Subjects:
While both these religions promote kindness to animals, their methods of slaughter have been accused of inflicting undue cruelty. Both require that animals be killed by throat cutting, allowing blood to flow from the animal as it dies, the consumption of which is prohibited. However it is custom, or even law in most Western countries such as Australia, New Zealand, Britain and most European countries that before an animals throat is cut, it be stunned to induce unconsciousness and reduce pain and distress while dying.
However Jewish and Islamic faiths are opposed to stunning on the grounds of their religious beliefs. A central principal of Jewish religious slaughter is that an animal slaughtered for food must not be injured, a law which derives in part from hygiene requirem
. . .
While I have used the two examples of Islam and Judaism, these are not the only religions which have customs concerning animal slaughter. ents in earlier societies, because eating an injured animal could lead to food poisioning. However the CIWF (compassion in world farming organization) disputes this claim, saying that as stunning only induces unconsciousness, bleeding still takes place before death and heart pumping is unaffected. So conflict between religious freedom and animal welfare is often difficult to resolve. It shows that If both carotid arteries and jugular veins are severed it takes 14 second to induce loss of brain responsiveness, while if only one carotid artery and one jugular are severed it takes 5 times longer (70sec) and if only the jugular veins are severed it takes 5 minutes. Therefore Judaism is opposed to stunning on the grounds that it injures animals prior to slaughter and therefore meat is not kosher and may not be consumed. Some muslims are also opposed to stunning on the grounds that it reduces the volume of blood which drains from the body as a result of throat cutting, making it unhygienic for the consumer. However we are also opposed to animal cruelty or the compromise of animal welfare, which is sometimes caused by religious practices. However I do not have time to go into this in detail, we should be aware that animal sacrifice has played a significant role in many religions, not just islam or Judaism. There are many others religions which ritually slaughter animals or have done so historically. While arguments presented against this are that stunning does not actually injure animals as stunned animals have been shown to completely recover and therefore are not truly injured and that stunning should be viewed as a part of the slaughter process as it is carried out seconds before the throat of an animal is cut.
Muslims are also opposed to eating injured animals and require the halal method to be the sole cause of death, or meat is considered carrion and not fit for consumption. Some muslims have also claimed that the use of stun guns may heighten the risk of madcow disease as it apparently sends brain tissue scattering throughout the animal which could provide a route for madcow disease to spread to humans
There is also concern that those engaged in religious slaughter often lack adequate training and experitise, resulting in prolonged suffering of animals. These are the results of a study by Gregory and Wotton (1984) showing the differences in time between throat cutting and loss of brain responsiveness in sheep.
Conclusion
The issue of protecting the welfare of animals used for religious purposes is particularly difficult as we are all prejudiced by our own beliefs and may find it difficult to understand why certain religious practices are important to people with other beliefs.
Essay's Topics
All research is for reference purposes only.