The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a district court’s ruling, paving the way for a Santeria priest in Euless to resume goat sacrifices as part of religious ceremonies.

[More...]

Views: 1

Replies to This Discussion

This is bullshit. If it's illegal, it should be illegal for everyone, not just for "religious reasons". If there's no good reason to bann animal sacrifice (I think there is), then anyone should be allowed to do it. This is yet another case of religion getting a free pass.

Someone should start a religion that states that the path to heaven is downloading movies and games from the internet. I would love to see the religion-freedom-trumps-law guys saying that not paying for movies is not allowed but slaughtering a goat is just fine.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was only illegal to do so for religious reasons. Slaughtering a goat for other purposes (like food) isn't/wasn't illegal.
No. According to city regulations slaughtering goats is illegal no mather what (at least that's what I get from the article).
Well, that's dumb. What if I get hungry?
The store? Or how about going outside city limits?
That would require the excessive burning of fossil fuels to power my non-electric, non-hybrid car, thus polluting the air of our precious earth-mother. It would be a whole lot much more greenier of me to raise and slaughter the goat in the comfort of my own home.

Just remember, you can't have slaughter without laughter!
Hehehe...I suppose you could always live on a farm with wind mills? =P
Amish Paradise...
Just remember to churn your butter in private!
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C08/08-10358-CV0.wpd.pdf

Actually reading the ruling doesn't make it seem so weird.

Basically they performed the sacrifice in such a way that it was basically just a fucked up reason to butcher a goat.

He doesn't keep them caged because they're bought from local markets and delivered shortly before the slaughter, edible parts were cooked or eaten, all materials are disposed of afterward, and there have been no reported illnesses attributed to his particular practice.

The two interests Euless claims are compelling are public health and
animal treatment, the emphasis being on the former. But the parties stipulated
to, and the district court found, the following facts:
25. Defendant has no evidence that any of the Plaintiff’s religious
practices in his home, including the killing of goats, sheep,
and turtles, has adversely affected the health of any person.
26. Defendant has no evidence that any of the Plaintiff’s religious
practices in his home, including the killing of goats, sheep,
and turtles, has adversely affected the safety of any person.
27. Defendant has no evidence that the Plaintiff ever disposed in
an illegal manner of the remains (dead animals or their parts)
of any animal sacrifice in his home.
28. Defendant has no evidence that the Plaintiff ever disposed in
an unsanitary manner of the remains (dead animals or their
parts) of any animal sacrifice in his home.
29. Defendant has no evidence that the Plaintiff ever kept any
goats, sheep, or other animals on his premises for longer than
four hours.
30. Defendant has no evidence that the Plaintiff ever kept any
goats, sheep, or other animals on his premises in a manner
that before the killing caused any injury to any animal.
31. Defendant has no evidence that the Plaintiff ever caused any
animal on his premises to suffer any cruelty or harm, other
than the killing of the animal.
32. Defendant has no evidence that the Plaintiff ever kept any
goats, sheep, or other animals on his premises in an
unsanitary manner.
33. Defendant has no evidence that the Plaintiff ever kept any
goats, sheep, or other animals on his premises in a manner
that denied to any animal sufficient food and water.
34. Defendant has no evidence that any of the Plaintiff’s religious
practices in his home caused any animal greater suffering
than is normal in the legal, commercial slaughter of animals
for meat.


I especially like the following of this particular nutcase:
"Merced has delayed initiating an aspiring priest because the ceremony
must be performed in his home and he cannot perform it legally. Merced is
willing to comply with any disposal or health standards that Euless might
create, but the city denied the availability of a permit or exception for sacrificing
four-legged animals, and intends to prosecute Merced if he attempts any further
sacrifices of four-legged animals."


When he was asked to stop, he did.

In fairness, he is trying to do this the right way. As much as my gut doesn't want to, my brain has to go with the court on this. The court isn't making a religious exception for for Merced and his fucked up religion, their decision is that Merced didn't break any law in the first place and that the City of Euless was wrong to prosecute -- given the facts it looks like all he did wrong was offend his neighbors.
And he's no crazier than Christians who believe in transubstantiation. At least he's able to eat real meat here and not just believing that his crackers and wine are the flesh and blood of his zombie man-god.
Actually, since it is real meat and not a cracker, I'd say he's less crazy on that particular issue.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service