Ethical concerns about eating animals in the first place are a completely different matter, and are pretty much religiously based anyway. Good luck on that argument.

My arse. [it is chicken.]

Personally, I'm a non-practising vegetarian. (In religious matters, not that it's relevant, I'm an atheist Anglican.)

As a fairly-strict vegetarian during 20 years, my motivations were 90% ethical. If you want to classify ethics as religion, that's your problem, but it's a huge blunder in my view.

My first instinct is to categorize my ethical base as "humanist", but that would be rather comical, in the context. In fact I was heavily influenced by Peter Singer's modern utilitarianism. It's all about maximising wellbeing and minimising suffering, and who are we to draw distinctions about whose suffering doesn't matter?

In fact, everyone draws their own distinctions, on a scale that runs from cannibalism through horses, dogs, cats, cows, etc, all the way down to snails and oysters. I drew the line at warm-blooded animals (mammals and birds), declaring them to be my kin, and the rest to be not worth worrying about. So I happily ate fish, mussels, etc. The only real borderline case being frogs.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II}