Tonyfinch

Can I just say that I did NOT start this thread with the intention of it being a discussion about Jewish dietry laws specifically and there is no mention of Jewishness specifically either in the thread title or in my posts. I did not start the thread to "test" the moderators or whatever and I'm sorry if that's how they perceive it. I see the issue of dietry laws as a legitimate one for discussion on a food site. As has been said, they are central to many people's lives and I regard that as an interesting subject for discussion and argument.

Can you not see a contadiction here at all? You will only go into that steakhouse to eat the lobster if you are already sceptical about the religion's dietry tenets. Because the religion doesn't just say-don't eat the beef. It says don't touch the cutlery, don't go near the cooking utensils, in fact do not sit down to eat with the person who eats beef. This is precisely what the Iranian delegation did in Spain, which I cited above. Those who observe their dietry laws "peacefully" would stand condemned by their religious orthodox establishment for so doing. THAT is the heart of the perniciousness religious dietry laws

FG anyone who wanted to open a chain of steakhouses acrosss India would be lucky to escape the country with his life. The sacredness of the cow is of huge importance in Hindu law. The steakhouses would be destroyed within hours. Imagine someone trying to open up an Irish theme pub in downtown Karachi-what do you think would happen?

Well since Muslims don't eat pork and Hindus don't eat beef it is almost impossible to get either meat in a restaurant in India, although pork is available in some areas from some special butchers. Beef is completely taboo. Lamb/mutton and chicken are the main meats eaten. Although millions of Hindus practice vegetarianism it isn't actually a religious law that they shouldn't eat meat. Muslims are confirmed meat eaters and eat as much as they can afford.

Not superior, more HUMAN. A big difference

Well Jin, what do you think would happen if you tried to set up a steakhouse in a Hindu heartland with the rationale that you and a few others would like to eat beef and you think the majority population should respect that decision and tolerate it. Is it really being exteme to suppose that it wouldn't last a week?

Following on he might decide that he would be a much better server of his deity if he just burned down the steakhouse.

FG. I don't know for sure but I would hazard a guess that the Hindu in the Steakhouse is discouraging segregation only by breaking the tenets and strictures of his relgion's dietry laws. If he was going by the book he would probably 1. Refuse to enter the steakhouse with you. 2. Do everything he can to discourage you from eating steak and tell you why you should not. In other words the absence of a harm is in the breach of rather than in the observance of the religioius codes

Well I'm not sure who has insulted who. I find the threats dished out by the God quoted above pretty insulting in all honesty. But rhe real question begged by that sentence is whether believing in a deity and harming nobody else are compatible activities.

I can understand why people believe in God. The Universe is so huge and complex, so beyond the understanding of mankind in so many ways, so awesome in its scope and possibilities, that it is not that difficult to believe that it was created. What is the alternative theory? That it is all the result of accident? Why is that easier to believe? But the so called God quoted above comes across as a demented lunatic whose sole purpose is to be worshipped and revered. Why people still believe in THAT God, I do not know as he is clearly an anthropomorphic invention.

I think that's a really moot point. Recently we discussed on another thread the refusal of an Iranian Presdential delegation to attend a dinner with the King of Spain on the grounds that wine was to be served. Whether any "harm" could result directly from that incident one doesn't know but it seems reasonable to ask that at a time of tension between Islam and the West do we need such "laws" getting in the way of anything which attempts to promote mutual understanding and accord?

Obviously there were good health/hygiene reasons for many of the original religious dietry laws but at what point in history did they stop applying? Why do people still maintain them and why do the authorities of the various religions not revoke them? I read yesterday that 4.1 million Jains in India will not eat root vegetables for fear of harming mites and insects when pulling them up. Whose interests do these laws serve? Wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone just ignored them?

British Jews have these spongy sweet rolls called "bridge rolls" (no idea why) on which they spread smoked salmon, chopped herring and cream cheese (sometimes all at once) They have mini Danish pastries and they serve tea. If you're coming back to the house after a funeral they'll be a very small dram of scotch or sweet cherry brandy. Which reminds me that,as a kid, the alcoholic cure all was cherry brandy mixed with advocaat (sigh. how I miss the culture of the haim, don't you?)

Well if you're REALLY stuck..............

Drink it tonight or asap. A 1970 vintage port will not improve in the Decanter beyond a couple of hours and it will deteriorate after a couple of days. I'm not familiar with the house but 1970 was a great year. Enjoy.

The idea that the adults can't have a glass of nice wine on New Year's Eve because there are children present truly stinks. Do you really want these sort of people as your friends?

The can lists one ingredient only-"Mustard Flour"

Well you keep threatening to diss pasta but I've got a funny feeling its the pasta course in Italian restaurants you're talking about rather than the ingredient itself. In fact if you look at the menus at many of the high end French restaurants pasta is used quite widely-there's often a raviolo of this or a lasagne of that or a canneloni of the other incorporated into the dishes and it forms the main part of the dish in many first courses.

No you're right. My point is merely that one doesn't always want to eat in the world's best restaurant, even if we could agree that there was one and which one it was. In fact the times people want to eat in the world's best restaurant are probably far fewer that those times they want to eat in other restaurants. They realize that they are not eating in the world's best restaurant and insofar as they think about it at all their response is "yeah so what?" So if we approach the topic on the basis that this cuisine is better than that cuisine, yes then there will be a dispute. But if you approach it from the basis that this cuisine meets my needs sometimes and that cuisine at other times then where's the dispute?

Buy the powdered form and mix it with water yourself. It has far more power and flavour than the ready bottled form but beware as it can be ferociously hot. It is used in the UK almost solely as a condiment. I've never known it to be used in cooking. Dijon mustard is used in cooking instead.

In the Uk this is called Fis (pro: Feece). Don't know how its spelt. It used to be very popular but is now rare even in Jewish restaurants. I last saw it in Harry Morgan's in St. John's Wood. I've only ever known it served cold, with vinegar (MALT vinegar that is) as Stefany says. It is the most gelatinous savoury dish I've ever eaten. I'm sure it's sometimes served with hard boiled egg inside the jelly. As an aside the East End Asian community make a dish called Payah-which is hot lamb's trotters. It's a very soupy dish with only a little gelatinous flesh left clining to the bone.

I can't quite get with this analogy. That there are better cooks than others is not in dispute. But the "best" may not always best meet your needs. And I'm not talking about preference. Lets take cars. A Mercedes is "better" than a Mini. But if I live in a medieaval Italian town with very narrow streets with very tight corners and very limited space to park, then the Mini meets my needs "better" than the Mercedes. The fact that I know the Merc. to be the "better" car is an irrelevancy. It's not that I "prefer" the Mini-its just that is the "best" horse for that course. Similarly,if I really fancy a steak then I need the chef who prepares steak the "best". That chef not be the best chef around but boy can he cook a steak. Other times I may want "the essence of canned corn" so I go to Adria or whoever. Similarly if i want Indian food or whatever. Hence there is no real dispute because as has already been said, the dichotomy is false, or meaningless at best. My argument is not that some foods, wines, chefs etc. are not better than others. Of course they are, but so what ? Ultimately its about whether you construe the world in terms of hierarchies (which is fun to do) or whether you realise that your own needs are infinitely variable and require different ways of being met at different times to the point where the hierarchies become meaningless.

My question is how many people attend restaurants in order to be "teased and shocked"? Many of us here might do so but the vast majority of the restaurant going public are not so interested in the food they're eating as in wanting a relatively unchallenging meal so that they can discuss business or sex or whatever. The amount of people who actually walk into a restaurant looking for the essence of pineapple or canned corn or whatever is tiny. That's not to say that those chefs who are pushing out the boundaries of technique are not vital, merely that most clients have different priorities and focusing right down on the food isn't neccessarily one of them.

Sam, if you're not careful I might just have to post a photo of you in a nineteen fifties grannies M&S pinny which you insisted on wearing during the Great British Roast Potato Cook Off. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

It( The River Cafe) may not have been the best but it was certainly one of the most popular and hard to book, despite being in the higher price bracket. If there is a dispute here (and I'm trying hard to find one) maybe it lies in the difference between what is seen as "the best"-which according to Steve means that which applies the best technique-and that which is best liked. There is a restaurant near me which seves basic Italian food in an upmarket setting. It is by no means cheap and people there have money. It is jam packed every night. Along the road is a far "better" restaurant which charges similar prices. It is often two thirds empty. This indicated to me that you can go on all you like about "better" and "best" and its a game we like to play- but the truth is more people want to go out and eat a steak than want to go and eat Pied de Cochon stuffed with morrells,sweetbreads and foie. And sometimes so do I, despite the fact that I can cook a steak at home and I recognize that the Pied is a "better" dish.