Religion and its Food Taboos
Some religions demand that animals be killed by bleeding them to death.
In many cases, they had to be forced to use stunning techniques to spare the animals as much pain as possible.
And what about days gone by before modern science made it easier?
If the techniques did not exist these religions would still be inflicting torment on animals just for the sake of religious law.
Even if the techniques are more merciful today, the believer reasons, "I am being merciful to the animal. But if I didn't have the means and the science to do this I would still bleed it horribly to death." That is only outward mercy. Inwardly the person damages himself with his cruel disposition. Such a person will easily "progress" to tormenting people. If he doesn't that is because of circumstances and not because of him.
Christianity does not bother with food laws. Yet it still recognises the cruel slaughter laws of the Old Testament as being from God and lawful and righteous until Jesus supposedly made us free from the laws. The faith murders animals in its heart.
Society in general tends to eat meat produced inhumanely. Many people who love chicken do not restrict themselves to freerange chickens. All that will be paraded in the faces of critics of cruel religious slaughter laws. That translates as, "Don't stop us from being cruel when you are cruel yourselves." That is illogical for there should be less cruelty not more. It is an attempt to bully the critics.
If religion is so wonderful then surely it is worse for it to perform the cruelties than for them to happen in a non-religious context?
The religious want it stated on the meat labels that the animal has been killed and prepared according to their laws. Meat killed in any diverging way is forbidden to them.
The law of the land has to waste time and money on ordaining that their wish be granted. They get a respect they don't deserve.

No Copyright