Thrown out of Vegetarian restaurant

[bergerka]

I was driving around NYC today with a couple that was vegetarian, and unlike me they are very Strict Vegetarians.  They had only one thing to say to me after I shared with them the details about the incident and the debate here.  The wife said, when she meets Americans and speaks to them about her secular but strict vegetarian beliefs, Jews and Christian friends of theirs in American have no way of understanding her belief in vegetarian diet for it has no religious founding. She says she invariably has to include religion, tell the person chastising her for her individual belief system, and say she is a Kosher Observing Indian and then she is granted space to believe what she does.  She said in the last 33 years in NY, she has found some respect from non-Indians by having to do this.  Has she found very many restaurants where she can eat safely without fear of being cheated on her beliefs? No. Most restaurants she has realized, after trick questioning of wait staff and chefs, have agreed later that meat broths or such were added to her specifically asked for vegetarian food.  It has taught her to mostly eat in restaurants run by immigrants from countries that have had people from parts of the world where vegetarianism can thrive without coded rules of its existence.

Suvir, thank you. You have articulated far more clearly than I, in my muddled way, ever could, exactly what I was trying to get at. From the beginning, I considered the problem here to be one of manners and respect for one's fellow human beings, rather than one of rules and regulations, and that while vegetarianism is what I call a "lifestyle choice," that does not make it any less deeply felt or committed to than, say, keeping Kosher. The vegetarian is just as physically capable of eating meat as the observant Jew is of eating pork or shellfish, but each has specifically chosen to live his or her life according to a code, religion or philosophy that makes sense to him or her - and respect for the one is no less important than respect for the other.

Thanks for another really beautifully written post, a pleasure to read.

K

Edited to add that I'm not posting out of my ass about the observant Jew making a choice to keep Kosher. While my family (1/2 Jewish) does not keep kosher, my father's certainly did growing up, and he made the conscious choice to break with that tradition as an adult.

Edited September 24, 2003 by bergerka (log)

[elyse]

I don't think this is all that unreasonable.  A vegetarian restaurant is supposed to be meat-free, and the patron violated that.  If the restaurant were Kosher, I would expect anyone waving a jar of pork to be tossed out.

I'm sorry, I'm just now getting to this thread, but I have to say that any jar of pork anywhere should be tossed.

[Suvir Saran]

You are too kind to me.

[schneich]

personally i have never seen a vegetarian restaurant that cooked

veggies to perfection...

it was either raw, bland or mushy

cheese

t.

[tanabutler]

Apparent Vegetarian Foods That May Contain Meat

Do not miss the copyright at the bottom of the page.

[hjshorter]

Quiche often contains eggs.

Huh? How about "always" contains eggs?

[guajolote]

Apparent Vegetarian Foods That May Contain Meat

Do not miss the copyright at the bottom of the page.

I loved this one:

Quiche often contains eggs.

[Dave the Cook]

Apparent Vegetarian Foods That May Contain Meat

This "article" is so riddled with errors as to be dangerous.

A few:

• It's been an awfully long time since charcoal was made from anything but wood, especially activated charcoal.
  
• Brown sugar, sugar made from cane, and confectioner's sugar are most certainly "processed," in the sense that they are purified from raw cane or beets (without, as far as memory serves, the use of animal products). Of these, brown sugar is the most highly processed.
  
• Turbinado is not raw sugar.
  
• Despite the repetitive implication, keeping kosher has nothing to do with being vegetarian. If I were Jewish, I'd be amused. Or offended.
  
• Only vegetable waxes may be used on vegetables sold in the US, unless animal origin is clearly labeled on the wholesale container. Unless bees and lac beetles count. Most wax is carnauba.
  

Edited September 25, 2003 by Dave the Cook (log)

[guajolote]

Quiche often contains eggs.

Huh? How about "always" contains eggs?

Damn, you beat me.

They also spelled Jello "Gello".

[Jim Dixon]

I don't even know if I'm a shiksa or a goy

Tana,

I can't beleive this got by. I'm just a country goy myself, but I'm guessing you're both. I don't have a Joy of Yiddish so I may be wrong. I'm sure somebody will enlighten us.

Food related: Last week I made a vegan pasta salad for a campout of the burrito slingers our boys work with, but I wanted to put a small sign on it to the effect that it wasn't an endorsement.

Jim

[slkinsey]

I don't even know if I'm a shiksa or a goy

Tana,

I can't beleive this got by. I'm just a country goy myself, but I'm guessing you're both. I don't have a Joy of Yiddish so I may be wrong. I'm sure somebody will enlighten us.

She's a shiksa.

[tanabutler]

I'm a shiksa! I'm a shiksa! (Thanks, SLKinsey.)

[Pan]

This is off-topic, but "Goy" simply means "Nation" in Hebrew and in the sense of "Ha-Goyim" ("The Nations") is effectively a synonym for "The Gentiles," and not necessarily derogatory (it can be, depending on tone and context, just as would be true of, for example, using the word "Jew"). Shiksa, on the other hand, unless used jokingly, is quite a nasty word.

From www.m-w.com:

Etymology: Yiddish shikse, feminine of sheygets non-Jewish boy, from Hebrew sheqes blemish, abomination

I would suggest that everyone think carefully about whether it's appropriate to volunteer to call yourself an abomination or blemish.

[WHT]

WHT, is the date of birth in your profile correct?

Yes it is. I was born In Manhatan and lived in Montclair NJ for my first 8 years.

Edited September 26, 2003 by WHT (log)

[mags]

See below

Edited September 27, 2003 by mags (log)

[mags]

I don't know a single vegetarian who won't eat vegetarian food in a regular restaurant provided that restaurant demonstrates some willingness to accommodate. The whole idea that, when a forbidden item enters the premises or touches a utensil, it somehow desecrates the whole operation is a religious way of thinking. I'm not sure what objection a non-religious vegetarian would have to eating vegetables cooked in a pan that has been thoroughly cleaned, even if that pan was once used to cook meat.

Oooof, I do. Years ago, I was touring with a troup of South African vegetarians. We all shared a house. And one day Chico the Cockney Drummer put a packet of pork chops in the refrigerator, and one of the veggies went round the bend, hollering about how meat fumes were contaminating her broccoli.

FWIW, I don't think the woman's having brought the damn babyfood into the restaurant was such a crime -- as others here have pointed out, she probably just grabbed the nearest jar, without checking to see whether its contents were in accord with her lunch plans. And -- and again, this is purely MO, I think the server should have said "I'm sorry, we can't prepare anything with meat or chicken in it," rather than inventing a clumsy lie about a broken microwave. But all that said, I still think that people who go to a vegetarian restaurant have the right to assume that the kitchen will, indeed, be meat-free, and that includes the microwave. I may think the "meat fumes contaminating the broccoli" contingent is a little nuts, but they still have a right to expect that meat fumes will not, in fact, contaminate the green leafy vegetables.

[mags]

Hinduism forbids conversion. It is the greatest of all sins. Even the most fanatic Hindu cannot gain any points with their belief and Gods by proselytizing.

This is so interesting to me, Suvir. Thank you. I was brought up to believe that proselytizing, while not exactly sinful, was about the rudest thing one could possible do, the most extraordinary breech of courtesy. I still believe this, and I also believe that it indicates a stunning lack of respect for the person to whom one is proselytizing, the assumption that you know better than he what his life lacks -- and, indeed, that your life is inherently better (closer to God, more authentic, happier) than his.

At the same time, I do have some friends who are Southern Baptists, and I understand that for them, proselytizing is a form of sacrament. It's the way they serve God, just as I think I serve God by honoring others' religious beliefs, at least to the extent of not telling them that mine is better. It's a very difficult conundrum.

[Suvir Saran]

I don't know a single vegetarian who won't eat vegetarian food in a regular restaurant provided that restaurant demonstrates some willingness to accommodate. The whole idea that, when a forbidden item enters the premises or touches a utensil, it somehow desecrates the whole operation is a religious way of thinking. I'm not sure what objection a non-religious vegetarian would have to eating vegetables cooked in a pan that has been thoroughly cleaned, even if that pan was once used to cook meat.

Oooof, I do. Years ago, I was touring with a troup of South African vegetarians. We all shared a house. And one day Chico the Cockney Drummer put a packet of pork chops in the refrigerator, and one of the veggies went round the bend, hollering about how meat fumes were contaminating her broccoli.

FWIW, I don't think the woman's having brought the damn babyfood into the restaurant was such a crime -- as others here have pointed out, she probably just grabbed the nearest jar, without checking to see whether its contents were in accord with her lunch plans. And -- and again, this is purely MO, I think the server should have said "I'm sorry, we can't prepare anything with meat or chicken in it," rather than inventing a clumsy lie about a broken microwave. But all that said, I still think that people who go to a vegetarian restaurant have the right to assume that the kitchen will, indeed, be meat-free, and that includes the microwave. I may think the "meat fumes contaminating the broccoli" contingent is a little nuts, but they still have a right to expect that meat fumes will not, in fact, contaminate the green leafy vegetables.

Thanks for a very sensitive and caring post.

Like you, I am on the same wavelength about the situation with the baby food.

And I too believe that meat of any kind should not be contaminating the space of a vegetarian.

My own father, who now has two kids that have eaten meat and whose homes are not purely vegetarian, would never allow any meat, not even baby food for my nephew into the homes he lives in.. be they my now deceased grandmas or that of my parents.... my sister, whose kid grew up in Texas, did eat meat based foods.. but she felt he missed nothing at all by not eating meat in those many months he woudl spend time in my parents or grandparents homes. For her it was a way of having the babies palate grow and mature.... yes care was taken to ensure the baby got every nutrition as was necessary. And that is the key. For my parents my nephew was a joy, and for my sister, my parents gave her kid a new exposure. Both parties were at the end joyous.

[Suvir Saran]

Hinduism forbids conversion. It is the greatest of all sins. Even the most fanatic Hindu cannot gain any points with their belief and Gods by proselytizing.

This is so interesting to me, Suvir. Thank you. I was brought up to believe that proselytizing, while not exactly sinful, was about the rudest thing one could possible do, the most extraordinary breech of courtesy. I still believe this, and I also believe that it indicates a stunning lack of respect for the person to whom one is proselytizing, the assumption that you know better than he what his life lacks -- and, indeed, that your life is inherently better (closer to God, more authentic, happier) than his.

At the same time, I do have some friends who are Southern Baptists, and I understand that for them, proselytizing is a form of sacrament. It's the way they serve God, just as I think I serve God by honoring others' religious beliefs, at least to the extent of not telling them that mine is better. It's a very difficult conundrum.

And that is why one can never say what religion or custom is more deserving of protection than another.

It takes all kinds to enrich this world.

They each have their wonderful aspects I am sure... and one can simply imagine that as being true, and we could live without finding need to hate, judge or fight.

Again, you have shared a great post.

[mags]

Thank you.

It occurs to me that the heart of the debate here -- or one of the hearts, like cows have multiple stomachs -- is what differentiates a "personal choice" from a religious conviction. It's been suggested that, so far as dietary restrictions are concerned, religious conviction involves a specific, non-negotiable set of rules, while "personal choice" is more flexible. But I'm not at all sure that distinction holds up.

Leaving aside the "I'm a vegetarian but I eat chicken and the occasional cheeseburger when it smells really good" people, both Kashruth (and, I'd imagine, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and other religions with dietary prohibitions) and vegetarianism have some very basic, immutable tenets. Kosher-observing Jews don't eat pork or shellfish, and they don't mix milk and meat. Vegetarians don't eat meat or fowl or fish. Beyond those basic rules, any number of permutations have evolved, ranging from absolute orthodoxy to degrees of laxity that make the orthodox apoplectic.

My friend who keeps a Kosher home will eat in mine, even though I don't separate milk and meat dishes, and happily keep bacon in my fridge. She'll eat ice cream after a meat-meal, though only after waiting an hour. (It's been suggested that she's confused Kashruth with the equally firm Jewish tenet that one must wait an hour after eating a tuna sandwich before going swimming .) She'll eat in non-Kosher restaurants. But she won't eat pork or shellfish, and she's never had a cheeseburger. And Jewish family-legends are full of people who would never eat bacon or ham or shrimp cocktail, but happily pigged out (literally and figuratively) at their local Chinese restaurant, on the theory that I Don't Know What's In This Stuff So God Probably Doesn't Either. One friend claims that his grandfather used to go to Chinese restaurants and -- by way of covering his bases -- ask the waiter if there was any "treyf" in the dish. After checking with the kitchen, the waiter would duly report that the dish was free of "treyf," and the grandfather would dig in. He conveniently neglected to mention to the waiter that "treyf" means "non-Kosher food."

Anyway, these people all base (based) their dietary restrictions on religious conviction, however tenuous. And I don't really see how their restrictions are any more rigorous, tightly codified, or deserving of respect than the convictions of people who have opted for vegetarianism -- or any other form of dietary restriction -- for reasons that have not been sanctified by an Official Religion.

Of course, the PITA factor is very real. There was a thread here a while ago about people's imposing their dietary restrictions on their hosts -- guests who accept your invitation to dinner and then subject you to a litany of the stuff they won't eat. And in that thread, as well, people tried very hard to draw distinctions between folks who "couldn't" eat such-and-such out of religious conviction, and those for whom avoiding pork or pasta or whatever was "purely a personal choice." I tend to feel that with both restaurants and dinner parties, both host/restaurant and diner/guest have an obligation -- the former to provide a meal that meets the basic needs of the guests (no pork/pasta/meat entree) and the latter to cope politely and discreetly with any demands of orthodoxy that extend beyond those basic needs. All of which is to say that if you go to a vegetarian restaurant, you have the right to expect that there won't be any meat on the premises, but if your brand of vegetarianism requires that any milk-products come from farms where cattle are never slaughtered for meat, you need to order a salad or go to another restaurant.

Pheww! Sorry for rattling on so long.

[Suvir Saran]

Anyway, these people all base (based) their dietary restrictions on religious conviction, however tenuous.  And I don't really see how their restrictions are any more rigorous, tightly codified, or deserving of respect than the convictions of people who have opted for vegetarianism -- or any other form of dietary restriction -- for reasons that have not been sanctified by an Official Religion.

You have raised many poignant points.

Most all Hindus, have not based their diets on any official religion or any rules based in a book. This group I call Hindus includes the religious and those that are only Hindu by birth but may never enter a temple or offer prayers in a temple. And those Hindus that like me are well versed and respectful or Hindu and Islamic traditions and have been raised as Hindus who are deeply secular and accepting of the rich traditions of all religions being equally respect worthy, and important, even if only to those of any one religion. To Hindus like the secular ones whom I know mostly, religion does not need any endorsement from a group, club, personality or book, it is important because it means something to someone we know. That personal choice is one we must respect and guard as people that live in a world that has already seen much too much communal trouble in the centuries past. We have been trained to live and let live. And to encourage diversity and not hinder it as if finds bleak but some opportunities to survive in a world largely (unfortunately) still occupied by many that are devout and singular in their belief.

We have no one book or rule as Hindus that we must observe or believe. Ours is a religion that has survived millennia only as some say because it has no baggage that comes with politics and organization based on the beliefs of others merely mortal as us. Ours are text that change form as they were shared by us in times different from each other. Thus, we Hindus take every text as being one of importance and a limited role in the plethora of texts we can research and read, either as religious believers or as those wanting to understand the history of a people from a region. The combined beauty of these texts is mostly found in the variety and diversity that one understands even within the experiences of people borne from those of the same land and geographic region.

Our texts, all of them, are only stories for us to understand, fathom and embrace as being part of what has been lived before us. Do we have to live like those we read of in those stories today? Nope. All we are expected to do is to learn from the mistakes and challenges of these people, and take from their experiences what can help us in our lives today.

Our are different and non-organized tales for the most part. Ours are realities mostly based on what we have heard as being generational. And these diets change as easily as the many languages and physical make-up of the Indian people.

And that is why vegetarianism should not be only associated with the dictat that comes from orthodox or even deeply organized religion. We have ancient and deeply religious traditions that are not based on laws and rules, but solely on what one chooses to belief and what has been tradition for millennia.

To hundreds of millions of Hindus, even the religious types (both fanatic and the non fanatic amongst them) vegetarianism does not involve the endorsement of any official decree, ruling or text. It is simply understood to be what it is.

It is not about any choice, religious or personal, it simply is a way of life.

Now, those that want to fight us Hindus, can reduce our very secular varied dietary needs into one about religion, but they do so only to divide a world that hardly needs any more such tactics.

And that war could be very interesting... cause whilst we could have a fight between Hindus and Non-Hindus, the battle that is planted around diet, will become one that will also be fought within the many Hindu factions and sub-sects. It would consume much too much time and division.

[Bux]

The greatness of the posts that precede this one is humbling, but they remind me that I serve god by not blaming my bad habits or the way I treat others on him.

A shiksa, is a female goy. I've never quite heard them to mean anything other than a fact. Of course, some offense may be taken even at this: He's going out with a shiksa. She's a lovely girl, but if he marries her, it will kill his mother."

[Pan]

A shiksa, is a female goy.

Not really, Bux. A shiksa is a female shegetz, and a goya is a female goy.

[tanabutler]

According to the dictionary I just accessed, I would rather not be a female shegetz.

[Suvir Saran]

I serve god by not blaming my bad habits or the way I treat others on him.

How wonderfully said.

We need to hear these words more often in a world so easily using God to incite hate and other bad habits.