Am I about to over-react?

Gurgle

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Judge for yourself.

Halal slaughter

Regular slaughter

I'll take your 'filmed by GAIA' and raise you a report from the Guardian here

according to an RSPCA fact sheet, 90% of animals killed for halal food in 2004 were stunned first. As in mainstream food production, the animal's throat is then cut

legspin

Thanks for the replies folks.

Now I have seen the answers I do believe it would not be right for me to object but that won't prevent it from rankling with me.

As Endacl pointed out I have no problem eating halal when it is by choice (and indeed when it is a kebab, if it's not halal it's not a proper kebab imo). It is the choice aspect that I have an issue with. If I go to eat a kebab that's my decision. Expecting me to eat a kebab because that's what you want to do would raise an objection here

I'm not sure though that saying I'm merely being churlish because of the religious aspect of the food is correct. Religion, in all it's varying levels of stupidity and ignorance needs to be countered. Saying that one can't eat a certain food because a god would be angered makes me boil. Life is hard enough without having to add that level of crass idiocy on top.

Hospitality is a two-way street though. If you have certain expectations as to how you want to be treated in my house, you had better return the favour if I'm in yours.

magicbastarder

legspin wrote: »

As Endacl pointed out I have no problem eating halal when it is by choice (and indeed when it is a kebab, if it's not halal it's not a proper kebab imo). It is the choice aspect that I have an issue with. If I go to eat a kebab that's my decision. Expecting me to eat a kebab because that's what you want to do would raise an objection here

i think you're being extremely churlish here. they're probably serving you perfectly palatable food, and your objection is that that's the food that acceptable to them from a religious point of view?

Mickeroo

If you've no problem eating halal from a kebab then I don't see why you have a problem here at all tbh...it's just meat at the end of the day.

18AD

Your objection seems pretty groundless to be honest.

The food is nice but there's not enough choice? How exactly would you even go about complaining about that?

"I like the food, but I want more choice. I want more different food I like."

seamus

Coming from my point of view as a vegetarian, if I ran such a club where all or the majority of my players were veggie, I would see no reason to provide meat to the visiting team just because that's what they'd like. They're perfectly able and willing to eat vegetarian food, so there's no good reason to provide something extra just because.

I'm aware that's a little bit of a hand-grenade because someone is going to make a comment about "forcing beliefs", but it's exactly the same situation as described in the OP. Food is provided, the OP can eat it, so there's no problem.

endacl

seamus wrote: »

Coming from my point of view as a vegetarian, if I ran such a club where all or the majority of my players were veggie, I would see no reason to provide meat to the visiting team just because that's what they'd like.

First they came for the vegetablists....

Penn

seamus wrote: »

Coming from my point of view as a vegetarian, if I ran such a club where all or the majority of my players were veggie, I would see no reason to provide meat to the visiting team just because that's what they'd like. They're perfectly able and willing to eat vegetarian food, so there's no good reason to provide something extra just because.

I'm aware that's a little bit of a hand-grenade because someone is going to make a comment about "forcing beliefs", but it's exactly the same situation as described in the OP. Food is provided, the OP can eat it, so there's no problem.

I agree. I'm told I'm a fussy eater (whereas I prefer to think I'm a very simplistic eater: Meat + Spuds/bread and I'm fine), so I know if I went somewhere only serving vegetarian food, I'd hate it. But at the same time, you can never cater to everyone's tastes. Offer as wide a selection as you can reasonably offer, and if someone (like me) still doesn't like it, it's their (my) fault.

endacl

When the Moslem team comes to play, are they required to eat sausage (Freudian implication spotted Let it go...), or is there a halal option provided? Just out of interest?

Penn

endacl wrote: »

When the Moslem team comes to play, are they required to eat sausage (Freudian implication spotted Let it go...), or is there a halal option provided? Just out of interest?

legspin wrote: »

No one expects that they would eat the sausage sandwiches that are traditional in my own club (and for which it it famed within North Dublin cricket as far as I understand) but other foods are provided. My objection is the lack of reciprocation.

Not sure what the other foods are, but it would seem measures are taken by the non-Muslim clubs to accommodate the Muslim teams

Gurgle

Penn wrote: »

Not sure what the other foods are, but it would seem measures are taken by the non-Muslim clubs to accommodate the Muslim teams

Non Muslim club provides sausage sandwiches and 'other foods'. What other foods? Are they making a special effort to suit Muslims, by providing certified Halal meat alongside the sausage sandwiches? Or do they always serve salad sandwiches too?

Muslims have a religious objection to non-halal meats.
Non-Muslims don't have a religious objection to halal meats.

Muslim club provides halal meats, everyone (except vegetarians) can eat.
Whats the problem?

doctoremma

seamus wrote: »

Coming from my point of view as a vegetarian, if I ran such a club where all or the majority of my players were veggie, I would see no reason to provide meat to the visiting team just because that's what they'd like. They're perfectly able and willing to eat vegetarian food, so there's no good reason to provide something extra just because.

I'm aware that's a little bit of a hand-grenade because someone is going to make a comment about "forcing beliefs", but it's exactly the same situation as described in the OP.

I was once discussing the possibility of my wedding being a vegetarian-only affair (it was only discussion, I didn't have any intention of doing it). The person I was talking to said he would complain very vocally to me in person and refuse to eat anything, on the premise that I was forcing my beliefs on him. Okey-dokey. After a little more probing, I had him admit that he wouldn't entertain the idea of any such protest if the motivating factor was religious (i.e. Jain or such). In his words, "a religious motivation for vegetarianism is more worthy of respect than a non-religious reason for vegetarianism". WTF?

endacl

Penn wrote: »

Not sure what the other foods are, but it would seem measures are taken by the non-Muslim clubs to accommodate the Muslim teams

Note to self. Read, don't skim...

oldrnwisr

Gurgle wrote: »

I'll take your 'filmed by GAIA' and raise you a report from the Guardian here

Thanks for that Gurgle.

While the RSPCA factsheet itself doesn't make for hopeful reading, particularly the FAWC report recommendations, the problem seems to be minimal (i.e. 10% of Halal slaughter).

However, the really worrying thing is that the government, according to the factsheet, have yet to implement the report's recommendations which suggests that they are prioritising religious beliefs over animal welfare, which is unfortunate.

Kooli

18AD wrote: »

Your objection seems pretty groundless to be honest.

The food is nice but there's not enough choice? How exactly would you even go about complaining about that?

"I like the food, but I want more choice. I want more different food I like."

No it's one step further actually.

"I like the food, but I want more choice. I want more different food I like. But for it to count it has to be food that you can't eat."

legspin

Kooli wrote: »

No it's one step further actually.

"I like the food, but I want more choice. I want more different food I like. But for it to count it has to be food that you can't eat."

No it's not. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking the food and for you to suggest otherwise is at the very least putting your opinion in my mouth.

It is why do you expect me to eat your food when you won't eat mine for a reason that is essentially a nasty, small-minded and petty superstition when your food has been prepared with that superstition in mind. I don't mind you eating it but don't force it upon me.
And before anyone jumps up and down saying I'm not being forced, it is considered exceptionally bad manners and a a breach of ettiquette to turn your nose up at the food prepared by the home team.
Toleration works both ways or not at all.

Mickeroo

legspin wrote: »

No it's not. It has nothing to do with liking or not liking the food and for you to suggest otherwise is at the very least putting your predjudice in my mouth.

It is why do you expect me to eat your food when you won't eat mine for a reason that is essentially a nasty, small-minded and petty superstition when your food has been prepared with that superstition in mind. I don't mind you eating it but don't force it upon me.
And before anyone jumps up and down saying I'm not being forced, it is considered exceptionally bad manners and a a breach of ettiquette to turn your nose up at the food prepared by the home team.
Toleration works both ways or not at all.

But what difference does it make to you if it was prepared with the petty superstition in mind? It will still taste the same sure.

doctoremma

legspin wrote: »

It is why do you expect me to eat your food when you won't eat mine for a reason that is essentially a nasty, small-minded and petty superstition when your food has been prepared with that superstition in mind. I don't mind you eating it but don't force it upon me.

So, do you not eat food if someone has said grace?

ShooterSF

seamus wrote: »

Coming from my point of view as a vegetarian, if I ran such a club where all or the majority of my players were veggie, I would see no reason to provide meat to the visiting team just because that's what they'd like. They're perfectly able and willing to eat vegetarian food, so there's no good reason to provide something extra just because.

I'm aware that's a little bit of a hand-grenade because someone is going to make a comment about "forcing beliefs", but it's exactly the same situation as described in the OP. Food is provided, the OP can eat it, so there's no problem.

I'd be more concerned about being considered a poor host to be fair. If I have people over I'd try and make sure there was a decent mix. Your scenario wouldn't be much different than me providing sausage sambos (mmmm) because I'd be happy with just those and then suggesting anyone that doesn't eat meat can pick the sausages off or I'll make them a butter sambo. It's not wrong and not enough to be worth making a scene about but both of us would probably eat before hand if we bothered attending more of each others parties.

As for the OP I'd go with Penn's suggestion, pack some sausage sambos and if asked politely say you're a fussy eater.

legspin

Mickeroo wrote: »

But what difference does it make to you if it was prepared with the petty superstition in mind? It will still taste the same sure.

It's the just hospitalitly and toleration aspect of it. I don't expect anyone to conform to my dietary rules (which are non-existant in fairness) but don't expect me to conform to yours to assuage your prejudice is all I am trying to say. How nice or not the food is has never been an issue.

legspin

doctoremma wrote: »

So, do you not eat food if someone has said grace?

If they won't eat mine if I don't say grace over it then I should not be expected to.
Again, the toleration is all in one direction.

18AD

You've self-imposed your own dietary restriction by not eating food that people with dietary restrictions expect you to also eat.

You wouldn't eat salads that vegetarians expected you to eat because they wouldn't eat meat.

This is amazingly complicated. Good job.

doctoremma

18AD wrote: »

You've self-imposed your own dietary restriction by not eating food that people with dietary restrictions expect you to also eat.

You're also in danger of ascribing meaning and importance to a ceremony that means nothing to you. I mean, the slaughterhouse man may as well have praised Santa as he killed the animal.

I understand that your concern is the lack of mutual tolerance. But you don't have any dietary requirements that need tolerating...?

MagicMarker

I'm still failing to see a problem here.

If you like chicken, and the home team serve chicken, then what's the big deal? Assuming you have no issue with the method of the slaughter then I think it's being incredibly petit to make an issue out of it tbh.

doctoremma

Can I also just clarify that it's the religious aspect that specifically bothers you? If you came to my house and I fed you vegetarian food (good veggie food, not butter sarnies), you would eat or object? And expect me to eat meat at yours?

Sulla Felix

I have to ask OP, to take doctoremma's previous example: If the team were Jains or Buddhists and only provided vegetarian food would you then be refusing to eat it as well?

legspin

18AD wrote: »

You've self-imposed your own dietary restriction by not eating food that people with dietary restrictions expect you to also eat.

No, I just expect the same level of tolerance from them as they expect from me.

18AD wrote: »

You wouldn't eat salads that vegetarians expected you to eat because they wouldn't eat meat.

This is amazingly complicated. Good job.

This has actually happened to me. I have cooked for vegetarians in my house food they like, the reciprecal tolerance has never been true. Indeed on one occasion I was denegrated for preparing a steak for myself while they were eating what I had prepared for them. In my own house.
The only vegetarian I know who has ever cooked me a steak is my wife.
If you come to my house and expect to be given food you want to eat the reverse must also be true.

18AD

legspin wrote: »

No, I just expect the same level of tolerance from them as they expect from me.

But you've still imposed your own dietary restrictions. There are foods you don't want to eat because of the expectations of the people who prepared it. Not wanting to eat particular foods is a dietary restriction whatever way you look at it.

You're not going to tolerate it until they do too? That's not really tolerant, is it?

This has actually happened to me. I have cooked for vegetarians in my house food they like, the reciprecal tolerance has never been true. Indeed on one occasion I was denegrated for preparing a steak for myself while they were eating what I had prepared for them. In my own house.
The only vegetarian I know who has ever cooked me a steak is my wife.
If you come to my house and expect to be given food you want to eat the reverse must also be true.

So you don't like vegetarian food? Kidding :P

robindch

MagicMarker wrote: »

I'm still failing to see a problem here.

legspin wrote: »

[...] the hospitality aspect of the game is important. No one expects that they would eat the sausage sandwiches that are traditional in my own club (and for which it it famed within North Dublin cricket as far as I understand) but other foods are provided. My objection is the lack of reciprocation.

Haven't read every post, but I think it's clear enough that legspin's problem is that while the club in north Dublin provides a range of food to visiting teams, the islamic-leaning clubs provide only one kind of food.

That's ok if there are good reasons for it, but I can't really think of any and, bearing in mind that hospitality is important, not catering to the visiting teams' needs seems, well, just not cricket.

Kooli

robindch wrote: »

Haven't read every post, but I think it's clear enough that legspin's problem is that while the club in north Dublin provides a range of food to visiting teams, the islamic-leaning clubs provide only one kind of food.

That's ok if there are good reasons for it, but I can't really think of any and, bearing in mind that hospitality is important, not catering to the visiting teams' needs seems, well, just not cricket.

What 'needs' aren't being catered for?

A need for non-halal food? And non-halal food not for any reasons of taste or ethics. Just for the sole purpose of putting the host team out to enforce some sort of manufactured unnecessary reciprocity?

I don't see why any reasonable person should have to cater to those 'needs'