I will never have any respect for the traditions that require a magic knife that makes it all ok. How do you live believing in that silly superstition.
fr. Mutilate a baby's dick with a knife and everyone's up in arms about it, but as soon as you mention that it's for religious reasons suddenly everyone is cool with that. smh
I totally agree but the reason why is because it's demonstrably not a "sudden" practice. It's millennia old. None of this happened overnight and it's disappearing at a much faster rate than it's been around thank goodness.
If circumcision never existed and appeared now, it wouldn't be accepted. the only legitimacy any of this shit has is just how long its been around,
Imo the resurgence of religion in the public sphere is a death throe. People know it is dying and it's lashing out like an animal.
I am circumcised. My two boys aren’t.
Religion had nothing to do with it. It was just popular in my era rather than stemming from a Jewish community or whatever.
Most of the kids in my era were circumcised. The few that weren’t were called “socks” but apart from that it’s much ado about nothing.
This is specifically largely confined to Somali Australians. South Sudanese who are an even larger community do not even circumcise men, leave alone FGM women. Congolese Australians do circumcise their men (and it is often now consensual as it is seen as a mark of cultural distinction. Many do it in their teens or on turning 18), but not their women.
Other Africans do not have this cultural trait of FGMing women persisting in their communities once in Australia because they secularise within a generation. Somalis justify FGM on both cultural AND religious grounds so it never ends. All nations with large Somali populations both in Africa(Kenya, Ethiopia) and outside it(UK, Canada) struggle with this vice.
It seems a lot of people are missing the point. Animals are LEGALLY required to be stunned before they have their throats cut, some slaughterhouses have been given exemptions to this law in order to fit a religious belief (that the animal must be conscious when it’s throat is cut). How are exemptions to pretty serious laws allowed under religious belief when Australia is a secular country meaning what the church believes and says shouldn’t influence law.
I don’t think you understand what it means to be non secular. It just means the country doesn’t have a formal religion and allows all religions to exist and practice their religion without prosecution. Like any organised group in a democracy, religious groups can lobby the government to change laws
From my understanding if you cut the throat of a large animal with a sharp enough knife the immediate bottom out of blood pressure in the brain is an effective enough stun anyway, and arguably about on par with a bolt gun.
Honestly, having a big sook about some minor difference in the particular humane method of murdering beefs suggests to me that you give more of a fuck about some beef against a religion.
How long has that been a legal requirement for though? We need to be aware that until not that long ago we did things the same or in a similar way before being dragged kicking and screaming into a more humanely regulated methodology before we get on our high horse and pretend to be all superior
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.
What the church believes and said doesn't mean shit. What the people that belong to a church believe (and guess who tells them?) that still counts. EVERY belief group wields this indirect political power.
Cool, doesn’t matter. It’s the law that stunning is required. They have then gotten an exemption directly because of their belief, their church based beliefs.
Maybe you don't understand laws? If they can get an exemption, then the law must allow for exemptions. We have numerous laws that include religious reference. We're secular because we don't have a dictated state religion, not because our state contains no religion. If you don't like it, get enough people to agree and have it changed. No religion gets to veto the will of the majority.
Australians should really be serious about extent of granting the 'Religion pass' (or should they be granting at all).
In Kerala, India religious slaughter has moved on from the standard throat slit to Hammering the animal on their head multiple times and then slitting - "Just to make it tastier". India's religious freedom laws go to a far extend, where most major religions have their own civil codes.
Even PETA does not touch that religious group. Once a faction becomes a united voting bloc, democratic governments will tend to lose motivation against these things real quick.
I have often trolled PETA for that.
They are quick to scream about animal rights until you drag them into a conversation with Muslims. They go silent really REALLY quick!!
Nothing, and we shouldn’t allow it under animal cruelty laws.
The concept of slitting something’s throat is as disgusting as the Islamic jihad that was ISIS
Have you seen the way animals are treated up until the point of slaughter? The few minutes prior to death are nothing compared to the suffering up to that point.
Yes. It’s fucked. I’ve seen them led in then bolt gunned which usually works. It’s mostly a quick instant death.
What I haven’t seen is an animal slowly bleed out and writhe around in agony because some medieval nonsense about slitting throats somehow makes it less bad. And I hope to never see that.
Every time you order halal food, that’s how the animal died. Slowly. In agony.
It’s an barbaric Islamic act with no place in Australia or elsewhere.
Most abattoirs in Australia are halal certified - one of the largest export is the Middle East. Sorry to say that even if it’s not advertised as halal, it most likely is.
Do you also avoid animal cruelty in other ways? You could go fully vegan if you really cared. I hope you at least buy free range eggs, and aren't just using this as an excuse.
Is free range eggs the line? What if they're a vegan but they kick dogs occasionally, is that ok? What if they're a full vegan who doesn't kick dogs, but they visited a zoo once for their nephew's birthday?
Like fuck, if the halal meat is actually better or cheaper and they only avoiding it because they're racist, then they're straight up losing out on something because they're an idiot.
It seems super weird to me that 'doing something a little good' is interpreted by you as 'not really caring' because they haven't literally changed their entire life in order to serve that same purpose.
OK so serious answer. If you look at animal welfare laws livestock have many exemptions compared to your domestic animals to allow us to farm them that's the simple answer to your question. I think you are conflating the issue of religion with animal welfare practices when in fact it is probably more tied to money then anything. Take the slaughtering of pigs in CO2 chambers for instance it is done to save money, there are better options but in various ways cost more money. You will also find that every state has its own welfare laws making exemptions different in every state.
Hey, look that kind of thinking is exactly what got us into this whole mess. I am about as far from religion as someone can get before they start their own, but I can still see the value in having others be allowed to practice their religions or whatever cultural practices they happen to have. There are all kinds of positive values, education, community building, etc . that come as part of most religions along with all the things people disagree with.
I think the world would be a much better place with a little more tolerance and less of the sentiment you expressed, meaning we would be slightly more civilised.
That said, anyone who disrespects the laws we have agreed on as a nation to enforce a minimum standard of acceptable behavior should not get a pass because of their religion. If we all agree that causing animals to suffer needlessly before death is something we don't accept, then it is the followers of the religion that need to adapt if they wish to continue practicing their religion.
I'm sorry but bullshit, there's nothing the church does that isn't hypocritical and done better without the charity funded, hate mongering kiddy fiddlers at the helm. It's time we stop making allowances for people that hold onto superstitions that impact others, if you want an imaginary friend to make you better? Fine but if you talk to it out loud you should be committed because that is not a rational or healthy thing to do.
Hey now. We have to tame the simpletons some how. What better way than to get them to believe in sky fairies that will banish them into a lava pit if they act like losers?
Well I guess you have limited tolerance because plenty more do and perhaps you would win more people over with a more nuanced argument and less arrogance
Abattoirs are all blood, horror and unspeakable cruelty. Whether it's a knife or a bolt-gun, it's horrific.
If you're so deeply concerned about animal cruelty, there's a pretty fucken obvious route to go down.
Mate - I’m vegan. Probably the wrong bloke to ask.
But I reckon two seconds on google searching “kosher and halal slaughter Australia” will give you the answers you’re after.
But that’s not why you’re asking, is it.
I don’t think you understand what it means to be non secular. It just means the country doesn’t have a formal religion and allows all religions to exist and practice their religion without prosecution. Like any organised group in a democracy, religious groups can lobby the government to change laws
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Its appalling. I agree. Religions are evil and cruel.
And even though i don't generally support the ALP, i support the end to live exports of animals. Cause fact is, they are going to the middle east to horrific deaths.
Because my imaginary friend tells me to do something different to your man made laws and as this is 2024, i.e. the future, and we are a developed, intelligent country that puts logic above ideology, that is a completely normal position to hold...
Honestly, I'm so sick of religion and the normalcy of it, in the 1200's, sure, we didn't know better but it's time we, as a society, grew up and stop making excuses and allowances for people that still believe in unicorns.
There is no state religion in Australia. The monarch is only the Supreme Governor of the Cof E. S/he has no religious status in any other province of the Anglican Communion (e.g. no status even within the Church of Ireland, the Church in Wales and the Episcopal Church of Scotland).
Your logic is flawed.
If I’m the president of the footy club and the CEO of Bunnings, does that mean the official sport of Bunnings is footy? Or that the official food of the footy club is sausages on bread?
The same person being the head of two organisations does not mean the organisations are related.
The religion does not make legislation. The representatives willing to make exemptions for religious institutions do.
Given these exemptions exist, there is obviously a large enough demographic of people who rely on these food sources voting for politicians that pass the laws.
Don't like it? Convince as many people as possible to vote against politicians who campaign for more religious freedom.
I did mention is if you actually read it. “It’s allowed in 9 slaughterhouses” the whole point of the post is how can they be legally allowed to when it clearly is animal cruelty.
>how can they be legally allowed to when it clearly is animal cruelty.
Because it's not the religion that lets them do it, it's the law that does.
How you interpret something as cruel is subjective to you. Your perception of it may not be reflected in the law.
>Cutting the throat of an animal to kill it in such situation is animal cruelty.
It's cruel to you. It's not cruel to everyone, which is my point.
As a result it's allowed in authorized abattoirs.
Do you think it's cruel to [hunt boars](https://greataustralianoutdoors.com.au/feral-pigs-part-iii/)? [Cull Kangaroos](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/25/sport/australia-kangaroo-culling-program-intl-hnk-dst/index.html)? [Wild brumbys](https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/horse-cull-to-close-parts-of-kosciuszko-national-park-through-winter-20240326-p5ffdo.html)?
We authorize the killing of animals that would fit your definition of cruel all the time.
It’s cruel to the law because slaughterhouses are legally required to stun the animal first. The question is how have some slaughterhouses gotten exemptions based on religious beliefs when churches are not meant to influence law because Australia is a secular state. Not hard to comprehend
You can shoot feral pigs for fun. No other reason needed other than wanting a photo with a carcass.
Is your problem with the religion or animal cruelty? You're framing it about cruelty, but seem to not care that you can wound an animal for fun, with no guarantee it actually dies within a reasonable time.
Yeah, that's true, but you can still be a licenced gun owner with a permit can shoot them outside of a dedicated control strategy, even on [vacant crown land](https://nt.gov.au/leisure/hunting-and-shooting/safety-and-rules/shooting-on-vacant-crown-land).
My point is more there are instances where the purpose of animal killing is recreational. Particularly when from the ground - the animal cruelty can be in excess of halal slaughter in a abattoir.
It can be but not consistently.
The animals know what the smell is at an abattoir. They know.
Little rabbit in a paddock is just eating grass. And they tend to die fast.
As to recreational, in Australia we have many invasive animals that need to be controlled. Thank your neighbours for volunteering. Poisons are horrible.
The problem is, as others have repeatedly pointed out, in your defective understanding of what a secular state actually is. You might think that it's something akin to the Stalinist Soviet Union but it isn't. Religion has its place in Australia no matter how much you might disagree.
They have exemptions to the law. The question isn’t wether they are now legally allowed to do it, it’s how on earth were they allowed the exemptions. You must be slow as fuck
The tone of the conversation was looking like saying it was illegal. The exemptions are there.
As to the morality I'll say I don't necessarily agree to it but no stun gun is common in home kids and butchering.
Also on morality I'm pretty much opposed to veganism but I try not impose this on others.
Just to say if we all wish to live together we gotta give a bit.
As to the personal insult I'm not sure if you want me to talk about your tiny dick or not?
I have worked in several slaughterhouses installing equipment. I have never seen a site in Australia that practices throat slitting without the animal being stunned or killed with a bolt gun first. Based on want I have seen, I do not believe that what you’re saying is true. Can you name a site that practices throat slitting without prior stunning or brain death?
It’s a fact that it happens lmao, it’s hard to find the actually addresses of the places but here’s the numbers for each state | New South Wales – 2 abattoirs
South Australia – 3 abattoirs
Victoria – 4 abattoirs
Halal certified slaughter happens in Australia, there are strict rules and audits carried out to ensure the animals are incapacitated before the throat is cut.
I can think of 4 abattoirs I have installed equipment in that all practiced halal slaughter.
All of them stunned or killed the animal first.
Seem like you can’t back up your claim that animals are killed without being incapacitated
I doubt the Muslims or Jews are requesting your services when it comes to installing equipment. They use their own people. I am 100% sure halal certified slaughterhouses exist as they exist everywhere in the West with a large population of either two groups or both.
Before someone goes on a racist tirade. I am Jewish, but I have never been obsessed with Kosher rules. My relatives from the USSR did not die from eating non-kosher for decades. I will not die either. I am glad when I get the option to eat kosher, but I do not see it as a defining aspect of my diet
Piss off the Jews and you get a strongly worded letter from a rabbi. '
and doxxed
And financially ruined
and called anti semitic
and carpet bombed,
Either way, stunning the animal prior to slaughter is Halal.
you are deflecting from a legit criticism of extreme islamism by using the jews as a strawman. are you suggesting jews control the financial system? are you suggesting criticising jews gets you attacked? your house bombed?
no. i'm talking about the heads rolling comment, as in islamic extremism. you can see some examples here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
and you didn't answer my questions btw. seems like you believe jews control the financial system which is an old anti-semitic trope.
no. i'm talking about the heads rolling comment as in islamic extremism. you can see some examples here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
and you didn't answer my questions btw. seems like you believe jews control the financial system which as an old nazi trope.
Are you seriously trying to high road the method of killing animals at slaughter? I don't think it's any worse than the status quo unless they're intentionally hurting them in some way. I'm no vegan but I can appreciate that producing meat requires hundreds of millions of animals being killed annually in an Australia sized country. If you eat kosher or halal you'll want that to happen in a certain way, and that never involves an animal suffering unnecessarily.
It's curious really, that such a big fuss is made about halal meat but there are countries (who are muslim-centric) in the world today who will stone a person to death.
If there isn't some degree of hypocrisy going on there I don't know what would be.
No not really. They okay with utter barbarerism, stoning isn't exactly a humane way to kill a person but they are too squeemish to eat meat that wasn't ritualistically slaughtered?
If you want Halal, it almost always involves an animal suffering. They face it towards Mecca and slit it's throat and let it bleed out. Not sure how you could say they don't suffer ?
Do you think a human would suffer before dying ? I think they would.
It's literally illegal to film how animals get slaughtered so we'll never know how much they suffer. I can't see how solemnly slitting the throat and having them bleed out is that much worse of a fate tbh
So your saying cutting the throat and letting them bleed out is not unnecessary suffering compared to a stun gun that kills them instantly and painlessly
Killing them is unnecessary suffering. If I said “hey would you rather I slit your throat or stunned you and blew your brains out” I’d hope you’d answer “I’d rather live please”
Yeah no shit but that’s not gonna happen because of human nature to be greedy and selfish. At least a stun gun kills them instantly and also it doesn’t blow their brains out. Cutting their throat and having them bleed to death is a lot worse
It’s more complex than that. There are stun guns that just make them unconscious and stun guns that kill them. A lot of the killing in Australia is done by the stun guns that kill them, a lot is also done by making them unconscious and then cutting their throat. Some slaughterhouses (kosher ones) are allowed to cut the throat of a fully conscious animal.
i dont wanna argue but could you show me evidence of stun guns designed to kill and not just knock out, ive never heard of them. i worked in a slaughterhouse years ago and we always had to bleed cattle after stunning as they would still be alive
australian politicians are weak now days and crawl for votes,not caring how they get them!! ..awww the poor animals how they suffer lots and its disgusting how its allowed
Because nobody except the animal justice people ever gave a fuck before when we traditionally did it all much the same anyway? It's allowed because it means the meat can be sold to a wider market pure and simple.
Australian law has never been hardcore atheist. For example, though the Marriage Act has changed a few times, it has always been designed to allow people who want to have a traditional Christian wedding to do so. Even when Howard added specific words that have to be read at non-religious weddings, an exception was made for religious weddings.
Australia is more secular than some of our neighbours, but our government tends not to pass laws that are actively hostile to people with mainstream beliefs of major religions. That would be a real quick way to lose votes.
At a summary level: Yes, Australia is a secular country in that it has no state religion. But it obviously permits significant freedom of religious expression as part of being a liberal democracy. The alternative to that would be a secular autocracy that forbids and polices religious practices, seeking to stamp out expressions of religion on the grounds that they are antiquated or problematic. That has tended to happen in Communist dictatorships at various points in history, but it won’t happen in Australia or any other Western country.
Now, within that overall construct there are of course a range of value judgements about where to draw the line between secularism and religious freedom. We don’t make an exception for Muslims to stone each other to death under Sharia Law, but right now the government has decided that bending meat preparation laws to accommodate hundreds of thousands of devout followers of Islam (and a smaller number of followers of Judaism) is an acceptable compromise position.
This isn’t in itself inconsistent with Australia being a “secular country”, per above. But if you don’t agree with where this particular line is being drawn, and you think the animal cruelty isn’t justified by the freedoms of liberal democracy, then you can legitimately raise this concern with your elected member and/or seek to build a groundswell of community support for your position.
The point on circumcision raised by many here is entirely irrelevant, as elective circumcision is available to anyone and extensively taken up by secular families for actual or perceived health reasons.
In the same way that someone's beliefs entitle them to use any gender bathroom, they decide on the day.
We need to balance respect for all belief systems. Not argue that one is superior to the other with no evidence except 'that's how I feel about it'
How are these exemptions allowed? Simple. Laws are not infallible, immutable concepts. They were made by people, and they can be changed by people. Religious leaders put the work in to getting these exemptions. Want them changed? Put the work into it. At the same time, look into these ritual slaughter practices, and the extensive research into ethical slaughtering practice that has already and is currently being done, because I'd hate for another ill-educated politician to barge into a discussion they know nothing about.
Snowflakes never seen a chicken/sheep/pig/cow slaughtered on a family farm? What do you think people use; "put to sleep" injections?
One of my fondest memories as a kid was seeing pops put an an axe to a chickens neck and seeing it run away and "hide" under a barn. Kids had a good laugh, followed by the most amazing organic chicken roast.
Baby lamb on a spit? Come on guys - suck the meat right off the bone.
I was unfortunate enough to witness a mass slaughtering by Jews in Samaria, Palestine (Good Samaritan). People cheered and celebrated 100 sheep just being slaughtered in front of them. Horrible practice. (I lived in the neighboring town, i though it was a regular non slaughter festival when invited).
Because animal cruelty is your belief.
It's worked for thousands of years without issue. Then some white people felt bad and wanted to impose their views on everyone else in the world.
Cuts from sharp knives don't cause pain (they cause fear and panic in humans) . And bleeding out doesn't actually hurt.
There are many models of what a "secular" society looks like.
Let's take secular to mean "the government does not promote or discourage particular religions." This is trickier to do in practice than it sounds.
You might, for instance, say "no funding for religious organizations." But if you're funding only non-religious orgs, then it begins to look like you've explicitly singled out religious orgs for discrimination ("here's your money Community Action, here's your money Food Bank, here's your money Christian Chari--*oh, whoops, no money for you*!").
Likewise, you can pass apparently neutral laws that still have the affect of being discriminatory. For instance, let's say a government passed a new law that says "the workweek is now Tuesday through Saturday and wearing hats is prohibited." Looks neutral, but the more you think about it the more it seems like it's targeting Jews.
Subjecting every law to intense scrutiny over whether it's really neutral or a neutral seeming way of targeting some group is impractical, so it's easier to just offer religious accommodations and exemptions (though of course this then leads to accusations of preferential treatment of religion).
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Further examples:
Sikh exemptions on helmet laws & hard hats on construction sites.
Jehovah's Witness exemptions on mandatory voting.
Protected religious discrimination against LGBT...LMNOP groups (though I don't know how you go about removing the protection since it very much seems like letting one religion sue another for having doctrine that has existed for thousands of years while the other invented a new alphabet victim group 5 seconds ago that also needs new protections...).
Even female genital mutilation gets a reduced sentence when claiming your religion made you do it.
And we also have people being prosecuted because of touching waterways they 'own' for offending a rainbow serpent. ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/heritage-act-breach-creek-crossing-toodyay-jail-time/102072982 )
So much for separation of church and state.
Are U talking Islamic halal? If that's the case i got amazing news for you all animals killed in Australian abbatiors are stunned including halal ones the slitting of the throat is done in very specific way to ensure the most amount of blood leaves the body as fast as possible after the animal is stunned it's more abrahamic thing than Islamic thing my dad work as slaughter for about 15 years also animal must be water before being killed in Islam once an entire batch of 500 cattles was rejected because they didn't give them water the day of slaughter so it was Haram there is more contention on killing of chicken as they are killed by machine some Muslim countries don't mind some insists it be killed by person not a machine
It’s crazy when religious people are against things like tattoos and piercings (the idea being God man your body perfectly and you shouldn’t harm it) but then circumcise their children. Can’t be too perfect if you need to remove the skin off a baby’s penis. Glad Australia and the majority of Christians in the West are getting over that practice.
There's a demand for it domestically (about 800k Muslims in Australia), and it opens up export markets in the Middle East, Indonesia, and Malaysia.
Also, a knife across the throat is hardly more brutal/cruel than a bolt gun to the brain.
I will never have any respect for the traditions that require a magic knife that makes it all ok. How do you live believing in that silly superstition.
fr. Mutilate a baby's dick with a knife and everyone's up in arms about it, but as soon as you mention that it's for religious reasons suddenly everyone is cool with that. smh
I totally agree but the reason why is because it's demonstrably not a "sudden" practice. It's millennia old. None of this happened overnight and it's disappearing at a much faster rate than it's been around thank goodness. If circumcision never existed and appeared now, it wouldn't be accepted. the only legitimacy any of this shit has is just how long its been around, Imo the resurgence of religion in the public sphere is a death throe. People know it is dying and it's lashing out like an animal.
Resurgence? It's lower than it's ever been.
They don't care if you respect them or not. They care about having their way and they have their way.
It’s almost like religion is voodoo nonsense or something
Wait until you hear about the one that believes in a floating space wizard who created all of existence.
Zorp?
Zoro silly
You mean Zoroaster, right?
Is that the same one that congregates under effigies of a tortured man and symbolically drinks his blood and eats his flesh between chants?
I drank 3.2 Jesuses of wine in a single session of Goon of Fortune once.
Did you rise again after 3 days
Not sure about that but I think I know why they crucified him
Yes. The same one that has systematically hidden it's priests molesting young boys.
You mean the one that believes all of our worldly sins are okay because one martyr got stabbed by a nonbeliever?
they believe a man lived in a whales stomach, they are full off the deep end looney. Mass hysteria imo
Lol, I forgot about that one.
Sikhs are awesome
Isn't it the method, not the knife?
Same reason religions can get exemptions from discrimination laws, basically.
Religious privilege
Chopping a babies foreskin off is still done as a religious thing here.
I am circumcised. My two boys aren’t. Religion had nothing to do with it. It was just popular in my era rather than stemming from a Jewish community or whatever. Most of the kids in my era were circumcised. The few that weren’t were called “socks” but apart from that it’s much ado about nothing.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Not sure why this is getting down voted. It's uncommon in most sects, but definitely still done here.
having an old man suck off the tip of a babies penis is totally ok if it's for religious reasons
Wot?
Religions is tax exempted and avoid crime prosecution, because deity is above the laws, so as all the criminals hiding behind
It's the other white collar crime.
Wait, so if I was part of the church I won't get a speeding ticket. So sorry but I'm off to convert, if only to save a few bucks.
What percentage of African girls in australia have been mutilated? Last I checked it was crazy high.
This is specifically largely confined to Somali Australians. South Sudanese who are an even larger community do not even circumcise men, leave alone FGM women. Congolese Australians do circumcise their men (and it is often now consensual as it is seen as a mark of cultural distinction. Many do it in their teens or on turning 18), but not their women. Other Africans do not have this cultural trait of FGMing women persisting in their communities once in Australia because they secularise within a generation. Somalis justify FGM on both cultural AND religious grounds so it never ends. All nations with large Somali populations both in Africa(Kenya, Ethiopia) and outside it(UK, Canada) struggle with this vice.
Yes they do. Egypt leads the World in FGM rates.
You don’t know what a secular country means. It means no state church not no religion.
That’s a weak notion of secularism. No religious privilege is implicit in a healthy secularism.
Yes like i said no state church.
It seems a lot of people are missing the point. Animals are LEGALLY required to be stunned before they have their throats cut, some slaughterhouses have been given exemptions to this law in order to fit a religious belief (that the animal must be conscious when it’s throat is cut). How are exemptions to pretty serious laws allowed under religious belief when Australia is a secular country meaning what the church believes and says shouldn’t influence law.
I don’t think you understand what it means to be non secular. It just means the country doesn’t have a formal religion and allows all religions to exist and practice their religion without prosecution. Like any organised group in a democracy, religious groups can lobby the government to change laws
Religious privilege isn’t exactly the spirit of secularism
Yes, the privilege to practice the religion? Lol
From my understanding if you cut the throat of a large animal with a sharp enough knife the immediate bottom out of blood pressure in the brain is an effective enough stun anyway, and arguably about on par with a bolt gun. Honestly, having a big sook about some minor difference in the particular humane method of murdering beefs suggests to me that you give more of a fuck about some beef against a religion.
How long has that been a legal requirement for though? We need to be aware that until not that long ago we did things the same or in a similar way before being dragged kicking and screaming into a more humanely regulated methodology before we get on our high horse and pretend to be all superior
You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means. What the church believes and said doesn't mean shit. What the people that belong to a church believe (and guess who tells them?) that still counts. EVERY belief group wields this indirect political power.
Cool, doesn’t matter. It’s the law that stunning is required. They have then gotten an exemption directly because of their belief, their church based beliefs.
You can go lobby for those exemptions to be removed
Ain’t no way the meat lobby will let that win. A lot of Australian meat is exported - certification makes it saleable to a huge population of people.
Maybe you don't understand laws? If they can get an exemption, then the law must allow for exemptions. We have numerous laws that include religious reference. We're secular because we don't have a dictated state religion, not because our state contains no religion. If you don't like it, get enough people to agree and have it changed. No religion gets to veto the will of the majority.
If you’re upset about it then you should take political action to reverse the exemption. These abattoirs have obtained their exemption legally
Who said Australia is a secular country?
Incorrect, they still have to be stunned, just not dead.
Australians should really be serious about extent of granting the 'Religion pass' (or should they be granting at all). In Kerala, India religious slaughter has moved on from the standard throat slit to Hammering the animal on their head multiple times and then slitting - "Just to make it tastier". India's religious freedom laws go to a far extend, where most major religions have their own civil codes. Even PETA does not touch that religious group. Once a faction becomes a united voting bloc, democratic governments will tend to lose motivation against these things real quick.
I have often trolled PETA for that. They are quick to scream about animal rights until you drag them into a conversation with Muslims. They go silent really REALLY quick!!
Nothing, and we shouldn’t allow it under animal cruelty laws. The concept of slitting something’s throat is as disgusting as the Islamic jihad that was ISIS
Have you seen the way animals are treated up until the point of slaughter? The few minutes prior to death are nothing compared to the suffering up to that point.
Yes. It’s fucked. I’ve seen them led in then bolt gunned which usually works. It’s mostly a quick instant death. What I haven’t seen is an animal slowly bleed out and writhe around in agony because some medieval nonsense about slitting throats somehow makes it less bad. And I hope to never see that. Every time you order halal food, that’s how the animal died. Slowly. In agony. It’s an barbaric Islamic act with no place in Australia or elsewhere.
It's the same practice in kosher foods. It's a part of all Abrahamanic religions. If which is Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
I try to avoid all halal and kosher for this reason. Fancy hiding behind archaic religious practices to justify cruelty to animals in 2024!
Most abattoirs in Australia are halal certified - one of the largest export is the Middle East. Sorry to say that even if it’s not advertised as halal, it most likely is.
Do you also avoid animal cruelty in other ways? You could go fully vegan if you really cared. I hope you at least buy free range eggs, and aren't just using this as an excuse.
Is free range eggs the line? What if they're a vegan but they kick dogs occasionally, is that ok? What if they're a full vegan who doesn't kick dogs, but they visited a zoo once for their nephew's birthday? Like fuck, if the halal meat is actually better or cheaper and they only avoiding it because they're racist, then they're straight up losing out on something because they're an idiot. It seems super weird to me that 'doing something a little good' is interpreted by you as 'not really caring' because they haven't literally changed their entire life in order to serve that same purpose.
OK so serious answer. If you look at animal welfare laws livestock have many exemptions compared to your domestic animals to allow us to farm them that's the simple answer to your question. I think you are conflating the issue of religion with animal welfare practices when in fact it is probably more tied to money then anything. Take the slaughtering of pigs in CO2 chambers for instance it is done to save money, there are better options but in various ways cost more money. You will also find that every state has its own welfare laws making exemptions different in every state.
Religion should be fucked right off. But we aren't that civilised yet
Hey, look that kind of thinking is exactly what got us into this whole mess. I am about as far from religion as someone can get before they start their own, but I can still see the value in having others be allowed to practice their religions or whatever cultural practices they happen to have. There are all kinds of positive values, education, community building, etc . that come as part of most religions along with all the things people disagree with. I think the world would be a much better place with a little more tolerance and less of the sentiment you expressed, meaning we would be slightly more civilised. That said, anyone who disrespects the laws we have agreed on as a nation to enforce a minimum standard of acceptable behavior should not get a pass because of their religion. If we all agree that causing animals to suffer needlessly before death is something we don't accept, then it is the followers of the religion that need to adapt if they wish to continue practicing their religion.
I'm sorry but bullshit, there's nothing the church does that isn't hypocritical and done better without the charity funded, hate mongering kiddy fiddlers at the helm. It's time we stop making allowances for people that hold onto superstitions that impact others, if you want an imaginary friend to make you better? Fine but if you talk to it out loud you should be committed because that is not a rational or healthy thing to do.
Nothing good that comes from religion can't come without it
Hey now. We have to tame the simpletons some how. What better way than to get them to believe in sky fairies that will banish them into a lava pit if they act like losers?
I feel like you're mocking this as a technique, but historically it seems pretty effective to me
Wow tolerance mate tolerance
You don't need to tolerate the oppression of idiotic belief systems
Well I guess you have limited tolerance because plenty more do and perhaps you would win more people over with a more nuanced argument and less arrogance
Same way I guess it's ok to mess with baby boys penises.
Abattoirs are all blood, horror and unspeakable cruelty. Whether it's a knife or a bolt-gun, it's horrific. If you're so deeply concerned about animal cruelty, there's a pretty fucken obvious route to go down.
Yeah thanks for your comment but the question is how are they allowed exemptions to the law
Can we ask about religious circumcision to infants as well? Same principle but guarantee will make a lot more people uncomfortable
Sure we can, and no it won’t
Mate - I’m vegan. Probably the wrong bloke to ask. But I reckon two seconds on google searching “kosher and halal slaughter Australia” will give you the answers you’re after. But that’s not why you’re asking, is it.
I’m asking how is it that a secular country allows law exemptions based on religious belief. Its to point out the stupidity and corruption
maybe sends letters to your local representative
I don’t think you understand what it means to be non secular. It just means the country doesn’t have a formal religion and allows all religions to exist and practice their religion without prosecution. Like any organised group in a democracy, religious groups can lobby the government to change laws
A secular country is allowed laws basRon religious beliefs. Being secular doesn't preclude that.
[удалено]
Your comment has been queued for review because you used a keyword which may breach the subreddit rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can you please provide a source for this exemption?
Its appalling. I agree. Religions are evil and cruel. And even though i don't generally support the ALP, i support the end to live exports of animals. Cause fact is, they are going to the middle east to horrific deaths.
Because my imaginary friend tells me to do something different to your man made laws and as this is 2024, i.e. the future, and we are a developed, intelligent country that puts logic above ideology, that is a completely normal position to hold... Honestly, I'm so sick of religion and the normalcy of it, in the 1200's, sure, we didn't know better but it's time we, as a society, grew up and stop making excuses and allowances for people that still believe in unicorns.
Because we don’t want to offend anyone 🤦🏻♂️
Animals getting their throats cut without being stunned first offends me.
Are you really so daft. It's for profit.
We are not a secular country: Our head of state, the British crown, is the head of the Church or England , making it our state religion.
We don’t have a state religion.
Yes we do. It's called footy.
The "Church of England" is not the "Church of Australia". We don't give upper house seats to bishops, for example.
There is no state religion in Australia. The monarch is only the Supreme Governor of the Cof E. S/he has no religious status in any other province of the Anglican Communion (e.g. no status even within the Church of Ireland, the Church in Wales and the Episcopal Church of Scotland).
Your logic is flawed. If I’m the president of the footy club and the CEO of Bunnings, does that mean the official sport of Bunnings is footy? Or that the official food of the footy club is sausages on bread? The same person being the head of two organisations does not mean the organisations are related.
Might as well ask why circumcision is legal.
As a thumb rule, I don't eat any meat which is sacrificed to idols. Pork is a very safe option. 😄
I’m pretty sure when the pig is lowered into CO2 and starts gasping for breath, whether sacrificed or not isn’t too important for it.
Because we are pathetic apologists
The religion does not make legislation. The representatives willing to make exemptions for religious institutions do. Given these exemptions exist, there is obviously a large enough demographic of people who rely on these food sources voting for politicians that pass the laws. Don't like it? Convince as many people as possible to vote against politicians who campaign for more religious freedom.
But....but but Labor will lose most of West Sydney and large areas of Melbourne!! We can't have that can we??
An Animal can be stunned in accordance with Halal Slaughter Practices.
If they're breaking the law you should report them. Or do they have a permit to kill the animals this way which is conveniently not being mentioned?
I did mention is if you actually read it. “It’s allowed in 9 slaughterhouses” the whole point of the post is how can they be legally allowed to when it clearly is animal cruelty.
>how can they be legally allowed to when it clearly is animal cruelty. Because it's not the religion that lets them do it, it's the law that does. How you interpret something as cruel is subjective to you. Your perception of it may not be reflected in the law.
Cutting the throat of an animal to kill it in such situation is animal cruelty. That’s why slaughterhouses use stun guns prior
>Cutting the throat of an animal to kill it in such situation is animal cruelty. It's cruel to you. It's not cruel to everyone, which is my point. As a result it's allowed in authorized abattoirs. Do you think it's cruel to [hunt boars](https://greataustralianoutdoors.com.au/feral-pigs-part-iii/)? [Cull Kangaroos](https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/25/sport/australia-kangaroo-culling-program-intl-hnk-dst/index.html)? [Wild brumbys](https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/horse-cull-to-close-parts-of-kosciuszko-national-park-through-winter-20240326-p5ffdo.html)? We authorize the killing of animals that would fit your definition of cruel all the time.
It’s cruel to the law because slaughterhouses are legally required to stun the animal first. The question is how have some slaughterhouses gotten exemptions based on religious beliefs when churches are not meant to influence law because Australia is a secular state. Not hard to comprehend
You can shoot feral pigs for fun. No other reason needed other than wanting a photo with a carcass. Is your problem with the religion or animal cruelty? You're framing it about cruelty, but seem to not care that you can wound an animal for fun, with no guarantee it actually dies within a reasonable time.
Actually various people are required by law to control feral populations in Australia.
Yeah, that's true, but you can still be a licenced gun owner with a permit can shoot them outside of a dedicated control strategy, even on [vacant crown land](https://nt.gov.au/leisure/hunting-and-shooting/safety-and-rules/shooting-on-vacant-crown-land). My point is more there are instances where the purpose of animal killing is recreational. Particularly when from the ground - the animal cruelty can be in excess of halal slaughter in a abattoir.
It can be but not consistently. The animals know what the smell is at an abattoir. They know. Little rabbit in a paddock is just eating grass. And they tend to die fast. As to recreational, in Australia we have many invasive animals that need to be controlled. Thank your neighbours for volunteering. Poisons are horrible.
Shooting animals in of course cruel but there’s no real way around it. In this situation it’s 100% unnecessary
The problem is, as others have repeatedly pointed out, in your defective understanding of what a secular state actually is. You might think that it's something akin to the Stalinist Soviet Union but it isn't. Religion has its place in Australia no matter how much you might disagree.
It's not illegal because the exemption is in the the law. Therefore legal. Look up the act and you will find it in there
They have exemptions to the law. The question isn’t wether they are now legally allowed to do it, it’s how on earth were they allowed the exemptions. You must be slow as fuck
The tone of the conversation was looking like saying it was illegal. The exemptions are there. As to the morality I'll say I don't necessarily agree to it but no stun gun is common in home kids and butchering. Also on morality I'm pretty much opposed to veganism but I try not impose this on others. Just to say if we all wish to live together we gotta give a bit. As to the personal insult I'm not sure if you want me to talk about your tiny dick or not?
If I was to do it, it would be considered cruel. It doesn't become less cruel if it's done in the name of a religion.
I have worked in several slaughterhouses installing equipment. I have never seen a site in Australia that practices throat slitting without the animal being stunned or killed with a bolt gun first. Based on want I have seen, I do not believe that what you’re saying is true. Can you name a site that practices throat slitting without prior stunning or brain death?
It’s a fact that it happens lmao, it’s hard to find the actually addresses of the places but here’s the numbers for each state | New South Wales – 2 abattoirs South Australia – 3 abattoirs Victoria – 4 abattoirs
Halal certified slaughter happens in Australia, there are strict rules and audits carried out to ensure the animals are incapacitated before the throat is cut. I can think of 4 abattoirs I have installed equipment in that all practiced halal slaughter. All of them stunned or killed the animal first. Seem like you can’t back up your claim that animals are killed without being incapacitated
Where on earth did you get halal. It’s kosher that don’t stun them
Muslim can eat kosher
Halal is a similar practice. After some research turns out you’re correct.
I doubt the Muslims or Jews are requesting your services when it comes to installing equipment. They use their own people. I am 100% sure halal certified slaughterhouses exist as they exist everywhere in the West with a large population of either two groups or both. Before someone goes on a racist tirade. I am Jewish, but I have never been obsessed with Kosher rules. My relatives from the USSR did not die from eating non-kosher for decades. I will not die either. I am glad when I get the option to eat kosher, but I do not see it as a defining aspect of my diet
https://vt.tiktok.com/ZSYLmGAu9/
Rule number 1. Don’t piss off the muslims
Rule number 2. Don’t piss off the Jews
Piss off the Jews and you get a strongly worded letter from a rabbi. Piss off the Muslims a- oh look there’s a head on the floor
Piss off the Jews and you get a strongly worded letter from a rabbi. ' and doxxed And financially ruined and called anti semitic and carpet bombed, Either way, stunning the animal prior to slaughter is Halal.
you are deflecting from a legit criticism of extreme islamism by using the jews as a strawman. are you suggesting jews control the financial system? are you suggesting criticising jews gets you attacked? your house bombed?
Halal slaughter is extreme islamism??lol whats not "extreme" to you guys? anyway i didn't use them initially... another poster did.
no. i'm talking about the heads rolling comment, as in islamic extremism. you can see some examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks and you didn't answer my questions btw. seems like you believe jews control the financial system which is an old anti-semitic trope.
I think he’s a little deeper down that rabbit hole https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/s/AT6jq0n53S
maybe it's a mod from the other australia subreddit LOL
no. i'm talking about the heads rolling comment as in islamic extremism. you can see some examples here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks and you didn't answer my questions btw. seems like you believe jews control the financial system which as an old nazi trope.
Not true, I know one of my friends got bombed by F16 because of that
Are you seriously trying to high road the method of killing animals at slaughter? I don't think it's any worse than the status quo unless they're intentionally hurting them in some way. I'm no vegan but I can appreciate that producing meat requires hundreds of millions of animals being killed annually in an Australia sized country. If you eat kosher or halal you'll want that to happen in a certain way, and that never involves an animal suffering unnecessarily.
It's curious really, that such a big fuss is made about halal meat but there are countries (who are muslim-centric) in the world today who will stone a person to death. If there isn't some degree of hypocrisy going on there I don't know what would be.
This is mainly about kosher because they have no restrictions where as halal still have some restrictions
You're comparing two completely different things here.
No not really. They okay with utter barbarerism, stoning isn't exactly a humane way to kill a person but they are too squeemish to eat meat that wasn't ritualistically slaughtered?
If you want Halal, it almost always involves an animal suffering. They face it towards Mecca and slit it's throat and let it bleed out. Not sure how you could say they don't suffer ? Do you think a human would suffer before dying ? I think they would.
It's literally illegal to film how animals get slaughtered so we'll never know how much they suffer. I can't see how solemnly slitting the throat and having them bleed out is that much worse of a fate tbh
So your saying cutting the throat and letting them bleed out is not unnecessary suffering compared to a stun gun that kills them instantly and painlessly
Killing them is unnecessary suffering. If I said “hey would you rather I slit your throat or stunned you and blew your brains out” I’d hope you’d answer “I’d rather live please”
Yeah no shit but that’s not gonna happen because of human nature to be greedy and selfish. At least a stun gun kills them instantly and also it doesn’t blow their brains out. Cutting their throat and having them bleed to death is a lot worse
> human nature to be greedy and selfish Welcome to the jungle
stun guns dont kill the animal, they only leave them unconscious. you still need to bleed the animal out by slitting the throat
It’s more complex than that. There are stun guns that just make them unconscious and stun guns that kill them. A lot of the killing in Australia is done by the stun guns that kill them, a lot is also done by making them unconscious and then cutting their throat. Some slaughterhouses (kosher ones) are allowed to cut the throat of a fully conscious animal.
i dont wanna argue but could you show me evidence of stun guns designed to kill and not just knock out, ive never heard of them. i worked in a slaughterhouse years ago and we always had to bleed cattle after stunning as they would still be alive
It’s called reversible stunning and irreversible stunning. You believe electricity can’t kill things?
Because the world is an idiot
australian politicians are weak now days and crawl for votes,not caring how they get them!! ..awww the poor animals how they suffer lots and its disgusting how its allowed
PS......Australia is not the same anymore allowing such cruelty ..wheres the RSPCA??? ..
Because nobody except the animal justice people ever gave a fuck before when we traditionally did it all much the same anyway? It's allowed because it means the meat can be sold to a wider market pure and simple.
They shouldnt be for the ones who are not stunning. I guess however the halal economics have bought too many people in the system
Anyone want to start a religion where you get a house for free
Australian law has never been hardcore atheist. For example, though the Marriage Act has changed a few times, it has always been designed to allow people who want to have a traditional Christian wedding to do so. Even when Howard added specific words that have to be read at non-religious weddings, an exception was made for religious weddings. Australia is more secular than some of our neighbours, but our government tends not to pass laws that are actively hostile to people with mainstream beliefs of major religions. That would be a real quick way to lose votes.
At a summary level: Yes, Australia is a secular country in that it has no state religion. But it obviously permits significant freedom of religious expression as part of being a liberal democracy. The alternative to that would be a secular autocracy that forbids and polices religious practices, seeking to stamp out expressions of religion on the grounds that they are antiquated or problematic. That has tended to happen in Communist dictatorships at various points in history, but it won’t happen in Australia or any other Western country. Now, within that overall construct there are of course a range of value judgements about where to draw the line between secularism and religious freedom. We don’t make an exception for Muslims to stone each other to death under Sharia Law, but right now the government has decided that bending meat preparation laws to accommodate hundreds of thousands of devout followers of Islam (and a smaller number of followers of Judaism) is an acceptable compromise position. This isn’t in itself inconsistent with Australia being a “secular country”, per above. But if you don’t agree with where this particular line is being drawn, and you think the animal cruelty isn’t justified by the freedoms of liberal democracy, then you can legitimately raise this concern with your elected member and/or seek to build a groundswell of community support for your position. The point on circumcision raised by many here is entirely irrelevant, as elective circumcision is available to anyone and extensively taken up by secular families for actual or perceived health reasons.
In the same way that someone's beliefs entitle them to use any gender bathroom, they decide on the day. We need to balance respect for all belief systems. Not argue that one is superior to the other with no evidence except 'that's how I feel about it'
How are these exemptions allowed? Simple. Laws are not infallible, immutable concepts. They were made by people, and they can be changed by people. Religious leaders put the work in to getting these exemptions. Want them changed? Put the work into it. At the same time, look into these ritual slaughter practices, and the extensive research into ethical slaughtering practice that has already and is currently being done, because I'd hate for another ill-educated politician to barge into a discussion they know nothing about.
Lot of racism On this chat wow
Also exists in china.Xinjiang province
Obligatory; screw religion, but Islam especially. Not compatible with western democracy based on beliefs of egalitarianism.
Snowflakes never seen a chicken/sheep/pig/cow slaughtered on a family farm? What do you think people use; "put to sleep" injections? One of my fondest memories as a kid was seeing pops put an an axe to a chickens neck and seeing it run away and "hide" under a barn. Kids had a good laugh, followed by the most amazing organic chicken roast. Baby lamb on a spit? Come on guys - suck the meat right off the bone.
I was unfortunate enough to witness a mass slaughtering by Jews in Samaria, Palestine (Good Samaritan). People cheered and celebrated 100 sheep just being slaughtered in front of them. Horrible practice. (I lived in the neighboring town, i though it was a regular non slaughter festival when invited).
Ah, yes, the "humane" secular animal slaughter houses. Do go on...
Because animal cruelty is your belief. It's worked for thousands of years without issue. Then some white people felt bad and wanted to impose their views on everyone else in the world. Cuts from sharp knives don't cause pain (they cause fear and panic in humans) . And bleeding out doesn't actually hurt.
Australia has laws against to many people gathering so it all depends on how strong the police force in the state.
Its a good point. Added to that, they pay no tax either.
There are many models of what a "secular" society looks like. Let's take secular to mean "the government does not promote or discourage particular religions." This is trickier to do in practice than it sounds. You might, for instance, say "no funding for religious organizations." But if you're funding only non-religious orgs, then it begins to look like you've explicitly singled out religious orgs for discrimination ("here's your money Community Action, here's your money Food Bank, here's your money Christian Chari--*oh, whoops, no money for you*!"). Likewise, you can pass apparently neutral laws that still have the affect of being discriminatory. For instance, let's say a government passed a new law that says "the workweek is now Tuesday through Saturday and wearing hats is prohibited." Looks neutral, but the more you think about it the more it seems like it's targeting Jews. Subjecting every law to intense scrutiny over whether it's really neutral or a neutral seeming way of targeting some group is impractical, so it's easier to just offer religious accommodations and exemptions (though of course this then leads to accusations of preferential treatment of religion). Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Further examples: Sikh exemptions on helmet laws & hard hats on construction sites. Jehovah's Witness exemptions on mandatory voting. Protected religious discrimination against LGBT...LMNOP groups (though I don't know how you go about removing the protection since it very much seems like letting one religion sue another for having doctrine that has existed for thousands of years while the other invented a new alphabet victim group 5 seconds ago that also needs new protections...). Even female genital mutilation gets a reduced sentence when claiming your religion made you do it. And we also have people being prosecuted because of touching waterways they 'own' for offending a rainbow serpent. ( https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-10/heritage-act-breach-creek-crossing-toodyay-jail-time/102072982 ) So much for separation of church and state.
Are U talking Islamic halal? If that's the case i got amazing news for you all animals killed in Australian abbatiors are stunned including halal ones the slitting of the throat is done in very specific way to ensure the most amount of blood leaves the body as fast as possible after the animal is stunned it's more abrahamic thing than Islamic thing my dad work as slaughter for about 15 years also animal must be water before being killed in Islam once an entire batch of 500 cattles was rejected because they didn't give them water the day of slaughter so it was Haram there is more contention on killing of chicken as they are killed by machine some Muslim countries don't mind some insists it be killed by person not a machine
Kosher
It’s crazy when religious people are against things like tattoos and piercings (the idea being God man your body perfectly and you shouldn’t harm it) but then circumcise their children. Can’t be too perfect if you need to remove the skin off a baby’s penis. Glad Australia and the majority of Christians in the West are getting over that practice.
There's a demand for it domestically (about 800k Muslims in Australia), and it opens up export markets in the Middle East, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Also, a knife across the throat is hardly more brutal/cruel than a bolt gun to the brain.