« Haredi Cult Children Returned To Cult After Parent’s Arrests | Main | Large-Scale Anti-Christian Price Tag Attack In Northen Israel »

April 03, 2014

Denmark Lacks Authority To Ban Ritual Slaughter Because It Legalizes Sex With Animals, Rabbis Say

Gene Wilder and Daisy the Sheep in Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted To Know About SexHaredi rabbis are attacking Denmark for its ban on un-stunned halal and kosher slaughter because the country allows both hunting and bestiality.

Gene Wilder and Daisy the Sheep in Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex

Gene Wilder and Daisy the Sheep in Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex

Denmark Lacks Authority To Ban Ritual Slaughter Because It Legalizes Sex With Animals, Rabbis Say
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

Haredi rabbis are attacking Denmark for its ban on un-stunned halal and kosher slaughter because the country allows both hunting and bestiality, the Jerusalem Post reported.

Denmark banned banned all un-stunned slaughter, effectively banning all shechita (Jewish ritual slaughter) and some halal slaughter (muslim ritual slaughter) for animal welfare reasons.

Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the head of the Conference of European Rabbis, called Denmark’s stance on beastiality “another example which clearly shows that the issue at hand is not the rights of animals but a society set to limit the religious freedom of minority religions at it's midst,” adding that Denmark can no longer lay claim to its past legacy of “tolerance and acceptance towards religious minorities.” Goldschmidt’s great-grandfather once served as chief rabbi of Denmark.

Denmark is one of several European countries in which sexual intercourse with animals is permitted by law.

There has been no commercial shechita of red meat in Denmark in at least a decade, so the ban is essentially meaningless. And importation of kosher and halal meat is still legal.

Rabbi Menachem Margolin, president of the Chabad front organization the Rabbinical Center of Europe, said allowing sex with animals who cannot consent while disallowing ancient religious traditions makes the proponents of the ritual slaughter ban hypocrites and probable anti-Semites.

Rabbi Yitzchock Loewenthal of Chabad of Denmark called the ban “populist” because hunting and beastiality are still allowed.

Even moderate Orthodox rabbis attacked the ban.

Modern Orthodox Rabbi Marc Schneier of the New-York based Foundation for Ethnic Understanding called the ban “pathetic” and added that a country which “legalizes animal brothels” and that does not have “humane factory farming standards” does not have the moral authority to ban shechita. “This ban is nothing more than a political stunt to appease a growing far right faction in Denmark,” Schneier said.

Moderate haredi Rabbi Member of Knesset Dov Lipman also attacked the ban.

“Denmark was one of the countries that pressured Israel not to move forward on even more stringent legislation regarding sale of furs in our country. How can one lobby for the production and sale of fur and claim to be protecting animals with anti-shechita legislation? It is purely about religious practice,” Lipman said.

The Danish Agriculture Ministry did not respond to the Post’s request for comment.

The unasked and unanswered question, however, is when a person or society is doing several incorrect things, which of those things should be stopped first? What if it is impossible to stop all of them immediately? Should none then be stopped?

The reality is that most people who hunt do so both as a sport and as a source of food.

Some animals killed for their fur are also eaten, some are not.

And while beastiality is legal, it is not widely practiced.

Arguably, far more animals are inhumanely slaughtered on any given day than are raped in any given year or even any given decade.

One could make the argument that adopting humane farming standards would stop the largest amount of animal suffering.

Following that would be adopting humane slaughter standards, including a ban on un-stunned ritual slaughter.

But the rabbis who object to Denmark’s un-stunned ritual slaughter ban would object to it just as strenuously even if Denmark had a humane farming standard and banned sport hunting, fur trapping and beastiality – an indisputable fact they nonetheless try to hide.

For hundreds of years, sexual acts with animals were illegal almost everywhere under various sodomy laws and "crime against nature" laws.

But since the 1950s, most jurisdictions have repealed sodomy laws. Some have passed new laws to outlaw beastiality; others have not.

As of 2012 bestiality is specifically illegal in only 37 out of 50 U.S. states, and most of those state anti-bestiality laws were only enacted between 1999 and 2012.

However, prosecutors can and do charge people who have sex with animals under other laws – for example, animal cruelty laws.


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As long as the sheep consents.....

I suppose that makes a Dane with a sheep under one arm and a goat under the other a bigamist.

Denmark is a crazy country! These are the same folks who killed perfectly healthy giraffes that were just 2 years old. I think they followed that by killing lion cubs. Wouldn't even want to visit that place. Of course, I think animals should be stunned before slaughter....I don't understand how that makes an animal unkosher.

After the Danes killed the giraffes in front of zoo visitors they fed them to the lions.... There were numerous other zoos around the world that would have been happy to take the giraffes. Idiots.

The great Danes are right like Germany was in the early 30's. They also prohibited the cruel practice of Jewish ritual shechita. Only the spilling of dirty jewish blood..cleansing the world of these filthy jews..that is not cruel.

I never knew that Denmark allowed bestiality. It is amazing what you can learn on this web site.

Sex with children is ok with the frumma.

Nobody in Denmark recommends beastiality. They just don't get all worked up about it like the frumma do.

This is a completely illogical and incoherent article.

the Rabbis accused Denmark of hypocrisy for banning shechita but not hunting and bestiality.

The author essentially asserts 2 defenses for Denmark:

1. Shechita is a bigger issue then bestiality because shechita happens more. Therefore in order of importance its ok to ban shechita first.The problem is that it doesnt happen more in Denmark. As the author points out there is no shechita in Denmark so bestiality should be a higher priority.

2. Hunting and killing for fur are often for food...... and shechita is for???

Banning shechita when it isnt even happening while ignoring bestiality and hunting which is happening (at whatever level) is the hypocrisy asserted by the rabbis.

the author then tries to confuse you with facts about the USA which are irrelevant to the discussion.


Read the article again, slowly.

The Danes banned "un-stunned slaughter" – shechita AND halal. Halal slaughter was regularly done in Denmark up to the point of the ban. Now only those Muslim slaughter operations that have agreed to pre-stun are open.

Now learn to carefully read before you criticize.

the points remain the same.
the issue is the hypocrisy. if youd like i can slightly amend it.

1. Denmark is the leading mink-producing country, accounting for approximately 28% of world production. Yet ritual slaughter is a higher priority?
2. remains the same.

they make a sorta fair argument, excepthat...
1. apparently denmark is for making animalove not war.
2. do they wish to imply that shechita can be banned in countries that outlaw bestiality and hunting?

28% of world production of mink. Quite a number. But surely they stun the critters before they skin them. Also it is not done in the name of religion even though 28% of the fur wearers are jewish.

joshua, mink slaughter is almost certainly faster and more humane than shechita.

In Elizabethan slang "to die" meant "to achieve orgasm." Just sayin'...

Killing for food is not comparable to killing for mink. Once again the issue is the hypocrisy not your hatred of shechita. The largest creator of mink in the world comes of hypocritical meddling into religous slaughter.

oshua98--Why would they ban shechita when it is nt happening there beastiality is not torturing an animal and almost never happenes

Sounds like another dumb Haredi fantasy.

Anun and janci,
Why don't you do a little research on mink farming and the treatment of animals in fur farms in europe, then make an informed comment

Joshua - People who wish to avoid having sex with animals or wearing fur have no difficulty in doing so.

It is impossible to avoid eating meat from animals killed by shechita since most such meat is deliberately introduced into the general market without being labeled. Of course the shechita industry would fight against such labelling because it would cause the contraction of the shechita industry.

It would be only be hypocritical for Denmark to ban shechita if they were in the habit of tricking visiting American rabbis into having sex with animals and then billing them for it!

Apparently Denmark is the happiest country in the world.


"Modern Orthodox Rabbi Marc Schneier of the New-York based Foundation for Ethnic Understanding called the ban “pathetic” and added that a country which “legalizes animal brothels"

From the looks of Gitty, Marc may have picked her up in an animal brothel

joshua--You are trying to fool people by comparing shechite to mink farming you think others are dummies the minks are stuned they dont feel any pain i am not saying no shechita iam saying minimize the animal suffering by stunning it first nothing wrong with that,the stubberness of rabbis makes it much worst for us all if you are in rome do as the romans do,in israel you can do whatever you desire.

After seeing how the Copenhagen Zoo slaughtered that beautiful young giraffe and butchered it in front of dozens of dazed school children, Denmark has ZERO right to lecture the Jews about kosher animal slaughter.

Anyone who thinks differently should go to You Tube and watch that disgusting display themselves.

The giraffe was publicly butchered but slaughtered in private after stunning

The Danes don't care about animal welfare. If they did they would outlaw bestiality and hunting. How can one say that shechita is cruel and hunting is not? This law is not about animal welfare, it is about xenophobia and Islamophobia.


Fur factory farms do not stun the animals. They employ methods which do not damage the pelts. Here's what PETA says about fur slaughter methods:

"No federal humane slaughter law protects animals in fur factory farms, and killing methods are gruesome. Because fur farmers care only about preserving the quality of the fur, they use slaughter methods that keep the pelts intact but that can result in extreme suffering for the animals. Small animals may be crammed into boxes and poisoned with hot, unfiltered engine exhaust from a truck. Engine exhaust is not always lethal, and some animals wake up while they are being skinned. Larger animals have clamps attached to or rods forced into their mouths and rods are forced into their anuses, and they are painfully electrocuted. Other animals are poisoned with strychnine, which suffocates them by paralyzing their muscles with painful, rigid cramps. Gassing, decompression chambers, and neck-breaking are other common slaughter methods on fur factory farms.

The fur industry refuses to condemn even blatantly cruel killing methods such as electrocution. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, electrocution causes “death by cardiac fibrillation, which causes cerebral hypoxia,” but warns that “animals do not lose consciousness for 10 to 30 seconds or more after onset of cardiac fibrillation.” In other words, the animals are forced to suffer from a heart attack while they are still conscious.(9)

Read more: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/animals-used-clothing-factsheets/inside-fur-industry-factory-farms/#ixzz2xvs69VTP"

If you don't trust PETA, it is far from the only source reporting on fur farm conditions. A number of countries including the UK and Austria have banned fur farming. Wild animals are trapped for their fur, and clearly suffer many hours before they are put out of their misery. Nothing human whatsoever about the fur trade, not that the streimel wearers care. There was a bill in the Knesset to ban all fur trade in Israel, but I do not know the current status of that bill. Needless to say, there had to be a carve-out for the streimel wearers.

And the Danish zoo that killed Marius the giraffe and fed him to the lions in front of school children has since killed the family of lions that ate Marius.

The main motivation behind current efforts in Europe to ban unstunned slaughter and child circumcision is IMO anti-Muslim sentiment. At the moment our practices are just by-catch as it were.

And, YL, it's not just Elizabethan slang; in French orgasm is la petite mort.

The abuses in the fur industry are well documented. Far Far worse then ritual slaughter. MM has provided you with some initial reading.

The killing of minks is not used only for fur. Again read up on the subject matter. it is used in products clearly unlabeled too.
What does the happiness of the Danes (in spite of their hypocritical animal rights policies) have to do with the discussion? or are you also just trying to deviate from the issue at hand?

There's an even deeper deception at work here. If a person truly cares about human welfare, it wont matter how a human is suffering or is injured or killed, that caring person will do everything in their power to help out the suffering individual. However, all these laws meant for animal welfare only apply if it is humans who are killing the animals. However Animals in the wild maim, torture and kill each other all the time but no one has any problem with these animals' suffering. If they really cared they would try to find a way to stop animals from eating each other alive whichis the worst form of torture... perhaps they could feed carnivors soy based foods instead in the wild, or whatever else. So when it comes down to it, its not about animal suffering or animal rights, its about stopping humans from hurting animals.

MMThey have a right to do this since it is their country and as i wrote before ,when in rome do as the romans do,in israel you can do whatever you want but you live in a nonjewish country and you have to abide by their laws no matter what.

Actually, Shalom, your observation is not entirely accurate. At the moment here in the US there is a movement to prevent cats (feral or free-roaming "owned") from killing song birds. It takes the form of encouraging people to keep their "owned" cats in the house and annihilating feral cat colonies (also known as "community" cats). This is in opposition to the push for catch-alter/spay-release programs which aim to reduce the reproductive capabilities of feral cats without killing them. With this approach, feral cats will continue to kill and eat song birds (much objected to in some quarters) and small rodents--but no one cares about protecting the rats and mice from the depredations of the cats. BTW feral cats are essentially "wild," and even house cats are not really domesticated.

And there are people who feed their house cats (cats are obligate carnivores) and dogs (who are really omnivores with a taste for meat) commercially available soy-based vegan foods.

MM, there may be some people who are working to stop animals from killing other animals. And maybe a few people feed their dogs soy based food. But what I have noticed in general is that you will never hear anyone complain about the billions of animals that kill each other every year, and in fact most animal lovers will justify it as the nature taking its course or whatever. Its nice that they are focusing on feral cats, but this sounds like a new development, and in general the overwhelming majority of activism involves preventing humans from killing or harming animals.

the discussion is about the hypocrisy in Denmark, They have the right to be hypocrites and everyone has the right to call them out on it.
this article was trying to explain why there is no hypocrisy, to which it failed.

joshua--So what you are telling me is that they dont stunn the minks before killing them but they want us jewish slughterers to stunn the animals?

MM: Merci pour l'informacion.

No my point was that the bloggers 2 points of attempt to explain the lack of hypocrisy in Denmark were poor at best, probably decietful.
1. Slaughter is the Bigger issue.
2. Hunting and furs are for food.

Both are false

Yes, Jancsi, minks are not stunned before slaughter, despite your claim to the contrary. The point is that Danes are being hypocritical when they make a fuss about unstunned cows being slaughtered by Jews and Muslims (especially Muslims), while they condone the unstunned slaughter of minks and other fur-bearing animals for their lucrative fur trade. No one questions the right of Denmark to enact laws as they see fit. What is being questioned is that right of Denmark to claim the moral high ground on the slaughter of unstunned large mammals for meat, while turning a blind eye to the torture methods of killing small mammals for fur. The fur trade is a contributor to the Danish economy, while, of course, kosher and halal slaughter is not. Denmark is a big producer/exporter of ham, and, of course, kosher and halal slaughter is irrelevant to the production of canned ham. The economic irrelevance of kosher and halal slaughter to Denmark added to significant anti-Muslim sentiment throughout Denmark and most of the rest of Europe makes kosher and halal slaughter an easy target for animal-rights groups. The fur and canned ham industries are just as cruel to animals (if not crueler), but given their economic importance, they are not such easy political targets, and therein lies the hypocrisy which people have every right to call out.

Joshua, people do concern themselves about predators in the wild. Hence, the near extinction of wolves in the US. Now that efforts are being made, with some success, to rebuild wild wolf populations in parts of the US, complaints by ranchers about wolf kills of livestock are being heard again. Eradicating the predators has always been the answer for those who do not like the killing of livestock and other wild species. No one in his right mind would advocate making food drops of veggie burgers to wild predators to keep them from killing and eating other species. Of course, animal activism is involved with controlling human mistreatment/exploitation of animals, because humans can only effectively control human behavior. The only way to stop wild animals from eating other wild animals is to eradicate the predators, and that has been and is being done, particularly when the predators are invasive species. There have been and still are bounties placed on the heads of "varmints," that is, carnivorous animals who kill and eat other species which humans find more desirable.

No, Joshua. Both are true.

1. Hundreds of animals were inhumanely slaughtered every day before unstunned slaughter was forbidden.

That is a fact, not conjecture, not some fantasy in your head.

2. Most hunting is done for both food and sport, meaning hunters eat their prey.

Rabbits are also eaten and their pelts are used to make things like hats – including some of the hats your haredi brethren wear.

Mink, fox, and beaver are generally not eaten.

Most of the beaver trapped goes into the making of hats – the black hats your community wears, for example.

Fox is not eaten and its pelts are used to make fur coats and shtreimls.

Mink is used to make coats and hats (including, I think, the trim found on some hasidic rebbe's winter coats).

Your community justifies this by claiming that halakha allows causing suffering to animals if man benefits. And although these black hats you wear (or fox fur shtreimls, for that matter) are wholly unnecessary even by halakha, you still insist on wearing them.

Past this, the idea that hunting or trapping must be stopped first and only after that can un-stunned slaughter be banned is foolish.

It puts your minority opinion above the opinion and culture of Denmark.

Again, try to grasp that shechita was not banned. Un-stunned ritual slaughter was banned. Find a way to stun or anesthetize animals before shechita and you can slaughter to your heart's content.

You also conveniently fail to acknowledge the many horrific abuses of animals documented at glatt kosher slaughterhouses in South America, Israel, Europe and the US over the past few years.

You have no special rights and you do not exist in a vacuum.

Again you jump from issue to issue trying unsuccessfully to create a smoke and mirrors argument that hopefully isnt caught onto. You hope that by mentioning streimels black hats and the like you will have glossed over the fallacy of your actual statements.

The abuses in fur making industry are documented and much more gruesome then shechita houses.

The issue here is not the order of which goes first or second. There has been no meaningful legislation in Denmark to do anything about the fur industry. That is the Hypocrisy. You continue to justify hunting (cruelty) because its food. Shechita is food too!!!! You then defend the hunting as the culture of Denmark, which is the only real point of the Rabbis, namely that Jewish culture is much less welcome. We accept Danish cruelty of animals just not Jewish Cruelty.

In other words,

Here is a paragraph in the entry.

"But the rabbis who object to Denmark’s un-stunned ritual slaughter ban would object to it just as strenuously even if Denmark had a humane farming standard and banned sport hunting, fur trapping and beastiality – an indisputable fact they nonetheless try to hide."

A greater truth is that you would object to shechita in Denmark even if the current laws in Denmark (which loosely are, when killing an animal it must be stunned first for humane reasons, unless you are hunting it or killing it for its fur at which point kill it however you please) are hypocritical.

I think Joshua just won.

No. You're not making sense and you are illogical.

I object to inhumane treatment of animals.

If Denmark would outlaw trapping and fur farming tomorrow, I would still object to the way halal slaughter (and kosher slaughter, if it were taking place and if it were run like it is in France, etc.) is done.

I don't argue that halal and shechita can't be humane – it can be.

But most often it is not because the rabbis are unwilling to make changes to industrial kosher slaughter (like slowing down production lines and mandating standing slaughter is ASPCA pens, for example), and many Muslims doing halal slaughter are amateurs who are ill trained.

Muslim leaders have done much to fix their problems in recent years, and some even allow pre-stunning.

Rabbis, however, have essentially done nothing and all the problems with commercial kosher slaughter remain except where law or economics have forced change – for example, Canadian and US plants selling their non-kosher output to McDonald's and their kosher output to Hebrew National undergo unannounced humane slaughter audits and have implemented many changes to their animal handling and slaughter line because McDonald's (and other fast food chains) demands it.

Nothing like that exists in Europe.

At any rate, you can whine, lie, and spout as much nonsense as you want to. None of it changes the fact that some of the worst humane slaughter violations in the civilized world happened at kosher slaughterhouses – Agriprocessors in Iowa, Adom Adom in Israel, Soglowek in Israel, several South American kosher slaughterhouses and in kosher slaughterhouses in France and other parts of Europe.

You don't live in a vacuum. The world has seen this, and it knows problems exist.

Instead of whining and lying, rabbis should fix these problems. Perhaps if they did, pre-stunning would no longer be an issue.

nothing you just said has anything to do with the blog post. you can write as many articles as you want about the inhumane practices of shechita, and how bad rabbis are.
That doesn't change the fact that the laws in Denmark are hypocritical. A claim you unsuccessfully tried to refute.

MM--I dont beleive you that minks are killed without stunning it first,and they want shechita to be sunned that doest not make any sense..


What you believe or would like to believe is irrelevant. You have no evidence to support your belief. OTOH if you google around, you will see plenty of video documenting inhumane slaughter of animals for their fur worldwide. Small animals are often packed tightly into cages and gassed with the exhaust from trucks (if that doesn't remind you of something, it ought to). No one goes around stunning each little animal before they are gassed. Sometimes they are fed poison. No one stuns an animal before poisoning it. Larger animals are electrocuted through the anus, no stunning. In China sometimes the animals are simply skinned alive; they are not stunned. Because the pelts must be undamaged, the rapid throat slitting as occurs during shechita is not used. The fur trade uses small animals (mink, chinchilla, rabbit, and so forth) in large numbers. No one has the time (and time is money) to go around bopping each little creature on the head. There is no getting around it. The fur trade treats animals with cruelty, and no one has any need to wear fur. That's why wearing fur is no longer the fashion item it was once. Today fake fur is very convincing, if someone must have "fur." And no one needs to wear an expensive fur "flying saucer" on his head. To make that fur flying saucer several small living creatures went to the gas chamber or were electrocuted per anum or had some other hideous death, and that's the truth. There is a reason why countries like the UK, Austria, Croatia, Switzerland, etc., have either banned fur farming outright or have so restricted it as to make it not feasible economically.

If you believe that the mink are stunned, you need to present credible evidence to support your position. Otherwise your argument is not persuasive.

Joshua –


Your rabbis are as hypocritical as Denmark is, if not more so.

And as I noted, none of this would even be a problem if those rabbis had cleaned up shechita when they had the chance to do so.

But instead, they sold out to Rubashkin and the other kosher slaughter operators who horribly violated humane slaughter standards.

Direct your anger where it belongs – to those rabbis.

Instead of worrying about how much meat they can fress, and complaining about Danish 'hypocrisy', how about addressing other issues in Jewland?
Maybe a few statements like "sex with children is wrong", or "MBP spreads disease", or "get your children vaccinated" should get more priority from the holy rabbis, instead of getting excited about stuffing themselves with beef.

You have summed up the hypocrisy perfectly.

SR. Thank you for being honest that the hypocrisy in Denmark is irrelevant to you. Maybe be more honest about that in the blog post itself, instead of pretending to care if Denmark is or isn't being Hypocritical. Instead of defending the hypocrisy just say you don't care about it because rabbis are worse.

Oh, please.

You have failed to admit any of the bad behavior of the kosher meat industry or of the rabbis.

When you do that, we can talk about Danish “hypocrisy.”

I have nothing to do with the kosher meat industry. Nor do I write about it. I was just pointing out the error in your logic. A reality you now seem ready to accept.

Again, stop your BS. If you cannot accept the facts that clearly show that the kosher meat industry is inhume and its rabbis are dishonest and unreliable, then you can’t comment on anyone’s opinion that the Dane’s would not be hypocritical for banning un-stunned ritual slaughter. You do not exist in a vacuum.

But you are far too dishonest to admit the truth.

For the same price I could say.
Stop the bs. If you cannot accept the facts clearly showing the hypocrisy of the Danes then you can't comment on abuses in kosher slaughterhouses. I mean, even janci couldn't believe the hypocrisy actually exists.


The Danes just like most of the rest of the western world has seen videos of Rubashkin’s animal abuse and the animal abuse at Adom Adom, Soglowek, in France and in in South America at glatt kosher slaughterhouses and they have seen rabbis try to defend this abuse.

The Danes decision to ban un-stunned ritual slaughter was not made in a vacuum.

Before you criticize it, you need to admit those facts.

You refuse to do so, however, because you are profoundly dishonest and are trolling.

I don't know why the Danes banned ritual slaughter. What I do know is that the Danes are MORE aware of the abuses in their own industries then they are of kosher meat companies thousands of miles away. That they chose to reform the latter instead of the former is the hypocrisy you are unsuccessfully

Let me give you a hand here since your obviously flailing.
Why don't you amend the article (as you sometimes do) to read "rabbis decry Danish hypocricy. Where were their voices to decry animal abuses in kosher slaughterhouses. Then we could at least debate logically.
Here you are stuck trying to make conditions in order to comment on your failed logic, a tactic readily seen as defeat.

Again, stop your BS.

The Danes banned all “un-stunned slaughter” – not "kosher slaughter." That ban includes regular non-religious slaughter, Muslim halal slaughter and shechita. The most impact of this ban is on the Muslim community, not on Jews.

And the facts are that anyone researching humane slaughter abuses quickly finds that glatt kosher slaughter is often (unnecessarily) far more inhumane than regular un-stunned slaughter. There are multiple horrific examples of that, from France, to Agriprocessors in Iowa, to South America, to Adom Adom (Tnuva) and Soglowek in Israel. And in each of those cases, rabbis either defended the horrific animal abuse (Agriprocessors, South America, France) or claimed it wash’t their fault (Israel).

That you refuse to admit this or to factor it in to your line of reasoning simply proves that you are immensely dishonest.

As for your foolish remarks about me, I've been covering kosher slaughter and humane slaughter abuses since 2004. I broke much of the Agriprocessors story, and cover these issues closely.

I also have experience working in the kosher food industry, including in slaughterhouses and a meat processor.

And I know from the inside what corrupt haredi rabbis did to the business and to kosher food.

That's excellent.
My advice. Stick to writing about that. Stay away from Danish policy, it's apparently way out of your league.

Again, the decision the Danes made to ban ALL un-stunned slaughter is based on empirical evidence – evidence that certainly includes Agriprocessors and the other major humane slaughter violations I cited. So your inability to admit these abuses took place or to admit the Danes (and any other western country) is well within its rights to be horrified by them is telling.

Examples of horrific Muslim slaughter also exist and are arguably more common than Jewish examples.

But it is also true the Islamic community in many places has done a lot to fix those problems and some now even allow pre-stunning.

The Jewish community, however, cannot point to any such improvements because haredi rabbis and some centrist Orthodox rabbis have blocked them.

Toddle off.

First, we need to agree on whether shechita, as currently practiced is "humane". To do that we have to choose a standard for "humanity".

When I chose to lead a religious Jewish life, I had been a vegetarian for more than a decade. I'd considered my choice carefully and decided that animals were not more important than me, nor even as important, but, insofar as causing them to suffer for my pleasure rather than my necessity I was not willing to participate.

I thought about cases where eating animals would be required for my life and health, and decided that I would do so in those cases but barring such a demand I would not.

Because I believed that the Torah had moral force, I accepted the claim from my Rabbis that shechita was based on the idea of humane treatment of animals. I also accepted the idea that animals existed as part of a hierarchy of which I occupied the pinnacle. For a very short time I returned to occasionally eating meat (almost exclusively as a guest).

I found, though, that my conscience was disturbed by this. In spite of my acceptance of the Torah's permission I was not comfortable. Even in the Torah context stories from Noach, and baMidbar reminded me that meat-eating seemed at best a compromise. So, I stopped.

Some time after that, the Agriprocessors scandal broke; both in the news, and my heart. I was already in a crisis concerning the demands of "frumkeit" and the trouble of reconciling the principles of Torah with the practices of Jews.

So, the question is not the hypocrisy of Danes but the nature of shechita. If shechita is inhumane, then it makes no difference whether other inhumane practices are outlawed. The question is shechita's status, not the fur trade. The question is about Jews, not Danes.

For those who claim that shechita a currently practiced is humane, then argue that it is not abuse of animals, don't compare it rhetorically to other practices. If you believe that shechita is not animal cruelty, then it makes no difference that other things are allowed. Argue that this is not like those other things, regardless of a nominal label of "cruelty" some apply.

If you claim that shechita is not now, but can be humane (without the stunning) then talk about that (as Shmarya does). And talk about how the law is wrong because it shouldn't require stunning but other measures to ensure humane treatment.

In the years since my adoption of a vegetarian diet I have moved on to a vegan one. I no longer eat any animal products at all. One of the reasons for this is my belief that animals cannot be used for food nor by-products without cruelty. I do not believe "meat is murder" but I do believe that animals deserve recognition as something other than objects.

I believe the Torah prohibits cruelty against all creatures. If a creature can experience cruelty (and for me it is evident that cows, chickens, and the other common food animals can) then they have, in my view, the protection of Torah.

I realize that the Rabbis have said otherwise, and set standards for humanity, but I deny their authority in this area because I believe that they have abandoned the very principles they claim inform their rulings.

Are the Danes "hypocrites"? It doesn't matter. Is shechita cruel, inhumane, and indefensible? That's the Jewish project. Just like "Jews" aren't one thing, Danes are also diverse. That there are contradictions in Danish civil law, and behavior simply means they are a human society.

The Torah requires farmers to feed their domesticated animals. It does not require farmers to feed vermin. A farmer who is negligent in getting a veterinarian to treat a sick cow risks being fined however he is under no obligation to treat injured wild animals that happen to be on his land. Quite obviously one must spend greater effort and cost in looking after the welfare of ones own domestic animals than wild animals and vermin. It is OK to shoot a fox at 200 yards notwithstanding that there is a 25% chance you may not kill it instantly but it is not OK to do that with a cow because you must aim for say at least a 90% instant death rate as you have a greater duty to it then to a fox.

The rabbis lack of understanding that obvious difference between duties owed to domestic animals being more than wild animals and vermin is embarrassing.
They could just as well accuse the Danes for being hypocritical for treating their children better than their cattle!

With advances in technology, methods of animal husbandry and slaughter which were once acceptable because there was no better known alternative become unacceptable. The fact that it was OK to slaughter a cow without stunning 200 years ago does not make that acceptable today. This applies to all which we consider good practice. It is now unacceptable for a doctor not to proscribe antibiotics when needed just because 100 years ago no doctor did so. It is unacceptable for cars today not to have anti lock brakes just because 30 years ago, few cars had such brakes.

Some 200 years ago, cows and mink were killed without stunning as there was no better method available. The issue with mink farming is that the stunning techniques which developed for cattle do not work with mink. Until very recently with the development of CO2 gassing, there was no alternative but to slaughter without stunning. It is therefore not necessarily hypocritical to kill one animal in a worse manner than another if that better method is impossible for the former. Mink farmers can claim that like cattle farmers we kill our livestock in the least cruel way reasonable available but regrettably procedures available to kill cows do not work on mink and foxes. A mink farmer can argue that he is like a motorbike manufacturer whilst a cattle farmer is like a car manufacturer. You can demand that both cars and motorcycles are made as safe as possible but by their very nature cars will always be able to meet higher standards than motorbikes.

The problem with shechita is that seek to avoid the higher standards required for cows and use the lower standard needed for mink. It is as if a car manufacturer condemned for making an unsafe car claims that as it remains safer than a motorcycle, the condemnation is hypocritical.

Hurting or molesting animals is illegal. Also in Denmark. I cannot believe the amount of bogus stories flooding the web about this issue right now. If anyone really cared about animals, why not turn your anger at the abuse itself? Animal right you know. Animals living under horrific conditions. Animals getting tortured, kicked and beaten up by their random owners. Animals dying in pain and agony because Jews and Muslims "needs" to kill them slowly by cutting their throat, while they are still alive. Animals packed so dense at farms, that they can hardly breathe and move. There are so much to fight for, and you choose this. It is a disgrace. Idiots.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment


FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website.

Thank you for your generous support!




Please Scroll Down Toward The Bottom Of This Page For More Search Options, For A List Of Recent Posts, And For Comments Rules



Recent Posts


Tip Jar

Gelt Is Good!

Tip Jar

FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website. Please click the Donate button now to contribute.

Thank you for your generous support!

Tip Jar

Gelt Is Good!

Tip Jar


Comment Rules

  • 1. No anonymous comments.

    2. Use only one name or alias and stick with that.

    3. Do not use anyone else's name or alias.

    4. Do not sockpuppet.

    5. Try to argue using facts and logic.

    6. Do not lie.

    7. No name-calling, please.

    8. Do not post entire articles or long article excerpts.

    ***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

Older Posts Complete Archives

Search FailedMessiah

Lijit Search


FailedMessiah.com is a reader supported website.

Thank you for your generous support!




FailedMessiah.com in the Media

RSS Feed

Blog Widget by LinkWithin