Photo by Pascal Debrunner on UnsplashFor whatever reason, a headline about animal sacrifices went viral on social media, even capturing the attention of Elon Musk. But the story’s substance led to some misinformation about religious liberty and a famous Supreme Court case. That’s where we come in.
On Sept. 7, the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post reported a disturbing rise in animal sacrifices in Queens. In the last month, nine animal carcasses were recovered, the publication claims, including “five live pigs with partially severed ears … a near-dead baby rat tied up in a bag with chicken bones; a freshly decapitated chicken head; a live hen in distress; and a dead dog with its neck snapped.”
The Post states, “Under New York state law, however, aggravated cruelty to animals, meanwhile, is a felony punishable by up to two years in prison.” Right before, the Post erroneously suggests that “the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right to animal sacrifice on religious grounds in a 1993 ruling,” referring to Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. city of Hialeah.
Let’s set the record straight: That’s not true. Here’s why.
The Constitution allows for neutral laws that apply to everyone — even if they happen to burden someone’s religious practices. Justice Antonin Scalia confirmed this in the 1990 Supreme Court case, Employment Division v. Smith. But what does “neutral” mean? It’s about fairness: The government can’t single out religious practices for punishment while allowing similar nonreligious conduct. For instance, the government cannot ban religious vegetarianism but permit secular, nonreligious vegetarianism. In other words, the Free Exercise Clause protects us from government discrimination against religion — not from laws that apply equally to everyone, religious or not.
Back in 1987, the city of Hialeah, Fla., passed several ordinances prohibiting animal sacrifice. The timing wasn’t coincidental. The Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practices Santeria (a religion of Afro-Caribbean origin), had just opened its doors. The city’s ordinances were crafted to prohibit animal sacrifice, but made exceptions for many other kinds of animal killings. In effect, they targeted one practice by one specific religion. The city’s attitude? As the city’s attorney put it, “This community will not tolerate religious practices which are abhorrent to its citizens.”
Woah. That’s not very neutral — not in any sense. For advocates of state/church separation, the Hialeah Police chaplain had some interesting words: “We need to be helping people and sharing with them the truth that is found in Jesus Christ.” One councilman said: “[The] Bible says we are allowed to sacrifice an animal for consumption … but for any other purposes, I don’t believe that the Bible allows that.” The city allowed Kosher slaughters, but not the same conduct by an unpopular religion.
It’s no wonder the Supreme Court found these ordinances unconstitutional. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, explained that the ordinances were struck down, not because of some mythical “right to animal sacrifice” but because they were designed to target Santeria specifically. The takeaway? The U.S. Constitution protects against discriminatory laws, not against all laws that might affect religious practices.
Back in New York, no new legislation is needed to go after these Queens incidents. Animal cruelty is already illegal. New York’s law does not offend the First Amendment since it is neutral and all-encompassing. New York law also does not give exemptions for all religious conduct. So, those violating the law do not have the right to commit animal cruelty simply because they are religious. Religion does not get a pass for cruelty — animal or human.
Don’t get me wrong, jail is not the answer; incarceration rarely helps anything. But, if animal cruelty is illegal, collect the fine to deter that practice. Especially if doing so chills this type of conduct that the community finds disgusting. New York prosecutors have the necessary tools to enforce these laws without infringing on anyone’s religious rights. And despite what the Post suggests, there’s no constitutional conflict here.
I should note that if the federal government attempts to prosecute any federal crime, religious institutions can potentially use the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act to escape civil or criminal liability. I’ve voiced my disdain for this law before. Here, it’s likely only the state-level crimes can be prosecuted successfully. That’s because New York state does not have its own version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
