The coup de grace, however it is delivered, is a small part of the total ordeal we put animals through in the process of turning them into meat. FAWC's proposal is intended to mitigate this ordeal. It is a modest goal - far too modest to account for the ferocity with which Muslim and Jewish methods are attacked whenever this controversy flares up. So what is the outcry really about?Funny thing about that. But it's not, you know, anti-semitism or anything.
The answer lies in the very terms in which the issue is framed (though not by FAWC itself): "humane" versus "ritual" slaughter. . . . By definition, "humane" means kind and caring. So "ritual", being the opposite, implies cruel and callous. The phrase "ritual slaughter" conjures up a remote past dipped in the blood of primitive religion . . . . Hence the lurid canards about animals being left to "slowly bleed to death", as if every ounce of pain were being wrung from their tortured bodies, and as if their more fortunate confrères, the ones who are "humanely" killed, are gently put to sleep.
The striking thing about this polemic is its persistence. From the late 19th century onwards, "ritual slaughter" has been a foil, even when the so-called humane method meant smashing animals over the head with a pole-axe. This suggests that something less innocent than the love of animals is at work. Furthermore, the same stock phrases keep recurring, like a constant drumbeat, as if the protest were itself a kind of ritual.
(via Apostablog)
<< Home