you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 106 points 11 months ago (5 children)

AFAIK these religions(so Islam and Judaism in this case) don't usually care about what non-believers eat, only believers are not allowed to eat pigs. So posting that does not even qualify as ragebait.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    As a Jew, I care what you eat. Cuz I'm gonna wanna go splitsies. What else should we get?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    we're a food oriented people. we don't ask you to eat like us, but we want to know what you eat so we can know who you are, how you grew up, what you love, and what you think of your grandmother. not from a place of judgement but from a sense of doikyat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    I've never heard that word before, but now I love it.

    Also, I loved my Yiddish-speaking grandmother, but she was an awful cook and would stick her fingers in everyone's food, so I don't love food stories with her. Plus, she didn't like it when I'd eat bacon, but she "secretly" loved the stuff and would often steal some from me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 11 months ago

    yeah but here's the thing: the right doesn't merely take joy in other people's anger and suffering, it takes joy in the idea of it. That's why Right wing "Comedy" is just "x minority are stupid and bad" and why their audiences lap them up. They're not laughing at the worlds, they're laughing at the idea of people they hate being upset or suffering.

    They think that upsets people, and that's where they derive humour from.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    yeah, and most of those rules came about because pork was likely to contain parasites and was overall more dangerous. people interpreted getting sick because of unsafe food as being punished by god

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    No. It's cause its a food for poor people.

    Sort of. It's a bit more complicated than that. But religious food prohibitions are never rational. Most religious taboos are formed first and theological justification comes second.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    Eh, that is one explanation, but pigs are only slightly worse than other domestic animals, which also have parasites and whose meat would spoil. The other and I think more likely explanation is formalizing differences between themselves from other ethnic groups in the region and making that division explicit. The early precursors to Israelites and Judeans were inland in the hills and shepherds, and were defining themselves against the more urban and coastal Philistines and other Phoenecian peoples. Pigs are preferred by more dense populations since they can be kept in a pen and don't have to move around to graze, and the coastal element is why there is also prohibitions against shellfish.

  • source
  • parent
  • Yeah, it is a prohibition on willingly eating pork. But to Islamaphobes this gets twisted into some belief that any presence, contact, or image of pork products hurts and condemns Muslims (I have heard this referred to as "Christian Ham Magic", which I think is a good term for it). Like how soldiers were claiming they dip their bullets in bacon grease so that if they kill a Muslim with them, they would, by "Muslim" belief, go to hell.

  • source
  • parent