About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


17 J.L. & Pol. 713 (2001)
Food Fights: Redefining the Current Boundaries of the Government's Positive Obligation to Provide Halal

handle is hein.journals/jlp17 and id is 723 raw text is: Note: Food Fights: Redefining the Current Boundaries of the Government's Positive Obligation to Provide Halal Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof - U.S. Constitution, First Amendment INTRODUCTION The Founders of the United States Constitution envisioned a nation with a strong separation between church and state. This ideal, however, is unrealistic in situations in which even the state's inaction necessarily affects the boundaries of religious freedom. In fact, some inter-relationship is inevitable.' One such instance is when an individual relies upon the state to provide sustenance. This occurs when the individual is a prisoner, a public school student relying upon his/her school lunch program, or a consumer relying upon the credibility of a halal food label. Since Muslims are required to consume only halal foods, the Government faces a Catch-22 situation. If the Government does not provide halal, then the Government is effectively denying the individual access to halal. If the Government does provide halal, then the Government is encouraging religious practice. As a result of this dilemma with halal and other religious dietary restrictions, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the Government has some limited, positive obligations regarding religious dietary restrictions. Thus, the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom is not an absolute freedom, but a relative freedom. Religious freedom is the ability to practice one's own religion (or not as the case may be) without prosecution or discrimination, but the scope of this freedom is set within certain boundaries. These limits are often determined by the needs of other Constitutional, governmental and policy goals. 1 See, e.g., Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 422 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952).