Countries banning of kosher meats are forcing "expulsion" of Jews

Subduction Zone said:

Sadly you do not know what faith is. It is not an asset. One uses "faith" only when one has no valid reason, evidence, or even logic for one's beliefs.

Click to expand...

I see that you believe that and, to a person of faith as I am, this shows that you don't understand faith at all.

Landon Caeli said:

I like that.

Click to expand...

Really? You do realize that this is the exact same sort of argument that defenders of female genital mutilation make.

It also shows an ignorance of one's own faith. But when one has superstitious beliefs the good of their beliefs are often lost to ritual.

rosends said:

So I haven't produced evidence of a position I have not stated? I can't imagine why...

Actually there was nothing personal about it. I simply pointed out how the use of a value laden word without establishing a common value system required the imputation of a unilaterally decided value system Sorry you can't follow that.

And where exactly did I do that?

Click to expand...

Let's not break up posts excessively. It is a form of quote mining.

rosends said:

I see that you believe that and, to a person of faith as I am, this shows that you don't understand faith at all.

Click to expand...

No, it is the opposite. I understand faith better than you do since I used to have the same failing myself.

Subduction Zone said:

Let's not break up posts excessively. It is a form of quote mining.

Click to expand...

Please show me where I mined a quote please. All I did was take the separate claims you made regarding what I said and answered each in a discrete section. If you don't like what I answered then feel free to respond.

Subduction Zone said:

No, it is the opposite. I understand faith better than you do since I used to have the same failing myself.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that you understand it differently, but you won't agree with that. Of course, your non agreement is meaningless to me so, have at it.

Subduction Zone said:

Sadly you do not know what faith is. It is not an asset. One uses "faith" only when one has no valid reason, evidence, or even logic for one's beliefs.

Click to expand...

By what authority can this claim be made?

rosends said:

I would suggest that you understand it differently, but you won't agree with that. Of course, your non agreement is meaningless to me so, have at it.

Click to expand...

I used to have faith too. I eventually realized that it was not an asset.

But one thing that you should realize, especially when one is in a religion that is a small minority in almost any country that it can be found in is that you have to live with others. If there is a noise ordinance one may not be allowed to play his "call to prayer" over loud speakers. If there are animal rights laws one may not be able to slaughter an animal in their traditional manner.

Landon Caeli said:

By what authority can this claim be made?

Click to expand...

By logic and reason. I have never seen a successful defense of "faith".

Though Mark Twain was a good authority on this over 100 years ago:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Subduction Zone said:

I used to have faith too. I eventually realized that it was not an asset.

But one thing that you should realize, especially when one is in a religion that is a small minority in almost any country that it can be found in is that you have to live with others. If there is a noise ordinance one may not be allowed to play his "call to prayer" over loud speakers. If there are animal rights laws one may not be able to slaughter an animal in their traditional manner.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. My point was not to argue against the European laws but to assess whether they are driven by something other than a concern for animal welfare (and whether that mattered) and to clarify that the reasoning behind the faith-based laws is not (according to the faith system) the rational explanation provided by some posters which could then be updated by being replaced with a newer rational explanation.

IndigoChild5559 said:

It says that Ishmael will have problems, but not Ishmaelites, to the best of my knowledge. We can go into this in greater depth if you would like. It's possible that other Jews will disagree.

Click to expand...

I think it is worse than that.

Subduction Zone said:

By logic and reason. I have never seen a successful defense of "faith".

Though Mark Twain was a good authority on this over 100 years ago:

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Click to expand...

logic and reason are human traits. Everyone uses them, even the religious.

...Except, the religious also use something else in their thinking. I think there can be a healthy balance between having faith and using logical and reasoned thinking. Emphasis will vary depending on the individual -some even going radical in one direction, others radically in the other.

I think there is no right or wrong way.

Landon Caeli said:

logic and reason are human traits. Everyone uses them, even the religious.

...Except, the religious also use something else in their thinking. I think there can be a healthy balance between having faith and using logical and reasoned thinking. Emphasis will vary depending on the individual -some even going radical in one direction, others radically in the other.

I think there is no right or wrong way.

Click to expand...

The religious quite often run into cognitive dissonance. Here we have a case where there is no excuse for not stunning animals except for a meaningless ritual. If one looks at kosher butchering part of it is done to limit the discomfort of the animal. That is a good thing. Deciding that something that in no way affects the meat somehow makes it no longer kosher is superstition only.

rosends said:

I agree completely. My point was not to argue against the European laws but to assess whether they are driven by something other than a concern for animal welfare (and whether that mattered) and to clarify that the reasoning behind the faith-based laws is not (according to the faith system) the rational explanation provided by some posters which could then be updated by being replaced with a newer rational explanation.

Click to expand...

But that does not appear to be the case. It does appear to be an outdated practice that cannot be defended. Those that think it is have had plenty of opportunities to do so. If one is complaining about a law because of one's behavior one better be ready to defend that behavior. Claims of "anti-Semitism" fall flat when one fails to show any anti-Semitism.

Subduction Zone said:

The religious quite often run into cognitive dissonance. Here we have a case where there is no excuse for not stunning animals except for a meaningless ritual. If one looks at kosher butchering part of it is done to limit the discomfort of the animal. That is a good thing. Deciding that something that in no way affects the meat somehow makes it no longer kosher is superstition only.

Click to expand...

Yet, Jews don't try to pass laws where non-Jews must prepare and eat kosher food. Yet, the non-religious are doing just that, based on some moral notion that others are expected to see as obvious.

Landon Caeli said:

Yet, Jews don't try to pass laws where non-Jews must prepare and eat kosher food. Yet, the non-religious are doing just that, based on some moral notion that others are expected to see as obvious.

Click to expand...

Are you paying attention at all? The reason for the laws is not because they are Jewish or Muslim, it is because of the cruelty of the method of killing.

Morals, especially good morals, do not come from religion. They come from man. And since man is continually improving over the years so have our morals.

rosends said:

I didn't claim that you said inferior. I anticipated that if I relied on faith vs. your sense of reason you WOULD say that my system is inferior.

Click to expand...

Only you did not say "if" or anything to the notion of anticipating a possible reaction. You cited differences in culture, which lead to " will decide that [your beliefs] are inferior." That's projecting this inference, putting it out there to where further pressing on that issue will almost make it seem true. Do not do that.

though I have to ask, would you foresee the banning of a practice that is on the same level?

Click to expand...

I don't have to foresee anything. There's a reason I don't sacrifice a live goat to Thor, or challenge people who insult me to holmganga.

B) Who said I'm surprised by anything? Why project that onto me?
C) Who cried persecution? Instead of telling me what I do, why not address what I said?

Click to expand...

Other Jewish people are included in that, and clearly someone is crying persecution (several in this thread) or else the buzzword of "anti-semetic" would not be in play. Yet you are here arguing in favor of maintaining the current method of slaughter, as opposed to changing one aspect for the betterment of livestock ethics. This is quite an interesting article on how Judaism has adapted and changed over the centuries. I see no reason why the method of slaughter - not even touching on food preparation or what kind of animal is being eaten - cannot be added to this long line of cultural adaptation and growth.

Landon Caeli said:

This morality that you embrace, that suggests slaughtering an animal has to be done a certain way to be right, may not be as obvious to many as it seems to be to you.

Click to expand...

Yes, and to some cruelty is second nature. To some, burning a church is nothing to weep about, but society seems to be in agreement that it's still wrong. Property damage, if nothing else. This is no different, and in fact is more pressing as it's something living in a controlled situation where the method of slaughter can easily be changed and adapted to be as humane as possible. It's baffling that in your random tirades of saying nothing you're so staunchly against this notion.

Subduction Zone said:

But that does not appear to be the case. It does appear to be an outdated practice that cannot be defended. Those that think it is have had plenty of opportunities to do so. If one is complaining about a law because of one's behavior one better be ready to defend that behavior. Claims of "anti-Semitism" fall flat when one fails to show any anti-Semitism.

Click to expand...

You call it outdated because you are using a current understanding and applying it. I understand that that is your method. I just am not using that current understanding so I don't see it as outdated so I am able to defend it because I am starting with a different schema, one of which you don't approve. Because you would disapprove of the overarching system, you would not accept the defense. That doesn't mean there is no defense, just not one you would respect.

But since I haven't mentioned anti-semitism as a cause, saying that it falls flat seems misplaced.

The Ragin Pagan said:

Only you did not say "if" or anything to the notion of anticipating a possible reaction. You cited differences in culture, which lead to " will decide that [your beliefs] are inferior." That's projecting this inference, putting it out there to where further pressing on that issue will almost make it seem true. Do not do that.

Click to expand...

True, I projected a future expectation. So, please clarify. Is my system equally valid, superior or inferior? Once I know where you stand I won't have to lay out an expectation. If my cultural practice and understanding is equally valid, would you endorse a country's banning it?

The Ragin Pagan said:

I don't have to foresee anything. There's a reason I don't sacrifice a live goat to Thor, or challenge people who insult me to holmganga.

Click to expand...

No one said you have to do anything. The question is whether you hold a certain position. If you don't want to extrapolate from your current understanding then just say so.

The Ragin Pagan said:

Other Jewish people are included in that, and clearly someone is crying persecution (several in this thread) or else the buzzword of "anti-semetic" would not be in play. Yet you are here arguing in favor of maintaining the current method of slaughter, as opposed to changing one aspect for the betterment of livestock ethics.

Click to expand...

Here is the kernel of your error. You assume I am here arguing in favor of maintaining something. I am not. I have been clear about my purpose here -- to discuss whether the banning was anti-semitic (vs anything else) and to disabuse people of mistaken notions about a religious law. If you want to argue with "other Jewish people" about what they say, have fun. My goal has never been to defend kosher slaughter against the claims made here. It is essential that each branch of conversation keep a discrete and sharp eye on its terms and premises and one does not assume another's motives.

The Ragin Pagan said:

This is quite an interesting article on how Judaism has adapted and changed over the centuries. I see no reason why the method of slaughter - not even touching on food preparation or what kind of animal is being eaten - cannot be added to this long line of cultural adaptation and growth.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand that that is your position. All I am saying is that just because you "see no reason" doesn't mean that to others there is no reason. It just might be that you wouldn't approve or condone that reason.

rosends said:

You call it outdated because you are using a current understanding and applying it. I understand that that is your method. I just am not using that current understanding so I don't see it as outdated so I am able to defend it because I am starting with a different schema, one of which you don't approve. Because you would disapprove of the overarching system, you would not accept the defense. That doesn't mean there is no defense, just not one you would respect.

But since I haven't mentioned anti-semitism as a cause, saying that it falls flat seems misplaced.

Click to expand...

No, I call it outdated because modern technology allows us to slaughter cattle with less pain . Once again you are attributing traits to people that they don't have but that you probably do. This is not about me and my beliefs, let's try not to make it personal. Do you use this tactic because you have no answer to the OP?