Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

[LW]

In "bible times" pigs were especially prone to particular deadly diseases and in hot climates pig meat very quickly attracts plenty of nasty bacteria.

Hence it was banned - because there was a good chance eating it would kill you.

Nobody really knows the real reason for the ban since its origins are in prehistory.

There are several different hypotheses, like the one that you give. This particular hypothesis has the weak point that it doesn't explain why a similar prohibition didn't happen in other areas of hot climate -- pigs have been happily eaten all over SE Asia for millennia and I'd guess that pig meat spoils even quicker there.

I'm not so certain that there was a practical reason for banning pig meat. Pig is not the only mammal that is specifically mentioned as prohibited in Leviticus 11: camel, coney, and rabbit share this fate.

 

[LW]

Marvin Harris, the anthropologist, had a slightly different theory.

When you raise pigs, you feed them corn, grain, etc.--essentially the same food that humans would be eating.

In an environment that was becoming increasingly desertlike, humans couldn't afford the competition for resources. So, over time, pigs became taboo.

Doesn't explain the ban on camel meat.

(Though, Muslims don't follow that particular restriction from Leviticus).

 

[SteveGrenard]

More on the "pork soup ban": here, which is a reaction to this issue. This is also an interesting article.

Debbie Schlussel apparently forgot to mention that the issue is about rightwing extremists deliberately using pork to exclude Muslim and Jewish homeless people. A whole new meaning to the word "soup Nazi".

If pork was the only food available I would agree it would be highly biased against jews and muslims. However, should soup kitchens for the poor then also ban other non-kosher or non-halal foods? And what about mixing dairy and meat? Should they be prohibited from serving milk or other dairy products when they are also serving meat? And maybe they should also have separate plates? Don't these religions require the use of separate plates for dairy meals and meat meals? And separate refrigerators for meat and dairy as well. We'll need those also. And for meat shouldn't it be specified how the meat would be slaughtered.

There are also practical reasons for avoiding haram products. The halal slaughtering process (zabihah) consists of killing the animal quickly with a sharp knife while the name of Allah is muttered.

see ref#2 below.

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

http://www.aboutfood.co.uk/spotlight/halal.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_dietary_laws

 

[SteveGrenard]

I'm not so certain that there was a practical reason for banning pig meat. Pig is not the only mammal that is specifically mentioned as prohibited in Leviticus 11: camel, coney, and rabbit share this fate.

er, rabbits and coneys, both lagomorphs, eat their own poop. Once that was observed I am sure it was quickly added to the list. I am not sure what disgusting habits camels might have.

Coneys or Pikas are also called rock rabbits.

 

[LW]

I seem to remember (and I would have to search for it) that the pork grease rumour to which I refer was connected to a battle for the Khyber Pass.

I believe that you remember incorrectly. I think that your memory has mixed up the Sepoy Mutiny with the Afghan wars. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Using pork against the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan is not an issue on religious grounds for coalition forces but may be objected to by our Moslem allies. I say the heck with that but that's just me. If pork or the rumour of pork can save lives that overrides the religious objection.

I asked this in another thread where this subject came up but no one could answer it, so I ask it now from you:

Is there any Musllim source (Koran quote, hadith, teaching from an famous Islamic scholar, etc.) that states that contact with pig products prevents entrance to paradise?

That is, is there any reason at all to suspect that there are Muslims who would actually be deterred by using pork-coating in bullets.

 

[SteveGrenard]

I believe that you remember incorrectly. I think that your memory has mixed up the Sepoy Mutiny with the Afghan wars. However, I'm willing to be proven wrong.



I asked this in another thread where this subject came up but no one could answer it, so I ask it now from you:

Is there any Musllim source (Koran quote, hadith, teaching from an famous Islamic scholar, etc.) that states that contact with pig products prevents entrance to paradise?

That is, is there any reason at all to suspect that there are Muslims who would actually be deterred by using pork-coating in bullets.

You may be right about the Sepoy rebellion.

Muslims and Jews will not eat pork or have contact with pork. It is a sin. I am not sure how it is punished but I am fairly certain they believe it is a punishable sin. With the Enfield and its variants they had to use their teeth to prepare the bullet and charge. So it would get in their mouth. If they were shot by a pork fat coated bullet it would enter their body as well. I think they would be sufficiently deterred. These are religious extremists who would also be deterred by bullets with the word God printed on them in Hebrew.

 

[CFLarsen]

Muslims and Jews will not eat pork or have contact with pork. It is a sin. I am not sure how it is punished but I am fairly certain they believe it is a punishable sin.

It isn't just Muslims and Jews. It is also Christians:

And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase.
Deuteronomy 14, 8

Do you also advocate the use of pork when fighting Christians?

 

[SteveGrenard]

I know of no modern official Christian cultural antipathy or prohibition against pork,other animals not deemed kosher or halal including shrimp, lobster, catfish, rabbits.

The Christians moved beyond the early dietary laws in the old testament and then resurrected in the Koran and do not subscribe to them. Nor do Christians require that meat be slaughtered while uttering the name of God or Allah. Of course if we have our constitution replaced by the koran all that will change. Is this something you are in favor of Claus? Do you want to return to Deuterotomy? Or would you prefer the koran?

When eating meat, sharia dictates that Muslims may only eat from meat that has been slaughtered in the name of God and meets stringent dietary requirements. Such meat is called halāl or "lawful" (acceptable). Islamic law prohibits a Muslim from eating pork, and meat that has been slaughtered in other than the name of God. Most juridicial opinions also hold monkey, dog, cat, carnivores and several other types of animal as being prohibited, or harām. For the meat of an animal to be halāl it must be one of the declared halāl species, it must generally be slaughtered by a Muslim, and it may not be killed by excessively cruel or painful means. The traditional means of slaughter is by slicing open the jugular veins at the neck, resulting in quick blood loss; a state of shock and unconsciousness is induced, and death soon follows through cardiac arrest.

According to the Qur'an, the animal does not have to be slaughtered by a Muslim, but may be slaughtered by a Jew or a Christian (People of the Book) as long as it meets their strict dietary laws (Al-Ma'ida 5: "The food of those who have received the Scripture is lawful for you.") Thus, most Muslims will accept kosher meat as halāl. However, some Muslims regard this as no longer applicable in modern times[2], insisting that Muslims should not eat kosher meat because of concerns about the techniques and words used in kosher slaughter, and because of the possibility of money spent on it ultimately going to finance Israel. Jurists disagree on the exact circumstances required for meat slaughtered by Christians to be halāl.


http://experts.about.com/e/s/sh/Sharia.htm

 

[Rob Lister]

I came late to this thread but are the "soup kitchens" in question being funded by the state? If not, what business is it of the state? I could understand if the food in question was otherwise legally restricted (dog, monkey, cat, etc) but, even though, even if, it is clear they they are serving a particular dish (for free) that they know certain people will not like, so be it.

It isn't nice but there's no reason it should be illegal.

 

[CFLarsen]

I know of no modern official Christian cultural antipathy or prohibition against pork,

It clearly says in the Bible that Christians can't touch pork.

Of course if we have our constitution replaced by the koran all that will change. Is this something you are in favor of Claus?

Of course not.

I answered your question. Answer mine:

Do you also advocate the use of pork when fighting Christians? Yes or no?

 

[Rob Lister]

It clearly says in the Bible that Christians can't touch pork.

Evidence?

I shall be amased if you actually answer that call for evidence. To my knowledge Christians are never mentioned in "the bible". I could be wrong. I only read the Cliff Notes.

Looking forward to your twisted reply.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence?

I showed you evidence: The quote from Deuteronomy. It's as clear as it can get.

I shall be amased if you actually answer that call for evidence. To my knowledge Christians are never mentioned in "the bible". I could be wrong. I only read the Cliff Notes.

Looking forward to your twisted reply.

Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
1 Peter 4, 16

And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Acts 11, 26

Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
Acts 26, 28

You are wrong. Call that twisted, if you like.

 

[Rob Lister]

Fair enough, I'm wrong about christians being mentioned. So where is the restriction against christian's eating pork? Deuteronomy doesn't do it for christians. That law was replaced with the New and Improved Law (if memory serves). Wasn't there something about some guy having a vision or dream or something making it okay to eat whatever the heck you wanted?

 

[CFLarsen]

Fair enough, I'm wrong about christians being mentioned. So where is the restriction against christian's eating pork? Deuteronomy doesn't do it for christians. That law was replaced with the New and Improved Law (if memory serves). Wasn't there something about some guy having a vision or dream or something making it okay to eat whatever the heck you wanted?

If you want to argue which parts of the Bible that are acceptable and which that are not, you are facing an uphill battle.

Or, to put it another way: Looking forward to your twisted reply.

You could start with the parts where it says that you can eat and touch pork....

 

[Rob Lister]

If you want to argue which parts of the Bible that are acceptable and which that are not, you are facing an uphill battle.

I don't think any of the bible is acceptable for any purpose other than historical clues, and even then of little use.

You stated something to the effect that christians eating pork was a no-no according to the bible. The bible is the reference we are therefore using...right or wrong.

Now back up your assertion. I'm just interested in your twisted answer really. I don't believe you have a specific reference but I'm sure you'll go through convolutions to create an interpretation that supports your views. Then Steve will disagree and we'll be rid of you for another week.

 

[LW]

If they were shot by a pork fat coated bullet it would enter their body as well. I think they would be sufficiently deterred.

Well, certainly those who get the actual bullets would be, at least for a while.

However, I would be more willing to believe that fat-coated bullets are better deterrent than non-coated ones if someone could find an actual Muslim to confirm it. All sources that I've seen have been non-Muslim.

Koran is quite explicit when it declares that a martyr will gain an immediate entrance to paradise (I can dig up quotes for the verses tomorrow if necessary) and there is no qualifier whatsoever.

There is also a traditional Islamic teaching that a suicide is a 100% certain ticket to hell (this is the standard interpretation of a Koran verse). This teaching hasn't prevented suicide bombing. There is also an explicit ban on fighting among Muslims. It too hasn't worked out very well.

So, given that Muslim teachings that we know exist don't prevent suicide bombers from blowing up other Muslims, I'm not confident that a belief that might exist would curb extremist Muslisms. In particular when the supposed belief sounds like there is quite a bit of old colonialist "Muslims are ignorant and superstitious savages" thinking behind it.

 

[CFLarsen]

I don't think any of the bible is acceptable for any purpose other than historical clues, and even then of little use.

You stated something to the effect that christians eating pork was a no-no according to the bible. The bible is the reference we are therefore using...right or wrong.

Now back up your assertion. I'm just interested in your twisted answer really. I don't believe you have a specific reference but I'm sure you'll go through convolutions to create an interpretation that supports your views. Then Steve will disagree and we'll be rid of you for another week.

What part of the Deutoronomy quote don't you understand?

 

[SteveGrenard]

I think it is necessary to begin by understanding the difference between the Old and New Testaments.

The Books of the Bible

Below is the Protestant canon of the Bible (New Revised Standard Version). The Roman Catholic canon also includes the Deuterocanonical books as part of the Old Testament (these are considered apocryphal by most Protestants). The Hebrew Bible recognizes the books referred to as the Old Testament in the Protestant Bible, but not the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books or the New Testament.
See also The King James Bible, Old Testament Names, and Kings of Judah & Israel

The Old Testament with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books

• The Hebrew Scriptures
• Genesis
• Exodus
• Leviticus
• Numbers
• Deuteronomy
• Joshua
• Judges
• Ruth
• 1 Samuel
• 2 Samuel
• 1 Kings
• 2 Kings
• 1 Chronicles
• 2 Chronicles
• Ezra
• Nehemiah
• Esther
• Job
• Psalms
• Proverbs
• Ecclesiastes
• Song of Solomon
• Isaiah
• Jeremiah
• Lamentations
• Ezekiel
• Daniel
• Hosea
• Joel
• Amos
• Obadiah
• Jonah
• Micah
• Nahum
• Habakkuk
• Zephaniah
• Haggai
• Zechariah
• Malachi
• The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books
• Tobit
• Judith
• Additions to the Book of Esther
• Wisdom of Solomon
• Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
• Baruch
• The Letter of Jeremiah
• The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
• Susanna
• Bel and the Dragon
• 1 Maccabees
• 2 Maccabees
• 1 Esdras
• Prayer of Manasseh
• Psalm 151
• 3 Maccabees
• 2 Esdras
• 4 Maccabees

The New Testament

• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• John
• Acts of the Apostles
• Romans
• 1 Corinthians
• 2 Corinthians
• Galatians
• Ephesians
• Philippians
• Colossians
• 1 Thessalonians
• 2 Thessalonians
• 1 Timothy
• 2 Timothy
• Titus
• Philemon
• Hebrews
• James
• 1 Peter
• 2 Peter
• 1 John
• 2 John
• 3 John
• Jude
• Revelation

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001483.html

Are you saying Claus that Christians are mentioned in the old testament? And that the dietary restrictions are mentioned in the new?

Very cute. In any case my answer was that
there is no modern cultural or religious prohibition against eating/touching/ingesting etc pork by Christians. There is such a prohibition by Jews and Muslims.

And no, it would be of no value to use the pork weapon against atheists or Christians. It would only work against people of the book, the old testament jews and the muslims who adopted the earlier jewish dietary laws for their own fledgling religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

I think it is necessary to begin by understanding the difference between the Old and New Testaments.

Are you saying Claus that Christians are mentioned in the old testament? And that the dietary restrictions are mentioned in the new?
Very cute. In any case my answer was that there is no modern cultural or religious prohibition against eating pork by Christians.

Like I said to Rob Lister: If you want to argue which parts of the Bible that are acceptable and which that are not, you are facing an uphill battle.

Are you dismissing the Old Testament?

And no, it would be of no value to use the pork weapon against atheists or Christians. It would only work against people of the book, the old testament jews and the muslims who adopted the earlier jewish dietary laws for their own fledgling religion.

Then, you treat Jews and Muslims differently than Christians.

Why? You claim to be an Atheist (who nevertheless believe that our souls live on to communicate through psychics by giving out mundane information indistinguishable from cold reading).

It should be of no concern to you what faith people are. Yet, you discriminate against Jews and Muslims.

 

[Mycroft]

What part of the Deutoronomy quote don't you understand?

The part where it says it applies to modern Christians. I can't find that part.