It is a religious ritual and therefore ritualistic. It fits in with the definition of a ritual. It’s prayed over and then treated in a certain way including having the blood drained out. It’s important that it’s a ritual because other people may well not want to consume something which has gone through a ritual related to a religion to which they don’t adhere
.
I really don’t care what your views on halal or if you and your family choose to eat it or not. It really has no bearing on the choices that other people wish to make and is utterly irrelevant to a wider conversation about whether or not halal meat should be labelled because it’s simply your own personal choice. But it’s a personal choice that you don’t wish other people to have. You’re getting quite worked up about not being expected to have a problem with something yourself and choosing not to eat it, but I don’t understand why you can’t see that other people have just as much right to object to something.
Sikhs cannot eat halal full stop. Some Christians don’t want to eat halal for religious reasons. Just because your school has decided to go for halal doesn’t mean that all Christians are obliged to feel the same way. The headmistress is not God (although I think it’s interesting that they have chosen to inform the parents that it is halal). Some atheists may object too, in the same way some refuse to go to religious services.
And aside from the bullshit about Britain First, which is a classic way of trying to shut down a debate when you don’t actually have any argument, you and the other posters have completely ignored my question. Why is it reasonable for Muslims to be able to make an informed choice on eating food which has been treated in a religious manner that they choose, and for other people to choose not to? Why are their beliefs more important than the beliefs of those who do not wish to eat it for whatever reason? People on this thread have said that those objections should be unilaterally dismissed because it ‘makes no difference’ whilst supporting the right of Muslims to eat halal. Either it makes a difference or it doesn’t, you can’t say ‘Oh, well it makes a difference to this group of people, but to these people it makes no difference’. It just doesn’t make sense.
Unless, of course, you are giving one person’s beliefs more importance than anothers. Which is what you and lot of other people on this thread are doing. Personally I think everybody should have a choice to make an informed decision, including Muslims, and halal and non-halal should be labelled so that people can choose which they eat. Because I don’t prioritise the right of one group to eat meat which conforms to their personal beliefs any higher than any other.
If someone could make some sort of coherent argument why it is logical to support the right of Muslims to eat according to their beliefs while dismissing the rights of others to do the same thing I would be really interested to hear it. But really, it just boils down to 'Muslims beliefs are more important than anybody else's'. Which is always skirted around in the argument against labelling halal meat, but is always present too.