&gt; In a raw democracy if the majority did not observe Kosher or Halal, that nation would not see an issue with making it illegal.<p>The thing is, you can&#x27;t &quot;oberve&quot; kosher or halal unless you actually believe in them.<p>I&#x27;m neither jewish nor muslim, but I was brought up christian, so here&#x27;s an example I&#x27;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&#x27;t, say, used it to wash his flock&#x27;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&#x27;t think of an example.<p>The point is, I don&#x27;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&#x27;t care, they can knock themselves out.<p>In short: people can believe anything they like about our common lives. As long as it&#x27;s supernatural, it doesn&#x27;t affect me. It&#x27;s not real. I don&#x27;t care about what&#x27;s not real.<p>Accordingly, I don&#x27;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 &quot;unregulated&quot; (let alone a democracy in the first place)?