Are we all on here, not slaves to our convictions whatever they may be? Where we differ, we attempt, for the most part, to argue those convictions and if we feel we are mistaken, hopefully we change our opinion having "seen the light". I am convinced that there is no entity that we call a god. Does that make me any less driven by my convictions than anyone who does believe that we are governed by a deity? I would not denigrate anyone who has a conviction (provided it is not criminal
), and am always ready to listen to a logical argument for that point of view.
That makes no argument as to why my conviction should override someone else's and surely argues for some sort of natural justice arrived at by democratic means. If the majority feel that it is right to allow the slaughter of sentient creatures by slitting their throat, then it must be OK in law, if not in the minds of those who vote against it. I am fairly sure that if it were put to the vote, the principle would be defeated but our leaders won't do that, so all we can do is to say I believe this practice to be wrong.
A final point. If it is right that slitting throats is a humane way to execute, why do we recoil when barbaric Arab factions execute their captives in this fashion? Surely if its humane for animals, it's humane for humans?
M.