Hacker News Reader

Comment by mingdingo | Hacker News Reader

Here's a good article by Christopher Hitchens on freedom of religion: http://www.slate.com/id/2266154. Some examples of where he thinks religion oversteps its bounds:

- Mormon polygamy

- Christian sects that disapprove of medicine

- Ritual circumcision (especially when the mohel sucks off the debris from the penis with his mouth)

I would also add to that list the ritual slaughter of animals. Kosher and Halal both mandate that an animal cannot be stunned with a captive-bolt stunner before having their throats cut, and must be fully conscious. Needless to say, this cruelty only persists because of "freedom of religion".

If you ever want to get away with things you otherwise couldn't get away with, freedom of religion is probably the most potent argument you could unleash.

View on HN

Even Hitchens' examples reflect some basic rights a civil libertarian should want to protect.

Mormon polygamy: the government shouldn't be telling you who you can or can't marry.

Christian sects that disapprove of medicine: the government shouldn't be forcing you to make changes to your body.

Ritual circumcision (especially when the mohel sucks off the debris from the penis with his mouth): sounds gross to me, but the government shouldn't tell you what changes you can't make to your body, or how you provide care for a member of your tribe.

Can government intervention in these areas bring about greater human well-being? Possibly, but I think the above are relatively self-regulating. Christian sects that disapprove of medicine (Christian Scientists for example) must contend with proliferating evidence of the benefits of scientific medicine. As long as scientists have freedom of speech too I suspect their membership will continue to decline in the US.

Can government intervention in these areas bring about greater suffering? Absolutely. The US government currently intervenes in gay marriages, and recently intervened in abortions (and many in Congress would love to intervene here again!).

As fodder for discussion, where should the government's influence stand on issues of medicine or circumcision, as practiced by children's parents? At what point can the government say "your freedoms matter less to us than taking care of _your_ child the way _we_ believe it should be done"?

On a personal note, I was raised in a Christian Science family. While devout, my parents were very attentive and I was lucky to have a healthy childhood (though I didn't even try aspirin until I was in college). A philosophy degree at SFSU cured me of that dogma :) but that's part of why I'm sympathetic; I love my dad even if he is a radical.

I think parents still have a legal obligation to not be negligent. There's a difference between not providing any care (while playing WOW all day) and doing your Christian Scientist damnedest for your children. A person espouses civil libertarianism not because they hate government, but because they trust people and hold others to the personal commitments they make.

Things get more complicated when you bring children into them, yes. However, even then there are areas civil libertarians should be leery of and should scrutinize government involvement in - like the religious, political, or other beliefs that a parent teaches a child.

The government certainly /can/ tell you "how to care for a member of your tribe" if that member is a minor. The ritual circumcision Hitchens references led to a small but deadly outbreak of herpes among recently circumcised babies. The government should let /adults/ practice their religion as they choose, but there would certainly be a rational basis for concluding that this particular practice unnecessarily endangers a third party: children who lack the ability to say, "No, thank you! I'm Buddhist." The same goes for Christian sects that disapprove of medicine. Sure, adults can turn down medical treatment for /themselves/, but if they do so for their children they could (and should) go to jail for child endangerment. A civil libertarian should want to protect everyone's right to liberty, the right to do whatever they wish /without harming others./ In these cases, the religious parents' choices often do harm their children, who are too young to object.

Some choices can and do harm children, but saying religious parents' choices "often do harm" their children is just flatly absurd.

I said "in these cases"--turning down medicine and practicing that form of ritualized circumcision. Perhaps "often" is an overstatement, but there have been many cases of children dying when their Christian Scientist parents refused to get them proper medical attention (see, e.g., http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/flashbks/xsci/s...).

I appear to have have missed that phrase last night.

Government can tell you things to or not to do that are by some definitions "immoral" - a legal argument here is moot. You talking utilitarian principles - not libertarian ones.

A civil libertarian would reject the notion that a government should restrict you from a personal activity (which parenting certainly is) - because of society's majority judgment against it. They'd easily call this tyranny of the majority - whether you agree with it or not.

However, a "classic liberal" would come at this from a natural law or humanist perspective and say there is a moral reason to do / not to do such things.

There is a distinction between civil libertarians and classic liberal civil liberties.

As a counter point to your first item - the government now doesn't really tell you who you can and can't marry, at least from a religious perspective. However, in the US at least, marriage is often done both religiously and legally, which imparts a whole slew of rights, obligations, and benefits. From the legal and governmental perspective, polygamy is an abuse of this (see the documented cases of welfare abuse in Utah, for instance).

Back to the point though - you could get married to 10 spouses in front of God and your friends and never tell the government about it, and I doubt they would care (unless your cohabitation violated some health code or something).

<i>but the government shouldn't tell you what changes you can't make to your body, or how you provide care for a member of your tribe.</i>

Talk to a social worker and see whether or not you still believe that a government should still be able to step in and tell you how to treat a member of your "tribe"

I remember reading one social worker's long diatribe about why they burned out and quit. Out of several truly horrible things (black and blue children are ten a penny), the one that really stuck in my mind was the description of finding genital warts on the anus of a 7-year-old because his mother repeatedly whored him out.

"Self regulating"? Bollocks.

I'm against the abuse of children and happy to use the government to accomplish that.

However, the prevalence of abuse and neglect in the foster care system - complete with cases on that order of horror - makes a very weak case for the idea that external regulation accomplishes any better.

So... a program where near to 100% of input kids are neglected or abused that ends up with a significantly lower proportion of those kids neglected or abused is a "very weak" argument that anything has become "any better"?

If you had a drug that could save 50% of terminally ill patients, would you say "we have a very weak case that this drug saves lives"?

In order for your statement to make sense, the failure rate of foster care would have to approach 100%. Again, talk to an actual social worker about how they see foster care and whether or not they choose to use it. It's an opinion that will most likely come with caveats, but foster care is also a service they use frequently.

"near to 100% of input kids are neglected or abused"

Untrue. Children end up in the foster care system for a variety of reasons, including simple loss of parents or a woman (or teenage girl) knowing she can't care for a child.

"significantly lower proportion of those kids neglected or abused"

The evidence is not as clear on this as you'd like it to be.

To correct your example, if we had a drug that caused strokes or death in a significant percentage of cases, simply saying, "Well, many of the patients we'd give it to would otherwise suffer strokes or death," would be a quick route to an FDA rejection.

Kosher, at least, is not a standard for "ritual slaughter of animals", but a dietary standard. Kosher meat rules require fairly humane methods of animal slaughter, whereas captive-bolt stunners are the rug under which many factory-farms try to sweep their treatment of animals at slaughter-time.

As for halal, I'm not as familiar, but due to the level of ignorance you've shown on kosher, I'm going to have to call shenanigans and say "citation needed".

Just answer one thing:

Do Jewish slaughter laws call for the animal to be conscious when having its throat cut, and do you think this is preferable to being stunned?

That is, if you HAD to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you want it to be stunned or not?

I probably used Kosher and Halal incorrectly, but suffice it to say that slaughter of conscious animals is widely practiced in the Jewish and Muslim faiths. To ask another question: Do you think western slaughterhouses adopted captive-bolt stunning because they were bored, or because it granted a small reprieve at the end of the farming cycle?

"Just answer one thing"

Ah, so this isn't a matter of ignorance, but deliberate portrayal with a yes-or-no gotcha question.

But no, the requirement for an animal to be conscious is not universally agreed upon in kosher law. Further, the intent of kosher slaughter practices is to induce rapid loss of consciousness through blood-loss, minimal pain via the use of a razor-sharp blade, and a resulting humane death.

You can certainly cherry-pick kosher meat facilities that have failed to live up to this standard, but I can simply point to the normal state of meat-slaughter in the developed world, particularly the US.

Would it be more humane to cut an animal's throat while it was conscious, or unconscious? That's all I'm asking. If that's considered a gotcha question, then we've probably reached an impasse...

That's all I'm asking

No, it isn't. You tried to go on about ritual slaughter of animals, then backpedaled as your ignorance was pointed out. Now you're trying to reduce the issue of cruelty to animals in a slaughterhouse to a question of consciousness at the moment of slaughter, ignoring the fact that kosher laws require better treatment of animals than the civil laws governing slaughterhouses. The "we stun them, so they don't suffer" line is a favorite of the meat industry, even if it doesn't always work out that way.

But then, cruelty to animals isn't your concern. After all, it would be most humane not to slaughter the animal at all - but conspicuously, you're not arguing for vegetarianism.

It's more humane if it's conscious because to make an animal unconscious you have to hurt it. I'd rather simply kill it instead of hurt it first, and then kill it.

A captive bolt does not always work on the first try, and it doesn't always fully stun either.

You can't just increase the power of the bolt or you get brain matter mixed into the meat, raising the risk of mad cow disease. So you have to carefully tune it to "enough to stun, not enough to kill". It doesn't always work.

With Kosher slaughter on the other hand making sure the animal dies very fast is important otherwise the meat is not kosher and can't be sold.

It's not really "hurting" it if you make it deeply unconscious, which is the goal of stunning. Can it be botched? Yes. But just like medicine that sometimes doesn't work, or isn't administered properly, the solution is not to stop using the medicine, but to correct the mistakes made when delivering it.

Consider this: When you use a stunner properly, the animal feels a split second of pain before becoming unconscious. At this point, pretty much every vet would say it can't feel pain.

But if you cut its throat while conscious, it can feel the pain of the wound immediately, and continues to feel it until the brain starts shutting down. This can take minutes. Cutting the throat does not cause immediate unconsciousness, and this is the problem.

Compare a properly stunned animal vs. an animal whose throat has been cut by via sechita, and tell me which one reaches unconsciousness faster. Because that is the animal that endures less pain in death.

The brain shuts down within seconds, not minutes.

It takes a few minutes for it to die, but it's totally unconscious for that time.

And I prefer to look at actual usage, not perfect usage.

For example: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.07.016 for this type of animal 53% of the time the stunning did not work properly.

And according to http://www.viva.org.uk/campaigns/slaughter/std4.htm 5-10% of captive bolt stunning does not work properly. There are plenty of other sources that say the same thing.

> That is, if you HAD to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you want it to be stunned or not?

If you had to kill your pet dog by cutting its throat, would you rather beat it unconscious first?

Anything can be black and white if you leave out enough details. And, you can even decide which side is which with your choice of details.

I didn't leave out details. We are talking about stunning it with a captive-bolt stunner.

That's a misrepresentation of what he was saying, don't know why you got the upmods. A captive-bolt stunner is a quick strike that stuns. "beating" something is protracted causation of pain. You're not 'filling in' details that have been left out, you're creating a new situation out of whole cloth.

"A captive-bolt stunner is a quick strike that stuns."

If it's successful, yes. They often aren't; it's not hard to find undercover video of "stunned" animals in clear, loud pain.

Let's take this whole what-if to the extreme:

If I had to be turned into a cow and slaughtered and was given the choice of a random secular slaughterhouse that would use a stunner and a random kosher slaughterhouse, I'd absolutely choose the kosher option. I'd have a better chance of not being injured and mistreated on the way to my death, and I'd have a better chance for a clean, quick, and minimally painful death.

I think you are more wrong than right. While 'kosher' is a dietary standard, there are certain conditions that must be met before meat can be considered kosher. These ritual slaughter techniques fall under 'shechita', which traditionally requires that the animal be unharmed (hence unstunned) before its throat is sliced with a knife in a very particular manner. If this is not done, the meat is not eligible to be considered kosher.

Various countries currently have exemptions to their humane slaughter rules explicitly for Jewish and Muslim traditional practices. Here are some citations:

http://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=docum...

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/21457/controversy-...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/2977086.stm

"I think you are more wrong than right"

Do justify that, especially in the context of the widespread abuse of animals under those humane-treatment laws.

I mean that semantically, not morally. While it's technically true that kosher is a dietary standard, food meets this classification based on the means of slaughter. I have no particularly strong beliefs as to exactly what constitutes the humane treatment of animals.

I run a company selling primarily vegan products (http://screamsorbet.com), but also hunt and fish. I eat less meat than most Americans, but also have two whole wild boar hams currently in brine for Christmas dinner. I care about the conditions of animals, but eat meat with gusto when I do.

I agree wholeheartedly with the parent article that there should a consistent set of laws, and that exemptions based on belief are a loophole that should be closed. Either shechika is humane or it is not; but the religious beliefs of performant should not be a factor.

"I mean that semantically, not morally."

Then you're being uselessly pedantic, and failing at it - there's no slaughter involved in making quite a lot of kosher food.

"exemptions based on belief are a loophole that should be closed"

Then expand the freedoms of all people to make exemptions on peaceful religious activity superfluous. Otherwise, when dealing with governments that carefully parse and rank claims of rights (particularly when it comes to "weird" minority groups), exemptions can serve to protect particular freedoms for the people who most care for them.

I'd just like to point out that "Mormon" polygamy is currently only practiced by Mormon fundamentalists, which make up only .07% of Mormons today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com