Supreme Court Ruling
“Supreme Court Rules”
CLBA Journal 2000-05
by Oba Ernesto Pichardo
CLBA Journal 2000-05
by Oba Ernesto Pichardo
In rare occasions the judges of
the Supreme Court vote 9-0. More rare is in a constitutional first amendment
case surrounded in social interest. We're referring to the favorable ruling Church
of the Lukumi Babalu Aye vs. City of Hialeah. Perhaps the incredible part was
the international interest drawn to this called the War of the Chickens. An old
humble house in ruins that we aspired to convert into a small church building.
That religious illusion was rapidly attacked like a malignant plague. Now is
the moment for reflection. What have we won and where do we find ourselves?
First we won the legal right to open our church, which produced the legal battle over animal offerings. On the first federal trial we lost the authority for animal offerings. In addition, they concluded; that children are affected psychologically when they participate in these rituals. This being a new a most important finding we focused on it at the court of appeals. Our legal strategy to fundamentally worry about winning this ignorant accusation resulted favorably. We won this aspect, but the authorization for offerings were not granted.
The only alternative was to try to get the Supreme Court to hear our case. It's this part of the case where the major confusion prevails. Especially by those that benefit most. Many experts gave opinions during seven years of litigation. They still continue to offer their best speculations without having the legal capacity, nor the necessary elements for judgment. It's simply a freedom of expression without a foundation. For this, one needs to be from the beginning a fundamental factor in the intimacies of the history. By the will of the Orishas we were accepted by the great court. This is not a right, it's a privilege that only a few obtain. The court recognizes our church, the religion and authorized animal offerings. We say authorized because it was never clearly legal as applied to us. Its to say, we went in search for, from the first day with our moral and assumed right, the legal acceptance of our rites. We had nothing to lose, because our hopes and great sacrifice in exchange to win the right for the glorification of the Orishas and a collective advancement.
But don't be confused, this right is not an authority to do things the way one feels like doing them. There are existing laws for the transportation of animals, laws for cruelty, public health, method of sacrificing animals and other to comply. Including that neighbors also have rights. Without the protection of the court ruling, there may be violations with fines from $500.00 to $5,000.00 including years of incarceration and legal fees for representation.
All professionals and priests must be recognized by an institution or legal entity. If not, they could be charged with false representation. The church has its recognition from the federal government and other recent organizations only have State status. The church has certified priests and others are clandestine believers. Which of these two are you when claiming your rights?
Article reprinted from the February 1996, ASHE Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 1
©1996,1997 CLBA
Supreme Court of the United States, 1993 no.91-948
First we won the legal right to open our church, which produced the legal battle over animal offerings. On the first federal trial we lost the authority for animal offerings. In addition, they concluded; that children are affected psychologically when they participate in these rituals. This being a new a most important finding we focused on it at the court of appeals. Our legal strategy to fundamentally worry about winning this ignorant accusation resulted favorably. We won this aspect, but the authorization for offerings were not granted.
The only alternative was to try to get the Supreme Court to hear our case. It's this part of the case where the major confusion prevails. Especially by those that benefit most. Many experts gave opinions during seven years of litigation. They still continue to offer their best speculations without having the legal capacity, nor the necessary elements for judgment. It's simply a freedom of expression without a foundation. For this, one needs to be from the beginning a fundamental factor in the intimacies of the history. By the will of the Orishas we were accepted by the great court. This is not a right, it's a privilege that only a few obtain. The court recognizes our church, the religion and authorized animal offerings. We say authorized because it was never clearly legal as applied to us. Its to say, we went in search for, from the first day with our moral and assumed right, the legal acceptance of our rites. We had nothing to lose, because our hopes and great sacrifice in exchange to win the right for the glorification of the Orishas and a collective advancement.
But don't be confused, this right is not an authority to do things the way one feels like doing them. There are existing laws for the transportation of animals, laws for cruelty, public health, method of sacrificing animals and other to comply. Including that neighbors also have rights. Without the protection of the court ruling, there may be violations with fines from $500.00 to $5,000.00 including years of incarceration and legal fees for representation.
All professionals and priests must be recognized by an institution or legal entity. If not, they could be charged with false representation. The church has its recognition from the federal government and other recent organizations only have State status. The church has certified priests and others are clandestine believers. Which of these two are you when claiming your rights?
Article reprinted from the February 1996, ASHE Newsletter Vol. 1, No. 1
©1996,1997 CLBA
Supreme Court of the United States, 1993 no.91-948