Reason TV’s ‘Nanny of the month – February 2013’



I wonder how long it will take my trolls to realize I will only respond to them in Klingon….

Constitution? Obama needs no stinkin’ Constitution!

Murray Rothbard: Involuntary Servitude – Taxation

Is ‘Halal meat’ acceptable to non-Muslims?

We have been told, over and over, that ‘Halal meat’ is the ‘lowest common denominator’ for all peoples:  that is, that serving ‘Halal meat’ does not infringe the sensibilities (religious or otherwise) of non-Muslims while serving non-Halal food does….the logical conclusion being that serving Halal meat is the best course of action.

Indeed, in the UK, many have bought into this line of reasoning, including many schools.  They no longer offer a non-Halal meat option.  Indeed, many supermarkets in the UK offer Halal-slaughtered meat only – without labeling it as ‘Halal meat’ or ‘Halal-compliant-meat’ or ‘Halal-slaughtered-meat’.

However, serving/selling Halal meat is not as ‘universally acceptable’ as many Islamist lobbyists would like us to believe…even if we were to leave out the implications of the rules required for ‘Halal certification’, which violate our hiring/labour laws based on not discriminating on the grounds of relgion when hirin workers, as in order to maintain ‘Halal’ certification, only Muslims and/or Muslim supervisors are permitted.

When I was doing a little bit of research on this, I discovered that ‘Halal-certified meat’ could, indeed, be problematic.

The first group to be strictly forbidden to consume ‘Halal meat’ my research encountered were the Sikhs….who are very strictly forbidden from consuming ‘Halal meat,’ indeed.

It would appear that there are two distinct, both important, doctrinal reasons for the prohibition.

  1.   Sikhism requires that an animal is to be killed in as swift and painless manner as possible in order for them to be able to eat it.  The Islamic method of ‘Halal slaughter’ violates this by requiring animals to be slowly and painfully bled to death.  When India was conquered by Muslims and the Koranic method of slowly bleeding the animal to death was imposed, Sikh religious leaders forbade all Sikhs the consumption of meat slaughtered in such a cruel manner.  Most Sikhs will prefer to become vegetarians rather than eat meat that was slaughtered by either the Halal or Kosher method.
  2. Sikhism forbids the eating of food that was ‘prayed over’ or that was ‘sacrificial’.  This, of course, would apply to all ‘Halal meat’, which is prayed over and dedicated as a sacrifice to ‘Allah’ as it is slaughtered.

Here are the references:

  • –
  • this source adds a third reason – ‘sovereignty’ 
  • even Wikipedia has some info on it:  Prohibitions in Sikhism     (Not that I consider Wikipedia to be an authoritative source – I included it to demonstrate that this is a well known principle of mainstream Sikhism and does not just represent the position of some obscure fringe sect.)

The Sikh method of animal slaughter is called ‘Jhatka‘.  It is very clear that Halal meat cannot be Jhatka meat and Jhatka meat cannot be Halal meat, as described in one of the references cited already above (first bullet).  They are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

What I found interesting while doing this research is that meat-eating Hindus are strictly prohibited from eating Halal meat.  The references  found are not deeply scriptual, but they do demonstrate this is a widely held belief: here and here.

Here is a news report that demonstrates that Buddhists also find the consumption of Halal meat problematic on doctrinal grounds.

Needles to say, secular humanists are very strongly opposed to the consumption of Halal meat because of the extreme cruelty of the method of slaughter.  Here is just one example.

What is interesting is that when I was poking around on the internet, I have found a curious twist to things:  in both the Old Testament and in the Apostolic Letters of the New Testament, there are clear and strict prohibitions for Christians on the consumption of all sacrificial meat.  As all Halal meat is, indeed, sacrificial meat by the virtue of the prayer chanted over them as they are slaughtered (this is indeed the Sikh and Hindu interpretation, as well), some of the better-informed, or, perhaps, more doctrinally-adherent Christian sects are, in fact, interpreting this to mean that Christian scriptures strictly forbid the consumption of Halal meat.

In conclusion, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhist and Christians are doctrinally forbidden from consuming Halal meat and secular humanists tend to avoid it on animal cruelty grounds.

Thus, any and all claims that ‘Halal meat’ ought to be the ‘default’ or ‘lowest common denominator’ for serving food in schools or other institutions, or that it is not necessary to label ‘Halal-slaughtered-meat’ as ‘Halal-compliant’ or ‘Sharia-compliant’ in our restaurants and retail stores is an obvious violation of the freedom of religion provision of our constitution – and, as such, cannot be permitted and/or tolerated.

After all, each and every one of us deserves the right to make a choice – an informed choice – about the food we consume.

It is our constitutional/common-law right – now let us make sure our governments require the proper labeling so that we can, indeed, make the informed choice our constitutional/common-law rights give us!!!

CodeSlinger on ‘natural rights’

A few days ago, I posted on the 2nd Amendment and a pro-gun ownership ad.  After a short comment exchange, I received this response from CodeSlinger which, in my never-humble-opinion, deserves a full post of its own. 

It is that important!

CodeSlinger says:

And this ramifies into the whole issue of the source and nature of rights and morals.

By claiming that rights are conferred by the state and morals are a matter of consensus, the neo-liberals utterly destroy the concepts of rights and morals. They reduce rights to the status of mere privileges, and they reduce morals to the status of mere laws.

In this way, neo-liberalism is no better than the religions it denigrates. Neo-liberals claim that rights and morals are handed down by the state, while religious people claim that rights and morals are handed down by God. They do not recognize that a man has rights simply by virtue of existing, nor do they understand that right and wrong are determined solely by what kind of creature a man is.

A man is a living creature capable of reason and compassion. From this it follows immediately that his inalienable rights are life, liberty, privacy, property, self-defence and self-expression. It also follows directly that whatever causes a man harm by violating his rights is wrong, and whatever is not wrong is right.

Recognition of these principles places strict limits on the rightful power of the state vis-à-vis the individual, much the same way that the American Constitution was intended to do, only more so. It leads to the understanding that the only legitimate purpose of the state is to equally protect the equal rights of each and every individual. Everything the state does beyond that causes more harm than good.

And, of course, this flies in the face of everything the neo-liberals want, which is why they hate the Constitution and the principles of inalienable individual rights and universal morality on which it is based.

These principles give them freedom to do as they please, but also burden them with responsibility to take care of themselves — all without violating the rights of such others as have not violated theirs.

But neo-liberals would rather give up their rights and freedoms and bow down to the state, which they want to make all-powerful, because they foolishly think an all-powerful state will take care of them. This desire is hopelessly unrealistic and childish, and it is exactly what religious people want from their God.

Thus when neo-liberals call themselves citizens of a state, they mean exactly the same thing that religious people mean when they call themselves children of God. In this regard, religious people are more honest than neo-liberals, because they acknowledge that being taken care of by an all-powerful entity reduces them to the status of children — or chattel, which they acknowledge when they compare themselves a flock of sheep.

Neo-liberals seek to spare themselves this admission by secularizing their beliefs and values. But a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet.

The cultural Marxists who created neo-liberalism, complete with its politically correct self-sacrificial secular Edenism, were highly accomplished psychologists and sociologists. They knew perfectly well that this would happen. If they tore down traditional religious and family values and created widespread conditions leading to arrested emotional development, there would be only one possible replacement that could meet the subconscious psychological needs of the resulting post-modern tribe of hopelessly lost adult children: the apotheosis of the totalitarian state.

That’s right, neo-liberals worship the totalitarian state, even while they fancy themselves to be oh-so-sophisticated and secular.

This is what really underlies their rabidly relentless attack on the Constitution and the principles it is based upon.

ReasonTV: Should You Go to Jail for Unlocking Your Phone?


Gun control ad

Things are getting interesting with our southern neighbours.  For example, Clear Channel refused to air this patriotic ad:

It is the obligation of citizens to arm themselves with as effective weapons as their governments’ armed forces posses, in order to be able to depose any government that turns tyrannical.  That is the meaning of the US Constitution’s 2nd amendment and that is the legacy of the Magna Carta.

We must never forget that with the privileges of citizenship come the responsibilities of citizenship.


Reason TV: How Patent Trolls Kill Innovation

Finally – a way to make ‘sports’ interesting

Posted in Humour. Tags: . Leave a Comment »