Update: The Theological Necessity of Goats
The ongoing legal battle between Euless, Texas and Santeria priest Jose Merced over the issue of animal sacrifice starts its next round in court today as arguments are heard in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Merced, backed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, is appealing an earlier ruling that the ban against Merced sacrificing goats is legal due to public health issues (even though slaughtering your own chickens and deer are legal in Euless).
“Jose Merced accused the city of Euless of violating his constitutional freedom of religious exercise, but U.S. District Judge John McBryde of Fort Worth sided with the city and dismissed the Puerto Rico native’s claims last year. Merced asks the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn McBryde’s ruling. A three-judge panel is to hear the case Wednesday in New Orleans. Euless says certain animal sacrifices pose a threat to public health and violate its slaughterhouse and animal cruelty ordinances. Merced’s lawyer say he’s sacrificed animals at his Euless home for 16 years without incident.”
The goal here is to prove that the law in Euless is arbitrary and unfairly burdens his religious practice. In 1993 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. the City of Hialeah, Florida, that laws governing the slaughter of animals must be neutral and generally applicable. Since Euless already allows for the home slaughter of various (potentially) pathogen-carrying “tablefare animals” (chickens, turkeys), to single out Merced’s sacrifice of goats certainly seems arbitrary. Also questionable is the fact that only Merced has been singled out in the enforcement of these “slaughterhouse” and “animal cruelty” ordinances.
“Euless argued that applying these ordinances was justified because Merced’s rituals affect public health. However, Euless has moved to protect the public health only with respect to Merced’s actions. Euless has not targeted restaurants, veterinarians or others who pose equivalent threats to the public health.”
For more information, check out the Becket Fund’s fact sheet on the case and this video press release:
This is an important case, and a win here would greatly increase the established legal rights for the humane and sanitary home slaughter of animals for religious purposes. While it is certainly understandable that some in our communities view such practices as retrograde and unnecessary, we should not forget that animal sacrifice was a bedrock of ancient paganism, and that some Pagan groups today engage (or wish to engage) in similar rites. We should support our “cousins” in Santeria, if only because ensuring their religious freedoms also ensures ours.
18 responses so far
Until the repugnance associated with animal sacrifice is overcome, all the reasoning in the world will be irrelevant.
And how do we overcome that repugnance if not with reasoning?
ROFLMAO oh Gods that's good! The woodcarving fail is priceless.
[...] Religious persecution, or just queasiness? What happens if there’s a leprosy epidemic? [...]
No slaughter is humane. The two words are contradictory in nature. Beyond that, arguing that animal sacrifice was a bedrock of ancient Paganism and so should be supported now is a logical fallacy, specifically an Appeal to Tradition. Recent archaeological evidence supports the Roman assertion that Druids practiced ritual cannibalism (ref: http://tinyurl.com/cc2vmz). Should this be permitted in the Druidic community now? It too, was a bedrock of Pagan practice.
I think not. Similarly, I do not think the Pagan community should be encouraged to support destructive religious practices in order to ensure that their own rights as Pagans remain unsullied. Not all Pagan practices are constructive ones, and animal sacrifice, in particular, does a great deal to cement the notion that modern Pagans are misguided, backward and dangerous.
We are better served to step away from this issue and realize, among other things, that the metaphysical exchange implied by the sacrifice of animals was more suited to civilizations wherein privation was the norm, and so appeasement of the Gods was necessary. Beyond that, we must realize that the sacrifice of an animal is not a sacrifice at all, because the individuals performing the sacrifice aren’t giving anything up. It is the animal in question who is giving up its life, under duress, and this action cannot and should not be sacralized by modern Pagans.
I agree with your perspective on many things and continue to enjoy your blog. However, in this I must stridently and respectfully continue to disagree.
Yours in the spirit of cordial debate,
C.S. MacCath-Moran
Agreed Kensei10 RE all points made.
(Nods) I Can Has Cheeseburger and it's affiliate sites keep me sane-ish. I just keep towels by the desk to wipe the tea off the monitor.
sorry, read it again and you didn't say that animal sacrifice is dangerous and backwards. sorry-its late and my eyes hurt.
Blessed be! I love how you said that, and it is so true.
"…some people's religions require them to deny they have a religion…" lol too true Baruch
Sorry, no can do – last time I went there, I got trapped in an elevator with an angry Freudian who hit me and took my banana away.
Sorry if I missed comments directed at me. I didn't mean to ignore you.
I would not oppose that gathering for any reason as long as it was legal.
It's not an ad hominem. It's just an insult.
Or you could just not reply.
Posting things to the internet when you're angry is inadvisable.
Yes, I agree. Precedent is important. However, I think the Wilmington case is fundamentally different or else I wouldn't have made the videos.
I don't worship "Butt-Kali"; I've never even heard of that incarnation.
Do read the post you're responding to before you respond to it, won't you?
That is a really cool story Snooze, and I love the perspective regarding sacrificial or faining practices in an urban setting. Heilsa.