http://www.dailynewstribune.com/news/local_regional/colmeltzer08112003.htm
The evil ham and cheese sandwich By Rob Meltzer / Local Columnist Monday, August 11, 2003 In what may have been the strangest story of the year, animal rights activists were lobbying to outlaw kosher meat in England, on the theory the methods of slaughter of animals for kosher meat is somehow cruel and inhumane. I received an e-mail from an organization of religious Christians who were giving away car bumper stickers opposing this lobbying that asked the question "What would Jesus eat?" The clear answer, based upon the assumption that an historical Jesus would have been Jewish, is that he wouldn't have been snarfing down BLTs at the local food court. The book of Leviticus, which Jews refer to as "Vayikra" outlines pretty clearly the prohibitions of eating certain kinds of food. The rules of kashrut are still followed explicitly by Jews around the world during daily life. I only mention this sordid little incident because of the trend among religious zealots in the country to push for constitutional prohibitions on sodomy and gay marriage on the grounds that these actions are morally and religiously repulsive, and that legislators should enshrine these religious beliefs in American law and the American Constitution. Homosexuality, we are told, was clearly identified as an abomination in Leviticus. Well, so is a ham and cheese sandwich. For what it's worth, Leviticus tells us that anybody who tucks into an Easter ham in April, as a practical matter, is no better and no worse than a sodomite. There's something to chew on. Of course, no one would accept that basic proposition as true. And there are just as many scholars who would tell you that the prohibitions in Leviticus against certain acts and certain conduct only apply to Jewish people, and that there is something more than vaguely hypocritical about anti-gay crusaders picking and choosing in Leviticus for their scriptural-based obsessions. Some would say that there is no difference between an attempt in England to ban kosher meat and an attempt in America to define marriage according to scripture. Our founding fathers had the wisdom to enshrine a separation of church and state in our early documents. It is not the role of a democratic government, our government, to ask whether we should have a constitutional amendment outlawing a cheese steak sandwich so as to accommodate the religious beliefs of some of the citizenry. Similarly, it is not the role of our government to select which abomination in Leviticus should be part of our common law to appease those who chose to accept the ban in Leviticus as morally binding. Equally important, it is not the role of our government to decide which ten commandments ought to be on the wall of a public courthouse or school and, yes, there are many varieties of the Ten Commandments. The United States has a long and sordid history of making bad mistakes when it comes to enshrining bigotry in its documents. We no longer have slavery. Blacks and women are now allowed to vote. We've long since recognized that putting morality in the Constitution during Prohibition was a gross abuse of political and moral power. The suggestion that our Constitution should be amended to define marriage as the union between one man and one woman because it is a sacrament, as Bill Frist has said, would be another horrendous mistake. The notion that the Catholic Church would urge American politicians to enact a church doctrine into American law is a gross and blatant abuse of democratic rule. The notion that any democratically elected official could even consider such a constitutional amendment suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of American principles. We are a nation of individuals, and we have choice to do what we want. If you don't like sodomy, don't do it. If gay marriage bugs you, find someone of the opposite gender to marry. If you like cheeseburgers, well, that's your right too. But these issues do not belong in a political document, the Constitution, that has long been interpreted as a document that excludes, not enshrines, our suspicions and phobias. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
