posted
This isn't a yes or no question. It's a question that's been going through my mind as I watched my sauerkraut mature over the past few weeks.
My father and his two best friends used to have a 4th of July clambake. Each of them got married and had two boys. Growing up, my "uncles and aunts" were closer to me than most of my biological family, and although Uncle Shelly and Aunt Debbie have died and Uncle Marty moved away, I still see my Aunt Ruth, and I call her oldest son my cousin "by affection," because somehow it doesn't feel right to call him my friend. He's more than that.
Of course, clams aren't Kosher, and neither are shrimp, lobster, cheeseburgers and Italian sausage. Virtually everyone there was Jewish, except for me and my mother and brother. It became a joke that the "Trayf Bake" was a sort of anti-kosher bacchanal. It was tradition that different people brought certain foods, or performed certain tasks, and that we had to argue over how to share the cost of the food.
When one of my "cousins" got married, his parents came. They said they didn't keep kosher, but they wouldn't eat trayf. I brought lamb for shish-kebab, but they wouldn't eat it. They had brought beef-kebabs of their own. I got into a chat with her father, and I said something about how I believed that even if you didn't keep kosher, it's a good idea to practice being kosher over Passover, as a reminder, and also because kosher law had a lot of good rules regarding things like trichinosis, and other bacterial diseases.
At some point he got furious over this. From his standpoint, you don't keep kosher because it keeps you from getting sick, you keep kosher because God told you to. I didn't understand, and tried to explain; it seemed obvious to me that God must have reasons to make such rules. It didn't help. Eventually I gave up.
When I started making sauerkraut I looked up a few recipes, and they all talked about skimming the "scum" or the "bloom" off the top. Eventually I found that this means the mold. Of course, many foods are moldy, especially cheeses, and lots of foods are fermented and so forth. I got to thinking that it must be weird to invent a kind of food that is essentially rotten. And my mind wandered back to that day, and my feeling that kosher law makes sense, whether the religious perception is dominant or not, because it's important to know what kinds of food can make you sick.
So on the one hand, I wonder how "rotten" food can be kosher, and also, I'm wondering if someone can explain whatever it was that made this guy so mad, because I still don't understand. Don't ask me why the two are interrelated in my mind, but they are.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sauerkraut exists in kosher form. That is, there are brands that are certified kosher.
Jews who keep kosher, we have several on here, will tell you that indeed they don't keep kosher for any health benefits that may or may not exist, they do it because God commanded it.
Kind of the same reasons I, as a Mormon, don't consume tea, coffee, tobacco, etc. (Okay, I wouldn't use tobacco anyway. But I used to drink tea.)
I do get irritated when Mormons try to justify every restriction. I don't have to understand why I'm not supposed to eat something. If I was told not to, that's good enough for me. And in my mind, justifying it leads to not following it fully. That may be why he got angry with you for trying to argue it.
I'm sure one of our resident kashrut experts can explain why sauerkraut exists in kosher form and what must happen for it to be so.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
BlackBlade, if you're reading this, you did missionary work to China right? How did Chinese converts react to having to give up tea?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have several friends who served missions to Japan.
Herbal and other non-tea-plant teas (barley, etc.) are allowed. Just not tea from the tea plant (except where prescribed by a doctor.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is that specific to the tea plant or is it more a godly condemnation of unprescribed caffeine?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: When one of my "cousins" got married, his parents came. They said they didn't keep kosher, but they wouldn't eat trayf. I brought lamb for shish-kebab, but they wouldn't eat it. They had brought beef-kebabs of their own. I got into a chat with her father, and I said something about how I believed that even if you didn't keep kosher, it's a good idea to practice being kosher over Passover, as a reminder, and also because kosher law had a lot of good rules regarding things like trichinosis, and other bacterial diseases.
At some point he got furious over this. From his standpoint, you don't keep kosher because it keeps you from getting sick, you keep kosher because God told you to. I didn't understand, and tried to explain; it seemed obvious to me that God must have reasons to make such rules. It didn't help. Eventually I gave up.
I would have been with him. Yes, God had reasons. No, we don't necessarily know the reasons. And it doesn't matter to us what the reasons are. Sometimes, we speculate, but we never say that something is the reason; only a reason. Maybe.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: When I started making sauerkraut I looked up a few recipes, and they all talked about skimming the "scum" or the "bloom" off the top. Eventually I found that this means the mold. Of course, many foods are moldy, especially cheeses, and lots of foods are fermented and so forth. I got to thinking that it must be weird to invent a kind of food that is essentially rotten.
Pretty much all wine and all fermented beverages... fermented anything, really. Hell, mushrooms are fungus.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: And my mind wandered back to that day, and my feeling that kosher law makes sense, whether the religious perception is dominant or not, because it's important to know what kinds of food can make you sick.
Kashrut has nothing to do with that, though. You can get just as sick from kosher food. Keeping food safe is important completely aside from kashrut.
If you think kashrut "makes sense", then try and explain why we can't mix meat and milk. Why chickens (filthy creatures) are kosher, but cats, which do a great job of keeping themselves clean, are not.
(There's got to be a great LOLcat in that somewhere).
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: So on the one hand, I wonder how "rotten" food can be kosher, and also, I'm wondering if someone can explain whatever it was that made this guy so mad, because I still don't understand. Don't ask me why the two are interrelated in my mind, but they are.
The mad thing... well, I don't know how persistent you were about your views. If he knew you weren't Jewish and you were going on to a Jew about a point of Jewish law, that's probably enough to set a lot of people off. It's sort of like if I were to pontificate (pardon the term) about whether crackers or wonderbread were legitimate substitutes for communion wafers. It's kind of chutzpahdik.
As far as "rotten" goes, one man's foulness is another man's delicacy. I think macaroni and cheese is one of the nastiest things ever invented. I hate mangos; they smell to me like something that went bad.
Food can undergo changes. Labeling some of them as "good" or "bad" is pretty subjective, really.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is that specific to the tea plant or is it more a godly condemnation of unprescribed caffeine?
The official wording is "hot drinks." This has been clarified to mean "coffee and tea." There is no official prohibition on caffeine, though many Saints do avoid caffeine.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is there a rational for the "hot drinks" prohibition? (I realize that the statements about faith also apply here but still.)
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have several friends who served missions to Japan.
Herbal and other non-tea-plant teas (barley, etc.) are allowed. Just not tea from the tea plant (except where prescribed by a doctor.)
I dunno, Japan might be kinda different. I just know that tea drinking is pretty central to Chinese culture. Having to give that up must be pretty painful. It would be like telling a Canadian to give up Tim Hortons, except much much weirder.
I mean, going out for lunch (dim sum) is literally "yum cha" or to drink tea. Tea ceremonies are used from everything from getting married to ripping off tourists. The saying literally goes "all the tea in China" and its not off, there are probably as many types of teas in China as there are types of beer in Germany.
However, if the restriction is on specifically the tea plant species than that would wipe out almost every type of tea I can think of from long jing to pu'er tea. Jasmine tea is the only common tea I can think of that might escape, but it sometimes uses green tea as a base. Ginsing tea is uncommon, but it would escape too.
Maybe they can use the doctor angle, many Chinese teas have some sort of medical effect in Chinese traditional medicine. Does that count?
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: The official wording is "hot drinks." This has been clarified to mean "coffee and tea." There is no official prohibition on caffeine, though many Saints do avoid caffeine.
Or maybe thats how they get around it. Most Chinese teas can technically be served lukewarm or cold. In fact there are special shops that sell various deserts including chilled tea.
Sterling, most of us include iced teas and coffee, yes, since by further revelation that was clarified to refer to the substances coffee and tea, not the temperature.
My Bishop had to speak to the ward once because he said, "Something's wrong when people complain to me that their neighbor is drinking Coke, but they start their day with decaffienated coffee!" I always found that funny. And edifying.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(HollowEarth, sorry, that was kind of a grumpy answer. I suppose some people make rationalizations about caffeine, or drink temperature, or etc. I don't like that. The real reason is that God said so.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess the Japanese have to give up green tea ice cream too. Its practically like a food massacre.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, as Saints we are instructed not to consume the product of the tea plant. Period. There aren't many Mormons in China but the ones that are there presumably do not drink tea. As I have said, other herbal teas are acceptable. Tea drinking is very central to Japanese culture, too, and many converts have a hard time giving it up-- but many faithful Saints in Japan do give it up. Alcohol has come to play a central role in Japanese work culture, too, and I've heard that while people are usually okay with you asking for a different "kind" of tea (in Japan it's all called tea, if it's an infusion) people get passed over for promotions and even fired sometimes because they refuse to participate in office drinking parties.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What you have here is the difference in how one looks at faith.
If you come to dietary requirements, or any requirements there are two ways to look at them.
You can question God, or the Faith, or the Church and say, "Why did God ask us to do this?"
Or you can stop questioning and say, "God said so."
One groups looks at the questioning of God as a blasphemy. The other looks at not questioning of the practices as relinquishing ones free will.
The same goes for Muslims of various schools and sects. Why do they prey 5 times a day? Why do the woman put on the Burkah? For most its not about politics or power. Its because God said to.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(This thread reminds me a bit of an article that I think someone Jewish (Lisa?) introduced on one of these forums link regarding Jews and the consumption of pork in Chinese food.)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The mad thing... well, I don't know how persistent you were about your views. If he knew you weren't Jewish and you were going on to a Jew about a point of Jewish law, that's probably enough to set a lot of people off. It's sort of like if I were to pontificate (pardon the term) about whether crackers or wonderbread were legitimate substitutes for communion wafers. It's kind of chutzpahdik.
Well that's kind of the thing. My point wasn't trying to explain Jewish law, my point was that even if you don't have any religious motivation, it's still worthwhile to be aware of kosher law, because a lot of it makes sense.
As to the "God has a reason" thing, I recognize that it would be presumptuous to say that you know what god's actual reason is, but why is it presumptuous to say that the trichinosis thing just plain makes sense?
quote:If you think kashrut "makes sense", then try and explain why we can't mix meat and milk.
Actually (not trying to explain it, just quoting something I heard somewhere) I had heard that bacteria that frequently colonized certain (raw) meats can become quite virulent if it's allowed to incubate in milk. I don't know if it's true, but bear in mind that I don't even believe in God, yet I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt that there is a legitimate reason.
And maybe that's why this subject continues to bother me. From my perspective I was giving credence to religious doctrine and dogma, rather than dismissing it as superstition, yet rather than saying: "wow, I never thought this might have meaning for a gentile," he got mad at me.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: My point wasn't trying to explain Jewish law, my point was that even if you don't have any religious motivation, it's still worthwhile to be aware of kosher law, because a lot of it makes sense.
. . .
Actually (not trying to explain it, just quoting something I heard somewhere) I had heard that bacteria that frequently colonized certain (raw) meats can become quite virulent if it's allowed to incubate in milk. I don't know if it's true, but bear in mind that I don't even believe in God, yet I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt that there is a legitimate reason.
And maybe that's why this subject continues to bother me. From my perspective I was giving credence to religious doctrine and dogma, rather than dismissing it as superstition, yet rather than saying: "wow, I never thought this might have meaning for a gentile," he got mad at me.
I have to agree with Lisa on this one, Glenn. The rules of kashrut aren't sensible. They aren't some acane kind of health code. And it is presumptuous and condescending for you, who really are ignorant in the subject matter, to be explaining it to people who are conversant with it and live by its precepts.
It just cracks me up that you are willing to take this stand based on "something you heard somewhere" that you have no idea of whether it is correct or not, but disregard people who are telling you straight out, based on expertise, that you are mistaken.
As an observant Jew who is serious about keeping kosher, no, I wouldn't be flattered that some non-Jew told me that I wasn't just being superstitious but that he was able to see some reasonable explanation for my faith. I, too, would be annoyed at the condescension.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
He might have taken it to mean you needed a secular reason to follow spiritual law...which is what it sounded like to me as well....and that defeats the purpose of faith.
Or maybe not. I am not Jewish, so I don't have the cultural context to say.
I like Lisa's comparison about communion as well.
More than likely it wasn't just the message as much as the delivery. Even if you didn't mean to insult his faith, something about the way the discussion went upset him.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have several friends who served missions to Japan.
Herbal and other non-tea-plant teas (barley, etc.) are allowed. Just not tea from the tea plant (except where prescribed by a doctor.)
Eh, now that to me makes the whole thing silly. If it's forbidden, by God, then why is it ok if a doctor says so? If it's ok when a doctor says so, what if the scientific community in general concluded that tea is good for you and should be drunk regularly by everybody? I understand the part where it's forbidden, but *why*? If it's good enough that your religion just says so, then in what other ways is your life governed by your attachment to a religious institution- couldn't your religion demand that you do anything?
Of course, I don't think that's possible, which is why I find the tea thing particularly odd. Ditto for all food-related religious practices- Mormons are not alone, and they don't have an edge on what I think of as the wackiest ideas about food.
I'd say I think I understand how these particular taboos and practices arise, but I don't know quite why they are so powerful in religion. Of course, you can see food taboos and practices across all cultures and subcultures. I'm from Northern California, where social capital is all about what you like to eat. I've known people from time to time who are fascinated with the idea of "toxins." My aunt never stops talking about the toxin du jour, about mold, about god knows what in the food she eats.
There seems to be something deeply personal about food that makes people equate their eating habits with the quality or health of their souls. While I try to be healthy, most of the time, I wonder if I have underlying prejudices myself about things that might hurt me in some invisible way. But mostly I'm the kind of person who can and will eat virtually anything you put before me. I can't think of a food I won't eat. Not one. Does that have something to do with being an athiest? It would be an interesting thing to study.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: He might have taken it to mean you needed a secular reason to follow spiritual law...which is what it sounded like to me as well....and that defeats the purpose of faith.
For many people, this is indeed the reason why faith has no meaning.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, it's allowed because the Word of Wisdom, where we are told not to use it, specifically allows for medicinal uses of forbidden substances. And because preservation of life and health overrides most other commandments.
A doctor prescribing tea is rare; I have been told to use it to stop bleeding from a mouth wound. That's the only time I've used it.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I have several friends who served missions to Japan.
Herbal and other non-tea-plant teas (barley, etc.) are allowed. Just not tea from the tea plant (except where prescribed by a doctor.)
Eh, now that to me makes the whole thing silly. If it's forbidden, by God, then why is it ok if a doctor says so?
And this seems decidedly NOT silly to me. Judaism has a similar precept -- the commandments are meant for us to live by, not to die from. So, if it is necessary to violate a commandment in order to preserve or restore health ("prescribed by a doctor") then it is not only permissible to violate the commandment, but necessary to do so. For instance, I will eat only kosher food, and if none is available, I will go without until I can get something that is (even if it just a piece of fruit). However, if going without would jeopardize my health (not just being uncomfortably hungry for a while, but suffering malnutrition, starvation, or even hypoglycemic shock) then I would have to eat what food is available, even if it wasn't kosher.
I have no idea what health conditions would require tea consumption, but, if a doctor deems it necessary in order to preserve or restore health, then I can understand it being acceptable. G'd is a law-giver, it's true, but there is also mercy and kindness involved.
Why does that seem silly to you?
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: As an observant Jew who is serious about keeping kosher, no, I wouldn't be flattered that some non-Jew told me that I wasn't just being superstitious but that he was able to see some reasonable explanation for my faith. I, too, would be annoyed at the condescension.
Does it bother you less to have people think (or say) that your beliefs are just ridiculous?
Personally I agree with you- I like that some religious people think I'm crazy for being an Athiest. It's preferable to having them tell me that they can understand why Christ hasn't touched me, or whatever the case might be. That person just wouldn't understand how useless that would be.
On the other hand, if there is no logical explanation for your beliefs, then I don't understand how you think either. I just know that on any side of the issue the opposition doesn't seem to even have the ability to be empathetic. I don't have real empathy for religious people because I don't have faith; they don't have real empathy for me because they don't think the way I do. While that's going on, you get these kinds of conflicts, where everybody involved can never *really* be sure that they are at complete odds with the other. I can't know the quality of faith in someone else's life because I can never experience it. But a person who had faith couldn't abandon it to see how I can stand being the way I am. I think if we could do that, it would be pretty interesting. But, on the other hand, who would want to?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Does that have something to do with being an athiest?
You couldn't pay me to eat coconut.
Well, okay, I'd do it for money. But it would have to be a fairly significant amount.
See?
quote: I have no idea what health conditions would require tea consumption, but, if a doctor deems it necessary in order to preserve or restore health, then I can understand it being acceptable. G'd is a law-giver, it's true, but there is also mercy and kindness involved.
Why does that seem silly to you?
Well aside from the idea of God seeming silly to me, your explanation makes more sense. Essentially, a "grandfather clause" for lack of a better word. You're saying there is a hierarchy duties to God. If you think that, I can understand it. Now, trying to reconcile that with what KQ said about following the religious law without *any* rationale is a problem.
You are talking in rational terms: "If I were to die, that would serve no purpose to God, therefore I can eat non-kosher food if it means not starving." Now, if the religious law can be discarded in favor of a greater law "don't die," then what is the real value of the first law? It leads to a reductio ad absurdum: what if not eating meant a severe deterioration of your health, but not death? A slight deterioration? A deterioration of your relations with your neighbors, which affects mental health? As you say, the law that takes precedence is the one that keeps you healthy- so at what point is a sacrifice in favor of a kosher lifestyle one that is allowable?
So with the tea: it is shown in some studies, although I don't believe a consensus has been reached, that Green Tea is generally beneficial to health due to its antioxidant properties, and may be related to the lower incidence of colon and other cancers in East Asian populations. Now, given that it is allowable for Mormons to drink tea when prescribed by a doctor, or one might assume also to take pain medications, or caffeine in the case of asthma attacks, etc, at what point has the person prescribed that medication reached the threshold of allowable use? What if the doctor suggested that a Mormon drink green tea for general health? What if the benefit for a specific malady was only possible, or even slightly likely?
The fact of the compromise seems, at least to me, to suggest that the law which is compromised has questionable value.
Now, having said that, I am reminded of something OSC wrote about euthanasia. He employed the same argument I am using to imply that atheists placed no value on human life. But by observation, I can rule this out- I see atheists placing value on human life. And I see religious people placing value on their obedience to religious law, and I see a function in that. Just as OSC sees faith in the value that athiests place on life, I see logic in the ways that religious people eat- I see value in it as that value is apparent to me: culture, history, identity, family. Now that is not meant to condescend, it is meant ultimately to point out that I think we have many means to the same ends. We are even allowed to see those ends differently, as we obviously do.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Does it bother you less to have people think (or say) that your beliefs are just ridiculous?
Sigh. So, my only choices here are in which way I prefer to be disrespected? If that's the case, then I opt out of choosing, and will just go on doing what I am doing -- showing respect to people whose beliefs are different than mine and expecting the same respect in return.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Orincoro makes a distinction between respect for a person and respect for that person's beliefs.
If you don't make that distinction then this is another one of those situations where mutual understanding just doesn't seem possible.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do. As best as I can, anyway - I tend to agree with him. But I probably wouldn't have posed a question like that to a person I knew would find it nonsensical.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Does it bother you less to have people think (or say) that your beliefs are just ridiculous?
Sigh. So, my only choices here are in which way I prefer to be disrespected? If that's the case, then I opt out of choosing, and will just go on doing what I am doing -- showing respect to people whose beliefs are different than mine and expecting the same respect in return.
Yeah, I added a lot to my previous post just now to reflect the same idea- I have a bad habit of posting, and then deciding I'm wrong.
Edit: and for the record I have the utmost respect for you and your opinion, which is why I engaged in the discussion. Were it someone else, I wouldn't.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: A doctor prescribing tea is rare; I have been told to use it to stop bleeding from a mouth wound. That's the only time I've used it.
It is rare for a Western doctor. However, there are like a bajillion occasions for a Chinese traditional doctor to prescribe various types of tea, herbal or not.
I practically grew up on ginseng tea since I had frequent nosebleeds.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rollainm: I do. As best as I can, anyway - I tend to agree with him. But I probably wouldn't have posed a question like that to a person I knew would find it nonsensical.
Well it's not a nonsense question. The fact is there are people who think keeping kosher is nonsense. I expressed, right after asking the question that I am in essentially the same position- there are people who think being an athiest is crazy, and a sign of an untrustworthy person. I also agreed- I think I'd rather be thought of as crazy than be pittied or condescended to.
So on this issue, Tante doesn't like understanding or contempt. Not surprising! Which is what the rhetorical question was meant to illustrate- that unbelievably enough, religious and non-religious people have a lot in common.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread confirms my belief that there are three things that you shouldn't discuss at family parties:
Religion Sex Politics
Making fun of Aunt Millie's ludicrous hairpiece is also on shaky ground.
Of course, the skeptic will reply that only when you discuss those topics do you really have a good discussion. However I respond that I only go to family parties to show willing, not for good discussions, for that we have Hatrack.
Personally I feel that when discussing another's faith, you have to do so from a position of profound respect. If the other party begins to feel offended (and for whatever reason) it is time to back off and apologise.
I am sure that those who follow religious diets are aware that they would not be struck down by lightning if they munched a cheeseburger or had a nice hot cup of tea, but G'd specifically asked them not to do it, so that's how it stands. If you follow the teachings you take the rough with the smooth.
Posts: 892 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro, you handled this far better than I would have.
Tante Shvester, what I think Orincoro was asking was, if put in my words, and from my perspective, not Orincoro's is: Do you prefer it if I were to simply say "I find your religious customs silly." over "I find many of your customs silly, however I see a rational basis for the implementation of your kosher food, albeit generally outdated in its necessity."
From me, those are the two options you would have if I were giving a statement about what I think of Judaism and kosher food at the present time. (Note: I do not proclaim that I could not be further informed about kosher food, and jewish practices, but that this statement is based on my current feelings of Jewish custom and Kosher practices)
The rhetorical question hopes to show that in my mind the second has at least a glimmer of respect for what would otherwise be an outright dismissal of the whole thing.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Starsnuffer, I'd prefer for someone to say that they find my religious customs silly. Because that's just simple ignorance of the subject, which doesn't bug me.
Telling me about the silly after-the-fact rationalizations like trichinosis also amuses me, unless someone is determined that he's being a wonderful person by condescending to find something that he finds of value in kashrut.
See... we don't need your approval. We don't need Glenn's approval. There's a reason why Tante used the term "condescending" before. It's an appropriate term. And I get that Glenn had no malicious intent, but it doesn't really make it less irksome.
Nor, btw, is it the case that there's no reason for the laws of kashrut. We just don't know what it is. I can't speak for Tante, but what I have isn't the kind of "faith" you're thinking of. On the contrary. I've seen enough in the Torah to convince me to give God the benefit of the doubt, and assume that He's got valid reasons for it.
Again, I understand that you and Glenn would say such things in the belief that you were actually being more respectful. But even if you didn't realize it, what's really going on is that you're so unwilling to respect our choices for what they are that you have to put your own explanations on them in order to treat us respectfully about it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Jewish tradition is ancient. The Jewish people have maintained their unique culture and language for thousands of years -- without proselytizing -- despite the view of the majority that in these "modern times", there is no place for such superstitious claptrap. The argument that these backward traditions have no place in an age of science and reason was put forth in ancient Greece and Rome, in renaissance Europe, and in contemporary times. Yet, the Jewish people refuse to disappear and have their cultural distinctiveness absorbed into the prevailing culture. Part of this has to do with laws, like Kashrut, that set the Jewish people apart. While it is possible to be a lone Jew in a city, and to adhere to Jewish law, it would mean having no easy access to kosher food, a minyan, and a mikveh. If a Jew wants to be able to have access to kosher food, he really needs to be a part of a Jewish community. Thus, Jews aggregate, and pass on their traditions of Torah study, Talmud scholarship, and their culture to the next generation. The system has worked for thousands of years, through a chain of my ancestors stretching back farther than I can trace. I respect that tradition, and am proud to be a part of it and to continue the chain in raising my son to our traditions.
You can call it silly. You can tell me it is all about some primitive way to prevent trichinosis. But I will respectfully disagree. I believe that the practice has value beyond what you see. And I also believe that the ancient traditions of my people may be worth more than a mere "glimmer of respect". Forgive me for not being grateful for that crumb.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Starsnuffer: Do you prefer it if I were to simply say "I find your religious customs silly." over "I find many of your customs silly, however I see a rational basis for the implementation of your kosher food, albeit generally outdated in its necessity."
I'm still not understanding why it would be remotely helpful to say either.
I went out to dinner with relatives who do not keep kosher last night. In the town they live in and I had last been in several years ago. So we checked a website, found which of the local places met my criteria (luckily, the primary contender was actually a place near them that they like), and went there.
They didn't get insulted that I don't eat in their home, there was no discussion about kashrus (except when my aunt confirmed that I am as strict as my mother and my other aunt), there was simply mutual acceptance and accommodation. (Sort of like how when my uncle wouldn't let me pay the check, I stopped arguing. Even though I had invited them and had every intention of paying.)
Oh, and the food was delicious. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tante hints at a rationale I've seen many Jews use: that one of the most important "reasons" for kashrut, beyond the obvious "God said so," is to keep Jews different and thus relatively isolated from the rest of the world. You can argue that most successful religions have similar rituals and traditions that serve a similar purpose.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Orincoro makes a distinction between respect for a person and respect for that person's beliefs.
In my experience this distinction is almost totally theoretical and academic, since I've known almost no one who disrespects someone's deepest held beliefs and yet respects that person.
Edit: Something from Porter "If you think somebody's beliefs are ridiculous, in general, the best way to show respect to them is to REFRAIN from saying so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The rhetorical question hopes to show that in my mind the second has at least a glimmer of respect for what would otherwise be an outright dismissal of the whole thing.
C'mon, man. It can't possibly be difficult to understand why someone would find this irritating and condescending.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Tante hints at a rationale I've seen many Jews use: that one of the most important "reasons" for kashrut, beyond the obvious "God said so," is to keep Jews different and thus relatively isolated from the rest of the world.
I would call it a side benefit of most aspects of kashrus, rather than a reason for it. (As opposed to certain related rabbinic commandments, which have preventing intermarriage by limiting socialization as a specific reason.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are religious groups that believe there are health reasons behind the clean/unclean laws in the Bible--specifically, the Seventh-day Adventists. Most Adventists are vegetarians, but some eat "clean" meat. I don't know any Adventists who actually keep Kosher, although many, myself included, find the Kosher labels on products convenient when trying to determine whether something contains products we don't eat, like pork.
Personally, I believe that the reason behind food laws was/is primarily health because God cares about us and wants us healthy. That is my personal belief and by holding it I certainly don't mean to insult someone who believes differently. There are some in my church who believe that eating unclean meat (or sometimes meat in general) is a sin, but I tend to think it's healthier so therefore highly recommended--although sometimes I do tend to drift into the sin category--old habits die hard.
My point in posting is that some people who follow food laws (albeit much less stringently than the Jewish people) would not be bothered by an atheist making the observations that Glenn Arnold and others made--simply because we've made the same observations and tend to agree with them.
I can, though, understand how such reasoning could be insulting. It reminds me of the part in Enchantment where circumcision suddenly makes perfect sense to Ivan--that there's no logical reason for it, but you do it anyway because God said to. If you try to give reasons to other things God asks you to do, it kind of defeats the purpose of doing them simply because you're asked.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Tante hints at a rationale I've seen many Jews use: that one of the most important "reasons" for kashrut, beyond the obvious "God said so," is to keep Jews different and thus relatively isolated from the rest of the world.
I would call it a side benefit of most aspects of kashrus, rather than a reason for it. (As opposed to certain related rabbinic commandments, which have preventing intermarriage by limiting socialization as a specific reason.)
As a Mormon, I am convinced that often commandments are there to "keep us different". I'm not as convinced about the "isolated from the world" part. Dress conventions, food and drink restrictions, sabath practices etc. remind me that I am different, "in the world but not of the world". They help me "Remember Who I Am" as my Momma used to say. I don't have to wear a sign. I don't even especially care if persons with whom I interact know I'm Mormon. But, I know and am reminded often.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm going to go out on a limb and assume Orincoro makes a distinction between respect for a person and respect for that person's beliefs.
In my experience this distinction is almost totally theoretical and academic, since I've known almost no one who disrespects someone's deepest held beliefs and yet respects that person.
Yes, but that's a tautology. I suspect that if someone were to tell you that they respected a person even though they had no respect at all for that person's beliefs (in one area, at least), you'd assume that they weren't telling the truth, and didn't really respect the person.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have never heard of an "exception" for using tea if prescribed by a doctor. I suppose medicinal marijuana is ok also??
Posts: 571 | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, try this for an analogy: suppose you went up to someone who'd been happily married for 40 years, commented on the design of his wedding ring, and then said "you know, I think even people who aren't married should wear wedding rings each year during the week of your anniversary. They create a little space between your fingers that helps you keep them clean and aired out so you're less likely to get a fungal infection.
Getting "furious" might have been an excessive reaction, but I can understand why someone would be miffed by you taking one of the outward signs of an important relationship that you are not a part of and generalizing it as a health benefit for everyone with a reason that's irrelevant to the relationship in question.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to say that, Glenn, don't take this the wrong way, but your persistence in insisting that what you said shouldn't have engendered bad feelings suggests that you might have been kind of persistent with the guy you were talking to as well. Did he start out furious, or did he get madder as you kept trying to explain what you were trying to say?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
