3.06.2008
The Theological Necessity of Goats
The Dallas Morning News' religion blog reminds us that March 10th will begin the first major trial case involving Santeria since the groundbreaking 1993 Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah decision. Like the famous Florida case, it involves the ritual sacrifice of animals at one's home.
"Santeria priest Jose Merced filed a federal discrimination lawsuit against the city of Euless in December 2006 after officials told him he couldn't sacrifice goats at his home for a ceremony initiating a new priest. Followers of the African-Caribbean religion consider animal sacrifice as essential to Santeria as Communion is to Catholics. Euless says the killing of goats for whatever reason would violate its city-wide slaughtering ban. Last year, the city proposed a settlement that permitted the killing of chickens - which is also involved in the ceremony and allowed under the city ordinance. Mr. Merced rejected the offer, saying that Santeria would cease to exist without the sacrifice of goats as well."
Despite the fact that Merced presented police officers with a copy of the Supreme Court decision allowing for religious animal sacrifice within the home, he was still prevented from going through with the planned initiation ceremony
"...the Supreme Court of the United States held unconstitutional an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida that forbade the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption." The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santerķa, was planning on locating."
Further complicating Jose Merced's case is the fact that a judge ruled in January that the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act didn't apply since the city's slaughtering ban regulated only conduct, not land use. So it's going to come down to if the theological necessity of sacrificing goats at a initiation ceremony will trump a generalized slaughter ban. Working in Marced's favor is the fact that the slaughter ban isn't absolute, and permits the killing of chickens in the home, which will lessen arguments concerning public safety (chickens can carry as many, if not more, pathogens and diseases as any goat).
There is a very good chance this case will reach the Supreme Court (I can't envision either side letting the matter rest after a loss), and may settle once and for all the question of animal sacrifice for religious purposes. Making it a case that will end up being important for adherents of Santeria, as well as modern Pagan groups interested in reviving animal sacrifice. So come Monday, all eyes interested in the rights of minority faiths should be turning towards Texas.
* It should be noted that the ritually slaughtered goats are then normally cooked and eaten by participants in the ceremony. So in many ways, what they are doing could be considered far more ethical than eating a burger churned out by a industrial slaughterhouse.
Labels: animal sacrifice, law, litigation, Religious Freedom, Santeria, Texas
Comments:
Thanks for paying attention to stuff like this; I think it's important. I'm going to quibble with the last sentence of your footnote, though: killing animals in a sacred manner which are then eaten to sustain the community is FAR more ethical than eating a burger churned out by an industrial slaughterhouse. (Frankly, the burger has no claim to the "ethical" label at all.)
I have only performed a live animal sacrifice once, but I would venture to say that that was probably the most ethical, respectful, sacred meal I have ever prepared. I will certainly be doing it again. If I lived rurally or communally, I'd do it as often as I could manage it. I feel FAR better about killing the animal myself than I feel about the rotisserie chickens I'm occasionally forced by necessity to bring home from the supermarket. And I don't see anything in the world wrong with offering the gods Their share, and using every part of the sacrifice as thoroughly as possible, on every level.
Keith,
"killing animals in a sacred manner which are then eaten to sustain the community is FAR more ethical than eating a burger churned out by an industrial slaughterhouse. (Frankly, the burger has no claim to the "ethical" label at all.)"
I completely agree.
I think the general squeamishness about animal sacrifice stems from two things: 1. misapprehension about what it involves (in the Bible it is sometimes described as the total destruction of the animal); and 2. a general inability to face up to the fact that meat comes from dead animals.
I have no problem with a humanely killed animal being dedicated and shared as a communal meal.
I do have a problem with ideas of substitutionary sacrifice for propitiation or expiation.
Personally, I will probably never sacrifice animals as part of ritual, since I am one of those who is generally squeamish about any sort of blood, guts, etc. However, just because I am uncomfortable with the act does not mean that I have the right to limit other peoples' right to do it. That is the idea that these religious rightists need to figure out. Their rights only go so far, and stop when they begin limiting other peoples' rights.
Post a Comment
Thanks for paying attention to stuff like this; I think it's important. I'm going to quibble with the last sentence of your footnote, though: killing animals in a sacred manner which are then eaten to sustain the community is FAR more ethical than eating a burger churned out by an industrial slaughterhouse. (Frankly, the burger has no claim to the "ethical" label at all.)
I have only performed a live animal sacrifice once, but I would venture to say that that was probably the most ethical, respectful, sacred meal I have ever prepared. I will certainly be doing it again. If I lived rurally or communally, I'd do it as often as I could manage it. I feel FAR better about killing the animal myself than I feel about the rotisserie chickens I'm occasionally forced by necessity to bring home from the supermarket. And I don't see anything in the world wrong with offering the gods Their share, and using every part of the sacrifice as thoroughly as possible, on every level.
Keith,
"killing animals in a sacred manner which are then eaten to sustain the community is FAR more ethical than eating a burger churned out by an industrial slaughterhouse. (Frankly, the burger has no claim to the "ethical" label at all.)"
I completely agree.
I think the general squeamishness about animal sacrifice stems from two things: 1. misapprehension about what it involves (in the Bible it is sometimes described as the total destruction of the animal); and 2. a general inability to face up to the fact that meat comes from dead animals.
I have no problem with a humanely killed animal being dedicated and shared as a communal meal.
I do have a problem with ideas of substitutionary sacrifice for propitiation or expiation.
Personally, I will probably never sacrifice animals as part of ritual, since I am one of those who is generally squeamish about any sort of blood, guts, etc. However, just because I am uncomfortable with the act does not mean that I have the right to limit other peoples' right to do it. That is the idea that these religious rightists need to figure out. Their rights only go so far, and stop when they begin limiting other peoples' rights.
Links to this post:
