Abstract

In this article, I do two things: First, I argue that a belief in animal liberation constitutes religion under constitutional jurisprudence interpreting the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Thus, every time a prison warden, teacher or school administrator, or government employer refuses to accommodate the ethical belief of an animal liberationist, they are infringing on that person’s religious freedom, and they should have to satisfy the same constitutional or statutory requirements that would adhere were the asserted interest based on more traditional religious exercise. Second, I suggest that one possible solution to the problem of widespread violation of the first amendment rights of animal liberationists would be the incorporation of a “Church of Animal Liberation” under the Internal Revenue Code, which would help to protect the free exercise rights of those who believe in animal rights, because it would give them a religious organization to reference (with articles of incorporation that align with the jurisprudential definition of religion) in making their requests for religious accommodation.