The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Is Halel certification a form of religious tax on consumers?

Is Halel certification a form of religious tax on consumers?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
"Do you regard advertising on A Current Affair or Today Tonight as a tax?"

You are setting up a false comparison, a fallacious argument.

"There are laws against funding terrorism"

It would be a foolish and irresponsible government that relies on reactive enforcement alone.

"Islam has many forms"

You play word games to avoid the issue, but I will answer nonetheless. The Islam that coerces individuals and business into paying for it is definitely the wrong form.

So much for the claimed moderate Islam in Australia. What do they say about it anyhow? When will the views of the mainstream be sought and considered? After all, an overwhelming majority are claimed to favour the existing secular State. It is not so very long ago that other religions were telling Australians what to do on the weekends, and coercing government to limit trading and entertainment on Sundays and so on.

Now, what about you address my point about it introducing an unfair trade embargo?
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 3 January 2015 10:18:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good one, Bazz.

Aidan,

Consumers in Australia aren't denied a say; they have elected representatives who make the laws regarding the preparation of food.

Our food preparation is up with the best in the world and doesn't ned the imprimatur of a political/religious group that cannot fit into our society.

If one joins the Roll Royce Owners Club don't expect the members to embrace your Model 'T' Ford.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 3 January 2015 10:31:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Bazz,

The reason Jews split their kitchens is that it is forbidden to them to combine, eat or cook together meat and milk. Other foods, such as fish and vegetables can be combined with either, thus each Kosher food is marked as either: "Meat", "Milk" or "Parve" - the latter means that it has neither meat nor milk thus can be cooked and eaten with either.

The reason meat and milk cannot be eaten or cooked together is the biblical commandment, "Thou shalt not cook a lamb in its mother's milk" (appearing three times).

While the original prohibition is very specific, eventually the Rabbis extended it to any milk with any meat (but some Rabbis exclude chicken); and while it was only about cooking, they interpreted the fact that it appeared three times to mean that eating and enjoying it are also prohibited.

Some Rabbis claim that the reason for the prohibition to cook a lamb in its mother's milk is to prevent animal cruelty. Others suggest a metaphysical theory (too long to bring here), but most scholars today agree that the real reason was that cooking a lamb in its mother's milk was an ancient pagan ritual, thus the purpose was to keep the Jews away from paganism.

There is no basis to assume that health was high on the Rabbi's priority list. Keeping the Jews separate from "gentiles" was much higher on their agenda, which was essentially to preserve the Jewish nation intact. They realised that eating together with others might invite boy-meets-girl situations, thus the horror of mixed-marriages, so they had a strong interest to prevent Jews from eating with others - and the Kosher rules provided a perfect opportunity for that!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Sunday, 4 January 2015 12:57:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu,
Well you must have researched it well.
It does seemed to have caused a lot of expense and trouble over 1000s
of years for no good purpose.

Aiden,
There is an implied threat of banning unless a fee is paid.
I doubt they would make such a threat implicit, but it would be interesting
to hear if threats have been made.
Extortion is a very serious crime and I presume their lawyers have
advised them on what not to say.
What would be interesting is if any publicity was given to a refusal
to pay the fee. The publicity might be a criminal act itself and turn
a legal conversation into an illegal one.

What could happen if the manufacturer let them inspect, put the
label on but refused to pay, alleging extortion ?

Sounds like a legal minefield.
Posted by Bazz, Sunday, 4 January 2015 7:16:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
onthebeach
<<"Do you regard advertising on A Current Affair or Today Tonight as a tax?"
You are setting up a false comparison, a fallacious argument.>>
On the contrary, I'm using a true comparison to tear down your fallacious argument. Because there is no characteristic of a tax that applies to halal certification that doesn't also apply to advertising on Today Tonight or A Current Affair.

<<"There are laws against funding terrorism"
It would be a foolish and irresponsible government that relies on reactive enforcement alone.>>
What makes you think they don't? That sort of thing is what ASIO's for.

<<You play word games to avoid the issue, but I will answer nonetheless. The Islam that coerces individuals and business into paying for it is definitely the wrong form.>>
But there's no evidence of any coercion.

<<So much for the claimed moderate Islam in Australia. What do they say about it anyhow? When will the views of the mainstream be sought and considered? After all, an overwhelming majority are claimed to favour the existing secular State. It is not so very long ago that other religions were telling Australians what to do on the weekends, and coercing government to limit trading and entertainment on Sundays and so on.>>
As I'm not a Muslim I don't know for sure, but I expect most would support its use and the rest wouldn't care, but none of the moderates would want it to be made compulsory.

<<Now, what about you address my point about it introducing an unfair trade embargo?>>
What embargo? Which country bans the importation or export of food that is not halal certified?
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 4 January 2015 12:54:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is Mise
<<Consumers in Australia aren't denied a say; they have elected representatives who make the laws regarding the preparation of food.>>
Those laws set minimum standards, but consumers have, AND ALWAYS SHOULD HAVE the freedom to make their own choices. For instance they have the right to buy certified free range eggs even when the law does not ban eggs that are not free range.

<<If one joins the Roll Royce Owners Club don't expect the members to embrace your Model 'T' Ford.>>
If The Rolls Royce Owners Club (or indeed the Model T Owners Club) decide to only buy certified hugh octane fuel, should we obect to the certification of that?

_________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,

<<There is an implied threat of banning unless a fee is paid.>>
An implied threat by who of banning from what?

It seems there's no rational case for opposing halal certification so you're basing it on threats which occur only in your imagination.

<<What could happen if the manufacturer let them inspect, put the
label on but refused to pay, alleging extortion ?>>
The manufacturer would probably be sued under contract law, and possibly also defamation law.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 4 January 2015 12:58:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy