It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Halal only KFC in ENGLAND refuses to serve bacon

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

I don't want to worry you too much, or fuel your outrage. So forgive me in advance, but you do know that there are also these Vegan places opening up. From what I have heard the owners of these Vegan places simply refuse to stock or sell anything that is remotely connected to the consumption of meats and even exclude animal by-products, such as eggs, dairy etc..
I don't know where it is all going to end, but I do believe we are on a slippery slope. These hippyesque vegetarian/vegan business owners will lead to the complete breakdown of our multi meat eating consumerist society. I demand that I should be able to buy an egg sandwich and a cream cake where ever I choose.
I blame the government




posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: cosmickat

No problem. I also haven't got much on at the moment too (until the footy kicks off at 3pm), so finally built the courage to post on this awesome website.

I agree with everything you said in your reply back, except for #2. I believe it does make a difference. Some people would prefer that the animal where the meat came from was killed quickly and with as little pain as possible. The issue of the animals having a prayer doesn't bother me (though do find it a tad strange), they probably just play a recording anyway, with the amount of livestock they must slaughter. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It's the same reason why free range eggs have become so popular. Though I recognise for some people, not going to KFC is more inconvenient to them, than picking up a box of free range eggs.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

I went to the KFC last week and they had no mini-fillets.

...I ordered something else instead.

I know, crazy right?!



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: 83Liberty

I commend you for getting stuck in and involved. Took me about a year of lurking and another year after joining to actually type anything ! Even now I tend to read and digest more than I tend to post or reply.

The overall point about the slaughter of the animals that I was trying to make was that there is no " pretty " or " peaceful " way to slaughter animals for our consumption. Whether it is traditional western style slaughter or Halal, the process is painful and extremely distressing for the animals. A traditional slaughterhouse is working towards targets and quotas. It is not the case that every single animal will be humanely dealt with. That is just a fact. They are reared, often in intensive battery conditions, they suffer their entire life so that we can consume them and death is their only release. It is a fantasy to believe that their end is anymore humane than their life was.

My point is that anyone who really cares how animals are reared and slaughtered would neither be eating chicken nor bacon ( actually especially these two, conditions are the absolute worst for chickens and pigs ) and if they like meat enough not to care, then why would a Halal slaughter be any more unacceptable than a traditional kill?

I very much doubt that at the exact point of tucking into a tasty piece of the Colonel's fried chicken anyone is wondering, " hmm sure hope this little chicken was stunned into unconsciousness before it's throat was slit " or alternatively, " hmm this chicken fillet tastes a bit funny, hope no one was praying over it before it got onto my sandwich "
It all tastes like chicken.

Enjoy the footy



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: cosmickat

#2 Halal chicken is still chicken right ? So why is this a problem in a KFC

#3 If a visitor to the area, tourist, commuter, whatever, really fancied some chicken and dropped into a KFC for a sandwich, and subsequently received their chicken sandwich, would they even know it was Halal ? Would they care ?


2. not true. halal slaughtering is more stress and pain for the animal. and i guess we all can agree that being stunned before getting the throat cut is the more humane way. so why going centuries back and kill the animal with just a blade?

3. you don't taste the difference between halal and normal meat. so again -> why the need for halal?
because an old book says so?? come on...

animal rights are more important than religious phantasies because one is actual pain and the other just imagination.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: anticitizen

yep agreed...no difference to taste

disagree.."humane" slaughter will not guarantee a stress free death. the process does not aways work the way it should. In addition the life of the battery chicken or intensively reared pig absolutely guarantees the animals suffering.
Yeah so my point is what's the difference?
Tolerate and accept the suffering of the animal cause you love the taste of it.
Or.... object to the way it is slaughtered because you do not tolerate Islam/Muslims/Kosher being allowed to practice their faith and therefore find their fast food franchise outrageous.
Stupid debate isn't it?

edit to add.
no difference to taste...also no difference whatever the flavour of organised religion, they are all intolerant to varying degrees because of old books
edit on 7/11/15 by cosmickat because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Guess I am still in disgust that people eat at KFC...

Seriously.

Dont tell me you eat KFC and you say to yourself, this was a GREAT idea.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lysergic
Dont tell me you eat KFC and you say to yourself, this was a GREAT idea.


Last time I did eat at KFC it was Mr. Beer's idea and we both thought it would be a brilliant idea.

He is a bastard.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I agree with the op. Why are we not being told when this logo is on our food, as most people wouldn't have a clue what is was anyway?
To add fuel here may I also point out last weeks "CANCER" warning regarding red meat and processed foodsin the news?
Most reports featured sausages and bacon and beef.
I saw no lamb, or chicken etc.
I do not and will not eat halal foods. If the chicken is from Thailand, or any Asian background, it stayed on the shelf.
Just to be sure I wasn't eating it, I now have my own smallholding and rear my own pork and lamb. Even some breads (kingsmill etc) have the logo on.
I am not Muslim, nor shall I be told to be.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
I honestly don't see why this is a big deal, does the OP eat at this particular KFC? Is not what's the complaint? You haven't been there and will probably not be there either. If he does eat at it just go to the one down the street, there's that many KFC's in Britain you can barely walk 200 feet without the colonel being slapped in your face.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: anxiouswens

From your The Guardian link:


We are in the grip of a moral panic about Islam. Muslims have become, like single mothers or benefit scroungers before them, a totemic symbol of our nastiest fears. As with all forms of prejudice, it is insidious, lurking in the shadows like noxious gas. But it is there if you look for it, if you are attuned to the vocabulary.

The term "takeover" is used again and again – in Birmingham, for instance, where 25 schools are currently being investigated amid allegations of a "hardline Islamist plot" even though the leader of Birmingham City Council is on record as saying he believes no such plot exists. It is there when newspapers run snidely worded articles on Muhammad being a popular boy's name and it is there when fears are whipped up of a "Muslim majority" existing by 2050.

We should not conflate one issue (the provenance of our meat) with something much more unpleasant (our fear of otherness). Because for all the professed concern around what it means to eat halal meat, there is a deeper, more menacing undertow to the national debate. And that is the most unpalatable thing of all.


I think that says it all.

Relax; don't be so absolutely paranoid and try to breathe through your nose rather than your mouth.
Have you joined the BNP yet?







posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I think if you actually knew what was in a KFC burger, Bacon, or the lack of it would be the least of your worries.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: rjaravenheart
I agree with the op. Why are we not being told when this logo is on our food, as most people wouldn't have a clue what is was anyway?
To add fuel here may I also point out last weeks "CANCER" warning regarding red meat and processed foodsin the news?
Most reports featured sausages and bacon and beef.
I saw no lamb, or chicken etc.
I do not and will not eat halal foods. If the chicken is from Thailand, or any Asian background, it stayed on the shelf.
Just to be sure I wasn't eating it, I now have my own smallholding and rear my own pork and lamb. Even some breads (kingsmill etc) have the logo on.
I am not Muslim, nor shall I be told to be.


Oh really? You do know all legumes, grains, fruits, vegetables, and other non-animal products are automatically Halal, right? And nearly all animal products are automatically Halal too. So you've actually been eating Halal foods your entire life!


The only things the Qur'an directly forbids us from eating are pig, things that were already dead when we find them, blood, and animals killed in the name of some deity other than God. And indirectly, we can't eat humans because we're not supposed to damage or alter a human's dead body & are supposed to bury it almost immediately. Therefore it would be impossible to eat a human while following those rules.

Here's a direct quote from the Qur'an on what we can't eat (2:173, Pickthall translation):


173. He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

And if you notice the line right after the restrictions, it literally says "But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful". So God even allows us to eat them depending on the circumstances! In fact, the Qur'an is so lenient on what we can eat that some Islamic denominations & schools of thought actually include the Jewish Kosher laws on top of the Halal rules to add "discipline".

As for Halal killing methods, Muslims are supposed to kill animals in ways that cause the least suffering for animals. And we're not supposed to kill animals without a valid reason. So the different Muslim communities have had to find the least painful methods for killing animals based on their own technology & knowledge. (Halal rules also stipulate us having to give the animals kind upbringings; as in, no cages, no abuse, etc.)

Of course, Muslims are just like other religious people in the sense that some may follow their beliefs completely while others may be non-practicing. But that's the fault of the individual, not the Halal rules.

EDIT: So yeah, I wanna see you try to eat only non-Halal foods lol. I guess you'd have to sprinkle blood or lard in everything you drink or any non-meat you eat, then make sure every animal you eat is explicitly killed in the name of some deity other than God first. Good luck with that.
edit on 7-11-2015 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: cosmickat
a reply to: anticitizen

yep agreed...no difference to taste

disagree.."humane" slaughter will not guarantee a stress free death. the process does not aways work the way it should. In addition the life of the battery chicken or intensively reared pig absolutely guarantees the animals suffering.
Yeah so my point is what's the difference?
Tolerate and accept the suffering of the animal cause you love the taste of it.
Or.... object to the way it is slaughtered because you do not tolerate Islam/Muslims/Kosher being allowed to practice their faith and therefore find their fast food franchise outrageous.
Stupid debate isn't it?

edit to add.
no difference to taste...also no difference whatever the flavour of organised religion, they are all intolerant to varying degrees because of old books


are you saying because the animal had a miserable life, it doesn't matter how it's killed?

i say it does matter.
and stunning is better than direct throat slicing. that's why we in the west agreed to kill an animal that way.
surely there can be problems while slaughtering west-style. but there can be problems too in a halal or kosher slaughterhouses and i guarantee you that's worse, so...
muslims please evolve and accept stunning. there is absolutely no reason not to do!



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: anticitizen
so...
muslims please evolve and accept stunning. there is absolutely no reason not to do!




OK wait..Muslims need to evolve and kill their food this way.

Yeah OK...



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: anticitizen

originally posted by: cosmickat
a reply to: anticitizen

yep agreed...no difference to taste

disagree.."humane" slaughter will not guarantee a stress free death. the process does not aways work the way it should. In addition the life of the battery chicken or intensively reared pig absolutely guarantees the animals suffering.
Yeah so my point is what's the difference?
Tolerate and accept the suffering of the animal cause you love the taste of it.
Or.... object to the way it is slaughtered because you do not tolerate Islam/Muslims/Kosher being allowed to practice their faith and therefore find their fast food franchise outrageous.
Stupid debate isn't it?

edit to add.
no difference to taste...also no difference whatever the flavour of organised religion, they are all intolerant to varying degrees because of old books


are you saying because the animal had a miserable life, it doesn't matter how it's killed?

i say it does matter.
and stunning is better than direct throat slicing. that's why we in the west agreed to kill an animal that way.
surely there can be problems while slaughtering west-style. but there can be problems too in a halal or kosher slaughterhouses and i guarantee you that's worse, so...
muslims please evolve and accept stunning. there is absolutely no reason not to do!


Then why don't you use stunning when hooking fish? Or when boiling lobsters alive? Or when eating oysters when they're still alive? Or when killing chickens? Or when killing "vermin", like mice, rats, moles, groundhogs, raccoons, etc? Or on your hunting shows that show people killing deer with bows & arrows?



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Halal means that the cows neck is cut while it is still awake.

Perhaps the Muslims need to move into the twenty first century and at least allow the cow to be stunned first and then have it's throat cut.

Perhaps it makes the meat holy when the animal suffers. Personally I can't see it



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wildbob77
Halal means that the cows neck is cut while it is still awake.

Perhaps the Muslims need to move into the twenty first century and at least allow the cow to be stunned first and then have it's throat cut.

Perhaps it makes the meat holy when the animal suffers. Personally I can't see it


Just the opposite, if you actually read this thread. Slicing an artery makes the animal quickly bleed out, which is one of the least painful methods of killing an animal. And as I just posted, if stunning an animal first was such a "humane" way to kill them, then why don't you all stun the other animals you kill first?



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I read the article and it appears that the man is more upset about the fact that he was unaware that that restaurant do not serve bacon and that he wasted his time going there.

I would be upset too. For example, if I had a meeting in the morning that I had to go and I was in a rush and very hungry. There's an ad for special sausage biscuit at McDonald's and right after I spot that ad I see a McDonald's restaurant (it doesn't advertise that it doesn't serve pork mind you) and I ordered that and they tell me they don't serve that. I am in a rush and could be late for the meeting. If I had known that beforehand I would have gone to the next McDonald's restaurant. I am pretty sure that that man in the article would have done the same had he known.

Anyway, having said that, business owners do have the right to serve or not serve anything. OP, don't be too upset that that business owner is exercising his right not to serve bacon due to his belief. Though I would think it would be nice if he would put up a sign or something to let people know that that restaurant is halal only.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I killed three deer before I stopped hunting (still love to eat venison though).
Only one was a "clean" kill. A shot to the spine behind the head. The others were looking at me as I cut their throats to dispatch them. That (along with having to carry them out of the bush) was enough to make me quit but they died very quietly and calmly at that point.




top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join