# Is Halal and Shechita legal form of Slaughter ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 25, 2002, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-halal-and-shechita-legal-form-of-slaughter/129566 "2002-09-25T03:27:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2002, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-halal-and-shechita-legal-form-of-slaughter/129566/21 "2002-09-25T20:22:57Z")
ANDY – > [@](#): > > Fair Enough. But how can lawmakers view Muslims, Jews and Christians separately while making a law? How can a lawmaker say that it is illegal for a Christian to slaughter an animal without stunning but it is alright for a Jew to do so ? Because when making laws to regulate industry – like slaughterhouses – legislators must keep in mind the rights of the people and must not knowingly contravene those rights. In this case, the right in question is Freedom of Religion (First Amendment), which generally allows people the right to practice their religions without govenment interference. Simply put, the government can regulate how Christians slaughter animals without worrying about a challenge on religious grounds, because Christianity does not require or even provide for slaughter by any specific means. But note that this is not truly regulating Christians differently _per se_; rather, it is having one set of regulations that apply to everyone, excepting out only those who can provide a religious reason to obtain an exemption. > [@](#): > > Morality is also subjective. So if you go by your logic, should there be a separate law for Muslims be allowed them to do polygamy? Well, the competing interests here are the “concerns” (moral or otherwise) of society as a whole (generally collected under the term “public policy”) and the religious scruples of the individual. The U.S. Supreme Court has said: > [@](#): > > Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities. _Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Ed. v. Gobitis_, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940) (footnote omitted). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that polygamy may be illegal, and persons practicing it may be criminally prosecuted therefor, even if the persons in question hold legitimate religious beliefs that polygamy is allowed or required. _See_ _Reynolds v. United States_, 98 U.S. 145 (1879). That is because the public policy in favor of traditional marriage and the interests of our society in upholding the law were held to outweigh the individual’s right to complete freedom of religious practice (as opposed to religious belief). Similarly, a neutral law prohibiting animal cruelty would presumably survive constitutional scrutiny if it applied to everyone, regardless of religion. _See, generally, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah_, 508 U.S. 520 (1993). _And_ such a law arguably would survive constitutional scrutiny _even if_ it violated the individual’s right to free religious practice _so long as_ it furthered legitimate public policy (no cruelty to animals) and was neutral on its face and as applied (meaning, it applied to everyone, regardless of religion). Therefore, if ANDY and friends could show that Halal and Shechita were inhumane and so constituted cruelty to animals, they could probably mount a pretty persuasive challenge to the continuing permitting of such practices, on the grounds that society’s interest in preventing unnecessary cruelty to animals outweighed the Jews’ and Muslims’ right to a particular relgious practice. In point of fact, however, it would be very difficult to show that such practices are _not_ humane – or at least as humane as the general industrial means of slaughter and assuming one believes any sort of violent or semi-violent death of an animal can ever been termed “humane.” The U.S. government considers the practices, when done correctly, to be humane: > [@](#): > > No method of slaughtering or handling in connection with slaughtering shall be deemed to comply with the public policy of the United States unless it is humane. Either of the following two methods of slaughtering and handling are hereby found to be humane: > > (a) in the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or > > (b) by slaughtering in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain caused by the simultaneous and instantaneous severance of the carotid arteries with a sharp instrument and handling in connection with such slaughtering. 7 USC sec. 1902. So the government assumes these practices are humane. If ANDY and friends wish to challenge the law, they must show they are _not_ humane. Note that although the law mentions Judaism by name, it the law applies to everyone and therefore is facially neutral: It does not require one to be a Jew to slaughter in accordance with subsection (b); it only requires that the slaughtering be done in accordance with the ritual requirements of Judaism or some other religion _and_ the carotid artery be instanteously severed. Therefore, even if one were a Christian, one could still slaughter animals in the the Jewish or Islamic (or Santerian) manner, so long as the provisions of this subsection were met. ---
**Author:** ![PosterChild](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e274bd/32.png) [@PosterChild](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PosterChild)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2002, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-halal-and-shechita-legal-form-of-slaughter/129566/22 "2002-09-25T21:27:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by andy\_fl \* > \*\* > > My Opinion, but a very educated one. Please refer to : > > Author(s): Gregory, Neville ; Shaw, Frank > Title: Penetrating Captive Bolt Stunning and Exsanguination of Cattle in Abattoirs > Source: Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 3, no. 3 (2000): 215-230 > ISSN: 1088-8705 > > Quote from the article - “Humane slaughter requires that an animal immediately becomes unconscious and does not regain consciousness.” > > Its very well established that stunning an animal before slaughter is the humane way to do it. (If you need more cites from published literature, let me know). > > My question is why are Jews and Muslims not required to follow the law in this case? Is’nt this religion and state getting mixed up ? \*\* How are the animals **usually** killed after being “stunned?” Is it a process that would be painfull otherwise? What is it about the bleeding to death that is inhumane? Is it the fact that they get cut? or that they bleed to death? As people above have asked, what is your definition of “humane” or is it just icky to think of bleeding to death, so it’s inhumane? PC ---
**Author:** ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 10:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-halal-and-shechita-legal-form-of-slaughter/129566/23 "2002-09-26T10:41:28Z")
I would like to point out that severing of a major artery such as the caratoid typically causes unconciousness in seconds and death in less than a minute when performed as prescribed by religious rituals. The idea behind stunning an animal is to minimize the pain of slaughter. If stunning is not done properly (either due to an incompetant human or malfunctioning mechanism) the result is the animal is butchered alive. This has happened from time to time in commercial slaughterhouses. Either method, when properly done, is probably as humane as slaughter can be, but when not done properly is not humane. Also, in the United States laws governing food and livestock are sometimes Federal, sometimes on the level of the state. When I was a child and we moved to Michigan we discovered that certain forms of sausage enjoyed by my family when we lived in Missouri were not available in our new state due to state laws. I think state laws are becoming more consistent over time, but there are still some differences. ---
**Author:** ![Threadkiller](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/aca169/32.png) [@Threadkiller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Threadkiller)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-halal-and-shechita-legal-form-of-slaughter/129566/24 "2002-09-26T14:06:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > Never heard of the journal. Care to give some insight on it? [JOURNAL OF APPLIED ANIMAL WELFARE SCIENCE](http://www.erlbaum.com/Journals/journals/JAWS/jaws.htm) > [@](#): > > **Editorial Scope** > This journal publishes reports and articles on methods of experimentation, husbandry, and care that demonstrably enhance the welfare of nonhuman animals on farms, in laboratories, in wildlife/zoo settings, and as companions. **JAAWS is a conjoint project of The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PSYETA).** > > Each issue includes several reports covering scientific experiments or demonstrations that present evidence relating to prime issues of applied animal welfare science. **All submitted manuscripts are peer-reviewed** by a panel of section editors who oversee an even more complete review by a distinguished board of editors. Content areas of animal welfare and their respective section editors are as follows:… Bolding mine. Judging by the sponsors this journal _could_ be said to have an inherent bias. However the peer review bit does lend some legitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![zev\_steinhardt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/97f17d/32.png) [@zev\_steinhardt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zev_steinhardt)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-halal-and-shechita-legal-form-of-slaughter/129566/25 "2002-09-26T14:06:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by happyheathen \* > \*\* > > I was thinking specifically of the requirement to bury the dead in coffins within vaults. > > It is my understanding that this contravenes custom, and possibly Talmudic law. \*\* I was not aware of any such law (in New York, at least). Zev Steinhardt ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-halal-and-shechita-legal-form-of-slaughter/129566/26 "2002-09-26T14:35:49Z")
I can state from personal experience that a cut, even a very deep one, from a truly sharp knife _is_ painless. One night, I was working on yet another project. I was using an Xacto knife, and a Swiss army knife. Things were going very well, until I forgot which knife I was currently using. Thinking I was still holding the Xacto, I reversed direction. The Swiss army knife promptly snapped shut on my index finger. I removed the knife and inspected my finger. There was only a small line in the skin. I felt no pain. I assumed that I had suffered only a superficial scratch, that the blade had only cut the outermost layer of dead skin. Then, I began to bleed- alot. I didn’t stop bleeding for half an hour. When I could finally examine the cut, I saw that it went nearly to the bone. ``` I've had many similiar experiences over the years. If I can give myself deep, painless cuts *accidentally* with bits of sheet metal, or panes of glass, why can't a trained shochet give a deep, painless cut in a specific location with a knife made entirely for that purpose? (Cite will be forthcoming) Did you know that giraffes meet the requirements for kosher animals? The reason you will never see kosher giraffe meat is that they have very large vertabrae in their necks. The hallacha requires that the shochet make the cut between 2 specific vertebrae. Due to the giraffe's unique neck, there is no way to make a clean, painless cut in that location. ``` ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2002, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-halal-and-shechita-legal-form-of-slaughter/129566/27 "2002-09-26T15:35:41Z")
:smack: Forget the giraffe thing. That they cannot be properly slaughtered is apparently just one of several Jewish urban legends. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-halal-and-shechita-legal-form-of-slaughter/129566.md?page=1)