Why so much hatred of Halal but not Kosher?

Would you eat Kingsmill bread? It's halal and kosher certified

I really don't understand the issue with halal meat

They're also clearly labelled. I really don't understand the issue with halal meat, unless someone happens to be a Sikh?

First, caring about minimising an animal's suffering and wanting to kill animals for meat are not mutually exclusive. Those that believe in the death penalty for certain crimes are fully capable of preferring a quick execution to the condemned being hung, drawn, and quartered. For that reason, I dislike halal meat as it causes more suffering than is necessary to the animal.

Second, as an Atheist, I find the concept of religious rituals being performed over meat ridiculous. I do not feel we should be doing such things in this day and age which is also why I dislike halal meat. I suppose it's similar to a straight couple wanting a civil partnership because they disagree with the concept and symbolism of marriage; their rights are not affected in either union (substantially), but they are sticking to their beliefs.

and irrelevant as no animal has its throat slit to make the bread.

It's not about the religion, it's about the practice of killing animals in an unnecessarily cruel way.

Actually, many people who follow monotheistic religions - especially Christians and Jews - are against eating halal meat because it has been prayed over (shahada or something? Not entirely sure how it works). They believe that to eat halal foods is to show acknowledgement/acceptance of another god which is a sin (and no, they don't believe that the God of all 3 religions is the same).

On a separate note, it has also been found that in some places, the money made from halal meat is used to fund acts of jihad...

And a lot of people do think that the three God's are the same. In the ME, you'l find plenty of churches that say the word "Allah" on them.

Except of course, halal and "normal" meat is almost the same, except for a prayer. Most halal meat is stunned..

Except of course, the process is almost exactly the same.

The stuff about the prayer is irrelevant. Anyone who objects because of that is a fool.

My objection is that is not always stunned. It should be a legal requirement that it is unless imported and labelled accordingly so people can make their own decision whether to buy humane-killed meat or not.

My objection is that is not always stunned.

'British ways' care to define? You do realise that Britain has basically no indegineus people or culture. It has been invaded by the vikings,romans and french and has never had a fixed identity or culture. It is a mongrel nation that is historically made up of many different groups of people. Or are you trying to reinstate traditional Celtic values such as men preffering to take male sexual partners or riding naked into battle against the Christian invaders.

The presumption of innocence, for example, is very much an ingrained British 'way'.

Not always, no, but I belive the majority of Halal meat in the UK is indeed stunned first.

And it is the minority I care about, the 12 slaughterhouses that do not stun to adhere to dhabīḥah, and whose meat does not need to be labelled as such. As a consumer, I am unable to make an informed purchasing decision because of this religion-inspired exception to EU humane slaughtering law.

There's useful set of FAQs here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/what-is-halal-meat-the-big-questions-about-religious-slaughter-answered-9331519.html

Right, so a dish, value or social norm has to be exclusive to a certain nation to be part of its culture? I guess curry is not part of Indian culture then, nor freedom of speech part of American culture either.

Then, by your logic, no country on Earth has its own 'ways'.

So is curry a part of Indian culture then, or not? Is freedom of speech a part of American culture, or not?

But the robber has an individual identity, like every human, and him having blue eyes (for instance) is still a part of his identity, even though it is shared by many other humans.

I think we are getting in semantics. There is little difference between 'part of' and 'define' when the end result is still a culture specific to that country. Remember that my post was in response to the poster who said that Britain has no culture, full stop. Britain may have cultural elements that are shared with other countries, but that does not mean it has no culture.

And I think that, like most things, this debate gets hijacked by extremes: one side that denies British culture exists at all, and the other side which harks back to the 1950s as to what constitutes British culture.