The Santeria religion, derived from Africa by way of Cuba, uses the sacrifice of animals as part
of its religious ceremonies. The animals include chickens, pigeons, doves, ducks, guinea pigs,
goals, sheep, and turtles. After a sacrificial killing, the animals are cooked and eaten as part of
the religion. In 1987, the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. leased land in the city of
Hiahleah, Florida, where the Church planned to build a house of worship, cultural center,
museum, and school. When residents of the city learned of these plans and expressed dismay,
the city council called an emergency meeting and declared concern that “certain religions may
propose to engage in practices which are inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety.” The
city council then passed city ordinances to restrict animal sacrifice. It defined “sacrifice” as “to
unnecessarily kill, torment, torture, or mutilate an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony
not for the primary purpose of food consumption.” It also passed an exemption from this
restriction for slaughtering animals “specifically raised for food purposes” which would excuse
licensed slaughter houses. The Church sued the city, claiming that the ordinance violated their First Amendment right of
free expression of their religion. The city did not try to argue that Santeria is not a religion.
When the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, the Court agreed that Santeria is a religion. The
Court also said that religious practices need not be “acceptable, logical, consistent, or
comprehensible” to others to be practices protected by the First Amendment. The fact that the
city council exempted other animal killings shows, the Court said, that the Santeria religious
practice was being singled out for discriminatory treatment in violation of the First Amendment
What will be an ideal response?
1. The Court said that the goal of protecting human health and safety was a legitimate goal
for the city council, but could have been accomplished in ways that did not single out the
Santeria religion. What might such legitimate restrictions look like? Draft an ordinance
that would protect those goals without singling out the religious practice.
2. Can you reconcile this decision, in which an unusual religious practice was protected by
the Court as the free exercise of religion, with their decision in Case 1 above, in which
the court sided with the government in restricting the claimed exercise of religion?
3. If a religion wanted to practice the sacrifice of human infants, should that practice be
protected under freedom of religious expression? If not, how would you distinguish this
practice from the animal sacrifice at issue in Hiahleah? How would you use Kantian or
utilitarian reasoning to support your position, independently of the First Amendment
perspective?
You might also like to view...
The Western view has tended to adopt an adversarial relation to nature
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Arguments by elimination are a type of disjunctive syllogism.
Answer the following statement true (T) or false (F)
Peirce can be best classified as a(n)
a) empiricist. b) rationalist. c) pragmatist. d) positivist.
Socrates was brought to trial on the charges of
a. failing to support his family and pay his taxes. b. being a pacifist and refusing to go to war. c. being an atheist and an ethical relativist. d. religious heresy and corrupting the youth.