On its Erasmus blog, which covers religion and public policy, the Economist casts a wary eye on Denmark’s new law that outlaws the inhumane ritual slaughter of animals, concluding that it is a solution in search of a problem. No ritual slaughter takes place in Denmark on any meaningful scale, the magazine claims — not in slaughterhouses, anyway.
[P]eople who want to eat ritually slaughtered meat simply import the product, and they face no obstacle.
If that’s true, the fight is indeed symbolic, and a bit weird; the law would be unnecessary. But the same is true for the angry protestations of Jews and Muslims who claim the measure goes too far.
The Economist has a provocative take on the issue that’s worth pondering.
Religion (or perhaps the passionate, protective sense of identity that religions engender) has an extraordinary way of triggering disputes about matters that make no difference in the real world.
But…
Imagine the furore if (as has been discussed in several European countries) a serious attempt were made to stop something that does actually happen, the circumcision of baby boys.
That would be a spectacle worth following.
(Image via Shutterstock)
