Talk:Ritual slaughter

message: Please correct the History part of the article. There is nothing like ritual slaughter or animal sacrifice in Christianity. Thank you.
2003:CD:93CE:6E42:916E:C032:49C1:990 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Christianity has no animal sacrifice

message: Ritual slaughter is not the same as animal sacrifice. Nowadays, ritual slaughter refers to the way that animals are killed for eating purposes. I think this redirect is quite problematic. I propose a dab instead, though I haven't thought it out yet. Thanks HG | Talk 13:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the future, this could become a full-fledged article incorporating the full topic, with 3 spin-off articles already written. Anyone up to the task? Aren't there forms of ritual butchering outside of Islam and Judaism? Isn't there research and policymaking (e.g., the bans) that cover various types of ritual slaughter, thus demonstrating the needs for an overall (i.e., properly synthesized) article? Thanks. HG | Talk 14:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future directions for this article 

message: The Bans on ritual slaughter appears to represent a WP:POVFORK representing arguments against ritual slaughter. Suggest merging the articles here. --Shirahadasha 20:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest this be done by moving Bans on ritual slaughter to Ritual slaughter. Two days ago, Ritual slaughter was a redirect, while the "bans" article has a history that needs to be preserved.  --John Nagle 01:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle, the rename (move) makes sense to me, since I'd be assuming that the article could then provide broader coverage of ritual slaughter, maybe its history and scope, its regulation, pro/con's, etc. Is that what you had in mind, John? Thanks. HG | Talk 03:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More or less.  Let's see what happens.  We can probably put most of the existing material under a heading like "regulation of ritual slaughter".  --John Nagle 05:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi! By adding these merge tags, I was simply making a proposal. I wasn't intending to limit discussion of reorganization and any appropriate reorganization approach is up for discussion. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging [[Bans on ritual slaughter]] and/or [[Islamic and Jewish dietary laws compared]] 

message: I note that in the German article shächten (sorry, I don't know how to link to articles in other languages) shächten, by way of introduction is defined as being the same as shehittah
2) In the Swedish article skäktning (the word derives from Ger. shächten) skäktning is defined as covering both Jewish shehittah, and islamic halal slaughter (zabiya, etc.) as does one article in English (reference later)
3) I believe that the English term ritual slaughter came to be used during the schächten debates (1850 to today) to refer to "schächten" and is the same term translated.
4) Therefore a dictionary definition would have two entries 1) The equivalent of schächten in German, and Swedish schäktning as it was used in the 1930s when it only referred to Jewish slaughter, shehittah 2) A more general term: meaning any kind of slaughter connected with a ritual. (I wonder whether this system of definitions does not conjure up unwelcome associations - particularly with regard to the history of antisemitism and accusations of ritual murder against Jews. Swedish academics ( Pia Karlsson in Religiös slaughter and one co-author - make a point of avoiding the term Ritual Slaughter in Swedish just for this reason. I have previously argued that this should hold in English too, and the argument against has been put that the term is firmly established in English (and I note that Jews themselves use the term).
5) The tricky bit is exactly this: Ritual Slaughter in English historically has a usage to mean firstly - specifically Jewish slaughter when only the Jewish community was concerned - and now that Muslims and Sikhs have migrated to Britain, Europe etc, the term Ritual Slaughter easily expands to include these. [An attempt was made in Sweden to make kosher slaughter serve as a general term to include halal slaughter as well, as ritual slaughter was unacceptable in Swedish].
6) While halal slaughter ordinarily is not a sacrifice, this is the case at the end of Ramadan - at Id al fitr. And in other types of ritual slaughter generally there is a magic ritual or ceremonial purpose.
This is not the case with Jewish slaughter (except when the Temple is standing). And Jews wish to drive home the point that laws pertaining to shehihtah are to avoid unnecessary suffering to the animal. And therefore, somehow to make a clear demarcation.
Nowadays, English accepts foreign loan words from all kinds of foreign languages, and shehittah seems most appropriate in English to refer to Jewish slaughter, kosher slaughter, Jewish ritual slaughter.
Non-Jews and non-Muslims do not realise the extent of the ritualisation of daily life by orthodox Jews and observant Muslims, so that many insignificant events are made into rituals. (eg procedure for going to the bathroom (UK English toilet).
There is a case to emphasise the ordinariness of shehittah, and to point out that the religious requirements are mostly to make the slaughter as quick and painless as possible. RPSM (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles and definitions in other languages 

message: Ritual slaughter is the common name used for a long time for shehitah in the United Kingdom.
Now English has become an international language, and this raises problems.
The Italian Government, in their paper on Ritual Slaughter (on the web in English, quoted by me anon earlier, used the title "Ritual Slaughter" and then the writers of the document felt it necessary to justify this term and what ritual is used - in the case of Jews saying a blessing, and in the case of Muslims, saying the name of Allah.
Judaism ritualises many aspects of daily life, so that eating an apple, or washing the hands is accompanied by a blessing.
The term "Ritual Slaughter" leads to many misunderstandings - among them, that the slaughter always has the nature of a sacrifice, and this is not the case. In this  wiki article "the sacrificing cut" quoted from the Italian government paper had to be deleted, so although there were rabbis contributing there, they were not instructed to carefully proof read and correct common Christian misunderstandings. These, I think derive from life being contextualized for Christians by the central role the Eucharist or Holy Communion plays. This is a mystery according to Christian terminology, and you won't get a straight answer every time. Blind faith is a tenet of Christian belief. From this standpoint, it is not surprising that Christians misunderstand the Jewish religion, especially as one mitzvah (commandment - here, from rabbinic law) is that a Jew is forbidden to teach Torah to non Jews (who do not intend to convert). I supppose this is to preserve lehavdil a sharp dividing line.Sacrifices in Judaism are strictly banned until there is a Third Temple.
Other confusions are with the role of blood.
The Maastricht treaty uses the term "religious slaughter" to cover both Jewish and Muslim slaughter - would that be preferable.
Dr Temple Grandin uses "kosher slaughter" in her work when referring to Jewish slaughter.
In Sweden "kosher slaughter" is used kosherslakt, but this gives rise to another set of misunderstandings - that kosher always means slaughtering animals, as the word "kosher" has not entered into the Swedish language as it has into American English.
"What is kosher"  said by a Swede means "What is shehitah?" 
On the Swedish Radio weekly programme on religion Människor och tro (People and Faith) in a programme on the religious dietry laws, a Christian "expert" actually explained to the listening public that kosher is the method of slaughter used by Jews, wheras, in fact it means generally fit for use or not (kosher/posul) and fit to eat or not  (kosher/treif (literally  torn)
To go up one level, to the subject of usage and terminology in general, there are two schools - one in English, where useage determines terminology and dictionary writers try to follow this - another, as in France, (and Sweden) where an Academy makes pronouncements (also taking usage into account). Where one concept is not clear and gets confused with another concept, then users will automatically coin a variation to avoid confusion. 
To be specific about shehitah and ritual slaughter when the writers of the Maastricht Treaty wrote "Religious slaughter should be allowed" I am sure there were deliberations about what terminology to use. (It would be interesting to check French and German versions). RPSM 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nobody said the topic was a simple one. A full article would need to reasonably address all the points you mention, feel free to dive into it. dab (𒁳) 16:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: btw, your point that the notion that ritual slaughter "always has the nature of a sacrifice" is a misunderstanding seems itself based on a misunderstanding of animal sacrifice. The terms are in a sense exactly synonymous. "ritual slaughter" is any meat production that involves ritual, and "animal sacrifice" is any ritual that results in meat production, so to speak. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi! I want to point out that Wikipedia's No original research policy prohibits relying on an editor's personal opinions about how terms like "ritual slaughter" are used. It's important to understand that there is no single universal definition applicable across religions. Both religions involved distinguish ritual slaughter for non-sacrificial purposes from animal sacrifices. Judaism, for example, has a set of technical ritual laws identifying what acts are considered sacrificial in character. Under these laws, only a Kohen can perform sacrificial acts.  Shekhita was ruled to be a legally non-sacrificial act even when done as part of a sacrifice, and hence it did not have to be performed by a Kohen. Lay people (including women) could slaughter their own sacrifices in the days of the Temple in Jerusalem. See below.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirahadasha (talk • contribs) 17:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: The claim that ritual slaughter meant animal sacrifice in antiquity is currently unsourced and flatly contradicted by reliable sources, depending on what one means by "antiquity". The Mishnah, for example, has an entire tractate, Hullin ("ordinary"), on rules for non-sacrificial situations which discusses requirements for the ritual slaughter of non-sacrificial meat in detail. These claims need to be sourced. Since there appears to be a controversy among points of view, they need to be attributed as well. --Shirahadasha 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: um, yes, the distinction is clearly made in Judaism. This is connected with the very specific situation of Judaism. Shirahadasha, I don't think we have interacted before. Do you usually plaster articles with tags instead of simply sitting down and fixing them? This isn't the Shechita article. It addresses ritual slaughter world wide. No distinction can be made between ritual slaughter and animal sacrifice. It is historically identical in Judaism as everywhere else and only came to be seen as something distinct in Judaism after AD 70. Could you kindly help us in discussing these circumstances instead of tying up my time conversing with you while I could be doing the job? There is no controversy whatsoever. Nothing you are saying is false,  just Judeo-centric. It could very well be explained in the article, so could you please do that? No objections to a competent summary of the Jewish viewpoint, not from me anyway. --dab (𒁳) 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Two points: first I'm not sure a mention that they are distinct in Judaism would by itself be problematic. Second, do you have a source that backs up the claim that Shechita only became distinct in the second temple period? I'm not aware of that fact and couldn't find a reliable source that made the claim offhand. JoshuaZ 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The two most notable religions that practice ritual slaughter, Judaism and Islam, make precisely this distinction between ritual slaughter and animal sacrifice that you are claiming cannot be made. It seems to me that the viewpoints of the people who actually practice ritual slaughter have some relevance to the article. You are making an argument that these viewpoints are "wrong", but Wikipedia is not the place to make such an argument. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Part of the issue may be what constitutes "antiquity". For fairly reasonable defintions of antiquity, Islam wasn't even around. Regardless of what occurs, the sentence should probably be reworked to specify a rough timeframe. JoshuaZ 04:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. these "precise two" traditions notably have their own articles. The point of this article cannot be to rehash the content treated there, but to give the historical context out of which these modern  traditions grew. dab (𒁳) 14:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: this isn't quite correct. Can you point out any animal sacrifice that doesn't involve food? If so, that would be a very exceptional case. RobertPS does a good job at sketching the terminological problems above. Please, if we are going to discuss this, let us be clear about what is a terminological problem and what is an actual content debate. "ritual slaughter" can be used synonymously with "shechita". In this usage, the title should be a redirect or a disambiguation page. But we also find "ritual slaughter" used in ethnological literature for traditions of Africa, New Guinea and other regions as well as for Ancient Greece and other cultures of antiquity. If we are going to develop an article on "ritual slaughter" separate from shechita, its scope will obviously be the wider one. As it happens, everywhere except in Judaism (where very particular reasons exist), the term is used virtually exchangable with "animal sacrifice". If this article is to serve any purpose at all, it will be to explain this situation. --dab (𒁳) 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ritual slaughter" in scholarly and legal literature refers primarily to Jewish and Islamic butchering of animals for food. So, for Ritual slaughter the article could deal mainly with issues common to both Jewish and Islamic practices. For instance, legal, economic, ethical and socio-cultural aspects. These can't be reduced synonymously to shechita due to the increasingly notable Islamic aspect. "Animal sacrifice" is a quite different subject, a subcategory of "Sacrifice" in ethnographic and religious studies (etc) sources. While animal sacrifice is a ritual, the act of "slaughter" is but one step and often one of the least interesting (i.e., studies, referenced). This step may be described as 'slaughter' but any ethnographic uses of 'ritual slaughter' I'd say are incidental and not common terms of art in contemporary ethnography.e.g., p.341 here or p.543 here Furthermore, to answer your question, there certainly are standard animal sacrifices that don't involve food (a few are mentioned in the Animal sacrifice article. Also, the food aspect is unknown or non-notable (to participants or scholars) in many cases. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: did you bother to search for "ritual slaughter" on jstor.org? If we take the term to refer just to Jewish+Islamic practice, let's turn it back into a disambiguation page, since we have articles on these. Please, if you want to discuss Jewish and Islamic dietary laws, do it at the dedicated articles not here. If what you say is correct, this entire debate was for nothing and the only solution is turning this back into a disambiguation page (which was a good solution. I only  expanded this because Shirahadasha kept pestering us with his merge tags. "ritual slaughter" as a separate article can only be of any merit if it discusses the "meat production" aspects of sacrifice in antiquity. This could well be treated under animal sacrifice (which is why that article was also included in disambiguation). It can also be discussed here. Can we please agree that we agree all along, content-wise, and that this is merely a question of how to arrange the various sub-topics.  dab (𒁳) 16:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. We're going a bit in circles. Over at Talk:Legal aspects of ritual slaughter, I moved to the "Legal aspects of" title because you had worked to expand from the disambiguation here. Otherwise, I would think that we need only one article -- "Ritual slaughter" -- to deal with "legal" and any commercial, sociological, or other aspects that are common issues for Jewish and Islamic slaughter. We wouldn't need a disambiguation page: Animal sacrifice could be handled as a "See also" item or an explanatory note (and mentioned at times in the text). (By the way, I did search jstor for ritual slaughter, see my footnote in my comment above.) So really, I think it's up to you. If you're fine with combining the articles, I'm willing to implement it. Thanks. Take care, HG | Talk 16:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ritual slaughter = Animal sacrifice claim 

message: I would suggest following the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1911 transliteration rules. These are taken up in one English US Style Guide, I forget which one.
Proper Hebrew (as spoken by classicists and taught as Classical Hebrew in Universities) distinguishes between three gutteral h sounds: hey, that is really a light h (Israelis leave it out altogether - most sloppy: hheth - represented by an h with a dot under it (pedants double the h. Using h for both hey and heth is not so bad and prevents unconventional odd new transliteration (like hhadash).
To distinquish between kaph and khaf the addition of h to k neatly mimics the addition of a dagesh (dot in the middle of the letter) k to kh. 
Reallly quph is q as a proper pronunciation of quph is farther back in the throat. Qatar has this sound in Arabic.  German yiddish speakers had yiddish (German) as a mother tongue and grew up reading it with Hebrew letters assigning to these letters German phonemes merging heth and khaph. Using shehitah mimics the Hebrew letters, and looks the best standard for me. The letters hey and heth in Hebrew are identical except for a tiny gap. The point being that you can practically as an illiterate in Hebrew copy down what the letters are from a latin letter transliteration. Sorry to be a pedant. RPSM 15:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Please look at this: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) and maybe also discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Varieties of Hebrew. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  shehitah, shekhitah or shechita? Note on transliteration 

message: Can you point out any animal sacrifice that doesn't involve food? If so, that would be a very exceptional case. 
Yes, a holocaust (Greek) or burnt offering.
This happened, for example, when a priest - those males descended from Moses' brother, Aharon made a judgement in error. Anyone normally making a sin offering that was accompanied by atonement, prayer, good deeds, apoologies to all concerned, would bear the cost of an offering that would be consumed by the priests and their families and their servants. In part it had the character of a fine, or loss of income.  The priests owned no agricultural land or animals - some were poor, and depended on the one-tenth of animals, grain, wine and produce brought to the temple as sacrifices.
When the priests themselves made an error, they were not to gain benefit from it, and their sacrifice was entirely consumed by fire, a burnt offering. RPSM 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A vehicle with an Internal combustion engine is merely a special case of an automobile, and doubtless an argument could be made that it's a negligible special case so far as automobile theory is concerned. But it's the case most people who read Wikipedia encounter in their daily lives. Santeria and other religions practicing animal sacrifice are rare in the English-speaking world, Judaism and Islam's form of ritual slaughter more prevalent.  The WP:Naming conventions guideline is very clear on the point: Article names are aids to navigation, so article names are expected to reflect common English usage, which is to be preferred over scholarly definitions if the two conflict. The guideline makes dictionaries, not jstor, the reliable sources for the relevant discussion. I'm not going that far. I'm not suggesting defining everything from the point of view of the contemporary common cases. I'm just suggesting that it is not proper to define the scope of an article in such a way as to exclude them, particular if one is explicitly relying on exclusively specialist argument, as I understand you to be doing. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  answer to dab's question 

message: The initial ban on kosher slaughter in modern Europe originated in the late 19th century in 1897 in Switzerland. Later bans were enacted in Bavaria in 1930, in Norway, Germany and Sweden in the mid-1930s. [citation needed]
This is bad - it is copied from the article Bans on ritual slaughter, now Legal aspects of ritual slaughter. Dates are wrong, and lumping countries together in categories results in inaccuracies and wrong impressions.
For an account of the schächten debates in Germany and Switzerland, and chronology,see:
The Politics of Beef  RobinJudd.
http://modiya.nyu.edu/modiya/bitstream/1964/569/2/shekhita-germany.pdf     RPSM 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need to get the "origin" of the bans right.  

message: What works in one language will not necessarily work in another. 
Colours are one section of a continuous spectrum divided up into colours. Whereas in English, two colours: blue and green are recognised as being two distinct colours; Welsh has only one word that covers both. This is because the idea of colours as a reality "out there" is only an illusion. They are artificial categories picked out by common (unconscious) consent from a continuum. Welsh speakers who do not speak English have to learn to recognise new categories from colour samples to understand where the dividing line goes.
So words are not fixed - especially abstract concepts. A large part of what a word means is lodged in the individual's consciousness and understanding. And different people understand different things according to the surroundings they are used to - their environment.
A Hopi Indian might understand by "ritual slaughter" the slaughter of golden eagles, if that is his main preoccupation. 
Usage is one criterion which gives the normal public meaning of a word. If it a word is frequently used by most people to mean the same thing, then that is what most people will understand when the word is used.  
If you google Ritual Slaughter (1 090 000 hits - 710 shown) then the this phrase is used exclusively to mean Jewish or Muslim slaughter for the first few hundred entries. The Hopi Indians come somewhere near the end of the first 700 hits and there are over one million hits altogether.  Regards,                   RPSM 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applied linguistics and the philosophy of language 

message: Should one not follow the practice today of avoiding the term ritual slaughter altogether because of the unfortunate associations it conjures up, and how it has been deliberately misinterpreted? There were several blood libels during the schächten debates in Germany (Robin Judd, Politics and Beef)
Italians used the English language for their document - quoted in the references and decided on "ritual slaughter". This influenced the character of the document itself. By way of introduction, we have an attempt to justify the term ritual slaughter, before going further in the argument, and it was from this document that the term "sacrificing cut" came.
Muslims do indeed make what they call a sacrifice on Eid al Fitr at the end of Ramadan, Jews do not make sacrifices nowadays.
One Stockholm rabbi made the disambiguative pronouncement that no ceremony or ritual is involved at all, and this was repeated in the appeal to the Swedish Jordbruksdepartemet Ministry of Agriculture that EU documents talk about a rite, when, in fact, no ceremony takes place at all.
To call an act a rite or ceremony by virtue of a blessing  is odd, when the blessings for washing the hands after going to the toilet are longer than the blessing for shehitah, and pious Jews aim to say 100 blessings a day - on seeing someone who is handicapped, a rainbow, eating an apple, etc etc.
The short blessing which lasts less than ten seconds is said whenever one is fulfilling a commandment such as putting on a prayer shawl and there is a blessing originally intended for putting on a hat and another one to put on shoes and neither of these things are ceremonies, rituals or rites. 
Buddhism has a similar injunction to infuse a state of awareness into daily life.
Note that the EU uses "religious slaughter" throughout. Sweden has dropped schäktning that is from the German schachten and is derived from Yiddish to shekht. They go for Grandin's kosher slaughter and they define it in one document (a report commissioned by the DO Diskrimineringsombudsman - the  Ethnic Discrimination Ombudsman) to cover both Jewish and Muslim slaughter which might ruffle Muslim feathers, and anyway Jewish slaughter and Muslim slaughter are not necessarily identical despite a big overlap.
Here in Wikipedia we are dealing right now with a misinterpretation due to the unfortunate terminological situation of having "ritual slaughter" both as a specialised term and a large general category.
The rule in terminology is this: when one thing is confused with another, then a new term should be coined to keep the two separate. So in two legislations from different countries translators and terminologists avoid borrowing a well-know term unless both terms are exactly equivalent. eg registered partnership for homosexuals and not marriage. Explanations by way of introduction are in order, but two distinct terms avoids confusion.
Now that recognised authorities have changed the usage (viz. Grandin and the EU), should not Wikipedia keep up? Look at how schächten is used today in German - I believe by way of historical reference - and "religious slaughter" being, I believe, the EU usage.                                                 RPSM 10:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia article titles are based on common usage. See WP:NAME. "The purpose of an article's title is to enable that article to be found by interested readers, and nothing more." "Ritual slaughter" has over 50,000 hits in Google, and the term is used by parties from all the major sides. --John Nagle 04:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should one not follow practice today of avoiding the term "ritual slaughter" altogether? 

message: Google gives about 1 000 000 hits for ritual slaughter and about 1 000 000  hits for religious slaughter. (but these include the words broken up in two separate sentences).
There is kosher, or Jewish slaughter (shehitah), halal or Muslim slaughter (and the Arabic terms), and Sikh Jhakta slaughter. Religous slaughter covers all three. Ritual slaughter includes many practices that are forbidden in Judaism and Islam, and some people avoid it to avoid causing offence. 
In an article: Religiös slakt (Religious slaughter) there is an introductory note explaining the writer's preference for the term he uses as his title and throughout the article. I will try to find it and put it here. RPSM 00:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Although I think Wikipedia can certainly source statutes, treaties, court decisions and the like directly since such primary materials have inherent notability and relevance (although we can't do much more than paraphrase them), I'm not so sure about matters like motions and proposed bills by legislators. It seems to me a one-sentence summary - "Martin Areasson of the Swedish Folkpartiet Liberal Party introduced a motion to permit traditional religious slaughter in Sweden on 3 October 2005, which did not pass" - is all the clearly notable content here. The United States has large numbers of non-notable bills. People in Congress and State legislatures introduce bills all the time which no-one else pays any attention to. For this reason, I'm not sure that Wikipedia should quote or provide details about the arguments associated with introduced bills without some additional evidence -- a legislative debate indicating other legislators thought the bill worth comment, or an outside source like a newspaper or academic source indicating that it was  notable and received independent attention. My intention is to be even-handing about ensuring that all sides of the issue are covered using reliable sources and that Wikipedia is not used as a soapbox for  arguments which lack independent evidence of notability. I note that there is no article on this individual. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on motion 

message: Doesn't Sikhism have rules on the slaughter of animals in the same or a similar way to the ways that Judaism and Islam have?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.38.153 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikhism 

message: RPSM (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Search for "religious slaughter" provides more hits than 

message: One of the problems that immediately arises using the term Ritual Slaughter is the fantasy (that must be immediately and routinely disabused) that Ritual Slaughter involves a ritual or ceremony. The word "ritual" refers to what is known as Ceremonial Law.
RPSM (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The current term today for Jewish shechita (shehitah) and halal slaughter (Dhab) appears to be "Religious Slaughter" 

message: Could someone please add this aspect: Source Wikipedia 'decapitation'
...
Modern scientific measurements exist on rats decapitated under EEG.[9][10][11] Accordingly, after decapitation, activity drops exponentially. After about 3 to 4 seconds, the levels drop below 50% of an active brain, which is taken as a sure sign that conscious awareness no longer exists. ... All authors conclude that there is a conscious perception of pain in the first few seconds after a decapitation. CrisssCrosss (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conscious after decapitation 

message: The text mention that ritual slaughter is banned in Belgium. The map doesn't show.
? CrisssCrosss (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposite Informations