Some Churches of God (COGs) like to claim that dietary laws of the Bible, especially those of the Old Testament (OT), made Israel unique from all other nations. For example, the Living Church of God (LCG) said:
The dietary laws about "clean" and "unclean" meats are among the most unique yet puzzling instructions found in the Bible. For thousands of years these laws have been a striking mark of identity separating God's people from the world (Leviticus 20:25-26). (Do You Really Want to Eat That? Douglas S. Winnail, 2000, p. 1).
The Living Church of God calls these laws "a striking mark of identity," but in what sense is that true? The LCG statement is vague but it seems to suggest one of the following:
The purpose of this article is to deal with the third point, but let's start by examining the first two points briefly, so the reader won't think I'm side-stepping those points.
I have never seen a Church of God carefully compare the Bible dietary laws to those of any other religion or civilization. This rules out the first two possibilities from consideration because the COGs don't even try to prove either of them. Since they are the ones making claims about how special Israel's laws were, the onus is on them to prove those claims.
However, let me elaborate.
If the COGs want to claim, for example, the Bible dietary laws were superior to those of other nations, they need to explain what was better about those laws, compared to other nations. But I have never seen a COG carefully compare the alleged benefits, health or otherwise, of Old Testament dietary laws to those of other religions or other ancient civilizations. Instead they attempt to show the "superior wisdom" of those laws by comparing them to no dietary laws at all! Of course, that is a nonsensical comparison. They can't claim these laws were ahead of their time unless they compare to what other nations were doing at the time. Any ancient society could have come up with some dietary laws that were better than nothing. Even stone-age peoples like the North American Indians identified certain foods that were not fit to eat.
The LCG does try to argue that Bible dietary laws have tremendous health benefits. I deal with that claim in more detail in other articles, so I won't elaborate on it here. In any case, even if the OT dietary laws have some health benefits compared to none at all, that does nothing to suggest those laws were "a striking mark of identity" unless the OT laws are compared to laws of other nations.
It would be a LOT of work to prove the idea that Israel's dietary laws were superior to other civilizations or even special in some way, because the COGs would need to compare the OT dietary laws to many other civilizations. It's a pretty safe bet none of the COGs have ever tried to do that, especially since they never say or care much about any ancient civilization other than Israel.
Since the first two possibilities are ruled out, i.e. don't seem to be addressed by the COGs (please let me know if I'm wrong) I shall spend the bulk of this article showing that just having dietary laws did not make Israel unique. I.e. I will show that other major religions also have dietary laws.
Now I will summarize some dietary regulations of a few major religions to show that the Iraelites were not unique just by having dietary laws. This will address the third point above.
Hinduism
By forbidding all meats, the Hindus were far more strict (and perhaps in that sense more set apart) than the Israelites.
The Hindu believes in the sacredness of all life, and that life should not be destroyed violently. Most Hindus follow a vegetarian diet, and the Brahmin priests take only vegetarian food prepared with clarified butter and abstain from alcohol and strong foods such as onions and garlic. They take the precautions to preserve the ritual and their ritual purity. ... the cow is regarded by Hindus as sacred, and it is a profound symbol to Hindus because it is milked and used in farms. (From here, accessed in Nov 2010).
Buddhism
Buddhism also has its own peculiar dietary beliefs.
Eating fish and meat is allowed in Buddhism, though vegetarianism is encouraged. As long as a monk is not seen or suspected of killing the animal, the meat can be eaten. One eats merely to sustain the physical body, hence he should eat without greed, without craving for any kind of food, and without direct involvement in the killing. However, Buddha advised the monks to avoid eating ten kinds of meat for their self-respect and protection: humans, elephants, horses, dogs, snakes, lions, tigers, boars and hyenas. Some animals attack people when they smell the flesh of their own kind.
Tibetans will not ever eat fish, and usually stay away from fowl . The reason is that different kinds of meat supposedly give different kinds of obscurations. Fish, the obscuration of aggression; fowl the obscuration of desire; and red meat the obscruration of ignorance. Evidently, they would take the ignorance over the others. Also, it was generally better to eat red meat because the animal killed was very large and only one life had to be taken to feed many people; with fish, you usually have to take many more lives to fill the same number of stomachs. (From here, accessed in Nov 2010).
Muhammedism
What about Islam?
The Mohammedan dietary laws are neither as rigorous nor as numerous as in Judaism. They were not introduced into the religious code until the Medinian period of Mohammed's career. He probably found it unwise to force dietary restrictions on converts, mostly recruited from the poorer classes, who did not despise the meanest food, and he therefore deferred such legislation to a more propitious time. Certain restrictions, however, were already known, as ancient custom forbade, under certain circumstances, the eating of camels (Koran, sura v. 102, vi. 144), but they were ignored by Mohammed. Swine were probably also held in abhorrence. For definite rules concerning diet, Mohammed followed Biblical models: "He has only forbidden you the carrion, and the blood, and swine's flesh, and that which has been hallowed to any other deity. But he who is forced by necessity, not wilfully transgressing, commits no sin; behold, Allah is forgiving, merciful" (sura ii. 168; see also sura vi. 146; xvi. 115, 116). (From here, "Dietary Laws in Islam", accessed in Nov 2010).
Traditional Christianity
Traditional Christianity might be the only major religion that has few or no dietary laws, though some sects like the COGs follow the OT dietary laws based largely on Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
Summary
We have seen that several major religions have dietary laws. If looking at a few of the world's major religions is any indication, the Israelites might have been more unique if they had had no dietary laws at all. Therefore my main point for this article is proven: just having dietary laws did not make Israel unique.
My purpose in addressing this was to help refute the claim by the Living Church of God that these laws were in some sense unique, special, or ahead of their time. See my other articles on this topic for more information.