This week in the strange death of Europe: girl criticises halal meat in religious studies paper and gets disqualified

[Jimmy Higgins]

That ... any deviation for an ideal is a necessary indicator of the eminent destruction of civilization is a prime example of snowflakecity.

The disqualification of a student's exam, by the State, for criticising religion may be a non-affair to some people, but to be concerned about it is not the same as believing it is one of the horsemen of the apocalypse.

The "But how did we get to this place in the West? " is a pretty good imitation of it.

BTW, your response is even more evidence. "the State" admitted to mistakenly disqualifying the exam. You'd have a real concern if "the State" had not. But since "the State" did, all you have is an overzealous individual, not some invidious application of "political correctness".

There is clearly a sensitivity to respecting people and not disparaging them. And this sensitivity is a bit hair trigger for some. And in the end, the system corrected itself. The complaint in the OP is almost a bit sad that they aren't able to complain about it not being reversed.

Ultimately, without access to the paper, it is quite impossible to make any judgment on what she actually wrote. The system appears to say that she was within the bounds of what is fine for the paper.

 

[ronburgundy]

But that was the error: She didn't criticize religion, she criticized a particular practice of butchering animals.

This is the problem. It seems her essay was only deemed acceptable b/c she didn't actually criticize religion. That implies that had she written a critical analysis of Islam, she would have been disqualified. That would be absurd, since the only legit function of a religious studies course is to encourage students to take a critical stance.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But that was the error: She didn't criticize religion, she criticized a particular practice of butchering animals.

This is the problem. It seems her essay was only deemed acceptable b/c she didn't actually criticize religion. That implies that had she written a critical analysis of Islam, she would have been disqualified. That would be absurd, since the only legit function of a religious studies course is to encourage students to take a critical stance.

There is simply way too much missing info to consider whether criticizing a religion itself would be a viable topic for an exam. It sounds like arguing against Evolution in a Biology exam. I can see arguing against the application of anti-Qu'ranic (word?) behavior while using the Qu'ran to defend it, but just to criticize a specific religion... I'm not seeing how well that carries in an Exam. Heck, the closest I ever came to such a thing was in an essay about Toni Morrison's Solomon's Song... but that was an aside at the end of the essay. I had to demonstrate I understood (read) the book.

 

[Patooka]

Why are people so focused on the title of the thread? It was obviously hyperbolic to grab attention. How nitpicky can you get?

Good point. I should treat this thread as I would a thread titled "OMFG Trump is Hitler !!!!!!!oneoneone".


Here's me not giving a fuck. But, Europe is dying so I am being insensitive.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

How do you feel about kosher meat?

It too is a ridiculous religious stricture that causes unnecessary suffering to annimals, plus additional nonsense like not mixing dairy and meat.

And what is it about halal standards that you think makes the slaughtering animals in the food industry less humane?

Under Australian law, cattle must be stunned so that they are insensible to pain before slaughter, however some halal slaughter does not involve stunning (https://www.aussieabatthaoirs.com/facts/halal-kosher). These abattoirs have been given religious-based exceptions.

Quran
Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which has been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

— Qurʼan, Surah 5 (al-Maʼidah)

The Quran specifically does not allow stunning an animal with a blow before slaughtering. Now the question is, does the more humane method of slaughter have to be abandoned because of the Quran? In a non Moslem country? Or do the Moslems have to acknowledge that many nations are not Moslem and will not slaughter animals in a cruel manner?

 

[Jarhyn]

It too is a ridiculous religious stricture that causes unnecessary suffering to annimals, plus additional nonsense like not mixing dairy and meat.



Under Australian law, cattle must be stunned so that they are insensible to pain before slaughter, however some halal slaughter does not involve stunning (https://www.aussieabatthaoirs.com/facts/halal-kosher). These abattoirs have been given religious-based exceptions.

Quran
Forbidden to you (for food) are: dead meat, blood, the flesh of swine, and that on which has been invoked the name of other than Allah; that which hath been killed by strangling, or by a violent blow, or by a headlong fall, or by being gored to death; that which hath been (partly) eaten by a wild animal; unless ye are able to slaughter it (in due form); that which is sacrificed on stone (altars); (forbidden) also is the division (of meat) by raffling with arrows: that is impiety. This day have those who reject faith given up all hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. This day have I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion. But if any is forced by hunger, with no inclination to transgression, Allah is indeed Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

— Qurʼan, Surah 5 (al-Maʼidah)

The Quran specifically does not allow stunning an animal with a blow before slaughtering. Now the question is, does the more humane method of slaughter have to be abandoned because of the Quran? In a non Moslem country? Or do the Moslems have to acknowledge that many nations are not Moslem and will not slaughter animals in a cruel manner?

Reading this, the text doesn't actually specifically forbid stunning by a blow before slaughtering.

The blow doesn't slaughter them, they are KILLED by blood loss.

It looks like the intent of the passage is specifically to stop people from eating meat that dies with the blood stagnant inside it, and perhaps to prevent people from, well, exactly the sort of extremely violent, repetitive acts involved with striking living things with blunt objects necessary in the times contemporary to the passage.

I also find it interesting that it doesn't forbid eating meat slaughtered without invocation, merely meat that has been dedicated to a different god.

So in reality, halal slaughtering is an anachronistic ritual.

 

[ronburgundy]

But that was the error: She didn't criticize religion, she criticized a particular practice of butchering animals.

This is the problem. It seems her essay was only deemed acceptable b/c she didn't actually criticize religion. That implies that had she written a critical analysis of Islam, she would have been disqualified. That would be absurd, since the only legit function of a religious studies course is to encourage students to take a critical stance.

There is simply way too much missing info to consider whether criticizing a religion itself would be a viable topic for an exam. It sounds like arguing against Evolution in a Biology exam. I can see arguing against the application of anti-Qu'ranic (word?) behavior while using the Qu'ran to defend it, but just to criticize a specific religion... I'm not seeing how well that carries in an Exam. Heck, the closest I ever came to such a thing was in an essay about Toni Morrison's Solomon's Song... but that was an aside at the end of the essay. I had to demonstrate I understood (read) the book.

It's the exact opposite of arguing against Evolution in a Biology exam, b/c there is no evidence or rational argument against Evolution. So, while students should in fact be encouraged to think critically about Evolution, any essay arguing against Evolution would inherently be poorly reasoned. Critical thinking should be encouraged in every subject, so there should never be disqualification for it, only a failing score if it is poorly reasoned. The only reason people would want a rule that disqualifies such essays is b/c they know the arguments against it could be well reasoned and thus have no grounds to fail an essay that offends people who are committed to falsehoods.

Evolution is presented to students b/c it's objective validity and accuracy makes it highly relevant to many aspect of life. Religions relevance is not that it's valid and accurate, but that people believe that it is. Thus, one cannot actually understand a religion and it's relevance without also understanding how it conflicts with other ideas in society both in science and ethics/philosophy. That is inherently going to make religions look "bad" so long as being in conflict with reason, evidence, and empathy-based ethics is seen as "bad".


"Taking a critical stance" is widely accepted as something that should be more actively encouraged in education of all topics. There is no benefit, and potentially much harm, in simply demanding that students unquestioningly learn what these religions claim without engaging in critical analysis of it. Even treating the texts of fictional literature (which you can guarantee these courses do not), there are valid literary grounds for critical analyses that most adherents of those faiths would fine "offensive". But since the major religions treat those texts as largely factual and historical, then any legit religious studies course should encourage students to critically evaluate their validity as sources of factual and historical information, which than would bring into play not only non-religious historical information but information from the social and natural sciences as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is simply way too much missing info to consider whether criticizing a religion itself would be a viable topic for an exam. It sounds like arguing against Evolution in a Biology exam. I can see arguing against the application of anti-Qu'ranic (word?) behavior while using the Qu'ran to defend it, but just to criticize a specific religion... I'm not seeing how well that carries in an Exam. Heck, the closest I ever came to such a thing was in an essay about Toni Morrison's Solomon's Song... but that was an aside at the end of the essay. I had to demonstrate I understood (read) the book.

It's the exact opposite of arguing against Evolution in a Biology exam, b/c there is no evidence or rational argument against Evolution. So, while students should in fact be encouraged to think critically about Evolution, any essay arguing against Evolution would inherently be poorly reasoned. Critical thinking should be encouraged in every subject, so there should never be disqualification for it, only a failing score if it is poorly reasoned. The only reason people would want a rule that disqualifies such essays is b/c they know the arguments against it could be well reasoned and thus have no grounds to fail an essay that offends people who are committed to falsehoods.

Evolution is presented to students b/c it's objective validity and accuracy makes it highly relevant to many aspect of life. Religions relevance is not that it's valid and accurate, but that people believe that it is. Thus, one cannot actually understand a religion and it's relevance without also understanding how it conflicts with other ideas in society both in science and ethics/philosophy. That is inherently going to make religions look "bad" so long as being in conflict with reason, evidence, and empathy-based ethics is seen as "bad".


"Taking a critical stance" is widely accepted as something that should be more actively encouraged in education of all topics. There is no benefit, and potentially much harm, in simply demanding that students unquestioningly learn what these religions claim without engaging in critical analysis of it. Even treating the texts of fictional literature (which you can guarantee these courses do not), there are valid literary grounds for critical analyses that most adherents of those faiths would fine "offensive". But since the major religions treat those texts as largely factual and historical, then any legit religious studies course should encourage students to critically evaluate their validity as sources of factual and historical information, which than would bring into play not only non-religious historical information but information from the social and natural sciences as well.

I see where you are coming from, but I still feel it doesn't carry far enough. While the evolution analogy has been shown by you to not be too well thought, it does fall in line with other works of fiction. While Christianity and Islam aren't based on truth... their holy books do exist and study of them would be at least a critical analysis of the writing, i.e. what is it trying to say, why does it matter. What is the relevance of disagreeing with halal preparation of food, unless the exam is asking about moral conflicts and how our adapting moral code can conflict with rigid older codes. The three major holy books are chock full of disagreeable moral positions.

In Hebrew Scriptures, I wrote a paper reflecting on why Moses just seemingly has no trouble following God's orders and attacking the Midianites... the people that took him in after being casted out of Egypt. I explored the seeming conflict there that goes entirely unexplored in Exodus. I didn't say "Moses didn't exist, the Tanakh is crap".

Ultimately, we don't know what the exam was asking, so this is entirely hypothetical. However, I feel it is a bit overly simplistic to simply disagree with the actual text.

 

[repoman]

All that work to beat back Christian lunacy and overreach and now they have to do it all over again for the much more vigorous Muslims.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is simply way too much missing info to consider whether criticizing a religion itself would be a viable topic for an exam. It sounds like arguing against Evolution in a Biology exam. I can see arguing against the application of anti-Qu'ranic (word?) behavior while using the Qu'ran to defend it, but just to criticize a specific religion... I'm not seeing how well that carries in an Exam. Heck, the closest I ever came to such a thing was in an essay about Toni Morrison's Solomon's Song... but that was an aside at the end of the essay. I had to demonstrate I understood (read) the book.

It's the exact opposite of arguing against Evolution in a Biology exam, b/c there is no evidence or rational argument against Evolution. So, while students should in fact be encouraged to think critically about Evolution, any essay arguing against Evolution would inherently be poorly reasoned. Critical thinking should be encouraged in every subject, so there should never be disqualification for it, only a failing score if it is poorly reasoned. The only reason people would want a rule that disqualifies such essays is b/c they know the arguments against it could be well reasoned and thus have no grounds to fail an essay that offends people who are committed to falsehoods.

Evolution is presented to students b/c it's objective validity and accuracy makes it highly relevant to many aspect of life. Religions relevance is not that it's valid and accurate, but that people believe that it is. Thus, one cannot actually understand a religion and it's relevance without also understanding how it conflicts with other ideas in society both in science and ethics/philosophy. That is inherently going to make religions look "bad" so long as being in conflict with reason, evidence, and empathy-based ethics is seen as "bad".


"Taking a critical stance" is widely accepted as something that should be more actively encouraged in education of all topics. There is no benefit, and potentially much harm, in simply demanding that students unquestioningly learn what these religions claim without engaging in critical analysis of it. Even treating the texts of fictional literature (which you can guarantee these courses do not), there are valid literary grounds for critical analyses that most adherents of those faiths would fine "offensive". But since the major religions treat those texts as largely factual and historical, then any legit religious studies course should encourage students to critically evaluate their validity as sources of factual and historical information, which than would bring into play not only non-religious historical information but information from the social and natural sciences as well.

I see where you are coming from, but I still feel it doesn't carry far enough. While the evolution analogy has been shown by you to not be too well thought, it does fall in line with other works of fiction. While Christianity and Islam aren't based on truth... their holy books do exist and study of them would be at least a critical analysis of the writing, i.e. what is it trying to say, why does it matter. What is the relevance of disagreeing with halal preparation of food, unless the exam is asking about moral conflicts and how our adapting moral code can conflict with rigid older codes. The three major holy books are chock full of disagreeable moral positions.

In Hebrew Scriptures, I wrote a paper reflecting on why Moses just seemingly has no trouble following God's orders and attacking the Midianites... the people that took him in after being casted out of Egypt. I explored the seeming conflict there that goes entirely unexplored in Exodus. I didn't say "Moses didn't exist, the Tanakh is crap".

Ultimately, we don't know what the exam was asking, so this is entirely hypothetical. However, I feel it is a bit overly simplistic to simply disagree with the actual text.

I think I posted a fairly succinct point criticising Halal from the perspective of the holy book itself: the book doesn't prohibit stunning, it prohibits killing via blunt force. The clear intent of the text in context is a prohibition on eating meat which has died with the blood stagnating, in a list of ways that may happen, as well as prohibiting meat that has been allowed to stagnate in nature.

It's clearly "don't eat blood or anything that has blood still in it because of how it died, anything killed by other animals (because it probably didn't bleed out), stuff dedicated to pagan gods, and sacrifices to God."

This makes Halal requirements fairly anachronistic in their own right, from the perspective of the religion.

That said, I don't disagree with the use of Halal ceremony to mitigate the human impacts of slaughtering animals.

I would probably fail her if her criticism approached on any other lines.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

All that work to beat back Christian lunacy and overreach and now they have to do it all over again for the much more vigorous Muslims.

Except because Muslims are thought of as brown, we get a whole lot of "progressives" changing sides against the secular. The pro-islam side is smaller, but it has this added power, which may make it harder to defeat in the retention of secularism.

 

[laughing dog]

All that work to beat back Christian lunacy and overreach and now they have to do it all over again for the much more vigorous Muslims.

Yeah, that pervasive Islamic influence on Western institutions and culture is so invidious.