Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Religious Dietary Laws


Tonyfinch

Recommended Posts

Yes, you're missing something: You're looking at one religion through the lens of another......

Those are words worth pondering.

Could it also be worth considering that God, or your name for that, did not set up religions. And so we have these man-made things called religions, with their various prescriptions and proscriptions, imposing their will upon all who cannot find their way in the world without such a hierarchy. Each religion looking at another through the lens they have ground - that has remained unchanged for so long.

Perhaps it is time to grind a new lens that all can see through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do understand what Macrosan's saying, and I think it was similar to Fat Bloke's comment to me slightly earlier. It seems to me to be an entirely sufficient answer within religious terms. That God forbids eating pork must be enough for a believer, and I can now why it's frivolous to ask for an additional layer of practical or symbolic explanation.

This is an example of a religious practice which locates itself outside the bounds of rational discourse. As is clear, there are a number of mutually inconsistent dietary regimes associated with different religions, and no criteria to judge whether one regime represents God's will more accurately than another (or perhaps God intends some people to eat pork and others not to).

I think I've got it. With all respect, though, it only increases my conviction that society, if it is to survive, must be organized along secular lines. The alternative is simply war between irreconcilable faiths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At risk of going off-topic, Wilfrid, perhaps the alternative to war between irreconcilable faiths is war between irreconcilable secular belief systems ?

I suspect that in the last hundred years, we've had more of the latter than the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At risk of going off-topic, Wilfrid, perhaps the alternative to war between irreconcilable faiths is war between irreconcilable secular belief systems ?

I suspect that in the last hundred years, we've had more of the latter than the former.

Yes. Wars now seem to fought more on the basis of hegemony and access to resources. At the top of the list of the latter, at this time, are oil and water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of your post is nonsensical. If you read these threads, you would see that the discussion is being held from the vantage point of people who want to be associated to religion but do not believe in god. To say that these laws were "made by god" is not responsive to the original question which implies that the whole thing is made up to control people politically.

You will have to explain to me why a sane human being would want to be associated to religion whilst not believing in God. I'm baffled by the concept. :wacko:

My answer to the posit that religion is made up to control people politically is simply that it's not so. These laws were made by God. Which part of that are you finding difficult to follow ? Incidentally, that is my answer only in the case of Judaism --- I don't know enough about the others to comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At risk of going off-topic, Wilfrid, perhaps the alternative to war between irreconcilable faiths is war between irreconcilable secular belief systems ?

I suspect that in the last hundred years, we've had more of the latter than the former.

Absolutely. The human propensity for competition (sometimes violent competition) is encoded in the genes. The only reason that wars of the last century were secular rather than religions is because societies of the last century were secular rather than religious.

I that seems to bleak. A propensity for cooperation and rationality is also in the genes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are all missing my devastatingly telling point. Conflicts have many causes. However, while disputes between secular belief systems have the potential for rational resolution, disputes between religions, or between religions and secular belief systems, do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

society, if it is to survive, must be organized along secular lines

I think society, if it is to survive, must be organized along pluralistic lines. So long as a particular religion allows for pluralism and peaceful coexistence, I've got no bone to pick with its practicioners. Likewise, the followers of any secular belief system that is anti-pluralistic are as offensive to me as those who use their religions to justify harming others. A modern society needs to set certain ground-rules. Perhaps those ground-rules say that gratuitous cruelty to animals, inhumane farming practices, cannibalism, trafficking in unwholesome food, etc., are off limits. After that, society steps back and says, okay everybody, do whatever the heck you want so long as it's within those rules: Eat what you want to eat, don't eat what you don't want to eat, we don't care about the reasons or lack thereof -- and where your practices come in conflict with the rules, let's all sit down and try to reach an accommodation, if we can.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps it is time to grind a new lens that all can see through.

I fear that will never happen -- there are too many unresolvable conflicts among the various belief systems. But it is the goal we should be working towards, certainly.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven, I think we essentially agree. What has changed in my thinking over the last ten years is that I now perceive that rigorous constraints on pluralism are needed. The key phrase is "reach an accommodation when we can". There are many widely held religious beliefs which cannot be accommodated with a "free", democratic, secular society. The real conundrum is how to constrain pluralism without tyrannically expunging difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real conundrum is how to constrain pluralism without tyrannically expunging difference.

Indeed, but on the question of the dietary laws of the major religions I don't see this as much of a challenge. Sure, there are some issues, such as the humaneness of ritual slaughter. And when you get to some of the very small minority religions like Santeria you have issues of animal sacrifice. But on the whole people eating or not eating what they want does not present much of a challenge to reasoned pluralism.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are all missing my devastatingly telling point.  Conflicts have many causes.  However, while disputes between secular belief systems have the potential for rational resolution, disputes between religions, or between religions and secular belief systems, do not.

You are assuming, incorrectly I believe, that religions are necessarily aggressively proselytizing and that therefore conflict is inevitable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while disputes between secular belief systems have the potential for rational resolution, disputes between religions, or between religions and secular belief systems, do not.

Well they do, of course. Because it does all boil down to the same thing. We leave the realm of "religion" and live in the realm of "interpretation of religion." And while that may be based on Religion, it is ultimately subjective, political, etc. We can perhaps recognize that an "objective reality" might exist somewhere out there. I don't think we actively live in it. It's a matter of people recognizing that their views of religion are simply that -- their views. (Substitute anything you like for the word "religion.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming, incorrectly I believe, that religions are necessarily aggressively proselytizing and that therefore conflict is inevitable.

No I'm not. Conflict is not inevitable. I am just saying that while it's possible to have a rational discussion about whether pork is nourishing, it is not possible to have a rational discussion about whether Catholics correctly interpret God's law by eating or whether Jews correctly interpret God's law by not eating, or whether God has some reason to permit this person to eat pork but not the next person.

Most such disagreements needn't rise to the level of a dispute (as Steven rightly observes). Equally clearly, some are minefields.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most such disagreements needn't rise to the level of a dispute (as Steven rightly observes).  Equally clearly, some are minefields.

How would you categorize, for example, a conflict between atheistic members of PETA and atheistic pig-farmers on the issue of vegetarianism? Would you say it has a rational solution? How about the conflict between capitalism and communism? Rational solution? We can all just sit down and talk about it, and thanks to secular humanism the capitalists and the communists, the animal-rights activists and the pig-farmers, will work everything out and reach a resolution?

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming, incorrectly I believe, that religions are necessarily aggressively proselytizing and that therefore conflict is inevitable.

No I'm not. Conflict is not inevitable. I am just saying that while it's possible to have a rational discussion about whether pork is nourishing, it is not possible to have a rational discussion about whether Catholics correctly interpret God's law by eating or whether Jews correctly interpret God's law by not eating, or whether God has some reason to permit this person to eat pork but not the next person.

Most such disagreements needn't rise to the level of a dispute (as Steven rightly observes). Equally clearly, some are minefields.

But you also said

that society, if it is to survive, must be organized along secular lines. The alternative is simply war between irreconcilable faiths.

So you do seem to be saying that religious conflict is inevitable*. Why is it impossible for religions to agree to differ?

*That might be true, but it seems equally true of secular belief systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will have to explain to me why a sane human being would want to be associated to religion whilst not believing in God. I'm baffled by the concept.  :wacko:

Confucianism (more of a philosophy, but it qualifies).

Buddhism (again, more of a philosophy, but it also qualifies).

Neither of these two religions/philosophies espouses a belief in a "God" per se.

SA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rest of your post is nonsensical. If you read these threads, you would see that the discussion is being held from the vantage point of people who want to be associated to religion but do not believe in god. To say that these laws were "made by god" is not responsive to the original question which implies that the whole thing is made up to control people politically.

You will have to explain to me why a sane human being would want to be associated to religion whilst not believing in God. I'm baffled by the concept. :wacko:

My answer to the posit that religion is made up to control people politically is simply that it's not so. These laws were made by God. Which part of that are you finding difficult to follow ? Incidentally, that is my answer only in the case of Judaism --- I don't know enough about the others to comment.

Macrosan, I think you've hit on something here. I do not believe in god, but I very much want to be associated with Judaism. Therein lies the essential conflict. Judaism is more than a religion - it's a people, a history, a culture, etc. - we've said it all before. There are plenty, and I mean plenty, of "religious" Jews (you can call them observant if you prefer) who don't believe in god - or let's say, they just don't think about it. There were several posts about this a page or so back which were very good. I for one do not believe that these laws were made by god. I think they were created by people. I think god was created by people, not the other way around.

Again, I urge you all to look at www.godpart.com

Edited by La Niña (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nina, I will read that site in more detail, but let me give you s spot reaction to their premise.

If it's true that this principle [genetic drivers] applies to all of our cross-cultural behaviors, should we not also apply it to spirituality? Every known culture from the dawn of our species has maintained a belief in some form of a "spiritual" reality. Wouldn't this suggest that human spirituality must represent an inherent characteristic of our species, that is, a genetically inherited trait?

If spirituality dervives from genes, who created those genes so to operate ?

How else are we to explain the fact that all human cultures - no matter how isolated - have maintained a belief in some form of a spiritual/transcendental reality, in a god or gods, a soul, as well as an afterlife?

How else would I explain it ? Well how about just saying that God does exist ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...