To ask if a school turning its canteen halal of kosher is them imposing a faith on people

[Souredstones]

I don't know how I feel about this but a Facebook post has really made me think if a school canteen is halal or kosher then isn't it imposing a faith on its pupils? Or is it? I don't know so I defer to the wise ladies of Mumsnet for a decision

I eat meat
I don't eat white veal - it only exists through cruelty
I don't eat Foie Gras - it also can only exists through cruelty
I don't eat Halal -for the very same reason ...
Interesting to read about stunning - but it is the principle - if stunning is religiously acceptable then ALL Halal meat should be stunned.
I don't feed my children white veal or Foie Gras - if they got offered those at school I would complain.
The same for Halal.
But this isn't new - 20+ yrs ago when I was doing chef qualifications we had a couple of dinner ladies on the course - and they were talking about it - the biggest concern they had was all the poor children couldn't have jelly anymore cos it was pork gelatine....
By the fact we have Halal meat in schools condones the cruelty - and that IMO is unacceptable...

Unlucky - yes, by having it in school it makes it acceptable and even the preferred choice. Children go to school to learn, and they learn by example.

Don't eat the Halal meat then.

It's not bloody labelled though is it, it's all done by stealth. The fast food places don't advertise the fact that their meat is halal, they keep quiet because they don't give a toss about people who don't want to eat it. I used to encourage my dd to have Subway as a healthier alternative if she as out with her friends and they wanted some fast food (we never have burgers etc ourselves but she is a teenager so...), but now I've read that it is halal. Don't know if that's true because we aren't informed so we have no alternative but to avoid.
I only found out by accident that school canteens are serving it, we were never asked or informed.

The supermarkets don't make it clear either which is why I don't buy meat there any more. Nice to know where stuff is packaged but not how it has been slaughtered .

EldritchCleavage And Sharia is no older than 1400 years old, if my rough reckoning is correct. The English common law still cites statutes and cases that are hundreds of years old, we should remember. Not defending Sharia (which holds no charms for me), but the contrasts between it and our common law in particular are not as great as one might think

if Sharia law is only that old, it really is even less impressive than I thought. Roman law is 2000-3000 years old and contains far more advanced principles, which is why many European systems used it as their basis. Even the Danelaw was more advanced in its administration of justice (in that it recognised formal composition of local courts) and principles than many elements of Sharia law.

And of course English common law has been constantly updated since then, by legislation and case law. I am not aware of any judicial precedents dating from earlier than the 1600s which comprise law today, and those few which are that old are very compatible with modern thinking.

The contrasts between Sharia law and our modern legal system are huge. Thankfully. A more realistic comparison would be if we were to use our bible as our legal code, and bend it to fit every modern situation, and allow it justice to be mainly administered by religious church ministers, rather than qualified lawyers (I admit that some clerics in charge of Sharia law are legally qualified on occasion).

I am not aware of any judicial precedents dating from earlier than the 1600s which comprise law today

One of the Treason Acts, for starters.

I won't touch Halal or Kosher meat. IMO it is killed in an inhumane manner. I would not let my children touch the stuff ang would insist on them being veggie.

EldritchCleavage I am not aware of any judicial precedents dating from earlier than the 1600s which comprise law today One of the Treason Acts, for starters

I'm afraid that's legislation, not a judicial precedent.

And your general point is that UK law is comparable to Sharia Law in terms of antiquity - I'm not really seeing that myself. Please don't mislead people on this. There was a brief moment about 10 years ago when a few jurisprudents were through a phase of singing the praises of Sharia law. Because it was the new "in thing". Then they familiarised themselves with it and fortunately the trend passed.

Even relatively progressive jurisdictions such as Quatar, when trying to construct contracts in the oil and gas industry, suffer problems because passing new legislation to regulate issues is just so difficult and time consuming, and cannot keep pace with requirements.

And your general point is that UK law is comparable to Sharia Law in terms of antiquity - I'm not really seeing that myself. Please don't mislead people on this

That is not my point at all, and I don't think I am being misleading, actually. I simply said the contrast was not always so stark as some people might believe. And I made quite clear that I am no fan of Sharia.

There are earlier judicial precedents that are cited, but short of magicking up a full set of the English Reports right now I'm not going to be able to name any cases.

But, whatever, you're seeing an argument where there isn't one, really.

Any law based on reason is a whole lot better than law based on superstition.

halal as a law was based on practical reasons eg hygiene and avoiding food poisoning and was promulgated through religion to reach as many people at that time. so not 'superstition' then.

burberryqueen - but these practical reasons - eg hygiene and food poisoning that was many centuries ago and we have now moved on and have different easier modern methods and so these rules don't need to be followed any more for those reasons. The reason is now tradition and the wanting to keep things the same and keeping things the same is often for superstition

'Any law based on reason is a whole lot better than law based on superstition.'

well not entirely. I prefer laws based on reason and compassion. Logic and reason would suggest keeping disabled and chronically sick people around was a stupid idea. Reason would say who cares if animals suffer. Maximum produce in minimum space. I like to stir compassion into my laws.

If you tread on a nick, you'll marry a stick, and a blackjack will come to your wedding.

My daughter's best friend is hindu, but she really believes that seeing one magpie on its own is unlucky. I don't know where she's got that from, but it does affect her if she sees just one. She talks about other superstitions she's picked up, and she really believes them.

She's as bright as a button, but these superstitions do have the power to affect her daily life. I keep telling her they are a load of rubbish, but youngsters have minds like trusting sponges and they soak it all up.

If it is a UK superstition, I feel free to try to protect her from it, but otherwise, I don't know what is part of her religion and what isn't, so tread more carefully.