Mmmmmmkay….

First of all, Stephanie Zvan, likewise writing a guest blog on Scientific American, has neatly deconstructed the failure that is Naff’s rather, well, naff, post. Go read that. I’ll wait ….

Back? Cool. Because that’s not the point I wished to take on. I would take the same position as Zvan (including taking issue with Naff’s characterisation of some very reasoned statements by Dawkins as “infuriated”), but the issue I want to address is the one, stated explicitly in the second paragraph, and permeating the whole blog, that existence lacks meaning and purpose unless it be vouchsafed us by a Creator:

“The other is the shiny new set of atheists who claim that science demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that our existence is accidental, purposeless, and doomed.”

I’ve blithered on about this a number of times before, but I don’t get tired of saying it: we create our own meaning; we find and define our own purpose. That is the meaning of life, in my view.

Just as no godling could remove my responsibility for my deeds, no external being or force – or god – can bestow upon me purpose or meaning. They dwell within. For most of us they probably do involve things external to ourselves – but they were not created by those external things; we invest those things/people/causes with meaning for ourselves.

And yet Naff perpetuates the tired old trope that without god (or ancient aliens from another universe) to create us, our life is void of meaning. What a sad existence he must have, if he honestly cannot define himself other than by what might be granted him by some other.

And if that’s not the case, then I really don’t understand why he feels he must make the (extremely weak) point that he does.

First let me make it clear that what is shown in the video footage from Indonesia is very definitely not Halal. Halal (or rather Dhabihah) slaughter actually proscribes pretty much everything occurring therein – so the meat coming from those abattoirs is in fact Haram (forbidden). The animal should be treated gently until the moment of slaughter; they should not se other animals killed… It’s as though they read the requirements of Halal and decided to mostly do the opposite.

Mostly.

While I am not therefore equating Dhabihah slaughter – and the resulting halal meat – with that brutality, I do think it is completely wrong: quite sick, in fact. Why do I even see it as relevant, seeing as the practices in those abattoirs are not Dhabihah? Because they’ve started a part of a conversation about live export for slaughter. Because that is only happening in the name of religious observance and a desire for halal meat.

And simply because I truly think it needs to stop.

First, have a look here, at the prescribed method of slaughter.

“According to Islamic tradition, the animal is brought to the place of slaughter and laid down gently so as to not injure it. The blade must be kept hidden until the very last moment while the jugular of the animal is felt. The conventional method used to slaughter the animal involves cutting the large arteries in the neck along with the esophagus and vertebrate trachea with one swipe of an non-serrated blade. Care must be taken that the nervous system is not damaged, as this may cause the animal to die before exsanguination has taken place. While blood is draining, the animal is not handled until it has died. If any other method is used its meat will not be halal.”

Spot the sick part? It’s right there in the middle:

“Care must be taken that the nervous system is not damaged, as this may cause the animal to die before exsanguination has taken place.”

Srsly.

The animal has to remain alive while it bleeds to death.

Oh. Yay.

According to Wiki, the Dhabihah method of slaughter described above is performed in order to comply with this from the Qu’ran:

“Forbidden for you are carrion, and blood, and flesh of swine, and that which has been slaughtered while proclaiming the name of any other than God, and one killed by strangling, and one killed with blunt weapons, and one which died by falling, and that which was gored by the horns of some animal, and one eaten by a wild beast, except those whom you slaughter; and that which is slaughtered at the altar and that which is distributed by the throwing of arrows [for an omen]; this is an act of sin.”
—– Al-Maa’idah 5:3

Now a prohibition against carrion makes sense. Don’t eat rotten meat; you could get sick and die. Sure. I’ll go with that. Pity it got religiously codified and therefore seen as mandatory and unalterable despite being quite bloody barmy…. But we’re not talking carrion.

Let’s be clear: there is no nice way to kill another living being. It’s something we do – and I think we should be acutely aware of it – but it’s not really very nice. There are however, more and less humane ways to go about it. Cutting an animal’s throat in such a way that it remains alive and aware while bleeding to death is fundamentally sick and messed-up. And there is no sense to it. No utility. No gain. It doesn’t make the meat more healthy. It doesn’t even make it taste better (if that could even be a justification for such cruelty).

Seriously, if someone can give me a rational justification for the requirement that an animal be kept alive to bleed to death, tell me; I’m waiting….

And to be clear: “because a bloody old book said so” is most assuredly not a rational justification.

On the face of it this seems fine: we shouldn’t tolerate domestic violence, and there should be an easy way for anyone suffering it to get help and support.

However…

Along with the sign, I noticed this morning how terribly Newspeak-ish is the phrase “Domestic Violence” – and worse yet: “DV”. No longer do we talk about assault, emotional cruelty, even rape (within a relationship) or suchlike; it has become “DV in the relationship”.

Words are important. They are the primary means by which we convey not just information, but the very concepts therein. In Orwell’s 1984, the Party use Newspeak to control not just information, but the public’s conception of existence. If there is no way to describe a concept, what happens to that concept. The notion Orwell puts forth through the Party is that without language to express a concept the concept can cease to exist:

‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,’ he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. ‘Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?’

Compare and contrast “DV in the relationship” with “He bashes his wife”. Not only is the latter more accurate and informationally complete, it is more visceral. Upon hearing or reading it there is more empathy evoked; you feel more what is happening. The Newspeak “Domestic Violence” (and especially the short, punchy, and oh-so-catchy “DV”) robs information and emotion from the concept. In fact it changes the concept: in Newspeak (“DV in the relationship”), it is the relationship that appears to be in some odd and undefinable way, at fault; in Oldspeak (“He bashes his wife”) it is clear who is at fault: a violent man.

The more I read 1984, the more I see of it in the world around me. If you have not read it, or haven’t read it for a while, read it.

Read. It. Now.