If they are slaughtering animals for food and doing it in a compassionate way, why would it be outlawed?

Is "stunning" really that big a deal if you are killing the animal really quickly?

Or is this just an attempt to stop a religious practice?

Yes, stunning is a big deal. This, from the RSPCA - http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=document&assetId=1232719611043&mode=prd - has has copying text from it disabled, but it says "we are persuaded that such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes" - which can be up to 40 seconds for adult cattle, or, if things go wrong (occlusion of the carotid arteries), up to 2 minutes. Another study, in New Zealand in 2009, also showed pain was felt by the animal for up to 2 minutes if not pre-stunned.

We torture most of our beef for weeks or month or even their entire lives before we slaughter them, so I am not sure why we would quibble over the last seconds of it's life.

Do we stun chickens? pigs? deer that are shot by hunters? So you stun those pigeons are are so believed in parts of the UK?

Are you 100% sure that this is just about "animal cruelty" and has nothing to do with religious intolerance?

Seems that you are poisoning the well otherwise.

It also allows chickens to be gassed instead.

http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/slaughter/regulation_1099_2009_en.pdf
Halal slaughterers in the UK are complaining that new stunning regulations may kill the birds.

towards Muslims and Jews?

What is so interesting about this is that Denmark has decided to pass a law for no apparent reason, as the practice is non-existent in Denmark.

Doesn't that seem to be just a little provocative just for the sake of provocation?

You are prejudiced against Danes, it seems to me, if you automatically think badly of them when you see something to do with them and religion (ie you are pre-judging them). I think they have a pretty damn fine attitude to Jews. I don't think Islam in Denmark has particular problems; the cartoons controversy was started by an independent newspaper, but it really was a childish rant by some Muslim clerics, who used it to stir up hatred (eg adding in false cartoons before showing them abroad).

Denmark has decided to end a religious exception to a general law. Just because there isn't someone taking advantage of the exception at the moment, that doesn't mean they won't try to at some future date. I don't think religions should get special treatment to cause extra suffering to animals. And I don't think that removing an exception is 'anti-semitism' or anti-Muslim. Would you call the existing regulations that a Christian or secular slaughterhouse has to follow 'anti-Christian' or 'anti-secular'?

The Scandinavian countries are really struggling with immigration, and I know that you are aware of that.

And my supposed prejudice towards Danes can not hold a candle to your overt prejudices towards the religious, Muriel. Not even close.

I'm going to go with the bulk of reports I am reading on this and see it as a mixed issue for now. I think there is probably a healthy (or unhealthy) mixture of animal protection and religious motivation going on.

The Jewish and Muslim communities have quite a different take on this than you, which should come as no surprise.

but I don't think "God tells us to do it this way" is sufficient justification for it. What, if anything, is the religion of Dan Jørgensen, that you see a religious motivation behind his action?

You are not a believer. Why should your lack of belief be imposed on those who see things differently? Is that any more justified than someone imposing their beliefs on you?

Have you been to a feed lot or slaughterhouse? The argument that we should spare these unfortunate animals during the last seconds of their lives after torturing them for years seems a ironic.

Dan Jorgensen is a politician and, like all politicians, probably has many motives for anything he does. Many of them are most likely not driven by his personal beliefs, whatever they are.

for the sake of tradition, it seems. I'm not 'imposing lack of belief' by thinking that modern thinking about animal suffering should apply to everyone, rather than just those who have outgrown 2,500 year old ideas. You'll find a lot of Christians who'd agree with the regulations, and they can't be 'imposing lack of belief'. Since you bring up the argument, I'll remind you who else is claiming that religious beliefs require exemptions from general laws:

who want to discriminate against homosexuals and sexually active women. Those are rather long-held religious traditions, after all.

rises to the level that would necessitate prohibition.

It was developed as a way of killing the animals rapidly and has greater meaning than just that for the enormous number of being who keep kosher.

Obviously there is debate on that point. Many in the religious community believe that it is an act of intolerance towards those of a certain religion.

The Danish People's Party is promoting a platform is calling for a ban on further Muslim immigration, for stopping all Muslims at the border and has proclaimed that there are already too many In Denmark.

There are similar issues going on in other European countries, including the UK, where the degree of hatred, intolerance and even violence is appalling is some areas.

Any new rules that specifically effect Muslims have to be considered in this context. To just deny that religion plays no role at all makes no sense.

How you twist that into prejudice escapes me.

Discrimination against individuals because of who they are is not the same as discriminating against groups because of things that do that harm no other people. The GLBT comparisons are straw men.

that require them to obey ethical rules that other business owners have to obey; you say that Jewish and Islamic slaughterers should be exempt from laws that require them to obey ethical rules that other slaughterers have to obey. Some slaughterers, and their religious customers, want to be able to cause extra suffering to animals, because that's their religious tradition; some US business owners want to discriminate against their customers or employees, because that's their religious tradition.

Now do you see why you are like Hobby Lobby and the Kansas GOP?

If no one is currently affected by this change of law, then it's the ideal time to make the change - it doesn't make a change to anyone now, but prevents an ethical problem in the future, if someone wants to regress to the old method.

Here's why I'm saying you're prejudiced against Danes: you are thinking about what a far right party wants, and projecting it onto a left wing politician, and claiming "to just deny that religion plays no role at all makes no sense". You can look up his record in the European parliament; plenty about the environment, and animal welfare, but nothing about religion, or immigration.

They say that they should be allowed to discriminate against individuals based solely on who those people are because it conflicts with their religious beliefs. That is clearly unconstitutional.

In this case the law is saying that a group has no right to practice their religion even though it discriminates against no one.

Only if you make cows, pigs and chickens equal to humans would you have a case.

I am nothing like Hobby Lobby and the Kansas GOP, muriel. It always surprises me when you stoop to this level.

I'm not prejudiced against Danes. I am aware that there are racial/ethnic/religious tensions in Denmark that may effect policy. Are you taking the position that that is not the case? Are you also blind to it in your own country?

"In this case the law is saying that a group has no right to practice their religion even though it discriminates against no one. "

But it would cause suffering to the livestock. You may not care about that, but most Europeans do.

You think it's OK for people to be allowed to ignore laws about ethics because of their personal religion; so does the GOP. No, I'm not blind to religious tensions in my country, but you don't seem to be able to see how the religious tensions in yours are like those in Denmark - certain groups want religion to be an excuse for bad ethical behaviour. I think that the minister has a track record of concern with animal welfare, is left wing, and has no record of being anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim. I think your continued insistence that he's doing this to attack religions is prejudiced. You're not looking at the evidence, but at an image of Danes you hold in your head.

If most Europeans cared about the suffering of livestock, they would become vegetarians, or at least outlaw foie gras.

Different people have different levels of tolerance and acceptance for what we do and don't do with animals. It is possible to set a reasonable limit without impinging on the religious rights of others in most cases, and I think this is probably one of those.

Should we go to the extremes that PETA suggests or is their some middle ground? Who draws the line when it comes to ethics and animals? I have seen very little to suggest that this gets anywhere near cruelty.

FWIW, foie gras is one of my favorite foods in the world and I am pissed that they outlawed it in California. It has nothing to do with religion, I just think I have the right to eat it.

I have not shown continued insistence and at no point said that people should be allowed to ignore laws, that's just what you want to see. I have said that I think there are several things at play and to rule out any religious role is more a sign of prejudice than to consider it.

And to conclude from that that I have some kind of prejudice against the danes is ridiculous. This is a problem going on all over the world and particularly where Muslims are immigrating into formerly very homogenous populations.

You want that exemption to continue. You want them to be allowed to ignore the general law. And since you wanted to put that as me 'imposing my lack of belief', I think it's necessary to point out to you that you are taking the same stance as Hobby Lobby and Republicans. In that case, you are happy to "impose your lack of belief", as you see it, on religious people. You are using a double standard.

There's no good reason for why some practitioners of this pair of religions think that they must slaughter animals in this way; it's just the way they've done it for over a thousand years. It's a conservative, backward tradition that privileges the ideas of long-dead men over the suffering of animals. But if you realise that's what you're advocating, perhaps you'll reflect on it, and change your mind.

Yes, unless I see compelling evidence that there is in fact cruelty going on here, I would support continuing the exemption.

I am not taking the same stance as Hobby Lobby and Republicans and I will ask you once more to stop with that kind of lame and low attack. You see the issues of denying rights to humans as equal to some kind of animal rights issue. I don't.

You seem to lose all perspective when it comes to religion.

What about foie gras? Do you like it? Do you eat it?

And fish? Do you support stunning them before they are killed as well? Or do you draw the line at birds?

And think of the poor aphids which die on a daily basis so that we might enjoy tomatoes?

Or is it only really when it comes to there being a religious exemption? I think that is, in fact, the case where you are concerned.

Which would completely contradict your original statement that religion has nothing to do with this. When you say this:

Your wish for religious exemptions to ethical laws is just like Hobby Lobby and Republicans. Live with it. Animal rights and human rights have similarities - I have never claimed they are 'equal'. When it's a question of a superstition versus animal suffering, I see clearly where the ethical decision should lie.

I had foie gras for the first time in my life this Christmas. I'll be happy if I never have it again.

The only times I've killed fish, I've done so by stunning them. I do have less concern for the way they die than chickens, but I don't see that we need to cause them unnecessary suffering. In the case of farm animals, we have methods that minimise the suffering, and I don't think that superstition is a valid reason for some ignoring that. We wouldn't give someone a philosophical exemption to laws about animal welfare.

You have asked or stated:

"Or is this just an attempt to stop a religious practice?"
"Are you 100% sure that this is just about "animal cruelty" and has nothing to do with religious intolerance? "
"Because Denmark has such a great track record when it comes to their attitudes towards Muslims and Jews? "
"What is so interesting about this is that Denmark has decided to pass a law for no apparent reason"
"I'm going to go with the bulk of reports I am reading on this and see it as a mixed issue for now. I think there is probably a healthy (or unhealthy) mixture of animal protection and religious motivation going on. "
" Why should your lack of belief be imposed on those who see things differently?"
"To just deny that religion plays no role at all makes no sense. "
"In this case the law is saying that a group has no right to practice their religion even though it discriminates against no one. "
" I have said that I think there are several things at play and to rule out any religious role is more a sign of prejudice than to consider it. "

Consistently, you have denied that there are ethical considerations about how animals are treated, and you have ignored the evidence of why the religious exemption has been removed, and the politics of the minister, and instead made accusations of religious intolerance, based on your stereotype of a Dane. This is why I can say you are prejudiced. It has shone through in every post you've made. I urge you to confront it. You want religions to get special treatment. I want equality before the law. You are the one who wants religion to be pre-eminent.

You have drawn your ethical lines when it comes to animal rights and that's good for you.

I only wish that you could allow others to do the same.

You have also completely turned into a pretzel in order to distort what I have actually said.

But as long as it suits your narrative, I won't expect anything else.

See you next time.

You quite clearly and repeatedly made generalizations about the Danes and their alleged religious intolerance, and argued for the same type of special exemption from a secular law for religious beliefs that Republicans and Hobby Lobby request for their issues.

And when confronted clearly with the prejudices and inconsistencies in your viewpoint, instead of trying to clarify or defend it, you respond with personal attacks against muriel.

Very sad.

"discrimination against individuals because of who they are." That's kind of the whole point here. Haven't you heard the whole "being gay is a choice" nonsense that the bigots spout? They don't accept homosexuality as a normal condition. In fact, it's their religious belief that it is NOT. What a pickle that puts you in. Yikes. The only straw around here I see is what you're grasping at.

From someone who routinely upbraids anyone who comes close to doing what you did. But at least you are firm in your certainty that there's just GOT to be religious intolerance going on. You know those Danes...

President of Danish Jewish community rejects announcement by the Agriculture Minister that new regulations would completely ban shechitah in the country.
By JTA
Feb. 13, 2014 | 8:44 PM

... Danish Jews already agreed in 1998 to the certification as kosher of meat from cattle that were stunned with non-penetrative captive bolt pistols, Schwarz said, adding that the decision was made in consultation with the British Chief Rabbi’s office. The new regulation will not ban the slaughter of animals after stunning with non-penetrative captive bolts, he said.

Jewish Orthodox law and Muslim law require animals be intact and conscious when they are killed. Non-penetrative captive bolts were permitted because they do not wound the animal, which is slaughtered immediately after being knocked on the head ...

http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.574192

Killing animals in that way is just cruel.

That logic leads to dangerous places, imo.

Its a religious privilege that could excuse a variety of heinous acts. I also don't feel these laws could be said to infringe on religious beliefs as the government has a compelling secular reason to pass the law and both groups have the option to not eat meat.

Though, it is my understanding that pithing, rather than stunning, remains the most painless way to kill an animal. Of course, my experience here on DU shows that those not familiar with this exercise tend to find it abhorrent due to its description.