I FULLY concur with the comments of Peter Langley, (Ritual slaughter, Oxford Mail, June 28), regarding the primitive, outdated and completely unnecessary practice of ritual slaughter of animals just to satisfy a few words in a book.
It goes beyond comprehension that any person with the most basic reasoning could deny that this practice causes unnecessary terror and suffering to the animal.
Consider the situation: you drive an animal into a slaughter house, manhandle it into a cradle, and, in the case of the Jewish faith, rotate this cradle until the animal is on its back. Then a prayer is said and the animal’s throat is cut, causing a slow death by blood lost.
The Muslim slaughter is along the same lines. The animal lies on its back (in the case of sheep, manually held down), a prayer is said, and its throat is cut.
I see no justification that would permit these outmoded practices to continue today.
Two things come to mind in both cases: one is that the poor animal is frightened prior to its death; and the second is that I have no doubt that the victim does not understand, or cares less about the prayer being said. It only knows that something bad is going to happen.
I often wondered whether this prayer was said for the animal or to beg forgiveness for the slaughterer?
As Mr Langley says, the animal’s life is taken in a most barbaric way, then only the front quarter of the animal is suitable for the Jewish religion. What diabolical hypocrisy.
How many of the meat-eating public care how animals are slaughtered, as long as the remaining portions arrive on their plate?
JAMES BUCKNER Bicester