- May 9, 2006
- 3,261
- 5,192
Gurfatehji
The Pizza thread got me thinking... I recently watched a program here on TV (gee I watch a lot of TV...) where they get lots of people with different opinions and have a guided discussion about a topic. The topic was about meat eating in Australia and we heard the POV from the animal protection people, the vegans, the meat-eating chefs, the one who don't care, and my personal favourite, the "vegetarian" who would eat only kangaroo meat.
When talking about jhatka, does it mean only eating the flesh of an animal who has had it's head cut off in one fell chop, or does it (logically) extend to other quick and least-painful methods of slaughter?
For instance: the kangaroo-meat only argument is based on the reasoning that kangaroo slaughter in Australia is when licensed kangaroo shooters get in a ute, drive around properties (usually farming properties for other purposese as kangaroos are not actively farmed in Australia as far as I know), and shoot kangaroos in the head. The shooters are trained to shoot the kangaroo in the head causing instant death and they have to be highly accurate to get a license.
So the kangaroo is hopping around a paddock eating grass, and without even knowing it cops a bullet to the brain and is dead. It has never known human interference with its life and is killed quickly and we hope painlessly.
The Akal Takht has said Amritdhari Sikhs can only eat jhatka meat, but is the definition of jhatka stricly that which has had it's head cut off? Is a bullet to the brain good enough, as in the kangaroo argument above?
I don't see any logical reason not to eat the kangaroo meat (if I was so inclined to eat it).
This isn't about eating meat or not eating meat, but the method of slaughter, please.
Apologies if this post is inappropriate.
Thanks
Ish
The Pizza thread got me thinking... I recently watched a program here on TV (gee I watch a lot of TV...) where they get lots of people with different opinions and have a guided discussion about a topic. The topic was about meat eating in Australia and we heard the POV from the animal protection people, the vegans, the meat-eating chefs, the one who don't care, and my personal favourite, the "vegetarian" who would eat only kangaroo meat.
When talking about jhatka, does it mean only eating the flesh of an animal who has had it's head cut off in one fell chop, or does it (logically) extend to other quick and least-painful methods of slaughter?
For instance: the kangaroo-meat only argument is based on the reasoning that kangaroo slaughter in Australia is when licensed kangaroo shooters get in a ute, drive around properties (usually farming properties for other purposese as kangaroos are not actively farmed in Australia as far as I know), and shoot kangaroos in the head. The shooters are trained to shoot the kangaroo in the head causing instant death and they have to be highly accurate to get a license.
So the kangaroo is hopping around a paddock eating grass, and without even knowing it cops a bullet to the brain and is dead. It has never known human interference with its life and is killed quickly and we hope painlessly.
The Akal Takht has said Amritdhari Sikhs can only eat jhatka meat, but is the definition of jhatka stricly that which has had it's head cut off? Is a bullet to the brain good enough, as in the kangaroo argument above?
I don't see any logical reason not to eat the kangaroo meat (if I was so inclined to eat it).
This isn't about eating meat or not eating meat, but the method of slaughter, please.
Apologies if this post is inappropriate.
Thanks
Ish