The Santeria religion, derived from Africa by way of Cuba, uses ...

[bio_gurl]

The Santeria religion, derived from Africa by way of Cuba, uses the sacrifice of animals as part
  of its religious ceremonies. The animals include chickens, pigeons, doves, ducks, guinea pigs,
  goals, sheep, and turtles. After a sacrificial killing, the animals are cooked and eaten as part of
  the religion. In 1987, the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. leased land in the city of
  Hiahleah, Florida, where the Church planned to build a house of worship, cultural center,
  museum, and school. When residents of the city learned of these plans and expressed dismay,
  the city council called an emergency meeting and declared concern that certain religions may
  propose to engage in practices which are inconsistent with public morals, peace or safety. The
  city council then passed city ordinances to restrict animal sacrifice. It defined sacrifice as to
  unnecessarily kill, torment, torture, or mutilate an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony
  not for the primary purpose of food consumption. It also passed an exemption from this
  restriction for slaughtering animals specifically raised for food purposes which would excuse
  licensed slaughter houses. The Church sued the city, claiming that the ordinance violated their First Amendment right of
  free expression of their religion. The city did not try to argue that Santeria is not a religion.
  When the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case, the Court agreed that Santeria is a religion. The
  Court also said that religious practices need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or
  comprehensible to others to be practices protected by the First Amendment. The fact that the
  city council exempted other animal killings shows, the Court said, that the Santeria religious
  practice was being singled out for discriminatory treatment in violation of the First Amendment

 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

The Native American Church uses the drug peyote as part of their religious ceremony. Two
  state employees in Oregon, Alfred Smith and Galen Black, who practiced this religion, were
  fired from their jobs for this drug use. They were then denied unemployment compensation
  because they were fired for misconduct. The state of Oregon bans the use of peyote in all
  circumstances. About half of the states and the Federal government do permit the use of peyote
  in certain religious situations. Smith and Black sued in federal court, claiming that the ban on
  peyote in religious circumstances violated their First Amendment right to freedom of religious
  expression.
  The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state of Oregon in deciding this case. The court noted
  that the religious use of peyote was not being singled out for the ban, but rather than the use of
  peyote was banned in all circumstances. If Oregon had permitted peyote use in all situations,
  except religious ceremonies, that would have been a violation of religious expression.

 
  What will be an ideal response?

[Silverbeard98]

Answer to Question 1

1. The Court said that the goal of protecting human health and safety was a legitimate goal
for the city council, but could have been accomplished in ways that did not single out the
Santeria religion. What might such legitimate restrictions look like? Draft an ordinance
that would protect those goals without singling out the religious practice.
2. Can you reconcile this decision, in which an unusual religious practice was protected by
the Court as the free exercise of religion, with their decision in Case 1 above, in which
the court sided with the government in restricting the claimed exercise of religion?
3. If a religion wanted to practice the sacrifice of human infants, should that practice be
protected under freedom of religious expression? If not, how would you distinguish this
practice from the animal sacrifice at issue in Hiahleah? How would you use Kantian or
utilitarian reasoning to support your position, independently of the First Amendment
perspective?

Answer to Question 2

1. Should the use of a banned substance such as peyote be permitted as an expression of
a religious belief, so long as it does not harm other people? Develop arguments in favor
of this position using philosophical reasoning. Then develop arguments against this
position.
2. The dissenters in this Supreme Court case said that the Native American Church had
taken appropriate steps to protect human health and safety and that the practice of using
peyote during religious ceremonies did not endanger the public. Is that sufficient to
justify permitting this expression of religious belief? Develop philosophical arguments
that would support this dissenting opinion.
3. Should drug use ever be permitted as part of a religious belief? If you believe it should
be permitted as part of the free exercise of religion, how would you determine when it
should be permitted and when it should be banned?