Lift the Ban on Eating Pork?
As of March 2011, 41 states in the union have bans on legally recognizing the consumption of pork written into their constitutions, and only five states and the District of Columbia guarantee one's right to eat pork officially. The federal government is also protected from formally recognizing pork as a valid food-choice under the Defense of Food Act of 1996. This means that, while families are free to consume pork in the privacy of their own home (the consumption of pork was universally decriminalized in the United States in 2003), families and individuals may not take advantage of government programs, such as Food Stamps, to purchase pork. However, as many as 52% of all United States citizens support the rights of others to eat pork, though high-end estimates place pork-eating adults at only 10% of the United States' adult population, and the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau found that less than 1% of American house-holds are pork-eating house-holds.
There are many arguments against legalizing the consumption of pork. Among them are:
RELIGION: There are explicit bans against eating pork in the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran, and both Buddhist and Hindu philosophy discourage eating meat at all. In light of that, providing government validation for the consumption of pork would be taking a step away from the religious values on which our nation was founded. This is a slippery slope that might lead to judges having no choice but to do away with other religious-based laws, like our laws against murder and theft.
BIOLOGY: The main goal of eating food is to sustain one's life. Pork, however, has little nutritional value and is consumed primary by people who simply enjoy the taste, whether or not they are hungry. Pork is seldom eating on it's own, and almost all people who consume pork claim that they add various things to it, such as glaze or ketchup. Proper food, such as bananas and carrots, can be eaten without the addition of condiments.
HEALTH: People-particularly men-who eat pork are significantly more likely to die of a number of different food-related diseases than people who do not consume pork. If the government gave legal recognition to the consumption of pork, it might be interpreted as them saying that eating pork is just as valid a life-style choice as not eating pork, which is clearly not in the best interest of the general United States population.
PARENTAL CHOICE: Many parents fear that if the government starts legally recognizing the consumption of pork, schools will be forced to teach about pork in nutrition classes, and some extreme pro-pork activists may even be able to get pork on the menu at school lunches. This deprives parents of their rights to choose what their children are taught about eating pork, and may leave naïve children more susceptible to the influences of their pork-eating peers.
WORKER'S RIGHTS: Butchers around the nation are afraid that if pork is legalized, they may be forced start selling pork in their shops. In 2008, a devout Muslim butcher in New Mexico was ordered to pay more than $6,000 after his shop-which is not advertised as Halal because, he claims, he does not want to drive away the good, non-pork eating people who make up the majority of practitioners of other faiths-refused to slaughter a pig for an Atheist couple who wished to serve hot-dogs at their son's birthday. Since then, this case has been cited as an example of radical pork-eaters pushing their agenda at the expense of the rights of religious citizens to uphold what their faiths teach.
TRADITION: There are only six nations in the world that currently give formal legal recognition to the consumption of pork, and almost no societies offered any legal recognition for pork-eating prior to 1992. It is obvious from the history books that pork eating is simply against the core values at the heart of a proper diet. These times of financial hardship are not the proper times for the government to engage in radical experimentation with an entity as solid as the human diet, which hasn't changed in thousands of years.
No less, amendments are currently being pushed through several states to grant legal recognition to the consumption of pork, and allow people to purchase pork with Food Stamps and eat pork at company dinners. How do you feel about this radical change to the American way of life?
There are many arguments against legalizing the consumption of pork. Among them are:
RELIGION: There are explicit bans against eating pork in the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran, and both Buddhist and Hindu philosophy discourage eating meat at all. In light of that, providing government validation for the consumption of pork would be taking a step away from the religious values on which our nation was founded. This is a slippery slope that might lead to judges having no choice but to do away with other religious-based laws, like our laws against murder and theft.
BIOLOGY: The main goal of eating food is to sustain one's life. Pork, however, has little nutritional value and is consumed primary by people who simply enjoy the taste, whether or not they are hungry. Pork is seldom eating on it's own, and almost all people who consume pork claim that they add various things to it, such as glaze or ketchup. Proper food, such as bananas and carrots, can be eaten without the addition of condiments.
HEALTH: People-particularly men-who eat pork are significantly more likely to die of a number of different food-related diseases than people who do not consume pork. If the government gave legal recognition to the consumption of pork, it might be interpreted as them saying that eating pork is just as valid a life-style choice as not eating pork, which is clearly not in the best interest of the general United States population.
PARENTAL CHOICE: Many parents fear that if the government starts legally recognizing the consumption of pork, schools will be forced to teach about pork in nutrition classes, and some extreme pro-pork activists may even be able to get pork on the menu at school lunches. This deprives parents of their rights to choose what their children are taught about eating pork, and may leave naïve children more susceptible to the influences of their pork-eating peers.
WORKER'S RIGHTS: Butchers around the nation are afraid that if pork is legalized, they may be forced start selling pork in their shops. In 2008, a devout Muslim butcher in New Mexico was ordered to pay more than $6,000 after his shop-which is not advertised as Halal because, he claims, he does not want to drive away the good, non-pork eating people who make up the majority of practitioners of other faiths-refused to slaughter a pig for an Atheist couple who wished to serve hot-dogs at their son's birthday. Since then, this case has been cited as an example of radical pork-eaters pushing their agenda at the expense of the rights of religious citizens to uphold what their faiths teach.
TRADITION: There are only six nations in the world that currently give formal legal recognition to the consumption of pork, and almost no societies offered any legal recognition for pork-eating prior to 1992. It is obvious from the history books that pork eating is simply against the core values at the heart of a proper diet. These times of financial hardship are not the proper times for the government to engage in radical experimentation with an entity as solid as the human diet, which hasn't changed in thousands of years.
No less, amendments are currently being pushed through several states to grant legal recognition to the consumption of pork, and allow people to purchase pork with Food Stamps and eat pork at company dinners. How do you feel about this radical change to the American way of life?