Religious Slaughter in Europe: Balancing Animal Welfare and Religious Freedom in a Liberal Democracy

Abstract

In February 2014, Denmark joined a growing list of European nations to ban kosher and halal butchering methods without pre-stunning. While this policy is a victory for the animal welfare and rights movements, it is also part of a troubling trend of European states limiting religious freedom for religious minorities. This violation of minority rights is not just a problem for liberal democracy, but I suggest it is also a challenge to animal welfare and rights globally. In this chapter, I will look at the ethical, political, and theological issues surrounding the banning of non-stun religious slaughter to underlie a practical policy recommendation that members of a liberal democracy, including proponents of animal welfare and animal rights, ought to oppose bans on kosher and halal butchering without pre-stunning for the sake of religious freedom and animal welfare. First, I will describe the requirements of religious slaughter in Judaism and Islam along with the controversy in Europe over the banning of non-stun religious slaughter. Next, I will challenge the claim that stun slaughter is more humane than non-stun slaughter. In the third section, I will discuss religious freedom and the moral status of animals within the liberal requirements of moral pluralism and secularism. Finally, I will argue that religious traditionalists and animal welfarists ought to work together to promote overall animal well-being. My purpose in this essay is not just to discuss liberal democratic principles but to engage in the deliberative process of exchanging reasons and finding common ground. Far too often groups with opposing interests work to improve their arguments against one another, but genuine deliberation involves understanding the underlying motivations for policy positions. The goal here is not to downplay the differences between animal movement proponents and religious traditionalists but to highlight the areas where their interests overlap for the benefit of animal welfare, religious freedom, and liberal democracy.