Yes, it is a bit of a dramatic headline, but what the Dutch lower house of parliament has passed is a descent into the darkness of animal "rights" vs. welfare. Religious freedom vs. a state that wants to subjugate certain practices that it does not like.
It is in the Netherlands that party called the, I kid you not, the Animal Rights Party, has been able to cobble a left-right coalition in banning the ritualistic slaughter of animals according to Islamic and Jewish law.
If this does not unite Islamics and Jews, nothing can.
For the Islamic, it is called halal. For the Jew, it is kosher.
Essentially, it is an imam or a rabbi that observes and or performs the slaughter of permissible animals for eating. It is done by a sharp instrument that slits the throat of the animal. The observant Islamic and Jew will not eat animals that are not butchered in this manner. And both monotheistic faiths do not eat pork and or pork products.
But, the ARP finds this not a good thing.
Now many find this ancient act not something for the modern world. Yet it has been practiced for centuries no matter where an Islamic or Jew lives.
Read this quote from the ARP leader, Marianne Thieme:
“This way of killing causes unnecessary pain to animals. Religious freedom cannot be unlimited. For us religious freedom stops where human or animal suffering begins.”
OK, where to start.
It appears that Miss Thieme believes religion is OK. Unless it is something that is at the heart of a particular faith she does not like.
This is not subjugating women and forcing them to wear burkas. This is not treating women as second class people. Nor about the excesses of any religion. The ritualistic slaughtering of animals is a central tenant of both faiths. The laws of any given nation that believes in any religious freedom must protect practices of the faith such as this.
But the heart of Miss Thieme's comment is speaking about animal and human suffering.
It is a direct assault on religion under the guise of animal rights.
Look at the situation in which the voters of San Francisco are being asked to ban circumcision. No doubt about it. It is an assault against Islam and Judaism. It is an ancient practice limited to male babies. Yet those supporting the measure would argue that a male baby is suffering at the hands of the snipper of the male penile foreskin. Kind of fits Miss Thieme's human suffering angle, doesn't it?
And what about what some religions ask of their members.
Such as the Roman Catholic church.
It asks those entering Holy orders to be celibate. Male and female. Is it unreasonable? I believe it is as a Protestant Christian. But I suppose that a postulate for Holy orders can claim some kind of psychological pain due to such a requirement. Would that fit under the human suffering angle of Miss Thieme?
Or those that believe homosexual relations are immoral and choose to deal with it within the tenants of their religion. Usually that would mean something like an excommunication or shunning of the person. Would that fit the human suffering at the hands of religion?
In this case, it is a start to assault all religions. And the foil is the cute cow. Or goat. There is no evidence that "stunning" an animal before slaughter is any better than the religious method. Either way, the animal dies.
But I am afraid that is not what is in play here.
There are deep religious tensions in The Netherlands. Radical Islam is on the rise. There is a push back against it. However, the pushback may take down the believers of Islam that are not radical or violent. The Jew that observes what they believe from the Old Testament. The Christian that simply share their faith with others, also a belief expressed in the New Testament.
All that stands in the way is the Dutch senate and the thought that even if this is passed, it would be unenforceable.
It should not pass and never be enforced. It is a real assault on people of faith. This has nothing to do with animal "rights" in the least. It is a descent into darkness.
It is in the Netherlands that party called the, I kid you not, the Animal Rights Party, has been able to cobble a left-right coalition in banning the ritualistic slaughter of animals according to Islamic and Jewish law.
If this does not unite Islamics and Jews, nothing can.
For the Islamic, it is called halal. For the Jew, it is kosher.
Essentially, it is an imam or a rabbi that observes and or performs the slaughter of permissible animals for eating. It is done by a sharp instrument that slits the throat of the animal. The observant Islamic and Jew will not eat animals that are not butchered in this manner. And both monotheistic faiths do not eat pork and or pork products.
But, the ARP finds this not a good thing.
Now many find this ancient act not something for the modern world. Yet it has been practiced for centuries no matter where an Islamic or Jew lives.
Read this quote from the ARP leader, Marianne Thieme:
“This way of killing causes unnecessary pain to animals. Religious freedom cannot be unlimited. For us religious freedom stops where human or animal suffering begins.”
OK, where to start.
It appears that Miss Thieme believes religion is OK. Unless it is something that is at the heart of a particular faith she does not like.
This is not subjugating women and forcing them to wear burkas. This is not treating women as second class people. Nor about the excesses of any religion. The ritualistic slaughtering of animals is a central tenant of both faiths. The laws of any given nation that believes in any religious freedom must protect practices of the faith such as this.
But the heart of Miss Thieme's comment is speaking about animal and human suffering.
It is a direct assault on religion under the guise of animal rights.
Look at the situation in which the voters of San Francisco are being asked to ban circumcision. No doubt about it. It is an assault against Islam and Judaism. It is an ancient practice limited to male babies. Yet those supporting the measure would argue that a male baby is suffering at the hands of the snipper of the male penile foreskin. Kind of fits Miss Thieme's human suffering angle, doesn't it?
And what about what some religions ask of their members.
Such as the Roman Catholic church.
It asks those entering Holy orders to be celibate. Male and female. Is it unreasonable? I believe it is as a Protestant Christian. But I suppose that a postulate for Holy orders can claim some kind of psychological pain due to such a requirement. Would that fit under the human suffering angle of Miss Thieme?
Or those that believe homosexual relations are immoral and choose to deal with it within the tenants of their religion. Usually that would mean something like an excommunication or shunning of the person. Would that fit the human suffering at the hands of religion?
In this case, it is a start to assault all religions. And the foil is the cute cow. Or goat. There is no evidence that "stunning" an animal before slaughter is any better than the religious method. Either way, the animal dies.
But I am afraid that is not what is in play here.
There are deep religious tensions in The Netherlands. Radical Islam is on the rise. There is a push back against it. However, the pushback may take down the believers of Islam that are not radical or violent. The Jew that observes what they believe from the Old Testament. The Christian that simply share their faith with others, also a belief expressed in the New Testament.
All that stands in the way is the Dutch senate and the thought that even if this is passed, it would be unenforceable.
It should not pass and never be enforced. It is a real assault on people of faith. This has nothing to do with animal "rights" in the least. It is a descent into darkness.
No comments:
Post a Comment