Why did certain religions ban pork?

[Beelzebuddy]

I've heard that "pigs are dirty animals" line my whole life, and the more I hear it, the more it just sounds like post-hoc rationalization. Not only are they giving up multiple sources of perfectly safe nutrition with the cleaveth/cheweth requirement, but if pigs needed to be forbidden at all on a societal level, it indicates enough of their neighbors were successful pig farmers that it was a temptation.

My money's on "tribal identifier," as Humes Fork suggested. Like cutting off bits of the penis, it's just a shibboleth to separate the uses from the thems. Only you don't have to drop trou to demonstrate your allegiance.

 

[Cainkane1]

I was just thinking about how awesome and delicious pork in its many manifestations is, and then I remembered that at least two of the world's major religions prohibit consumption of it. What a shame I thought, that so many people will never know how good bacon or or other porcine based dishes are.

At some point in the distant past some high religious mucky-muck must have decided that his own tastes and preferences were somehow a "command from God" and convinced other people that this should be a law, and not a personal choice.

Is that it, or is there any other conceivable reason?

I once read that swine consume more food than they prodice. For instance you could feed more people with the grain used to feed pigs than you would get from the meat.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I once read that swine consume more food than they prodice. For instance you could feed more people with the grain used to feed pigs than you would get from the meat.

That's how every animal works.

 

[Puppycow]

That's how every animal works.

True, but some animals can eat food that we can't, like grass. If you want to turn grass into food edible to humans you need an animal. I'm not sure if a pig can eat grass. But sheep and cattle can.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's how every animal works.

That is why I am a very inefficient vegetarian. Bacon is one of the least efficient forms of vegetables.

 

[ehcks]

That's how every animal works.

It's how the laws of thermodynamics work.

 

[tsig]

I've heard that "pigs are dirty animals" line my whole life, and the more I hear it, the more it just sounds like post-hoc rationalization. Not only are they giving up multiple sources of perfectly safe nutrition with the cleaveth/cheweth requirement, but if pigs needed to be forbidden at all on a societal level, it indicates enough of their neighbors were successful pig farmers that it was a temptation.

My money's on "tribal identifier," as Humes Fork suggested. Like cutting off bits of the penis, it's just a shibboleth to separate the uses from the thems. Only you don't have to drop trou to demonstrate your allegiance.

It always seemed to be like the no fish on Friday rule for Catholics.

(Righteously turning down meat gave you the frisson of martyrdom without any actual pain)

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Wow. All these answers are certainly food for thought.

I see what you did there...

 

[Puppycow]

It always seemed to be like the no fish on Friday rule for Catholics.

(Righteously turning down meat gave you the frisson of martyrdom without any actual pain)

I believe it's no meat on Fridays, but fish are OK (even though they are a kind of meat).

 

[Dr. Keith]

It always seemed to be like the no fish on Friday rule for Catholics.

(Righteously turning down meat gave you the frisson of martyrdom without any actual pain)

Says someone who has never had a fish dish from a catholic school cafeteria . . .

 

[Tatyana]

That's how every animal works.

The only exception is sheep that graze in hilly lands that are unsuitable for agriculture because of the gradient and soil type.

Sheep can actually be argued to be environmentally friendly.

And possibly goats as well.

As far as pig meat is considered, bacon is ok, but prosciutto, pancetta and all the other lovely salamis Italians make are the food from pig that is heaven sent.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I doubt anyone can say for sure but undercooked or raw pork was a source of trichinosis so it may have been for health reasons. I could also see pigs being seen as unclean due to their wallowing around in mud which probably included feces.

On the other hand I believe that kosher wine was just an economic thing to ensure that Jews bought only from other Jews. The restriction on pork might also have some economic reason behind it.

The heath claim is unsupportable since there's no evidence people in that time knew about the cause. The parasite is microscopic and wasn't visually observed until 1835. In addition it's not exactly a disease ancient people would have feared.

Probably many people who have trichinae in their muscles are completely unaware of it--because these "guests," present in such small quantities, do not cause any symptoms, or the symptoms are so slight the patient recovers without the disease being diagnosed.

And if you're going the 'God knew' route, all one would need is a mandate to cook pork thoroughly. And why not mandate hand washing if you were a god that knew about microorganisms.

Ritual diets are believed to enhance the membership in a group. They eat pork, we don't. It's not hard to see why pigs that roam cities eating filth would be a target of a food ritual.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Says someone who has never had a fish dish from a catholic school cafeteria . . .

Catholic school? Public schools I went to had meatless fishstick Fridays too, because of the Catholic kids who attend.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to add my pork scratchings to this blind men and the elephant* routine, I heard it was because the smell and taste of bacon was a little bit too similar to that of burnt human.....

Yes, just how would anyone know that?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Humans and pig can also share alot of viruses.

This is even more far fetched. How would ancient peoples put that two and two together? Not to mention we also share pathogens with domestic poultry and cattle, dogs, and probably any other animal that lived among humans for any length of time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've mentioned this before..... Anthropologist Marvin Harris wrote a little book some years ago called "Good To Eat"... About the various dietary foibles of various groups and peoples.

Pig hate, says he, had sound economic underpinnings. In the Middle East, pigs require a lot of resources that are hard to come by. Water, shade, etc. Additionally, they eat foods that are eaten by humans.
In areas with limited amounts of all three, pig husbandry becomes too expensive... Goats require none of them.. They'll eat almost anything.
What better way to keep people from raising a piggie or two on the sly than a religious proscription?
Same with Hindu cow-love.... The Brahmin cattle are much more valuable to the Indians alive than they are as a food source. They eat scraps, produce manure which used for fuel, etc. etc. There are not near enough of them to feed the Indian millions (billions now), and when the cow finally does snuff it, the lower castes can use the leather, body parts, etc. for rendering.

While I find this hypothesis more than plausible, there is counter evidence. The poorest peoples in the world today very often raise pigs. In many third world cities where there is no garbage pick up, pigs roam neighborhoods doing the job of cleaning up anything organic in the garbage piles.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well they are I believe known as a reservoir for new influenza strains so not hard to imagine they became known as carriers of disease, which in ancient times would probably have been seen as a sign of god's displeasure hence don't eat them.

So are domestic poultry and ducks and birds are a worse problem for influenza because they share viruses with wild birds and fowl that fly over and contaminate the same yards and water sources.


Sorry folks but I've not heard a single "it had to do with disease" claim yet that wasn't easily discredited. We'd be wise as skeptics to consider stopping our own contribution to spreading this pervasive false meme.

 

[Tatyana]

Yes, just how would anyone know that?

Humanity may have a long history of cannibalism as well as human sacrifice and burnt human sacrifice.

http://www.livescience.com/9118-gnawed-bones-reveal-cannibal-cavemen.html



The practice of cannibalism was still quite common among islanders of the South Seas until fairly recently, and may still be practiced.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...830733/Cannibal-fear-over-German-tourist.html




The hypothesis is that back in the Bronze Ages, the Abrahamic religious tradition may have been adopted and popular as humanity lost its hunger for some of the more barbaric practices of our past.

 

[Darat]

I doubt anyone can say for sure but undercooked or raw pork was a source of trichinosis so it may have been for health reasons. I could also see pigs being seen as unclean due to their wallowing around in mud which probably included feces.

...snip..

I really doubt that would be the reason or reasons, look how recently that we actually determined the cause of many diseases, I see no reason to presume that one tribe made such a huge conceptual leap to understanding cause and effect in this way and then "lost" it.

Also the "...wallowing around in mud which probably included feces..." again we have to remember that "hygiene" is a relatively new concept, and why would pigs be singled out on this basis? After all cows even more than pigs tend to stand around in their own faeces when herded.

ETA: OK I should have read the thread before responding.....

 

[Darat]

While I find this hypothesis more than plausible, there is counter evidence. The poorest peoples in the world today very often raise pigs. In many third world cities where there is no garbage pick up, pigs roam neighborhoods doing the job of cleaning up anything organic in the garbage piles.

You'd also expect to see a supply and demand situation arising so pork would have become a more highly valued item not a prescribed item.