Grans Moral Maze

And GF is heading for another heart attack

I listen to the MM regularly and think ‘Clare Fox - WTF? I now feel the same about Giles Fraser and am glad he no longer writes in the Guardian. I thought the quality off the debate was abysmal overall..

I heard it last night. It seem difficult to have a calm rational discussion about religion. People’s views are so entrenched.

varian wrote
"I was very struck by the contrast between the measured debate on Gransnet and the angry speakers on the program".
As a Jew, I have a lot to say on these subjects, but from experience have decided to stay shtum.

Link to "The Moral Maze". I'd be very interested to hear whether any of you regard this as a balanced debate.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09rzhxl

After reading this thread I listened to this edition of Radio 4's "The Moral Maze" on BBC i-player.

I was very struck by the contrast between the measured debate on Gransnet and the angry speakers on the program. Most of the panelists seemed to have a religious agenda and were quite unwilling to see that religious freedom should not justify acts which, if done without a religious context, would actually be illegal.

I thought that the CEO of the National Secular Society was subjected to quite unwarranted abuse and so I googled their website. Secularism is not the same as atheism. Many religious believers are secularists. They simply do not want any religion to enjoy a privileged position in our society.

There is a very telling critique of this "Moral Maze" program by Dr Antony Lempert, who comes from a Jewish background.

www.secularism.org.uk/opinion/2018/02/schrodingers-penis

Well said Lucky

The fact that a tiny minority of men/boys might at some point need circumcision for medical reasons is irrelevant to the principle that this assault on children must be made illegal. It is beyond credence that it is still legal.

Equally irrelevant in this context are religious sensibilities. No religious sensibilities can override the need to protect babies and children from assault.

Well, that's why labelling would give people a choice, which they don't need to explain, and doesn't offend
Obviously the only humane thing would be to be totally vegan (not vegetarian) but in the absence of that, I would like to make my own choices, which do not include any which pander to religious ritual.

As I said MissAdveture some Halal meat is from stunned animals, some isn't. Some animals that are stunned recover before slaughter. I can understand anyone campaigning for better conditions for all animals being slaughtered for food, but not picking out a particular way of killing. After all the halal meat may be from a stunned animal, but the ordinary meat might be from an animal that had regained consciousness.

It would just be easier to label meat appropriately, or not, considering how much meat is halal nowadays.

Slaughter without stunning is considered to cause the animal considerable pain and suffering.

I wonder why? There is substantial evidence that the methods used in British slaughter houses are not always as sympathetic to the animal's welfare as they should be, that animals recover from the initial stun before being slaughtered, that they are often kicked or hit whilst awaiting stun and can be badly treated.
Sometimes halal meat is stunned before slaughter, sometimes it isn't. Properly done it results in death very quickly.

Nonnie I don’t want to eat halal meat either.

trisher that was the question I posed on the previous page
( ear piercing for babies )
In Italy, for example, this is quite common ( unless all the tiny ones I have seen is a coincidence.)It happens a lot in the UK too.
It’s done only for decorative reasons, not religious or health reasons.

I agree with Annie I have long shared the view that I don't want to eat Halal meat and want it clearly labelled. There are several companies who only use Halal including Subway which is on most high streets.

I would say so. I'm sure most places do have an age restriction: they did when I had my daughters' ears pierced. (When she was a baby, embarrassingly enough)

I wonder then how far this protection of children from unnecessary physical mutilation should be taken? I have seen very young children taken to have their ears pierced. It is of course reversible and not so drastic but should there be a restriction on ear piercing?

But they do have lovely jumpers❄️☃️?

Iceland would not be top of my move to list I love the sun too much

Fennel, current world events make it difficult not to feel rather gloomy. Chin up x

awww, chin up, fennel

Sorry about my last post - I' in a rather gloomy mood.

There are many cultures that have practises that we see as abhorrent or an infringement of human rights. Some ethnic groups believe in facial tribal scarring of children as a mark of their transition to adulthood.

We'd never permit that in the the west but it doesn't mean the people from such cultures are unwelcome. It just means those particular practises are not permitted.

exactly maryeliza. Apart from 'tradition' - I see little difference in principle between FGM and circumcision. It'a physical abuse (was going to write 'end of' but then realised it was better not to...).