# Law in the state of India-na **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2024, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793 "2024-11-06T16:11:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2024, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/1 "2024-11-06T16:11:04Z")
Let us imagine that the great state of Indiana was selected by the followers of Hinduism as their shared homeland within the USA. Further, let’s assume that their numbers are so great that they are able to become X majority of the electorate and largely take over the state government. Subsequently, the state of Indiana starts passing laws: - No red meat - No slaughter of cows - Arranged marriage compliance - Etc. At what X (67%? 85%? 99%) does the predominant beliefs of the local region become sufficiently dense that it’s reasonable for these laws to be enforced, even against non-Hindus, who choose to continue living within the region? ---
**Author:** ![FinsToTheLeft](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finstotheleft/32/2930_2.png) [@FinsToTheLeft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinsToTheLeft)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2024, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/2 "2024-11-06T18:05:10Z")
I would think those laws violate the US Constitution, so they are not going to be legal regardless of the majority. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2024, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/3 "2024-11-06T18:13:53Z")
In the end, the law will be whatever the Supreme Court says. Other numbers do not matter. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2024, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/4 "2024-11-06T19:47:00Z")
> [@FinsToTheLeft](#): > > I would think those laws violate the US Constitution [https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/dog-consumption-legality](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/dog-consumption-legality) > **[Listing Species Under the Endangered Species Act](https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/endangered-species-conservation/listing-species-under-endangered-species-act)** > > Before a species can receive the protection provided by the Endangered Species Act, it must first be added to the federal lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. A species is added to this list when we determine that it has met... > **[Divorce in the United States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States)** > > In the United States, marriage and divorce fall under the jurisdiction of state governments, not the federal government. > Although such matters are usually ancillary or consequential to the dissolution of the marriage, divorce may also involve issues of spousal support, child custody, child support, distribution of property and division of debt. > The British colonies that became the United States individually adapted English common law on divorce to their religious, economic, and ethnic diffe... ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2024, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/5 "2024-11-06T19:51:25Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > In the end, the law will be whatever the Supreme Court says. Other numbers do not matter. The Supreme Court, we will imagine, has concluded that this is all above board and that a state - within the bounds of the Constitution - can set whatever moralistic laws they choose. That’s the whole deal of Federalism. The locals to a region get to be who they want to be, different from the rest, and people are free to move around as suits themselves. In your mind, is that bad? Is there any particular point at which the people of a region get to enforce their viewpoint? If group A thinks that dogs are sacred, and group B doesn’t, at what point does A get to force their outlook on B? ---
**Author:** ![FinsToTheLeft](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finstotheleft/32/2930_2.png) [@FinsToTheLeft](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinsToTheLeft)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2024, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/6 "2024-11-06T20:45:28Z")
What religious principle is being violated by banning the consumption of dog meat? I’m not even American, but I can tell you that the Bill of Rights says: > **Article the third…** 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. My understanding is that the Supreme Court applies this to all levels of government, not just the Feds. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2024, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/7 "2024-11-06T22:09:38Z")
First, let me say again that for purposes of the OP, these are all Constitutional. This isn’t a legal debate, it’s a political one. That said, I’m happy to debate the Constitutional question, I just don’t want the actual target question to get lost in the discussion. Prohibitions on nudity _almost certainly_ come from Biblical text. There’s no real reason that people can’t or shouldn’t walk around naked, under their own cognizance. And yet, you will see that there’s public nudity laws in pretty much the whole country, except Berkley and a few isolated areas. Even more strangely, there’s effectively no cases being made to the Supreme Court saying that the prohibitions against nudity are politicized versions of patently Christian dogma. My belief is that the current state of things rests on a few elements: 1. The Supreme Court has accepted the idea that “obscenity” bans are legal. A community can decide that something is generally offensive to the regional majority and, so, they can ban that thing as a means of maintaining the peace. 2. The Supreme Court generally gives wide berth to governing bodies to make decisions. So long as they can give some reasonable, non-religious explanation (e.g. preserving the peace), that’s liable to succeed. You find one person who objects for cultural, rather than religious purposes, and suddenly there’s no religion involved. 3. The Supreme Court, fundamentally, has no enforcement capability. If the state would just carry on with its illegal law, regardless of what the court said, then they’re disinclined to rule against the state. At the most, they’ll try to trim fat. 4. If the people passing the law swear that it’s not religious and they aren’t documented as mentioning religion anywhere while crafting and debating the law, then it’s a hard argument to make. 5. The right to be naked isn’t a guaranteed by Bill of Rights. 6. The rights to eat cow or to eat dog are, likewise, not guaranteed. 7. [https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/8th-circuit-in-god-we-trust-on-money-is-constitutional/](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/post/8th-circuit-in-god-we-trust-on-money-is-constitutional/) ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2024, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/8 "2024-11-07T01:20:03Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Is there any particular point at which the people of a region get to enforce their viewpoint? In the United States, there is no point at which a religion gets to enforce their tenets. Ideally, at least. Realistically, Christian tenets have been law since the country started. Some of us resent that. Nothing short of a cataclysmic die-off of 90% of the country will change this. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2024, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/9 "2024-11-18T01:35:51Z")
Remember the Sunday Blue laws? The argument was that it was to protect workers to ensure one day a week off. When Orthodox Jews argued that they closed their businesses on Saturdays, their arguments were dismissed. Of course, it was religious. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2024, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/10 "2024-12-17T20:36:39Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > that it’s reasonable for these laws to be enforced I think that there is a lot of ambiguity in terms of what you are asking here. Are you talking reasonably ethically? reasonably politically? reasonable legally? reasonably constitutionally? In order for it to pass the reasonably constitutionally test, there needs to be a state interest in enforcing the law beyond its religious components. If it passes that, then legally, if they can get the votes then it is reasonable for them to have such laws. In terms of whether it is legal politically, that will depend on the relative extent to which the Hindu and non-Hindu voters feel strongly pro or anti, as well as their relative proportions of the electorate. As for ethically, if the primary goal is to enforce religious dictates on a non-believing class, (with any argument of state interest being a mere fig leaf to overcome constitutional scrutiny) then I would say that it was unreasonable, but that may not amount to a hill of beans relative to the other criteria. I also laws against nudity is probably not the best example of a religious based, since it is really primarily cultural based. Now one can argue that to some extent our cultural laws were based on the influence of puritan religion, but really the anti-nudity taboo is largely universal across religions. You don’t see Hindu, Buddhists or atheists parading around naked in states where such laws aren’t enforced. ---
**Author:** ![Thing.Fish](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thing.fish/32/9168_2.png) [@Thing.Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing.Fish)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2025, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/11 "2025-07-15T14:27:01Z")
Outlawing red meat, which would effectively prevent the slaughter of cows, would be entirely defensible on public health and environmental grounds. I personally would support such a law if I thought it were politically feasible. So the Constitutionality of that one might depend on how obvious the legislature’s religious motive was; if they played it cool and talked about global warming rather than about the wrath of Shiva, it would probably be OK. Forcing someone to get married against their will, however, seems obviously unconstitutional, although I can’t think offhand of exactly which part it would violate. ---
**Author:** ![DPRK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/4491bb/32.png) [@DPRK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DPRK)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2025, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/12 "2025-07-15T15:07:30Z")
Naked monks are absolutely a thing. > **[Digambara](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digambara)** > > Digambara (/dɪˈɡʌmbərə/; "sky-clad") is one of the two major schools of Jainism, the other being Śvetāmbara (white-clad). The Sanskrit word Digambara means "sky-clad", referring to their traditional monastic practice of neither possessing nor wearing any clothes. Nakedness was the ideal practice of lord Mahavira and his immediate followers. Mahavira emphasized the importance of nakedness for monks. It symbolizes complete detachment and is an ideal form of conduct. Mahavira believed th Digamb... So is walking around with a weapon: > **[Kirpan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan)** > > The kirpan (Punjabi: ਕਿਰਪਾਨ; pronunciation: \[kɪɾpaːn\]) is a blade that Khalsa Sikhs are required to wear as part of their religious uniform, as prescribed by the Sikh Code of Conduct. Traditionally, the kirpan was a full-sized talwar at around 76 cm (30 inches) long; however, British colonial policies and laws introduced in the 19th century reduced the length of the blade, and in the modern day, the kirpan is typically a dagger between 5 to 12 inches. According to the Sikh Code of The Punjabi ... ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2025, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/13 "2025-07-15T16:21:10Z")
> [@Thing.Fish](#): > > Forcing someone to get married against their will, however, seems obviously unconstitutional, although I can’t think offhand of exactly which part it would violate. These are examples of laws from the pre-Colonial time but I’m having a hard time tracking down relevant law from the 19th century: > [@](#): > > Valid marriages were important for the growth of the colonies and that is why the government in different ways encouraged people to marry. Especially, as stated by Arthur F. Ide, in the colonial south there was no acquiescence to stay single and colonial society generally pressured men and women to marry. One of the ways of doing this was, for example, imposing higher taxes on men who stayed single. Moreover, when they did not want to marry, they were expected to stay under their father’s or another close relative’s authority. Sometimes they were threatened with losing their inheritance or dowry – especially when the parents’ aim was a “favorable” marriage which could bring more prestige or simply more wealth for the family. Similarly, an interesting example about restrictions comes from Connecticut public records dated from 1636, where it was ordered that no young man could keep a house by himself without the consent of the Town or he had to pay specified amount of money (which was in Connecticut 20 shillings per week), unless he was married or had servants and was a public officer. This rule was then confirmed in the Code of Laws from May, 1650. However, some colonies, like Virginia, suffered from a shortage of woman, which was a great obstacle and had a negative effect because it could complicate the development of the colony. Therefore it was necessary to encourage single women living in Europe to come to North America to marry, for example by sending persuasive advertisements. In Virginia those who were encouraged and consented to come in order to enter into marriage were then placed in the homes of married inhabitants, where they found a generous reception until the ceremony. However, in the situation when a woman finally did not consent to marry, she was deprived of food. From PDF at [https://czasopisma.kul.pl/index.php/recl/article/view/4977](https://czasopisma.kul.pl/index.php/recl/article/view/4977) Pushing people, in general, to get married - through various incentives and retained societal rights - seems likely to survive legal review; maybe not starvation, but many of what’s mentioned above. To exercise arranged marriage - e.g., one where the parents have made the decision and are forcing their child to obey - seems difficult to support under modern US law. While this doesn’t appear to have ever been common in the US - with consent from those getting married held as a general requirement - the legal basis for such a thing would come from the long-held legal view and history that a woman is the property of her father. That legal view gives the father the right to make marriage decisions in place of the daughter. Modern law and Constitutional thought has fully revoked that whole concept, quite explicitly. So while you might find some court cases that argue the right direction, early in American history, those are no longer viable. I don’t see much legal hope for that, even given favorable treatment by the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2025, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/14 "2025-07-15T16:46:37Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > You don’t see Hindu, Buddhists or atheists parading around naked in states where such laws aren’t enforced. Forget not enforced - it’s absolutely legal for both men and women to walk around topless (for non-commercial purposes) in NY ( the entire state) and yet, I don’t see people of any religion or ethnicity doing so. I think the OP isn’t really answerable because it covers so many different issues. Whether compliance with arranged marriages can be enforced is going to depend how that compliance is defined - if my parents allow me to choose who to marry, is that compliance? If so, it will probably be enforceable right up until the first person whose parents want to choose their spouse resists.Or does compliance require that my parents actually choose for me - enforcement of this will be challenged much sooner than the first situation. As far as “sacred dogs” , dogs don’t have to be sacred for slaughtering/butchering them for food to be illegal - see this section of NYS Agriculture and Markets law. The reason certainly is not because a certain percentage of New Yorkers believe dogs and catsare sacred. > It shall be unlawful for any slaughterhouse, abattoir or other place or establishment, or for any person, to slaughter or butcher domesticated dog (canis familiaris) or domesticated cat (felis catus or domesticus) to create food, meat or meat products for human or animal consumption. > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Even more strangely, there’s effectively no cases being made to the Supreme Court saying that the prohibitions against nudity are politicized versions of patently Christian dogma. Maybe because they are not - is there any religion that requires or even allows all people to walk around in public naked ? Even among the Digambara , it’s only the monks who are naked - the nuns and laypeople wear clothing. There are some groups that practice ritual nudity - but if you want to talk about nudity and religion, it’s definitely not just a Christian thing. Nudity is not generally accepted in Judaisim and Islam , either. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2025, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/15 "2025-07-15T16:53:54Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > it’s definitely not just a Christian thing. Nudity is not generally accepted in Judaisim and Islam , either. These are related religions. Hijabs and burkas stem from ancient Jewish (or Levant-region) beliefs that a woman’s hair needs to be covered. This belief transferred over to Christians and Muslims, dying off during the early 20th Century among most Christians while ramping up into full-body coverings in some Islamic regions. > **[Head covering for Christian women](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_covering_for_Christian_women)** > > Christian head covering, also known as Christian veiling, is the traditional practice of women covering their head in a variety of Christian denominations. Some Christian women wear the head covering in public worship and during private prayer at home, while others (esp. Conservative Anabaptists) believe women should wear head coverings at all times. Among Catholic, Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, certain theologians likewise teach that it is "expected of all women to be cover Manuals of ... Prohibitions against nudity, in general, come from similar traditions that share a common root. > [@doreen](#): > > is there any religion that requires or even allows all people to walk around in public naked ? Even among the Digambara , it’s only the monks who are naked - the nuns and laypeople wear clothing. Most of East Asia, at least, was completely fine with nudity prior to European contact. To be sure, most people usually wore clothing most of the time - clothing looks nice and allows a person to demonstrate their status and position, besides serving practical functions for storage and sun protection - but it wasn’t required, when it didn’t make sense. I’m relatively certain that this was, likewise, the norm for most of every other continent including Europe, prior to the spread of the Abrahamic religions. Getting naked prior to getting hot and sweaty was the norm for most people in most locations; getting naked for any water activities - bathing, swimming, etc. was likewise the norm. The basis of thinking for wearing clothes was, “Does it make more sense to wear clothing or to be naked?” For most situations it was the former but religion needn’t be called in as part of the equation. ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2025, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/16 "2025-07-15T17:06:42Z")
> [@Hari\_Seldon](#): > > Remember the Sunday Blue laws? The argument was that it was to protect workers to ensure one day a week off. When Orthodox Jews argued that they closed their businesses on Saturdays, their arguments were dismissed. Of course, it was religious. I’m reminded of a certain summer camp I attended where the “weekend” was from Sunday to Monday - ostensibly so parents could visit on Saturdays and see student performances and such. As a Jewish friend of mine pointed out, by that logic, the camp _could_ have made the “weekend” Friday-Saturday instead… ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [July 23, 2025, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-in-the-state-of-india-na/1009793/17 "2025-07-23T05:42:26Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > Subsequently, the state of Indiana starts passing laws: > > - No red meat > - No slaughter of cows > - Arranged marriage compliance > - Etc. > > At what X (67%? 85%? 99%) does the predominant beliefs of the local region become sufficiently dense that it’s reasonable for these laws to be enforced, even against non-Hindus, who choose to continue living within the region? > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > The Supreme Court, we will imagine, has concluded that this is all above board … The general rule is that it is presumed reasonable for a sovereign to enforce a statute, provided the statute is a lawful exercise of the sovereign’s power. You seem to be asking if enforcing these proposed laws against non-Hindus would be reasonable. _Presuming lawfulness_, the answer is generally yes, and it has nothing to do with the density of beliefs in the local region. There could be a 1% minority of the population in Indiana which share religious beliefs that justify the laws and it would still be presumed reasonable for the state to enforce them, at least until the laws are properly changed. This might happen if your hypothetical Hindu majority passed the law, then largely migrated away, leaving the laws on the books until the next election cycle. There are exceptions to the rule of course. It is unreasonable to enforce certain laws restricting fundamental rights no matter the process. But I don’t think what you have proposed approaches that threshold, with the possible exception of arranged marriage compliance (if read to mean forced marriage). > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > If group A thinks that dogs are sacred, and group B doesn’t, at what point does A get to force their outlook on B? Honey bees have an interesting way of deciding where to migrate. Once a swarm has formed, scouts will fly around and inspect potential sites, then fly back to the swarm and do a waggle dance to communicate to fellow bees how great the site is, and how to get there. Other bees see this dance and fly to inspect the site for themselves, and if they like it, they’ll dance for it. Once a handful of bees are dancing for the same site, maybe ten or fourteen in a swarm of over 1,000 bees, the whole swarm commits and prepares to fly off to that site. Of course, that’s not how government works in Indiana. My point is that the system of governance determines the answer to this question. In Indiana specifically, it takes a simple majority in both houses and the governor’s approval to pass a law, which can then be enforced, _if valid_. However, there is no direct relationship between the percentage of population who believes A and the percentage of representatives who will vote A. ~Max