A city council in Michigan has voted to approve animal sacrifice, a law passed to accommodate Muslim practices during holy days. From the Detroit Free Press story:
After several months of contentious debate and pressure from Muslim residents, Hamtramck City Council voted Tuesday night to approve allowing the religious sacrifice of animals on residential property.
Muslims often slaughter animals during the holiday of Eid al-Adha and Hamtramck has one of the highest percentage of Muslim residents among cities in the U.S.
The all-Muslim city council voted 3 to 2, with Mayor Amer Ghalib casting the tie-breaking vote, to amend a city ordinance to allow religious sacrifice of animals at home. After the vote to approve, applause broke out from members of the public, who packed the meeting to speak out before the vote.
The law has some provisions to protect the general public:
But Hassan said allowing animal slaughter will not make the city “blow up with the nasty blood, contamination.” The revised ordinance requires those who slaughter animals to notify the city ahead of time and to perform the ritual in a sanitary way. They must also block the viewing of the slaughter from members of the general public who do not wish to see it happening.
What to make of this? As disquieting as I find the practice, I think it is consistent with the spirit of the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause. In other words, the new ordinance promotes religious freedom. I think we need more of that in this country, not less.
Will PETA or some other activist group be able to enjoin the new law, as I suspect will be attempted? I doubt it. A 1993 unanimous Supreme Court decision found that a law outlawing religious animal sacrifice in another context to be unconstitutional.
This is the price of greater pluralism and diversity in society. Religious practices that the majority would shrink from should generally be tolerated, absent a compelling state interest to the contrary. (For example, the law can compel children of Jehovah’s Witness parents to receive blood transfusions in the interest of saving their lives.)
Thus, the question would seem to be whether protecting animals from the pain associated with religious slaughter is deemed so urgent that it overrides the clearly compelling state purpose of protecting religious liberty. It’s a hard call emotionally. Our cultural sensitivities toward animal suffering have become more acute since 1993. But I don’t think that would justify a different outcome.