|
Is Animal Sacrifice a Constitutionally-Protected Religious Ritual? - The Hialeah Case In early 1987, Hialeah, Florida became the site of the nation's first public church devoted to Santeria. Ernesto Pichardo, a Santeria priest and founder of The Church of the Lukumi Babalu-aye, found himself and the new church immediately involved in a heated controversy over the Santerian practice of animal sacrifice. On June9, 1987, the Hialeah City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance prohibiting any religious group from sacrificing an animal in a religious ritual or practice. Pichardo immediately filed a lawsuit against the City, claiming the ordinance violated his freedom of religion rights guaranteed in the First Amendment to the Constitution. City Attorney William Wetzel then turned to Florida's Attorney General, Robert A. Butterworth, for an opinion on two basic questions of law:
First, does Chapter 828 of the Florida Statutes which prohibits persons from "unnecessary or cruelly" killing animals prohibit a religious group from sacrificing an animal in a religious ritual or practice? On July 23, 1987, Butterworth delivered his opinions to Wetzel, deciding that:
First, "...in determining whether a duly enacted statute may be applied by a state to prohibit a particular religious practice, the courts must weigh the interests of religious freedom and of the state in the preservation of the health, safety and morals of society. Upon finding that a compelling state interest exists, the court could approve the application of the prohibition against a particular religious practice, such as the sacrificial killing of animals...Unless and until the Legislature modifies the statutes, it is my opinion that Florida law, specifically s. 828.12, F.S., prohibits the sacrificial killing of animals other than for the primary purpose of food consumption." The case then moved to Miami Federal court. Closing arguments were heard in mid-Augustl989. In early October, the case was decided in favor of the City of Hialeah on the grounds that the Santerian practice of sacrificing animals is not in the best health and safety interests of the City. Pichardo has filed an appeal. |
|
The Case
Pichardo, whose defense is being handled by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argued that the City ordinance is a prejudicial endeavor aimed at Santeria practitioners; that animal sacrifice is an accepted religious practice protected under state statutes allowing for the "ritual slaughter" of animals for consumption; and that the laws and regulations governing animal cruelty and sacrifice are inconsistently enforced, citing in particular the allowance of Kosher slaughter and cock fights. The City, supported by a series of amicus curiae briefs, argued that the public health and safety are threatened by Santeria practitioners who throw carcasses into the streets where they rot and are sometimes eaten by the homeless; that the welfare of children is threatened when they are allowed to witness a violent animal sacrifice carried out by a well-respected authority figure; and that animal sacrifice constitutes cruelty to animals. |
|
The Implications
The City of Hialeah is currently involved in a precedent-setting case. Whatever the decision at the next federal level, both sides have vowed to appeal any decision rendered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, in Atlanta, directly to the Supreme Court. The ultimate decision will determine how all states must react in regard to allowing or disallowing animal sacrifice as part of a religious ritual. For further information on the case and its outcome, contact the following:
Marc Paulhus, Director
Charles Wetli, M.D., Deputy Chief Medical Examiner (Although Dr. Wetli testified for the plaintiff, he initially requested to be a neutral court witness.) |