On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:29:09 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
> blake murphy wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 11:24:34 -1000, dsi1 wrote:
>>
>>> T wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>> notbob wrote:
>>>>>> On 2009-03-08, sf > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> of butt in a huge vat of water....
>>>>>>> pork is tender, he drains it well....
>>>>>> Well, there goes most of the pork flavor.
>>>>> My auntie, told me to boil pork and then drain the water. Her reason,
>>>>> she said, was because pork is a "dirty" meat. I don't do this myself but
>>>>> it's likely that the rational for doing this goes far back to when men
>>>>> first started eating pork. My guess is that the Jews considered pork a
>>>>> dirty meat too - except that draining the cooking liquid could not
>>>>> redeem it.
>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem in biblical days was that they didn't necessarily
>>>> cook the meat thoroughly. This meant a whole host of little parasites
>>>> were along for the ride.
>>> I guess most of the restrictions of classes of food were based on the
>>> observation that some food tended to make folks sick or dead. Our pork
>>> is a lot safer these days. OTOH, folks in the old days had the advantage
>>> of not living that long.
>>>
>>
>> frankly, i think there are more practical reasons for the ban on pork by
>> muslims and jews:
>>
>> Deceased anthropologist Marvin Harris instead proposed that the regulation
>> results from mundane socio-economic concerns. Pigs are not biologically
>> suited to living in the arid climate of the Middle East, requiring far more
>> water to keep cool than animals native to the region. Although wild pigs
>> forage in the forests, there are no such environments for them in the
>> region that was Canaan, and consequently they must instead be fed grain;
>> however, the grain which pigs eat is also that eaten by people, and so the
>> pigs would compete with humans for survival during years of bad harvest. As
>> such, raising pigs could have been seen as wasteful and decadent; Harris
>> cites examples of similar ecological reasons for religious practices,
>> including prohibitions against pork, in other religions of the world.
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kosher_animals>
>>
>> ...i mean, when you think about it, the middle east just is not a good
>> place to raise pigs. it's like god were to ban the raising of shrimp in
>> utah or something.
>
> That seem kinda shaky. Why would you need restrictions on an animal that
> is unlikely and unsuited to an area anyway? I don't believe that these
> restrictions specifically named the pig as a forbidden animal, as I
> recall, it was a class of animals - with split hooves? If it's true that
> the meat from these restricted animals were pretty safe to eat, then
> what you cite may be a reasonable explanation.
>
there's more to it than that brief explanation, but that's the nut.
but for mammals, it's mainly two characteristics:
In Judaism, Kashrut (kosher) is the set of dietary laws governing what may
or may not be consumed. These laws are based upon the Torah and the Talmud.
According to Jewish law, animals that both chew their cud (ruminate) and
have cloven hooves are kosher. Animals with one characteristic but not the
other (the camel, the hyrax and the hare because they have no cloven
hooves, and the pig because it does not ruminate) are specifically
excluded.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloven-hoof>
....so really, pigs and camels (i don't know what the **** a hyrax is). i
guess if you live in the desert and want to go somewhere, it's also a bad
idea to start eating your camels
> My guess is that we'll never know the real reasons. However, the problem
> with animals (and fuel!) competing for human food remains today, perhaps
> we should forbid beef for being decadent and wasteful in natural
> resources - that would seem to be logical. Chickens, I guess, might be
> ok... :-)
>
<snip>
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
i hope you check 'em out. tons o' fun.
your pal,
blake