If anyone is interested in the European controversy between animal rights
advocates and Muslim and Jewish minorities on animal slaughter, here is a
comprehensive, not too dated, article on the subject:
Pablo Lerner and Alfredo Mordechai Rabello The Prohibition of Ritual
Slaughtering
(Kosher Shechita and Halal) and Freedom of Religion of Minorities, XXII Journal
of Law and Religion 1 (2006-07)
Marie A. Failinger
Professor of Law
Editor, Journal of Law and Religion
Hamline University School of Law
1536 Hewitt Avenue
Saint Paul, MN 55104 U.S.A.
651-523-2124 (work phone)
651-523-2236 (work fax)
mfailin...@hamline.edu (email)
>>> Ira Lupu <icl...@law.gwu.edu> 4/12/2012 9:39 AM >>>
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> 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
-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Wed 4/11/2012 7:46 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against EstablishmentClause
challenge
I agree entirely; I mention this partly because I occasionally hear pork bans
as examples of quintessential violations of the Establishment Clause, though I
don't think they would be.
To be sure, a general pork ban might have a different motivation than a prison
decision not to serve pork. But at the same time even a general pork ban could
certainly be an attempt to accommodate a religious group by minimizing the risk
that its members will accidentally ingest pork (or that its members might be
put in a position where their employment would require the handling or even
sampling of pork). And just as the state of California is free to ban the sale
of horsemeat for human consumption (as it did in 1998), so it should be free to
ban the sale of pork - not that I'd ever endorse that as a policy matter!
Eugene
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:32 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment Clause
challenge
Is this outcome surprising in any way? Does anyone on the list believe that the
court got this wrong? (I certainly don't).
If Congress overrode HHS and eliminated pregnancy prevention services from
mandatory coverage by employers under the Affordable Care Act, wouldn't the
analysis be just the same (imposition of a uniform policy to avoid religious
conflict, avoid any need to create controversial exceptions for religious
entities, avoid piece-meal litigation, and ease administration of the overall
scheme), even though the impetus for change derived from a demand by some for
religious accommodation?
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Volokh, Eugene
<vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote:
River v. Mohr (N.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2012),
http://volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/RiversvMohr.pdf .
Eugene
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to
Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
--
Ira C. Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20052
(202)994-7053 ( tel:%28202%29994-7053 )
My SSRN papers are here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
_______________________________________________
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.
--
Ira C. Lupu
F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law
George Washington University Law School
2000 H St., NW
Washington, DC 20052
(202)994-7053
My SSRN papers are here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
_______________________________________________
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.
