4 ms·

> That in a reasonably democratic society, the majority makes way for the minority? Otherwise it's not a democratic society, it's apartheid. Would not an unreg

by mhurron 11y ago

> That in a reasonably democratic society, the majority makes way for the minority? Otherwise it's not a democratic society, it's apartheid. Would not an unregulated democratic society not care to cater to the wishes of a minority? In a raw democracy if the majority did not observe Kosher or Halal, that nation would not see an issue with making it illegal. That a minority did follow it would not matter, the majority had ruled. Individual and minority rights are protected in the US is because there are laws in place to restrict the simply majority rule to prevent the above from occurring. Those controls were put in place having recognized the limitations of majority rule in antiquity, it is not a property of a democratic society. Apartheid was racial segregation in South Africa and doesn't appear to apply here.

YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
> In a raw democracy if the majority did not observe Kosher or Halal, that nation would not see an issue with making it illegal. The thing is, you can't "oberve" kosher or halal unless you actually believe in them. I'm neither jewish nor muslim, but I was brought up christian, so here's an example I'm familiar with: if a priest sprinkled my food with holy water, my only concern would be hygiene; if the water was clean and he hadn't, say, used it to wash his flock's feet beforeheand, then I could care less. Or I might mind if the food was such that sprinkling water over it could make it worse somehow- I can't think of an example. The point is, I don't believe in the supernatural. Some people do and they insist on imbuing real-world stuff with supernatural meaning. As long as the way they choose to do so has no real-world, tangible effect on me then I don't care, they can knock themselves out. In short: people can believe anything they like about our common lives. As long as it's supernatural, it doesn't affect me. It's not real. I don't care about what's not real. Accordingly, I don't see why halal and kosher should be made illegal. People should be free to believe in the supernatural if they so choose. Why would a democracy impose a specific set of beliefs on its people? In what sense would you say that such a democracy could be considered "unregulated" (let alone a democracy in the first place)?
YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
>Apartheid was racial segregation in South Africa and doesn't appear to apply here. I brought that up because I think that, for instance, having one kind of meat for the minority and another for the majority, is not _in the long run_ very different than the minority being forced to sit on different benches, drink from different fountains, use different entrances etc. If a minority wants to eat kosher/halal and we make it harder for them to do that, they 're forced to have their own shops, their own butchers, their own restaurants and so on. Wheras, if there's more halal/kosher meat to go around, the majority, like myself, is unaffected, or possibly enjoys the positive contribution of the minority to the life of the community.

by mhurron 11y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago

> In a raw democracy if the majority did not observe Kosher or Halal, that nation would not see an issue with making it illegal. The thing is, you can't "oberve" kosher or halal unless you actually believe in them. I'm neither jewish nor muslim, but I was brought up christian, so here's an example I'm familiar with: if a priest sprinkled my food with holy water, my only concern would be hygiene; if the water was clean and he hadn't, say, used it to wash his flock's feet beforeheand, then I could care less. Or I might mind if the food was such that sprinkling water over it could make it worse somehow- I can't think of an example. The point is, I don't believe in the supernatural. Some people do and they insist on imbuing real-world stuff with supernatural meaning. As long as the way they choose to do so has no real-world, tangible effect on me then I don't care, they can knock themselves out. In short: people can believe anything they like about our common lives. As long as it's supernatural, it doesn't affect me. It's not real. I don't care about what's not real. Accordingly, I don't see why halal and kosher should be made illegal. People should be free to believe in the supernatural if they so choose. Why would a democracy impose a specific set of beliefs on its people? In what sense would you say that such a democracy could be considered "unregulated" (let alone a democracy in the first place)?

YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago

>Apartheid was racial segregation in South Africa and doesn't appear to apply here. I brought that up because I think that, for instance, having one kind of meat for the minority and another for the majority, is not _in the long run_ very different than the minority being forced to sit on different benches, drink from different fountains, use different entrances etc. If a minority wants to eat kosher/halal and we make it harder for them to do that, they 're forced to have their own shops, their own butchers, their own restaurants and so on. Wheras, if there's more halal/kosher meat to go around, the majority, like myself, is unaffected, or possibly enjoys the positive contribution of the minority to the life of the community.