then the chains were attached to the back legs and it started on the "chain" to go around and each man had a specific job.Before it was gutted one man with a sheaf of twine tied up the annus so the stomach contents didn't spill.His job was "cuttin' out arsoles" Light-hearted comment "Just like Politicians!" -To their Leaders?