Could a Jewish Majority federally legislate Kosher dieting?

[ybbor]

For yet another example of how far the majority can go vs. the rights of the minority. And furthermore, if a law was passed, would you follow it?

assume that this law came into being just like any other law, there were able to achieve a majority in the legislative branch, signed by executive, etc.

for the purposes of this poll, it is not illegal to eat non-Kosher food, but the FDA requires all meat be killed in Kosher manner, pig meat cannot be sold, Imports of non-Kosher food is stopped, etc. While you could not be sued for breaking Kosher law, you do not have the choice to buy non-Kosher food.

EDIT: can a mod PLEASE change option four to "No they do not have that right"
Moderator Action: Done - Rik

 

[Capulet]

I don't understand the question that well. Are you asking if a Jewish-controlled Congress pass a law banning non-Kosher food?

 

[Shylock]

No pig meat? No Bacon?

Screw that. But I know that they wouldn't bother. They can get all the Kosher stuff they want now? Why nationalise it and inconvienence non-Jews therefore creating resentment?

 

[blackheart]

I don't understand the question that well. Are you asking if a Jewish-controlled Congress pass a law banning non-Kosher food?

It is a question on how much the government, in controlled by a minority of the population, can interfere in our personal lives.

 

[ybbor]

I don't understand the question that well. Are you asking if a Jewish-controlled Congress pass a law banning non-Kosher food?

yes

No pig meat? No Bacon?

Screw that. But I know that they wouldn't bother. They can get all the Kosher stuff they want now? Why nationalise it and inconvienence non-Jews therefore creating resentment?

I'm not asking if they should, I'm asking if they have the right to do via federal authority

 

[Perfection]

Would they have the legal right to? Yes.
Would they have the moral right to? Not in my viewpoint.
Would I break the law? Probobly.

 

[blackheart]

Eh it's not like they can enforce it anyways.

 

[Aramazd]

I'm not asking if they should, I'm asking if they have the right to do via federal authority

They have the legal right, but most people would see this as an invasion of privacy. I wouldn't disobey the law because I rarely eat ham anyway though.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

that would be mobrule.the exact same thing that prevents gays from getting married

 

[I am the Future]

Eh it's not like they can enforce it anyways.

SURE THEY COULD, how many people eat dog? none. Why? because it is illigal. Al they would have to do is shutdown all of the pig farms, meat packageing plants, all of the lobster stuff, and any thing else non kosher putting thousands out of work. They could do it, but it would be stupid and they wouldnt be reelected

 

[blackheart]

SURE THEY COULD, how many people eat dog? none. Why? because it is illigal. Al they would have to do is shutdown all of the pig farms, meat packageing plants, all of the lobster stuff, and any thing else non kosher putting thousands out of work. They could do it, but it would be stupid and they wouldnt be reelected

They're just outlawing eating, not the production of. People don't eat dog because its their pets. If there were enough demand for it and people willing to pay, you'll soon be noticing dog stands popping up on your street corner.

 

[Israelite9191]

I am a religious Jew (Conservative/Reform branch) but I voted for "No, they don't have the right". Personally, I don't keep kosher (just had a couple pork chops for dinner actually ), but that doesn't really matter. Even if Orthodox Jews who, for some odd reason, decided to reverse thousands of years of Jewish tradition and begin forcing Judaism on other people gained control of Congress, it would be constutionally illegal to pass a law like this. The Consitution, see Amendment 1, states that Congress can pass no bills that would favor one religion. In this case, that would be Judaism. Morally it is wrong since any religion (Judaism actually teaches this) should not be forced on others. I probably would not break the law for the simple fact that I don't eat inherantly non-Kosher foods that often (except cheeseburgers). Frankly, I would be somewhat happier because then I would know that all the animals were humanely butchered. So...

Would they have the legal right to?- No, see Amendment 1 of the Constitution
Would they have the moral right to?- No, forcing one religion on others is unethical
Would I break the law?- Probably not.

 

[blackheart]

Would they have the legal right to?- No, see Amendment 1 of the Constitution
Would they have the moral right to?- No, forcing one religion on others is unethical
Would I break the law?- Probably not.

I don't think the First Amendment covers any food or drink or any such like that. While it is religious motivated, so are a lot of other laws curently being passed, so the politicians probably could wrap this up somehow. If the government can ban alcohol, they can make this law.

 

[Israelite9191]

@Blackheart- Actually, ybbor said that the production, sale, and importation would be illegalized, not the eating. You have it the wrong way around.

 

[blackheart]

@Blackheart- Actually, ybbor said that the production, sale, and importation would be illegalized, not the eating. You have it the wrong way around.

Ooh, oops .

Well in that case, if people are willing to pay, I'm sure there will be occurances of pig smugglers from Mexico and Canda

 

[Israelite9191]

Amendment 1 does not specify in which areas it applies, only that religions should not be prefered over other religions. Prohibtion, while it had religious support, was not inherintly religious. This law would be.

 

[blackheart]

Amendment 1 does not specify in which areas it applies, only that religions should not be prefered over other religions. Prohibtion, while it had religious support, was not inherintly religious. This law would be.

Someone could find something about pork being bad the the public health . Really though, I have no doubt that politicians would word it in such a way as to leave out any hints of religious significance.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

It would require either a constitutional amendment or a landmark Supreme Court decision overturning the current interpretation of the first amendment.

Unless they can prove in cort that there are secular benefits.

 

[Israelite9191]

Like what, just list every little law of Kashrut and then get doctors to agree to it? It would be well known by the public that it was Kashrut that they were making law. Even if Congress got away with passing it, the president wouldn't sign it. And even if the president did sign it, the Supreme Court would strike it down.

 

[Israelite9191]

There are some secular benefits. Most inherently non-kosher foods are higher in fat, higher in cholesterol, more likely to contain worms and such, and other things. But the fact that it is Kashrut would be evident and would prevent the bill from making it, or cause the law to be stricken by the Supreme Court.