Article II's New Interdependence Value Enhances Our Religious Freedom to Protect Animals
The UUA Interdependence value in the 2024 historic revised Article II calls for, among other actions, protecting "all beings" from exploitation. It's the revised Article II value most directly associated with UUAM. At its November 2024 meeting, the UUAM Board queried whether combining that value with our legally protected religious freedoms will allow us to better protect animals. This article argues it does because the Interdependence value is substantially stronger and broader than UUA's earlier official commitments to animals. However, with humble respect to Einstein above, greater animal protection doesn't automatically follow with mathematical certainty from the combination of the Interdependence value and religious freedom. Unlike E = mc², a universal law of nature, they require us to act. Possible actions are also addressed in this article.
What are UUA's Earlier Official Commitments to Animals?
UUA's 7th Principle ("7th Principle"), effective since 1985, has guided UUs for 40 years. In significant but succinct terms, it committed UUs to have: "Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part."
In 2011, UUA adopted its Statement of Conscience on "Ethical Eating: Food and Environmental Justice" ("Ethical Eating Statement"), which remains effective. UUAM's John Millspaugh spearheaded the Study/Action Issue process, which resulted in that statement. It's a strong and, compared to the 7th Principle, very detailed statement calling on UUs to strive for a just, sustainable and compassionate food system.
What is the Interdependence Value?
It states:
We honor the interdependent web of all existence. With reverence for the great web of life and with humility, we acknowledge our place in it. We covenant to protect Earth and all beings from exploitation. We will create and nurture sustainable relationships of care and respect, mutuality and justice. We will work to repair harm and damaged relationships.
How does the Interdependence Value Compare to Prior UUA Official Commitments?
The Interdependence value is stronger than the 7th Principle. While the 7th Principle offered the crucial general principle of respect, the Interdependence value unfurls an explicit outline of values like reverence, humility, mutuality and justice, as well as specific get-out-there-and-walk-the-talk commitments to protect, care, nurture, and repair relationships
The Interdependence value, covering "all beings," goes further for animals than the Ethical Eating Statement, which focused only on the impacts of eating choices and food systems on animals (as well as people and the environment). Hand in hand, the Interdependence value and the Ethical Eating Statement reflect a stronger and broader commitment to all beings and their environments.
What are the Legal Sources of Religious Freedom?
Before considering how the Interdependence value allows us, as a matter of religious freedom, to better protect animals, let’s look at the primary legal sources of that freedom — a complex patchwork of separate and overlapping federal and state constitutional and statutory law, including the following:
First Amendment: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applicable to the federal and state governments, states in part: ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The first portion, the "Establishment Clause," forbids Congress from establishing a state religion or favoring one religion. The second portion, the "Free Exercise Clause," protects individual rights to practice religion without government interference. Each state constitution also provides religious protection to varying degrees.
RFRAs: The federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) restricts the federal government from substantially burdening a person's religious exercise unless it demonstrates a compelling governmental interest and has chosen the least restrictive means to further the interest. Twenty-eight states enacted substantially similar state RFRAs.
RLUIPAs: Among other protections, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) protects the religious rights of the millions of individuals in institutions owned, operated or managed by a state or local government, such as jails, prisons, correction facilities, pretrial detention facilities, skilled nursing, intermediate or long-term care facilities. Several states adopted similar laws.
Title VII: Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on religion and other grounds. Similar laws were passed in all states.
5th and 14th Amendments: These amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbid federal and state governments from treating persons differently based on their religious beliefs. Each state has largely similar state constitutional provisions.
What are the Court Standards for Religious Freedom Claims?
For our topic, having a basic familiarity with these standards is helpful. Unfortunately, they vary a bit depending on the legal source, and a complete discussion of them is beyond this article’s scope. However, a plaintiff trying to establish a court claim under these laws must often show that:
● the subject practice, veganism, for example, is an exercise of "religion"
● the claimant sincerely believes in that practice; and
● the subject law, regulation or employer policy or action substantially burdens the plaintiff’s practice.
In theory, these gatekeeper standards filter out fraudulent or frivolous religious freedom claims.
Remarkably, most courts have for many years interpreted ''religion,'' as used in these standards, in an expansive way that transcends mainstream religions. Thus, no court is likely to doubt UU’s status as a religion. However, someone might argue, for instance, that veganism isn't an exercise of UU because it’s not mandated by UUA or practiced by most UUs. That argument should fail, however, because courts have determined that these standards don’t require a practice to be mandated or broadly practiced by a religion.
Usually, even when a plaintiff proves these standards, a governmental defendant can still win if it shows the law or regulation protects a compelling interest in the least restrictive way or, in some cases, is neutral and generally applicable. An employer still wins if it shows that accommodating an employee’s religious practice means an undue hardship on the employer.
Most claims about religious freedom are addressed informally rather than in court. For instance, most students' requests for vegetarian or vegan meals are resolved in discussions with school officials. Nevertheless, the Interdependence value is still important because it can help students informally demonstrate the requisite standards for those requests, thereby avoiding the time, expense and hassles of legal proceedings.
Does the Interdependence Value Enhance Our Freedom to Protect Animals?
Although, depending on the circumstances, a UU claimant might have previously succeeded in establishing these standards, the muscularity of the Interdependence value likely boosts their chances. Moreover, it enters the scene when the U.S. Supreme Court is perhaps more protective than ever of religious freedoms, although seemingly more protective of conservative religions than progressive ones.
How Might the Interdependence Value Enhance our Freedom to Protect Animals?
Because courts decide religious freedom claims on a case-by-case basis amidst multiple, sometimes conflicting and ever-evolving laws and interpretations, outcomes can be uncertain. But here are a few illustrations of the Interdependence value’s potentially positive impact:
Student Diets: Typically, public schools aren't required to serve vegetarian or vegan meals, or, for that matter, Halal or Kosher meals, to students requesting them on religious grounds. However, they are likely required to allow such students to bring these meals to school, and many public schools attempt to serve students with sincerely held religious dietary practices. A UU student's request for a vegetarian or vegan diet, grounded in the Interdependence value and Ethical Eating Statement, should carry significant weight with school administrators. Also, if, for example, a public school serves nutritionally adequate Halal or Kosher meals but refuses to serve the same level of vegetarian or vegan meals, an affected UU student can likely claim discrimination.
Institutional Diets: RLUIPA usually entitles persons, such as prisoners, who meet the above standards to receive vegetarian or vegan diets. A UU prisoner can more effectively demonstrate those standards with the Interdependence value added to the Ethical Eating Statement.
Military Diets: Military service members meeting the standards sometimes qualify for vegetarian or vegan meals. The Interdependence value strengthens the ability of UUs in the military to establish those standards.
Animal Dissection: Approximately 21 states allow students to opt out of animal dissections. UU students in other states can leverage the Interdependence value to challenge dissection requirements on religious grounds.
Employment: Under Title VII, which broadly requires an employer to accommodate employee religious practices unless they impose an undue hardship on the employer, a UU member employed in a school cafeteria could, for example, request a workplace accommodation to avoid handling or serving meat products. Or, a UU employee at a clothing store might make a religion-based request not to work with or sell products made from animal fur or leather. The Interdependence value would fortify those requests.
Business: A UU-owned family for-profit business with a belief in animal rights could more effectively argue that a government regulation requiring it to use certain animal products or animal testing as a condition to sell its goods violates its religious convictions and, therefore, it qualifies for an exemption. By analogy, in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Hobby Lobby, owned by a family of evangelical Christians, had a religion-based right to opt out of the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employers provide health insurance for certain contraceptives.
Beyond bolstering individual legal claims, the Interdependence value's robust language increases the likelihood of courts granting UUA, UUAM and UU congregations standing to pursue religion-based claims for themselves or their members. Claims by entities are ordinarily more effective and efficient than those brought by individuals. UUA has a long history of submitting sign-on letters (supporting a position) and amicus briefs (supporting a party’s position in litigation). With the more potent and broader Interdependence value, government officials and courts should give these letters and briefs even greater consideration.
Conclusion
The new Interdependence value is a giant evolutionary leap in UUA's commitment to protect animals and the broader web of life. Fortunately, with the help of religious freedoms, we can more effectively act on that value. Action, of course, is the next step, and UUAM and each of us can help lead the way.
Frank Brown, member, UU of Arlington, Va.
Additional Reading
The Church of Animal Liberation: Animal Rights as ‘Religion’ Under the Free Exercise Clause
Adjudicating Religious Sincerity
Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty (memo from the US Attorney General)
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (memo from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division)
Ecoworship and Federal Environmental Law
Pandora’s Box of Religious Exemptions
The Intersection Between Animal-Protection Efforts and the Free Exercise Clause
Employers, Got Vegan?: How Ethical Veganism Qualifies for Religious Protection Under Title VII
What You Should Know: Workplace Religious Accommodation (EEOC technical assistance document)
Critical Caselaw: An Animal-Forward Approach to 1st Amendment Jurisprudence (a webinar)