A great example of how secularism is just as imposing as theocracy in enforcing its moral prescriptions on the public based on metaphysical beliefs.
The justification for the ban is that animals that are not stunned suffer and that that is inhumane, therefore slaughter without stunning is banned.
But how do we know any of that? No animal can testify to its internal state. No animal can tell us, “Hey this really hurts, please stop.” We can only make assumptions about what an animal may experience in the slaughter process. It is far from clear how a bolt blast to the skull or electric shock is less painful than a slit throat. If anything, the former seem much more agonizing. But there is no way to tell.
Nonetheless, the legislators in these countries, Belgium, Sweden, Netherlands, New Zealand, made a decision based on what they *believe* to be morally correct and then forced others to abide by those *beliefs*.
This is not something avoidable. This is the nature of law, whether in a secular or theocratic state. But Muslim states get singled out for not upholding “religious freedom” when they allow their moral positions and beliefs to inform the law.
So, it is ineffective to argue against this ban by saying it is “racist,” “bigoted,” “anti-Muslim,” etc. We cannot fault Belgians for legislating according to their deepest beliefs about right and wrong.
We can, however, criticize the beliefs themselves. We can say, “You are wrong on this, we are right.” We can say, “Our beliefs on the matter come from the Creator of the cows, sheep, chickens, and you and me, whereas your beliefs are based on hot air.”
That would be a meaningful dialectic. In contrast, the only spark that starts the engines of people’s moral reasoning today is: “That’s bigotry.” Oh well.
NB: none of this is to deny that there very likely is anti-Islam hate motivating the law.