Eric-- my point was that in this era there are a lot of sincere animal rights advocates and that drawing from the past for pretext is irrelevant for a constitutional analysis today.
Where is your evidence of pretext today? The assumption of pretext is frankly offensive. And, yes, the Becket Fund is as unpopular with the animal protection groups as it is with children's groups. The pursuit of religious liberty in cases where others are harmed is controversial to say the least. Marci On Apr 12, 2012, at 8:19 PM, Eric Rassbach <erassb...@becketfund.org> wrote: > > I am already on the PETA blacklist because of my Santeria goat sacrifice > case, so no harm done to my relationship with them. > > The reason I cited examples from the 1930s is that before New Zealand's > short-lived ban in 2010, all but one of the previous sharia bans were passed > in the 1890-1930s timeframe. The sole exception being Iceland which passed a > shechita ban in 1957 (and 19 years before that expelled all of its Jewish > citizens a la Ferdinand and Isabella). This is clear from the brief I linked, > which I gather you didn't read. So with respect to the sharia bans that have > been enacted, I think I am on pretty solid ground to say that the humane > reasons were more often than not pretext for anti-Semitism. > > With respect to the Netherlands specifically, I note that one of the main > proponents of the kosher/halal slaughter ban is Geert Wilders who has said > things like the following: > > Madam Speaker, the Islamic incursion must be stopped. Islam is the Trojan > Horse in Europe. If we do not stop Islamification now, Eurabia and Netherabia > will just be a matter of time. One century ago, there were approximately 50 > Muslims in the Netherlands. Today, there are about 1 million Muslims in this > country. Where will it end? We are heading for the end of European and Dutch > civilisation as we know it. Where is our Prime Minister in all this? In reply > to my questions in the House he said, without batting an eyelid, that there > is no question of our country being Islamified. Now, this reply constituted a > historical error as soon as it was uttered. Very many Dutch citizens, Madam > Speaker, experience the presence of Islam around them. And I can report that > they have had enough of burkas, headscarves, the ritual slaughter of animals, > so‑called honour revenge, blaring minarets, female circumcision, hymen > restoration operations, abuse of homosexuals, Turkish and Arabic on the buses > and trains as well as on town hall leaflets, halal meat at grocery shops and > department stores, Sharia exams, the Finance Minister’s Sharia mortgages, and > the enormous overrepresentation of Muslims in the area of crime, including > Moroccan street terrorists. > > > This is not to say that some people don't have genuine objections to > kosher/halal slaughter on the basis of humane treatment concerns. But there > is clearly also religious hostility motivating many others; hopefully we can > all agree that that is a bad reason for such a ban. > > Eric > > > > ________________________________________ > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] > On Behalf Of Marc Stern [ste...@ajc.org] > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 1:30 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against EstablishmentClause > challenge > > Except that PETA itself has in the past referred to the way commercial farm > animals are raised as rep[licating conditions in concentration camps. > Marc > > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu > [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 01:25 > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > Subject: Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against EstablishmentClause > challenge > > Chip is right, of course. > > But Eric's point requires a response. > I don't I don't think PETA folks would appreciate having their sincere > concerns about the humane treatment of > animals traced to the Nazis. To say that humane treatment concerns are more > often than > not "pretext" and then to have as your example something out of the 1930s is > singularly unpersuasive. > > > Marci A. Hamilton > Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law > Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law > Yeshiva University > 55 Fifth Avenue > New York, NY 10003 > (212) 790-0215 > hamilto...@aol.com<mailto:hamilto...@aol.com> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Rassbach <erassb...@becketfund.org> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Sent: Thu, Apr 12, 2012 1:14 pm > Subject: RE: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against EstablishmentClause > challenge > > > > > > Chip is right that the supposedly inhumane methods of kosher/halal slaughter > > (something US law defines as humane, btw) is one of the main public > > justifications for banning the practice. But as our brief in the New Zealand > > kosher slaughter ban case pointed out -- > http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/NZ-kosher-brief-FINAL.pdf > > -- more often than not this is pretext. For example, this was the same > > justification the anti-Semites of the 1930s used for banning the practice in > > several European countries. As we point out in our brief, one of the first > > things the Nazis did upon taking power was to pass a law banning kosher > > slaughter, supposedly in order "to awaken and strengthen compassion as one of > > the highest moral values of the German people." I don't think it's too much > of > > a stretch to guess that anti-Muslim sentiment may be a subterranean motivation > > for the humane practices argument in the Netherlands, France and elsewhere. > > > > The ironic part for me of the Mohr case was that my main experience of > > stand-alone prison pork bans is as a proposed "compromise" to settle kosher > > accommodation lawsuits. Of course pork bans don't work as a method of kosher > > accommodation, though prison administrators keep hoping that they do. In our > now > > 6-year-old lawsuit against the Texas prison system (now on a return trip to > the > > 5th Circuit), Texas at one point floated a pork ban as a solution, which only > > served to show that they didn't understand how kashrus works. > > > > Eric > > ________________________________________ > > From: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu> > [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu>] > On > > Behalf Of Ira Lupu [icl...@law.gwu.edu<mailto:icl...@law.gwu.edu>] > > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:39 AM > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > > Subject: Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against EstablishmentClause > > challenge > > > > I think that at least part of the objections in Europe to serving only halal > > meat in some restaurants involves objections to methods of halal animal > > slaughter which (like kosher slaughter) may not be consistent with European > > standards for humane treatment of animals in their use as food. "Halal only" > > means all diners are "complicit" in the that particular slaughtering process. > > > > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:08 PM, Friedman, Howard M. > <howard.fried...@utoledo.edu<mailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu><mailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu<mailto:howard.fried...@utoledo.edu?>>> > > wrote: > > > > It is interesting to compare reactions in Europe to similar situations. In > 2010, > > French politicians strongly criticized a restaurant chain that decided to > serve > > only halal meat in 8 of its restaurants with a large Muslim clientele. > > Agriculture Minister Bruno Le Maire said: "When they remove all the pork from > a > > restaurant open to the public, I think they fall into communalism, which is > > against the principles and the spirit of the French republic." > > See: > http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2010/02/french-politicians-criticize-restaurant.html > > > > In 2007 in Britain, a primary school in Kingsgate attempted to accommodate > > religious needs of its growing Muslim student body by serving only Halal meat > in > > its lunch menus. A number of parents objected, arguing that the school was > > forcing their children to to conform to "someone else's culture." > > See > http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2007/02/british-parents-protest-halal-menus-in.html > > > > > > Howard Friedman > > > > messages to others. > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; > people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) > forward the messages to others. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
