Merry Meet,
To my fellow Santeros (Babalawos and Padrinos), Santeras (Iyanifas and Madrinas), et al:
With the recent upheaval and in light of Santerian Priest Rafael Giral ["Animal Cruelty Case Goes to Court" - 30 Oct 2008 - Source: http://www.rootsandrooted.org/?p=719], across the United States, concerning religious / devotional animal sacrificing--I must urge everyone to know your Constitutional rights (and the local ordinances for the geographic location where you reside, preside, and practice your freedom of religion and religious choice). Below is the synopsis of the landmark 1993 Supreme Court decision concerning "Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah". And do not forget about Wicca becoming recognized as a religion, in 1986, via the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit case "Dettmer v. Landon":
[1] http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/533250
[2] http://www.tylwythteg.com/landon.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dettmer_v._Landon
To my fellow Santeros (Babalawos and Padrinos), Santeras (Iyanifas and Madrinas), et al:
With the recent upheaval and in light of Santerian Priest Rafael Giral ["Animal Cruelty Case Goes to Court" - 30 Oct 2008 - Source: http://www.rootsandrooted.org/?p=719], across the United States, concerning religious / devotional animal sacrificing--I must urge everyone to know your Constitutional rights (and the local ordinances for the geographic location where you reside, preside, and practice your freedom of religion and religious choice). Below is the synopsis of the landmark 1993 Supreme Court decision concerning "Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah". And do not forget about Wicca becoming recognized as a religion, in 1986, via the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit case "Dettmer v. Landon":
[1] http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/533250
[2] http://www.tylwythteg.com/landon.html
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dettmer_v._Landon
If ever has a time arrived, we must show our support of and for our religio-spiritual calling! We all should have become quite weary and very tiresome of the religious intolerance and ignorance perpetrated upon us by certain factions within the United States of America and abroad! We should never bow down to supidity!
Merry Part,
Summum Bonum,
Reverend Dr. K.A. Sahure VIº, DD, MscD (DMet)
Elder Arch High Priest & Arch Heirophant
Temple of Kemetic Wicca
U.S. Supreme Court
CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE v. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
508 U.S. 520
CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. v. CITY OF HIALEAH
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 91-948
Argued November 4, 1992
Decided June 11, 1993
CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE v. CITY OF HIALEAH, 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
508 U.S. 520
CHURCH OF LUKUMI BABALU AYE, INC. v. CITY OF HIALEAH
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 91-948
Argued November 4, 1992
Decided June 11, 1993
Petitioner church and its congregants practice the Santeria religion, which employs animal sacrifice as one of its principal forms of devotion. The animals are killed by cutting their carotid arteries, and are cooked and eaten following all Santeria rituals except healing and death rites. After the church leased land in respondent city and announced plans to establish a house of worship and other facilities there, the city council held an emergency public session and passed, among other enactments Resolution 87-66, which noted city residents' "concern" over religious practices inconsistent with public morals, peace, or safety, and declared the city's "commitment" to prohibiting such practices; Ordinance 87-40, which incorporates the Florida animal cruelty laws and broadly punishes "[w]hoever . . . unnecessarily or cruelly . . . kills any animal," and has been interpreted to reach killings for religious reasons; Ordinance 87-52, which defines "sacrifice" as "to unnecessarily kill . . . an animal in a . . . ritual . . . not for the primary purpose of food consumption," and prohibits the "possess[ion], sacrifice, or slaughter" of an animal if it is killed in "any type of ritual" and there is an intent to use it for food, but exempts "any licensed [food] establishment" if the killing is otherwise permitted by law; Ordinance 87-71, which prohibits the sacrifice of animals, and defines "sacrifice" in the same manner as Ordinance 87-52; and Ordinance 87-72 which defines "slaughter" as "the killing of animals for food" and prohibits slaughter outside of areas zoned for slaughterhouses, but includes an exemption for "small numbers of hogs and/or cattle" when exempted by state law. Petitioners filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of their rights under, inter alia, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Although acknowledging that the foregoing ordinances are not religiously neutral, the District Court ruled for the city, concluding, among other things, that compelling governmental interests in preventing public health risks and cruelty to animals fully justified the absolute prohibition on ritual sacrifice accomplished by the ordinances, and that an exception to that prohibition for religious conduct would unduly interfere with fulfillment of the governmental interest, because any more narrow restrictions would [508 U.S. 520, 521] be unenforceable as a result of the Santeria religion's secret nature. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held:
The judgment is reversed.
936 F.2d 586, (CA 11 1991) reversed.
Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=508&page=520
