I hadn't known this until today, but L.A. apparently has an unconstitutional ban on animal sacrifice, in Municipal Code § 53.67:
(a) No person shall engage in, participate in, assist in, or perform animal sacrifice.(b) No person shall own, keep, possess or have custody of any animal with the purpose or intention of using such animal for animal sacrifice.
(c) No person shall knowingly sell, offer to sell, give away or transfer any animal to another person who intends to use such animal for animal sacrifice.
(d) Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to prohibit any person or establishment lawfully operating under the laws of this city and state from lawfully engaging in the slaughter or ritual slaughter of animals where the preparation or killing of such animals is primarily for food purposes.
(e) For the purpose of this section, the following words and phrases are defined as follows:
“Slaughter” means the killing of any animal for food purposes;
“Ritual slaughter” means the preparation and killing of any animal for food purposes in accordance with California Food and Agricultural Code Section 19501;
“Animal sacrifice” means the injuring or killing of any animal in any religious or cult ritual or as an offering to a deity, devil, demon or spirit, wherein the animal has not been injured or killed primarily for food purposes, regardless of whether all or any part of such animal is subsequently consumed.
This is impermissible under Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, since it expressly bans religious conduct precisely based on its religiosity. Lukumi also involved evidence that the city council was intentionally trying to go after a particular religion — Santeria — but that wasn't necessary to the analysis: If the statute on its face bans religious conduct based on its religiosity, it's presumptively unconstitutional, and even if that presumption can be rebutted in extraordinary cases, there's no reason to think that it would be here.
If the city had banned certain kinds of killings of animals without regard to the killings' religious nature, that wouldn't violate the Free Exercise Clause even if it ended up barring some religious rituals. But we're not dealing with such a religion-neutral ban here. (Whether applying such a religion-neutral ban to religious conduct would presumptively violate the California Constitution's religious freedom provision is still an open question in California.)
This is in the news, by the way, because of a ritual called kapparot, which is practiced by some Orthodox Jews:
Kapparot is a custom in which the sins of a person are symbolically transferred to a fowl. It is practiced by some Jews shortly before Yom Kippur. First, selections from Isaiah 11:9, Psalms 107:10, 14, and 17-21, and Job 33:23-24 are recited; then a rooster (for a male) or a hen (for a female) is held above the person's head and swung in a circle three times, while the following is spoken: "This is my exchange, my substitute, my atonement; this rooster (or hen) shall go to its death, but I shall go to a good, long life, and to peace." The hope is that the fowl, which is then donated to the poor for food, will take on any misfortune that might otherwise occur to the one who has taken part in the ritual, in punishment for his or her sins.Apparently the fowl is at least sometimes slaughtered before being donated to the poor.
Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.
Also a nice reminder of how "mainstream" faiths get off easy when it comes to their barbaric practices. People associate animal sacrifices with Santeria and Voodoo and the like (Lukemi Babalu Aye was a Santeria case). But here's a group of people sending a defenseless animal to its death in order to further a completely false and baseless superstition, and yet as far as I know this practice gets little criticism. Imagine if a group of Muslims or Mormons or Scientologists did this.
I hope so! [EV: Whoops, didn't say that right; corrected it, thanks.]
2) Traditionally the chickens are given to poor people to eat.
I think that one reason this has not aroused much attention is the fact that the chicken is not actually sacrificed as part of ritual. The ritual consists merely of the swinging. Insofar as the chicken dies, it is killed and prepared for eating in the usual way.
And yes, I intend to do kapparot this Wednesday morning. Not in LA, though.
Constitutionality is met when the ban or sham justification is absolutely even across the board for all animals under all circumstances. It wouldn't pass the reality test --citizens would have it overturned and their legislator turned out in a heartbeat-- but it would pass SCOTUS scrutiny.
The LA ban is an "Ewwh, that's gross" law. There is nothing inherently inhumane or unsanitary about killing an animal, whether for butcher, research or otherwise.
Arvin says "If we can treat animals very badly while raising them as food, I don't see why we can't treat them badly to kill them to satisfy superstition."
There is no justification for treating animals badly. Period. Not for belief or for sustenance.
And what about rules that on their face apply to any religion but are clearly designed with one particular religion in mind? Constitutional problem?
Religion has an unparalleled knack for being totally, completely absurd. This is like something out of a Monty Python film.
Interestingly, that's actually a lot like Christianity, except Christians substitute Jesus for the bird.
Wow, I'm sorry to hear that. But not as sorry as the chicken. Maybe you could choose something else to symbolically transfer your sins to, like an old unmatched sock? Easier for you, better for the chicken -- it's a win-win.
I did some gut-level research on this kapparot thing. According to one source, it isn't actually mentioned in the Torah or the Talmud. Instead:
Well, that certainly makes sense. For the sake of kapparot, I guess we can all be thankful the Hebrew word gever didn't mean both "man" and "bloated dead donkey."
That's correct. It's probably based, though, at least in part, on the section in Leviticus discussing the scapegoat- the scapegoat is a literal goat, if you haven't read it before.
(just devil's advocating)
How about if I eat a lamb shank on Passover because I think it is religiously mandated. Is the butcher who kills it for my religious ritualistic purposes in violation of that Code?
This is getting away from the topic of the post, but I didn't want this to slip by. Humane is defined as "marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for ...". Killing an animal is only humane when it's with consideration of the animal - not the method of killing, but the determination of whether to kill or not. The only example I can think of for humane killing is when an animal is in a permanent state of suffering, otherwise it is inhumane to kill an animal. This is true whether we think killing animals is moral or immoral.
I always try to peruse Leviticus when I'm dragged into a church -- it's clearly the most entertaining thing in the Bible. As just one example, I love it when it says that rabbits are ruminants.
I think that many jurisdictions have laws on the book aimed at preventing cruelty to (some) animals. One problem though is that many, if not most, of us eat meat on a regular basis. And, indeed, it appears that people think better over the long term if they do eat meat, as most purely vegetarian seem to lack some needed components. In any case, regardless of health reasons, we like meat, and are likely wired for that. So those meat animals have to be killed somehow, and that is to some extent cruel. So, from a practical point of view, it is unlikely that any big jurisdiction is going to ban all cruelty to animals.
So I'd have to ask how you are still drawing breath. Even if you are a vegan, you still eat vegetables raised on land that was plowed through (killing cute bunny rabbits).
If that isn't so then it's hard to see how a law against human sacrifice (no constitutional guarantee to life) could trump the guarantee of 'free exercise'.
Yes, arguably it has a chilling effect, but if the chilling effect were substantial, somebody would have sued by now.
The point was that the law in question banned the practice on the grounds that it was religious, THAT is what is forbidden. Murder laws are constitutional weather or not the murder was done for religious purposes, but a law banning murder only when its done for religious purposes would not be.
What I was getting at is that, taken literally, the Religion Clause only protects state establishments of religion from interference by the federal government or from competition by a federal establishment of religion. So no protection whatever is given to the actions of a non-established religion.
If there is constitutional protection for religious actions then it would appear that murder for religious purposes is protected, absent some constitutional right to life that puts it on the same level as the right to practice religion.
Admittedly, these are rather silly arguments but much of the pleasure of law as a hobby lies in its two-headed calf aspect.
Some people may slaughter the chicken immediately, but my understanding is that many people do not slaughter the chicken until afterwards, if at all.
As a point of education on a Jewish blog, Christians do not substitute Jesus; Jesus substituted himself for the scapegoat or bird,
So, David Schwartz, the body of Christ was (past tense) "injured and killed"; transubstantiation or transmogrification of the wafers or host doesn't make a past offense (or state action) current.
Jeff Boghosian, and some others demonstrate their separation from reality by claiming death is “cruelty”. It is not, and most killing (slaughter) of animals is more humane, with less pain, less suffering, than the medical injections we get or give to kill animals living within –or upon— our own bodies.
As someone who gets almost half our food from my own or from hands I shake, Milhouse should take this chickens life —and his witness to the end of it— seriously.
I still think you are interpreting the clause too actively - it doesn't grant permissions to specific religious practices to trump the law... it prohibits the law from targetting religious aspects. The distinction is a bit fin, but it is real.
I respectfully sit corrected, albeit within the context of an absolutely absurd discussion about twirling a chicken around your head, and/or heaping sins upon goats, or upon a Jewish carpenter who rose from the dead.
Incidentally, Jesus wasn't alone in rising from the dead -- lesser Biblical scholars than I frequently forget that the whole town was hopping with reanimated corpses!! It was like a freakin' Dawn of the Dead movie.
Or fish/monkeys/whatever turning into people.
People believe the most absurd things sometimes.
Oh, granted, I'm doing this mostly for fun; but if the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law... interfering with the free exercise [of religion]" then I'd say it does in fact allow "religious practices to trump [statutory] law." That's why I think there's an outside chance that the Founders really did mean for "the free exercise thereof" to refer to a state's control of its 'establishment of religion" and not to individual belief. And if that's so then individuals and non-established religions have no protection at all, at least from the Religion Clause.
You're right. I actually think it's very important to evaluate the basis for beliefs.
So how about this: you identify the evidentiary basis for believing that twirling a terrified chicken around your head is a way to absolve yourself of sin in the eyes of a supernatural deity who, presumably, cares about such things.
Meanwhile, since you mention the fish/monkey thing with apparent disdain, I'll defend the evidentiary basis for the theory of evolution.
Here's a start on my side. Just a start.
Your turn.
Proving that 'Arg11' has never --not ever-- witnessed a slaughterhouse; not even talked to a person who witnessed the operation of a slaughterhouse.
'Arg11's statement is an example of anthropomorphism, attributing human characteristics to inanimate objects and animals. Another example could be claiming Bambi is terrified of the economic meltdown. In 'Arg11's case, attributing the foreknowledge of death to a cow experiencing human emotion; in the second instance, attributing financial insecurity to a deer experiencing human emotion.
Ironically, it is anthropomorphism that led to the design and (political) implementation of the ASPCA slaughter pen. This particular restraint system produces the appearance of calmness by restriction; in reality the animal is struggling and stressed due to neck and chest pressure that cannot be casually observed. The ASPCA might have been well intentioned, but the road to hell is paved with such and the ASPCA pen was an abomination.
Anthropomorphism leads to cruelty: stress and discomfort. For those that giveadam, Grandin is the authority on slaughterhouses, animal treatment, handling, and design; and includes clear treatment of halal and kosher methods.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.