Could a Jewish Majority federally legislate Kosher dieting?

[farting bob]

Yes it could happen, but i think it would take some of the extremeness of an iranian dictator to actually force through the amendment, even if the majority says it should happen, way to many americans like meat (theres a reason why the average american is overweight) and pig is a nice tasty meat.
If something like this happened in england, i wouldnt care, im not a big fan of food anyway, i could survive fine without certain kinds of meat, and i dont really care if its kosher or not, i dont think many would.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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

I don't know of any way in which the federal government can legislate diet. I suppose that Congress could pass a law, but it would be challenged in the Supreme Court, on the grounds that there's no "compelling interest" for the gov't to alter people's diet.

 

[Sh3kel]

Well, the Jewish State has an official ministry which deals with multiple religious matters including the Kosher issues, and even in Israel we don't punish people for holding non-Kosher diets...

Theoretically speaking? The majority is entitled to attempt it. Practically speaking? If that majority is clinically ******ed, they should attempt to apply the theory.

 

[evil potato]

kosher food is the biggest scam ever.

 

[ybbor]

kosher food is the biggest scam ever.

as are most scams lasting thousands of years

 

[sanabas]

@sanabas-
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I guess if you passed an amendment overruling this amendment, it would work, but that is not the question we are dealing with. We are dealing with wether such a law is legitamate, not such an amendment.

Yeah, I know that one. But to quote something else I've seen on OT "The constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper" and it is a piece of paper that doesn't apply worldwide.

So from a purely US legal standpoint, the government can't legislate an overtly religious personal morality, but in can legislate a less ovetly religious personal morality(i.e. gay mariage) or an unreligious one. But for the rest of the world, and for an argument on what the US govt should be able to do, not what it can currently legally do, the constitution and the religious amendment you quoted have no bearing.

So I still have the same question. Why does it make a difference if the morality the govt is attempting to enforce is religious based? I don't see why the origin of a particular moral code has a bearing on whether it's right (or moral even) to enforce that moral code on the populace.

 

[skadistic]

I don't know of any way in which the federal government can legislate diet. I suppose that Congress could pass a law, but it would be challenged in the Supreme Court, on the grounds that there's no "compelling interest" for the gov't to alter people's diet.

I can't eat hash confections or pot brownies.

 

[Israelite9191]

@sanabas- As I understood it, we were talking about the American legal system. But, to suffice you, I will comply. Most European nations have an official state Christian denomination. Britain is Anglican, Scandinavia Lutheran, France Catholic, etc. This means that in Europe it would be impossible to enforce a religiously based law that isn't in compliance with the state denomination. Also, most, including the European Union, have adopted constitutional or similar to constitutional laws guaranteeing freedom of religion. Likewise, the Middle East (minus Israel) and N. Africa are all Muslim and follow Shariah law as national law, with different interpretations. In Ethiopia the Ethiopian Orthodox Church is the official faith, but there is a freedom of religion guarentee. Similarly for the rest of Africa minus S. Africa and a couple others that have no official religion. India is Hindu and has laws enforcing some aspects of Hinduism, but also protects the rights of minority religions throguh the Indian Constitution. Vietnam and Laos are Communist, so no religion. In Thailand Buddhism is the official faith, so there it might be possible, likewise in Malaysia with Islam. Indonesia is non-theist and protects relgion consitutionally. Brunei is a Muslim state following Shariah. China and N. Korea are Communist. The rest of E. Asia has constitutional laws preventing religion, including Japan which gave up Shinto as the official religion after WWII. The Turkish states of Central Asia are Muslim, but as far as I know, do not have Shariah law, I could possibly see such a law passing there. In Latin America most, if not all, of the countries have consitutianal protection of religious freedom. Also, the only chance there would be the Catholic Church, which baned its clergy from being politicians a few years ago. Canada is the cradle of religious freedom and has protection for its citizens. The only possible place would be Israel, If I am correct they already have some laws regarding Kashrut, but they do not go so far as banning non-Kosher food entirely. Apart from a few places, I do not see how such laws could ever be passed legaly.

Sorry for the long rant, but I can't think of where to split it up.

 

[Israelite9191]

I forgot Oceana, sorry. Australia and New Zealand have very good protection for religious rights. Likewise, as I understand it, the pacific island countries have constitutional laws on religous tolerance.

 

[sanabas]

Sorry for the long rant, but I can't think of where to split it up.

Not a problem, but I think you're missing the point of my question. As you've demonstrated above, in most cases an overtly religious personal moral code won't be legislated for. But in many cases personal morality that isn't overtly religious is legislated.

What I would like to know is what moral difference there is between an overtly religious moral code, which legally can't be legislated (such as kosher diets for everyone), and a non-overtly religious moral code, which currently is legislated in many cases (such as gay marriage). I can't see why difference in the origin of the morality makes a difference to whether it should be able to be legislated. I would like someone who does see a difference between the two to explain to me why they should be different. Why should it be legal to legislate personal morality, provided that morality can successfully sidestep freedom of religion laws?

 

[Israelite9191]

Take gay marriage for example. While the root of the anti-gay antagonism that allow laws banning gay marriage to pass is in Christian doctrine, Christians aren't the only ones who support such efforts. In much of society people who are Atheists, Humanists, even Unitarians sometimes also oppose gay marriage. In this case, even though the root is Christain doctrine, the feeling is so ingraned in the society that it is seen as non-religious. The same can be said of abortion, the death penalty (pro or agaisnt), and many other controversial topics.

 

[Sims2789]

Legally, they could do so with a Constitutional amendment. Otherwise, it would be deemed unconstitutional, even if it is written so as to avoid mentioning religion (It would be declared a thinly veioled attempt at government sponsorship of religion, like Intelligent Design).

 

[Stapel]

Most European nations have an official state Christian denomination. Britain is Anglican, Scandinavia Lutheran, France Catholic, etc. This means that in Europe it would be impossible to enforce a religiously based law that isn't in compliance with the state denomination.

Uhmmmm, This is rather wrong.
Total crap, so to speak.
Any western European nation is secular. It's basically impossible to enforce any religiously based law, totally regardless of this non-existing state denomination.

However, technically, it probably is possible to criminalise to production, trade, possesion and consuming of specific types of food (either in the US, EU, or Israel).

The best example is drugs, I guess. In most nations, a majority regards it as bad, immoral or a threat to society and enforces a minority to stay away from it.

 

[Israelite9191]

What I meant was that it would be impossible, & ridiculous to even suggest that a religious law could be passed in a nation where another faith is official, at least to some extent. Also I realize that I made a mistake with France which has no state church. In addition I did mention the EU Bill of Rights & that most, if not all have their own bill of rights.

 

[Milan's Warrior]

I have never quite studies US law for credit but my understanding is that your (the US) constitution would say that it is your constitutional right to privacy to eat whatever diet you want in the privacy of your home, but commerce of non-kosher food could be prohibited therefore making it practically impossible to get non-kosher food

 

[ybbor]

I have never quite studies US law for credit but my understanding is that your (the US) constitution would say that it is your constitutional right to privacy to eat whatever diet you want in the privacy of your home, but commerce of non-kosher food could be prohibited therefore making it practically impossible to get non-kosher food

as was stated in the OP