Animal Advocates Fight Against Religious Practices

On New Year's, Belgium decided to create a law against Jews and Muslims, who practiced an honored method for slaughtering animals mandated by their religion.

The law states animals must be stunned before slaughtered, as it is a more humane way than brutally slicing through the neck of a live animal. The New York Times reported on the backfire between animal-rights advocates and religious leaders among the media.

However, the debate is hardly new, because many Muslim communities do allow some forms of electrical stunning that satisfy civil codes.

“Is stunning animals the most humane solution to slaughtering animals or are there other alternatives that are both practical and not against the religion of others? Not only that but if there are other alternatives worth researching, what are the exceptions?”

On the other hand, most European countries allow religious exceptions, but countries including Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark, and Slovenia— do not. Animals can be slaughtered in more than one way.

However, this editorial never stated any solutions, only the worst between animal rights advocates and religious leaders. There wasn't really an argument in this editorial as it was biased toward animal rights activists. The debate on what is humane and what isn't has become a huge problem. The difference of what's humane and inhumane when slaughtering will continue to be fought over if we don't decide better ways to take care of our animals and the meat being put into markets.

If you would like to see more, follow me on Twitter @AmandaH23942284.