…and this is a 
The peculiarities of dietary restrictions by the religious are always entertaining. Catholics have their own weird practices: here's a bit of strange information from a Catholic agony aunt forum.
Do alligators count as fish?
As a Catholic who observes the custom of abstaining from meat on Fridays, I would like to know if alligator would be considered meat or fish. Recently, on a Friday, I was in a local restaurant where I was sharing a dinner of alligator. I thought upon this, and decided, as a reptile, alligator would fall into the fish category. I hope I'm not sounding too scrupulous, but if it is considered meat, I will avoid it on Fridays in the future.
Uh-oh. This woman made a judgment on Catholic theology without consulting a priest. Doesn't she know she could be getting an eternity in hell for her plate full of alligator? Fortunately, it turns out that going meatless still allows one to eat all the reptiles, amphibians, and insects you might want.
An alligator is certainly not a fish, and it certainly does have meat. But the custom of abstaining from meat on Fridays is abstinence from the flesh of mammals and birds. Fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects, etc., are exempt from this. Since an alligator is a reptile, those who abstain from meat on Fridays are free to eat alligator if they wish.
Why?
Does anybody ever just ask why these strange eating habits are a part of the doctrine? Does god like birds and mammals so much that he doesn't want you to eat them on one day? Would he really be that pissed if you had a cheeseburger on Friday?
Comments
Posted by: tytalus
|
July 30, 2010 11:33 AM
Perhaps alligator should undergo the barbecue test, based on the 'burn meat with fire, it smells good' sacrifice theme in the bible. I'd test it myself, but I only have a little electric grill.
Posted by: HappyHead
|
July 30, 2010 11:34 AM
Thank you for reminding me. I have a cheeseburger in the fridge to heat up for my lunch. Time to go eat.
Posted by: JayK
|
July 30, 2010 11:34 AM
Has to do with butcher times and lack of refrigeration. By Friday most meats were spoiled and Saturday was the day the butcher slaughtered more animals and the meat was fresh, at least according to Guns, Germs and Steel by Jarod Diamond.
Posted by: tedhohio
|
July 30, 2010 11:35 AM
I believe an influential priest from years back had an interest in a fishing boat. One way to increase fish consumption is the ban meat!
Ted
tedhohio@gmail.com
http://sciencestandards.blogspot.com
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
July 30, 2010 11:35 AM
She should convert to cladism, then if reptile flesh is allowed that will have to include birds. ;)
Posted by: pixelfish
|
July 30, 2010 11:35 AM
This quote from Daria springs to mind:
Quinn: I think people who run over animals should get run over themselves to see how they like it.
Daria: What about unpopular animals?
Quinn: Unpopular animals don't count.
Posted by: Miki Z
|
July 30, 2010 11:36 AM
This way you don't have to worry someone will sneak it communion.
Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites
|
July 30, 2010 11:36 AM
As a former Catholic, I believe I can answer this one: if we don't do the ooga-booga, the demons win.
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti
|
July 30, 2010 11:37 AM
Alligator: the other white meat.
Catholicism: the sanctification of OCD.
Posted by: MScott
|
July 30, 2010 11:39 AM
You can enjoy that cheeseburger... in HELL!!!
signed,
God
Posted by: jeff.westbrooks
|
July 30, 2010 11:39 AM
From what I remember, muskrat was determined to be fish in Monroe, MI so that it could be eaten by the predominately Catholic citizenry there. Me, I wants some Kosher bacon.
Posted by: jerthebarbarian
|
July 30, 2010 11:42 AM
Does anybody ever just ask why these strange eating habits are a part of the doctrine?
When you do you're given a spiel about how abstaining from something you like makes you think about God. Or the need for sacrifice. Or something that completely depends on the priest who is trying to come up for a reason why this particular bit of authoritarian tripe is being foisted on the congregation beyond "because we said so - now go do 50 Hail Marys as penance for asking questions".
Generally if you're a curious young Catholic and you ask questions, priests tend to push you to atheism. Because their answers generally make no sense if you think about them.
Posted by: Andyo
|
July 30, 2010 11:42 AM
I remember when in my country most restaurants were closed on "Good Friday" (the Friday of the holy week). I was also discouraged to eat meat, was annoying, but since I was a kid I didn't go out to eat anyway. Fucking party poopers. Talk about them being in our bedrooms, they wanna be in our freaking kitchens too!
Posted by: Biddy
|
July 30, 2010 11:47 AM
so, alligators are like capybaras and not made of meat?
Posted by: ljp.claessen
|
July 30, 2010 11:48 AM
But but ... don't you guys UNDERSTAND?
Catholics HAVE to abstain from eating meat on Fridays in order to 'repair' the grave sin of abortion! Jeesh... I'd have thought that would be crystal clear! You guys are SOOO dense!
http://www.catholic-pages.com/life/fridaymeat.asp
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
July 30, 2010 11:51 AM
Alligators nothing: consider the barnacle goose.
Yes, it's a bird. But generations of European Christians made up, or repeated, an implausible tale of it being hatched from barnacles so it wouldn't count as meat under those restrictions.
We all have dietary restrictions that look weird from outside, and few of the explanations go much further than "that's icky!" I really weirded someone out once when I came back from visiting friends in Quebec, and talked about the cheval tartare that one of us had ordered at dinner and I had happily shared.
I got the feeling that she could cope with the idea of me eating raw red meat (we both like sushi, after all) and might have been able to deal with my eating horse, but the combination was such that she was, at least, glad not to have been at that dinner, even eating other things.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
July 30, 2010 11:53 AM
I read somewhere that in medieval times fish were believed to be rabbit embryos. Thus one could eat rabbits on Fridays. This does not pass a sanity check, for as anyone who raises rabbits knows, baby rabbits don't look like fish. But then, not much in Catholicism makes sense.
I might as well refer you to the play "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All To You". (Yes, Google that.)
Posted by: ljp.claessen
|
July 30, 2010 11:53 AM
Just to put my #15 post in perspective:
NOT eating meat on Friday fixes the "abortion" problem. Simple!
So why are so many catholics still bitching about it?
It's THEIR fault: they probably ate some meat on a Friday! QUIT doing that!
Posted by: maglione.k
|
July 30, 2010 11:54 AM
It's noteworthy that under Catholic dogma, beaver is officially a fish.
Posted by: mattheath
|
July 30, 2010 11:54 AM
Are Capybaras still fish?
Posted by: kieran
|
July 30, 2010 11:57 AM
Really, I'm Irish as such I can eat duck on friday and it's still counts as fish! Okay barnacle goose (the hint is in it's name).
Good friday is when you go to the off-licence on thursday and buy as much booze as you can carry and have a really good friday. If the weather is nice with a good BBQ(hookers and blackjack are opitional).
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
July 30, 2010 11:57 AM
We'd have to be talking one charming motherfucking alligator.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 30, 2010 11:58 AM
Food weirdness makes a lot more sense if you view it as an elaborate system of food cooties, with the same degree of logic and the same basis in reality as most cootie games played by 8 year olds. It ticked off my Orthodox friends considerably when I advanced this theory.
The other justification for weird food rules is that it reinforces social segregation between different religious groups and thus encourages in-group marriage. This is precisely how third-graders use the cootie games (well, not the marriage part, but the in- and out- group enforcement).
I'm not sure how not eating duck would atone for abortions. Not eating babies would be a better strategy...
Posted by: Biddy
|
July 30, 2010 11:58 AM
“Nowhere will you find a higher understanding of sexuality than in the Catholic Church.” This little gem was included amongst the answer to someone’s question about masturbation. Not sure I have ever read a sentence as juxtaposed to reality as that one!
Posted by: zjalexander
|
July 30, 2010 11:58 AM
Actually, Mary Douglas has done a lot of work around Leviticus and dietary restrictions in the bible. It's very interesting, she comes up with a lot of theories about the structure of Leviticus and how cultural artifacts and rules can be extracted from them. Unfortunately I'm only familiar with her earlier works, which she later retracted under some criticism that they were largely self-reinforcing (Pigs are bad because they don't fit into the schema of creation, but that doesn't explain why the schema doesn't favor pigs to begin with) - but some of her ideas about structure and sanctity are pretty cool.
Posted by: CanadianChick
|
July 30, 2010 11:59 AM
It's my understanding that this was one of the bits of dogma that was eliminated by Vatican II, but some Catholics like to follow "the old ways". I wonder if the alligator-eater still insists on mass in Latin, the priest facing away from the congregation, and a host of other things they stopped doing.
Regardless, it's even sillier, IMO, than kashrut laws - there appears to be no basis for it, even within the bible.
Posted by: Victor
|
July 30, 2010 12:00 PM
Meat is restricted simply because it's delicious, and punishing yourself is a good thing ... apparently. Pope John Paul 2 and Mother Teresa both flagellated themselves to get "closer to god".
Posted by: Tyro
|
July 30, 2010 12:00 PM
Since a cheeseburger mixes meat & dairy, some would indeed think that God would get pissed.
Reasons why this might irritate the creator of billions of billions of stars is left as an exercise to the reader.
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
July 30, 2010 12:01 PM
Hypothetical I know, but....
What would be the teaching about eating a dinosaur on Fridays?
If yes, then why can't you eat birds?
If no, then how come you can eat reptiles?
Or maybe that's why God killed all the dinosaurs - because they we're screwing up the menu planning.
Posted by: daveau
|
July 30, 2010 12:02 PM
I think you can go to hell just for asking stupid questions, such as: "Is a reptile a mammal or a fish?"
Posted by: AMW
|
July 30, 2010 12:07 PM
One day back in the Sixties I ate cheeseburger at the house of Protestant friend on a Friday. When I realized what I'd done, it scared the living crap out of me. I think I was still going to confession back then, though, so I probably cleared it from my soul with a few penitential Hail Marys. In any case, I'm still here. No lightning has struck me down.
This is a good example, though, of how something that is not bad in and of itself--making a sacrifice--gets skewed by being dogmatically tied to "Jesus' suffering on the cross." It becomes a forced sign of fidelity to that event rather than, say, an act of self-discipline or an expression of solidarity with those who don't have enough to eat, and also distracts from the possibility of taking some action that might improve someone else's situation. It's religious theatricality, really, part of the show that causes people to obsess about stuff that doesn't matter, at the expense of thinking and taking action about things that do matter.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
July 30, 2010 12:07 PM
Technically you cannot speak of reptiles without counting birds. Because birds and alligators are both archosaurs, which means they are closer to each other than either of them is to snakes or turtles.
Posted by: Orac
|
July 30, 2010 12:08 PM
In all fairness, after Vatican II, the dietary restrictions are far more a matter of custom rather than real religious rules. The Church doesn't really enforce them or even promote them much anymore except during Lent.
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 30, 2010 12:11 PM
Because the more pointless, meaningless hoops you go through, the more mindless respect you show God -- and thereby demonstrate your absolute loyalty. I think that's the real rationale behind the dietary restrictions, the rituals, the tithes, the sacrifices, the celibacy, the clothes. There isn't some hidden reason why doing these things makes sense. The whole point is that they don't make sense -- and yet you do them anyway!
As jerthebarbarian says at #12, it all has to do with forcing yourself to focus on God, by making sacrifices. God must really, really be important if you make sacrifices which other people who don't love God, wouldn't make. A heathen might give up their meal to feed it to the poor -- but only a True Believer will give up their meal for no reason whatsoever other than to show God they will obey Him in all things, no questions asked.
You follow the restrictions to show God you can be trusted to obey God; to show the community you can be trusted to obey God; and, above all, to cement your own personal conviction that you can be trusted to obey God. You're showing yourself that your faith is strong, and strengthening it by jumping through pointless hoops. It's clearly worth a lot to you, you reason beforehand, and, even more, in hindsight.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
July 30, 2010 12:12 PM
Mr. M was once in a restaurant where rabbit was listed in the "poultry" section of the menu. He enquired, expecting some interesting taxonomic justification (yes, he's a taxonomic fool, but that's another story). The waiter was thrilled, said that he'd been asked that a few days ago and had gone to some effort to find the answer. "We get our rabbits and our chickens from the same distributor."
I suspect that's how a lot of religious taxonomy works.
Posted by: frog, Inc.
|
July 30, 2010 12:12 PM
Does anybody ever just ask why these strange eating habits are a part of the doctrine?
Keeps you separate from the heathen. Marks you as a member of the community.
Why do you think that Judaism has survived so long? The endless rules and strictures have kept the community intact by constantly reinforcing the in and out-group definitions.
There are plenty of "rationalizations" for it -- but these practices don't survive and propagate due to the "reasons" they give, or even ancillary benefits of the rules (such as meat spoilage, trichinosis prevention or other such modern rationalizations given). You do what keeps you in the club -- and being part of a club is awfully powerful.
Especially for the club.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
July 30, 2010 12:17 PM
Food customs can be weird and wonderful. There is a cart near my office that sells kebabs and falafel and such. There's a sign promising halal meat.
There's another sign offering fish on Fridays.
Half a century after Vatican II. Sold by Muslims.
Posted by: GenghisFaun
|
July 30, 2010 12:18 PM
@ #19
Whew! That's good news, 'cause I just loves eatin' some beaver on Friday.
Posted by: francis.dickinson
|
July 30, 2010 12:20 PM
“Nowhere will you find a higher understanding of sexuality than in the Catholic Church.”
And the longer they rub it the higher it gets?
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 30, 2010 12:25 PM
Learn to read for comprehension: Alligators and crocodiles lay eggs, so they're obviously birds.Posted by: ButchKitties
|
July 30, 2010 12:26 PM
I'm pretty out of touch with the Catholic calendar since I quit going, but I can always tell when Lent starts by looking at the Long John Silvers parking lot.
Posted by: Kevin Anthoney
|
July 30, 2010 12:29 PM
I hope these Catholics ever read Your Inner Fish. They might take up cannibalism!
Oh, wait...
Posted by: Evolving Squid
|
July 30, 2010 12:31 PM
The no meat on Friday thing was something I did not learn about until I was an adult, not having been raised Catholic and all. I had some devout Catholic friends, but it never occurred to me that their fish dinners and tuna sandwiches on Friday had any religious significance.
Then, one day in my late 20's, at a federal government office cafeteria I ordered a roast beef sandwhich... and was promptly, loudly, and publicly berated by the French and evidently Catholic server.
It caught me completely by surprise. It's not often that I am left completely speechless, but this was such a time. The person I was with (who happened to be Catholic, as I found out) helped me file a formal complaint after lunch. I got my roast beef sandwich though, prepared in front of me so I could ensure it was free of spit, snot or any other adulterants.
And so it was that I learned that some Catholics have an aversion to the meat of mammals and birds on Friday... unless the mammal has been declared a fish (look up "capybara" - evidently some mammals that eat their own feces are acceptable to eat on Friday)
Posted by: bbgunn071679
|
July 30, 2010 12:31 PM
I've suspected that more than a few penquins have eaten beaver on Fridays.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
July 30, 2010 12:32 PM
The fact that science and religion can never be reconciled is demonstrated amply by the fact that we can't even get the major religions to agree on the status of bacon cheeseburgers:
Catholics - OK, but not on Friday.
Protestants (most - except for whack jobs like 7th Day Adventists) - OK all the time.
Orthodox Jews - No bacon, no cheese (can't mix meat with milk).
Muslims - No bacon.
Hindi - No bacon, no beef.
I mean really. How are the religious going to answer the important questions when they can't even agree on bacon cheeseburgers?
And let's not get started on hats!
Posted by: Tulse
|
July 30, 2010 12:33 PM
I bet the platypus must just blow their mind...
Posted by: Sastra
|
July 30, 2010 12:38 PM
frog, Inc #36 wrote:
I think there have been several studies which looked at the effect of "hazing," or sacrifice, in maintaining group loyalty. A large group of students would be divided into two different "clubs." One club had its members undergo rigorous trials to first join, and then maintain membership: the other club simply provided its members with relaxed and friendly social time.
Guess which one kept on meeting, even after the study was over.
Posted by: a.human.ape
|
July 30, 2010 12:44 PM
The no-meat-on-Friday-or-else-you-go-to-hell thing is what probably led to my throwing out the Catholic religion. In the 1960's the pope decided to discontinue this ridiculous idea, which made me wonder why the heck did I have to go without meat on Fridays for so many years. -- Human Ape
Posted by: KennyG
|
July 30, 2010 12:47 PM
I think it had something to do with there being a lot of unemployed fishermen in Roman times, and the early Christians decided to support them by eating fish on Fridays.
Posted by: lilith
|
July 30, 2010 12:50 PM
I'm sad to say, they have nothing on Jews when it comes to asking stupid questions. Here are some examples from a Q&A appearing on the religion section of a very popular (and mainly secular) web site in Israel:
Can I use a manual letuce dryer on Saturday?
Can I use the glasses of a woman who past away?
Can I eat in a hotel, on a Saturday, an omlet prepared by a gentile?
Can I swim in the pool on a Saturday?
Can my beraved brothers participate in my son's wedding? (Answer: yes, but they have to leave when the dancing starts... Are those people serious?!)
What kind of bread can I buy in a NY bakery?
Can I put on make-up on the Saturday?
Can I call my teacher in her private name? (Why don't you ask her?)
Can I drive to the hospital on a Saturday to take care of a deep cut? (of a child, mind you!)
All of the above are real questions from the last 2 months, questions that people thought, for some reasons, would be best answered by some rabbi.
Go figure.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
July 30, 2010 12:52 PM
Alligator Shmaligator.
The real question is whether you can Eat Mermaids
Aparently, if you could find a mermaid, your local Imam is ok with you eating her for dinner.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo
|
July 30, 2010 12:54 PM
It's quite simple, really; Catholics are prohibited from eating endotherms on Fridays.
Posted by: popeguilty
|
July 30, 2010 12:58 PM
Very many years ago, the Bolivians were starving so.
They had rats as big as ponies there. They asked the Pope
To declare them fish.
We thank the Pope for granting us this wish.
When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish.
We catch them with a net, kill with the gun.
We'll call it all forgotten when we're done.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 30, 2010 1:04 PM
Yeah, what others said about it being about enforcing in-group, out-group and getting people invested in doing stupid, illogical things because someone said so and thus reinforces a psychological trigger mechanism of refusing to let it go because it'd immediately make you feel stupid to stop, because then it would mean you did something stupid for a long time for no reason other than someone told you to.
As we see in the responses of conspiracy theorists when they have their worldview disproven, the human brain will do a lot of rationalizations and emotional reinforcements to protect itself from things like the embarrassment of being a sucker.
It's also a big reason why these rules are bad even when they ostensibly tell you to do good things. Mainly because you only end up doing them because there are authoritarian rules and it makes it impossible to rank one thing over another, allows stupid rules to be treated as important as good rules (not murdering people and not eating meat on Friday are comparable no-nos), and means people aren't actually thinking about the morality underlying certain rules and devote most of their mental processes to rule-lawyering and the like.
As such, when times change or when you need to think about the morality of something or a similar injustice, it doesn't count because the only morality one follows is an authoritarian list.
In short, religion and its focus on authoritarianism directly leads to compromised moralities. It's why a bad person can be a bad person anywhere, but it takes religion to make a good person bad.
Posted by: ronsullivan
|
July 30, 2010 1:08 PM
The whole thing, bogus taxonomy and all, became a lot less important to Catholic hoi polloi after Vatican 2 made Friday abstinence optional. Before that, meat-on-Friday was a mortal sin: straight to Hell if you croaked before you got to the soulwash.
I suppose part of my way-too-slow deconversion was wondering what happened all to the souls who were already in Hell for eating meat on Fridays before V2. Never did hear anything about mass pardons.
Posted by: bgcamroux
|
July 30, 2010 1:12 PM
Animals are meat. It doesn't matter if they are fish, reptile, bird, mammal, insect, whatever. I really don't understand people who "don't eat meat" but happily eat poultry or fish. If that's the case, you are not a vegetarian, you're a fraud. And yes, there is a difference between eating animals and eating products such as cheese, eggs, milk, yogourt, etc. If you also don't eat those type of products, you would be vegan.
It's really quite simple, but people like to lie to themselves (and others) in order to keep eating their delicious chicken or salmon.
Posted by: tytalus
|
July 30, 2010 1:14 PM
Re: #10
Which Arnold movie is that from? Maybe Commando...that had all the best one-liners. Or perhaps it was a lolcat.
Posted by: Evomonkey
|
July 30, 2010 1:21 PM
I grew up Catholic and went to parochial school. The no meat on Fridays during Lent never made sense to me and prompted me to be a smart ass and ask if it was OK to eat frog legs. The asstitant pastor gave a taxonomic/cladistic explanation much like PZ posted here and said it was OK. The pastor gave a more elaborate explanation about how we are supposed to sacrifice during lent and fish is regarded historically as a food of the poor. He finally said frog legs were OK because he reasoned the poor would likely eat them since they were free for the taking from streams and swamps. This fell flat with me though considering most Catholics I knew used Fridays in Lent as an excuse to go to fancy pants seafood restaurants. I finally asked the bishop, he gave a rather strange (maybe more kosher-like) explanation that it is OK to eat animals that do not "know" their young. Since frogs have external fertilization and leave their egg masses unattended, he said it was OK to eat frog legs on Fridays in Lent. I found the logical acrobatics all three went through to answer my question very funny.
Posted by: YetAnotherAtheist
|
July 30, 2010 1:21 PM
When I finally, fully abandoned my Catholic upbringing, the "no meat on Fridays during Lent" rule was the first to go. I'd eat pizzas, cheeseburgers, chicken, you name it. My parents are such weak Catholics anyway that they really didn't protest that much, but still did the occasional weak "oh no" when they realized it was already Lent and they had eaten some bacon. Ugh.
Posted by: unreliablenarrator
|
July 30, 2010 1:23 PM
I always thought it was cheating that folks could eat delicious and expensive shellfish on Fridays, but not delicious and expensive steaks or foie gras. I mean, if the point is to be giving up a luxury, why are you having a fancy dinner with lobster and wine and tiramisu after? I think that might be partly behind the no meat thing, historically - meat and birds were more expensive, so by rejecting it from their meals once a week, the aristocrats were pretending to make a sacrifice. Naturally, the poor folk couldn't afford it anything.
This also makes me wonder, though - if making a sacrifice by not eating meat once a week is necessary to be a good Catholic, does that mean vegetarians are automatically way awesomer than folks who only abstain from meat during Lent, or is it impossible for them to be good Catholics, because they're not really making the sacrifice?
(Also, on the topic of cheating and weird rules - if your religion forbids spending money on entertainment on Saturdays, why the fuck is it okay to pay in advance, on Friday, for the entertainment you'll be doing on that Saturday? That's totally cheating, and feels awfully hypocritical to me. But we all know Seventh Day Adventists are looney...)
Posted by: MrFire
|
July 30, 2010 1:32 PM
I was actually thinking of Indiana Jones myself.
Posted by: YetAnotherAtheist
|
July 30, 2010 1:33 PM
The whole "giving up meat for Lent" thing is such a joke, not only for the reasons you provided above, unreliablenarrator, but because the true meaning of Lent is to give up something important to you, something that you normally depend on, or use a lot, but don't really need. I kind of agreed with the spirit of Lent, giving up a vice as a sacrifice... but 99% of Catholics just got completely lazy (sloth anyone?) and gave up the usual mammal and bird meat.
What kind of a sacrifice is that? Fish and chips are awesome. Lobster is succulent and delicious. And shrimp is wonderful. Steak and chicken? It's common meat that many of us eat more often than not, and as a result it's more exciting to eat things like lobster, shrimp, fish and chips, crab, clams, etc.
It's not giving up something important for Lent and making a sacrifice; it's an opportunity to try new and interesting foods.
Even my parents fully recognize the hypocrisy and meaninglessness of the usual Lent traditions. But that doesn't stop them from blindly following them, because their fatwas -- ER, I MEAN Catholic traditions say so.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
July 30, 2010 1:37 PM
Oh, how I derive such entertainment from religious stoopid...
Hehe... reminded me immediately of this Calvin and Hobbes gem.
Posted by: SteveM
|
July 30, 2010 1:48 PM
re 50:
Almost all of those questions have to do with the restrictions on doing any kind of "work" on the Sabbath. Where even so much as flipping a light switch is considered "work" by the Orthodox.
re several:
with all the various animals classified as "fish", why not just declare "meat" is only beef, everything else is not meat.
When I was a kid being raised Catholic, regular fridays were fish, fridays during lent no meat and no fish, Good Friday, fast. Not that we actually did the vegetarian Lent and fasting Good Friday, but we were supposed to (as I recall, but that might not have actually been the true doctrine, it was a long time ago). After VaticanII everything relaxed "one level": meat on fridays okay, but fish on fridays during lent and good friday.
re 58:
It is funny how food that was once "for the poor" can change to being for the rich. I'm sure most are aware of the lobster once being considered little more than pig food, such that Maine prisons restricted feeding the prisoners lobster to only twice a week.
Posted by: Fred The Hun
|
July 30, 2010 1:48 PM
@Sven DiMilo
Does that included descendants of endotherms?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7035/full/434833a.html
On the other hand our gators here in South Florida are pretty much solar powered but it seems they do breathe a lot like birds...
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/54464/title/Alligators_breathe_like_birds
For the record barbecued gator tail with hot sauce and cold beer makes me happy any day of the week! Especially on Fridays! TGIF. that stands for Thank Gators Its Friday...
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 30, 2010 1:50 PM
Marvin Harris has some interesting ideas about dietary taboos in The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig.
Pigs are treif because they're ecologically disastrous for people living on the edge of starvation in the Middle East. All they could be fed on there back then was grain, thus they'd be in direct competition with humans for scarce resources unlike ungulates.
Horses were forbidden for eating in Europe after one of the first decisive battles against the 'Infidels'. The cavalry turned out to be indispensable, and the Church did not want to risk the bloody peasants killing off the horses in times of hunger. As a result France had tonnes of horses by the time the Revolution rolled around, but no knighthood to use them. That's why France is one of the few countries where eating horsemeat is not considered icky. At least it wasn't some fifty years ago before globalisation kicked in.
Posted by: triskelethecat
|
July 30, 2010 1:58 PM
@Sili: I honestly don't recall where I read it, but somewhere I remember reading that the taboo on pigs, was that someone associated pork with dying in horrible pain (trichinosis). Pigs will eat almost anything; they don't need to be fed grain, so I wonder where Marvin Harris got his ideas (can't view at the moment).
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 30, 2010 2:01 PM
Also dealt with by Harris. Has to do with a lack of beasts of burden in South America. When taking over enemy tribes/cultures and stealing their maize, the only way to get it brought back to the capital was by making prisoners carry it. What do you feed prisoners so they can make it all the way? Maize. So once you got home, as much as a third of your ill-gotten gains had been eaten by dirty foreigners. Solution: sacrifice the prisoners and eat what the Gods don't want.Posted by: Jennifer
|
July 30, 2010 2:02 PM
I remember reading somewhere that not eating meat on fridays began as an economic booster for the fishmongers in England, possibly as a local bylaw, that spread. It would have to have been before Henry VIII. I will go look for the info now, and provide a link.
Gotta love Calvin and Hobbes.
Posted by: skeptifem
|
July 30, 2010 2:08 PM
I always thought it was so they could guilt you into showing up to Knights of Columbus fish fry fundraisers. Thats the only time our family pretended to follow that shit anyway.
Posted by: Cerberus, unnatural product of en-OMnomnom-ification
|
July 30, 2010 2:08 PM
unreliablenarrator @60
Well, from what I can tell, believers tend to hate, hate those who just do things like that. It's cheating and obviously undermines the point of control to not be giving up something for the authoritarian impulse.
This is based on the fact that religious asexuals who have come out to anti-sex pastors have had said pastors immediately start going into them about how they need to "be fruitful and multiply" and how dare they go against god's plan. In short, people who naturally avoid the "suffering" part are proving the lie of the formality and revealing its true purpose and that's not something religions can abide.
"How dare you exist in such a way that proves this system is about control and dominance! Unclean, unclean!"
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 30, 2010 2:09 PM
The trichinosis seams to be a red herring. The are dangers to eaten uncooked beef as well, for instance. And vice versa trichines are only a problem if the pork is not cooked properly.More importantly, you don't need a taboo to protect health. If people died horrible deaths from eating pork, they'd quickly learn that that's a bad idea™ and stop it. You need taboos to stop people from doing something that they want to do, the detrimental consequences of which are not readily notable. Pork is delicious, why shouldn't I eat it? Telling people that's it not profitable to waste grain to turn it into meat doesn't work (people are stupid, selfish and greedy) - much like we now do with maize and beef (in the US at least). Telling people that they shouldn't slaughter their cows when they're starving, because they'll need them to plow the land, and for the milk, once the rain returns, doesn't work unless the danger is made more immediate by threatening eternal damnation.
Posted by: CJO
|
July 30, 2010 2:20 PM
I remember reading somewhere that not eating meat on fridays began as an economic booster for the fishmongers in England, possibly as a local bylaw, that spread.
No, not eating meat on Fridays is abstinence, a sort of catch-all pennance on Fridays in recognition of the day of the week on which Jesus was supposedly crucified. It is an old, old Christian tradition, extending into antiquity. The loophole, that fish was an acceptable non-meat, is apparently Medieval in origin, and any number of theories along these economic lines have been proposed: fishmongers in England, Italian fishermen, etc. Nobody really knows, basically, how and why the tradition of eating specifically fish on Fridays, as opposed to simply abstaining from the meat of ungulates and fowl, came about. Fresh fish was generally not widely available in pre-modern societies, away from coasts and major waterways, where it was perforce a staple for the poor and subsistence-level classes. Shellfish and other seafood "delicacies" have only been regarded as such in the last century. Prior to that, in Western societies anyway, crustaceans like shrimp and lobster and mollusks like oysters were not considered fit to eat by anyone who didn't have to. Which, come to think of it, might be one reason why fish fit into the abstinence tradition. For people who could afford meat with most meals, a very small portion of the Medieval populace, eating fish would have been regarded as a sacrifice.
Posted by: Victor
|
July 30, 2010 2:24 PM
Does a person that swims a lot count as fish?
Posted by: Jennifer
|
July 30, 2010 2:31 PM
Well, CJO, you might be right. Nowhere, NOWHERE, did I find a reliable source that even claims to have evidence for when this tradition began. I obviously just heard the fishmonger tale at some point and didn't bother to think critically about it. I still suspect that meatless fridays began for more pragmatic reasons, and that it then became about the sacrifice. But having no proof, my suspicion is probably just clinging to the idea that the tradition is justified hooie after the fact. Like the crowning of Mary stuff.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
July 30, 2010 2:37 PM
If beaver is OK, why not cat?
One of the reasons that pig was considered unclean is that pigs are not the kind of an animal that you would want to herd around semi-arid hillsides. Sheep, goats, camels, donkeys etc are OK, they eat grass, pigs don't. Pigs generally need more water. Pigs were more a part of urban life with all those nasty lascivious people worshiping fertility gods and, importantly, pigs ate their garbage. See, for example when Egypt decreed that the Copts had to kill all their pigs because of the swine flu scare and the garbage just piled up.
Posted by: unreliablenarrator
|
July 30, 2010 2:41 PM
cerberus @71:
But the thing that gets me is that the people cheating like that are the same ones who claim to be strict believers. They're the ones that get cranky if you don't go to church every week (or more often), or if you don't say a prayer before eating.
I'm still in awe over the cheating attempt of the Seventh Day Adventist who tried to pay in advance at my workplace a couple weeks ago. The way I understood what she was saying, her religion forbids spending money on Saturdays, probably as an incentive to stay home and pray. I just don't understand the taboo, if you're going to be going out and about and doing things anyway, what's wrong with handling money?
Posted by: MrFire
|
July 30, 2010 2:44 PM
Hopefully this falls sufficiently under the canopy of 'stupid excuses to get around stupid prohibitions' to not be a derail:
I've heard of a practice, amongst some Muslims, of eating in a dark room during the daylight hours of Ramadan, so as to simulate night-time.
Posted by: BrianX
|
July 30, 2010 2:45 PM
Sili:
That doesn't sound right at all; in fact, it sounds exactly backwards. Sus spp. are omnivores and will live on pretty much anything that's available, including grain, acorns, squirrels, and whatever else happens to be lying around; in fact, they're supremely adapted to living in pretty much whatever environment one wants to raise them in short of desert, and they'll more or less take care of themselves until it's time to undergo the baconization process. My understanding is precisely the opposite -- an opportunistic feeder would be seen as unclean, so would be specifically ruled out as a potential source of contamination.
Posted by: Nurse Ingrid
|
July 30, 2010 2:47 PM
ronsullivan@55:
George Carlin wondered the same thing you did:
"Of course, I've been gone a long time. It's not even a sin anymore to eat meat on Friday. But I'll bet you there are still some guys in hell doing time on the meat rap!
'I thought it was retroactive! I had a baloney sandwich! This guy had a beef jerky!'
How'd you like to do eternity for a beef jerky?"
Posted by: BrianX
|
July 30, 2010 2:48 PM
CJO:
You are correct about shellfish and such. If the Catholic Church was truly being logically consistent, the requirement would have been changed from no meat to all-vegetarian meals on Fridays.
Posted by: nixscripter
|
July 30, 2010 2:55 PM
Sorry to hijack the thread, but about Catholics -- there is now one fewer.
Posted by: Seraphiel
|
July 30, 2010 3:02 PM
Like everything else the church does, and like everything every cult does, it's all about reinforcing the cult leader's control over the cult members.
The creation of rules-- especially the absurd ones like this-- in a cult serves no purpose other than to empower the cult leadership.
"Kneel here."
"Stand on one foot."
"Don't eat this kind of meat on this day of the week."
"Don't mix that meat with this other substance."
"Kiss my ring."
"Give us your children."
Posted by: ktesibios
|
July 30, 2010 3:12 PM
You've actually come close to the point here. Back in the Middle Ages the distinction was between "hot" and "cold" foods. Believers were expected to abstain from "hot" foods (as well as sex) on Fridays and certain other "holy" days.
The flesh of land mammals and most birds was classified as "hot", while fish was classified as "cold". Whales, although mammals, were classified as a "cold" food; whale tongue with peas was a popular item for the well-to-do on abstention days as it allowed them to have something hearty and proteinaceous without pissing off the Invisible Sky Fairy.
"Le Menagier de Paris" has recipes for whale tongue as well as advice on rules-lawyering the Church's food fetishes.
Posted by: darvolution proponentsist
|
July 30, 2010 3:13 PM
Christ on a cracker, what kind of "New Atheist" blog is this anyway ?
Some 84 odd comments and not a one mentions the complex theological problems involved with dining on Crocoducks ?
*mutter grumble mutter mutter*
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 30, 2010 3:27 PM
That's exactly the interpretation that Harris rejects. That taboos are nothing but ideological and pretty much random. He believes that it makes more sense to look for ecological and economical sources for the traditions. He's trying to argue that foodstuffs are made "bad to think" in order to enforce the "bad to eat" issue. What you're saying about "contamination" buys into the bass ackwards idea of things being "bad to eat" because they're "bad to think". Pigs cannot be eaten, because they're dirty. Why are pigs dirty? Because true believers have nothing to do with them. The argument is circular.But I do not pretend to be anything like an expert on the matter. I'm merely trying to reproduce some of Harris' arguments from memory. The book was recommended by someone here, and as should be obvious, I was pretty taken with its thesis.
Posted by: jaybgee
|
July 30, 2010 3:34 PM
This sounds fun. Let's just redefine everything so that they abide by some (by today's standards) arbitrary rules.
I don't eat "meat" on Fridays either, and by "meat" I mean human meat (I guess that also relates to the abortion thing). It sounds as reasonable enough since not all animal flesh is "meat", maybe no "animal" flesh is meat, only human flesh is meat. I'll just redefine everything so that I can be considered a good Catholic.
Also, I wonder what their stance is on eating dolphin/whales on Friday. Will they be considered fish or mammals? I'm guessing they'll be "fish" just so they can be eaten.
Posted by: BrianX
|
July 30, 2010 3:38 PM
Sili:
Regardless, Harris' concept of pig raising doesn't seem to make any sense. The fundamental point about these things being arbitrary is probably meaningful, though.
Posted by: A. Nuran
|
July 30, 2010 4:10 PM
In the 18th and 19th centuries beaver and whale were officially "fish" according to the Catholic Church. When did this change?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
July 30, 2010 4:39 PM
I'm reminded of the joke Paddy Clancy once told back in the 1960s:
There was this Northern Irish Protestant who was going out with a Catholic girl. After a while they got married and he decided to become a Catholic. He took religious instruction from the priest and was baptised a Catholic. But even so he couldn't get it through his head that he was a Catholic and he didn't know what to do about it. So he went to the priest and said: "Father, I know you gave me instruction and baptised me and everything but I can't get it through my head that I'm a Catholic and I don't know what to do about it."
The priest replied: "You should keep telling yourself 'I'm a Catholic not a Protestant' and sooner or later it'll penetrate your thick skull that you're a Catholic."
So the man went away muttering to himself, "I'm a Catholic not a Protestant, I'm a Catholic not a Protestant...."
The next Friday the priest decided to visit the man to see if he had convinced himself he was a Catholic. He went to the house and caught a whiff of something cooking that shouldn't be cooked on a Friday in a good Catholic household. So he went into the kitchen. There was the man with a big steak in a frying pan. He was scooping gravy over it and saying, "You're a trout not a steak, you're a trout not a steak...."
Posted by: cuco3
|
July 30, 2010 4:53 PM
I heard that the tradition was maintained in England after the Reformation in order to encourage the fishing industry, so that there was a ready supply of trained fishermen for the English navy.
Posted by: OmiOne
|
July 30, 2010 4:58 PM
In Venezuela during lent the catholic church allows eating capybara or chigüire (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris). I imagine since they are semi aquatic mammals :) :) :)
Wikipedia article
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
July 30, 2010 5:00 PM
see... the "no meat" rule is actually one of the few Catholic traditions I actually don't mind. "no meat on fridays" was theoretical knowledge for me growing up, but I still find meat for Christmas to be Teh Weird; I can get used to various poultry for christmas instead of carp, but ham? ribs? sausage? fucking abominations, the lot of them :-p
Posted by: CJO
|
July 30, 2010 5:03 PM
People living on an island generally don't need to be encouraged to fish. And practically every Catholic tradition was maintained in England for some time after the Reformation except the one that called upon sovereigns to check with the Pope about their domestic arrangements.
Posted by: kereng
|
July 30, 2010 5:17 PM
THE EPISTLE OF BARNABAS (almost a part of the bible) explains it all
Posted by: legistech
|
July 30, 2010 5:42 PM
One thing I love about religions: it makes people come up with some weird-ass questions. And rituals. Some of them are just surreal.
Posted by: herlathing
|
July 30, 2010 5:48 PM
Puffins are fish too, it seems:
http://tinyurl.com/2w8xhno
Posted by: nonsensemachine
|
July 30, 2010 6:27 PM
I'm going with the assumption that back when this weirdness started there was somewhat of a meat shortage and getting people to abstain once a week helped alleviate the demand. That's working under the assumption that most weird religious practices had practical purposes in their day.
Posted by: blf
|
July 30, 2010 6:51 PM
Right. I hereby abolish Friday, to be replaced with blfday, during which time you may not use the letter C whilst eating anything that is not purple. Also, live toads mush be rotated three time anticlockwise.
And since I don't like Mondays, it's also replaced with a blfday.
Posted by: Harbo
|
July 30, 2010 7:04 PM
Again I am reminded or an old joke:
Murphy (why is it always Murphy?)..the timber merchant, is caught eating a sausage, in the pub, by his priest, on a friday.
The priest cunningly suggests, that as penance, Murphy is to deliver a load of firewood to the church.
The next morning Murphy dutifully tips a truckload of sawdust onto the front lawn of the priest's residence.
The priest complains "What is this ,Murphy?"
Murphy replies "If sausage is 'meat', sawdust is 'wood' "
Posted by: TimKO,,.,,
|
July 30, 2010 7:24 PM
From what I have learned about this,
It's another one of those cultural practices that the church absorbed from Judaism to create ritual (and, in effect, rob the jews of appearing uniquely spiritual).
In the Xtian testament, Paul announces that anyone following jeebus need not follow the dietary restrictions of the Tanakh (Hebrew/old testament). Paul was adamant that the new religion he was inventing was acceptable for gentiles so he would have had to change the Judaic custom (else one or more of these passages was added much later - also a possibility).
In the 13th century the church announced that Friday would be a penance day. They somehow came up with a "meat" restriction. It was just a way to control the xtians; a certain meat probably being the top dish at the time. Other cultures/religions have had dietary restrictions but in 13th century Europe, the influence would have been Judaic (else it may have been "no meat, fish, poultry, etc.).
In 1966, the Vatican Council reversed the decision. Either god has nothing to do with it and catholics revere the pope has a third deity (behind god and satan) or they believed that the church had a secret hotline to god's wishes. Either belief, though following dogma, would be contrary to several principles of the faith. (Like that sort of dissonance is surprising...)
There are some Catholics who feel that sticking to the old laws will warrant favoritism from god. Figure that one out. (So, like, they're favored over the vatican? Then why be catholic rather than protestant?).
Posted by: Untheist
|
July 30, 2010 7:24 PM
A college history professor told me (years ago) the explanation he found most probable was that the Friday ban on all meats other than fish was started by an early (3rd century, I believe) pope whose family owned one of Italy's largest fishing fleets.
Posted by: WCorvi
|
July 30, 2010 7:33 PM
Above: "It is an expression of one's Catholicity; and In reparation for the grave sin of abortion."
It is interesting, then, that when abortion was illegal, meat could NOT be eaten, and now that abortion IS legal, mean CAN be eaten. Ehhhh?
Posted by: CJO
|
July 30, 2010 7:40 PM
There were no popes in the 3rd century, just Bishops of Rome. The Concil of Nicaea wasn't until 325.
The story (and that's all it is) of a papal boon to Italian fishermen is usually placed in the 13th century.
And, anyway, as I said above, the abstinence from meat is much older than the (probably medieval) understanding that specifically fish was to be the Friday meal in lieu.
Posted by: hkdharmon
|
July 30, 2010 7:58 PM
My uncle is a Greek Orthodox Irish Catholic (just savor that for a moment). During lent he gives up Jameson whiskey. Instead he drinks Glenfiddich. He also likes to declare how important the church is to him.
I just giggle.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 30, 2010 8:12 PM
Errr ... yes? That would be the whole Vicar of Christ dealie. When looking for YT clips early, I was directed to a summary of the coronation of prince Albert of Monaco (no corona in sight, though) - took place in a church with and archbishie and plenty of clerics around.You know - the prince Albert whose heir is a son born out of wedlock. But of course the Mother Church suddenly has no problem with that.
Posted by: duckphup
|
July 30, 2010 8:16 PM
This actually makes sense. It seems to explain why some beaver smells like herring.
Posted by: DLC
|
July 30, 2010 9:03 PM
I am reminded of the Star Trek TOS episode where Kirk is teaching the game of Frisbin.
Posted by: elnauhual
|
July 30, 2010 9:27 PM
Good Friday as a fast day, somehow not eating red meat is considered as fasting...
If i remember well, in Mexico Iguanas were considered apt for eating on the friday of holy week. Also crickets, worms, and other delicacies.
Fortunatelly most mexican catholic do not take it seriouslly now.
Posted by: OmiOne
|
July 30, 2010 9:28 PM
LOL ... Hey, I also love eating beaver, and not only on Friday :)
Posted by: roxane.murray
|
July 30, 2010 9:50 PM
When I was studying medieval history half a lifetime ago, I learned that the ban on meat on Fridays was instituted by a pope who was petitioned by a bunch of Italian fishermen whose livelihood was at risk because, as the Italian city-states became more prosperous, people were eating more meat, and the fishermen were losing money. The pope, feeling sympathetic because so many of the apostles were fishermen, duly required people to eat more fish. As corruption goes, it isn't as bad as molesting choirboys, but there is still an economic reason that underlies the whole thing.
Posted by: Anton Mates
|
July 30, 2010 10:30 PM
BrianX @79,
I'm no expert in this area, but eyeballing some of Harris' citations and whatever other papers on the topic I could find through Google Scholar, the above doesn't seem to be right. Pigs can eat almost anything, but they can't thrive or even survive on any arbitrarily selected subset of their diet. In particular, pigs suck at digesting grass, which is most of what was available for livestock to eat in the ancient Levant. Not a lot of deciduous forest to produce acorns or other mast (let alone a bumper crop of morbidly obese squirrels). Probably not a lot of surplus grain much of the time--and the thing about turning pigs loose is that, even if you don't have surplus crops to feed them, they'll happily invade your farmland and help themselves. (Unless you can drive them way out into a forest with a ton of mast where they'll have no reason to move to better pastures...but see above.)
Plus, pigs have significantly higher water requirements than cows, sheep or goats, so they don't do well in even moderately arid areas. And driving pig herds requires much more human effort than driving herds of other grazing livestock, so it's not usually considered worthwhile by nomadic cultures.
None of which means that these are the factors producing the Israelite pork prohibition, of course, but it does seem to be generally accepted that they were major factors regulating pig husbandry in the ancient Near East.
Or so saith the Internet after twenty minutes of browsing, anyway.
Posted by: Silič O'Nopolitanopoulos, Färschdbischuf Beesknees aus Ulm und Klein Elguth, Elector Pharynguline.
|
July 30, 2010 10:39 PM
Thanks, Anton. It's very kind of you to do the research I'm too lazy to.
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
July 30, 2010 10:39 PM
"Can I use a manual letuce dryer on Saturday?
Can I eat in a hotel, on a Saturday, an omlet prepared by a gentile?
Can I swim in the pool on a Saturday?
Can I put on make-up on the Saturday?
Can I drive to the hospital on a Saturday to take care of a deep cut? (of a child, mind you!)"
Most importantly, can I roll on Saturday?
Posted by: AlisonS
|
July 30, 2010 10:48 PM
While old Catholic dietary restrictions were weird, nothing comes close to the rules for orthodox Jews, not to mention the countless rules for every aspect of their lives. I do interior design for the Hasidic community and it is all I can do to keep a straight face and treat the idiocy seriously. Having said that, they seem happy with their lot in life. It is amazing what a lifetime of brainwashing can do.
Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula
|
July 30, 2010 10:56 PM
Yet another bonus of being an atheist; we can eat whatever we damn well want, whenever we damn well want, without having to consult a priest/rabbi/houngan to find out if it's going to make baby Jesus/Yahweh/Baron Samedi unhappy.
On the down side, this constant lawyeresque bickering over such trivial nonsense over the years has given religious apologists plenty of practice in applying the disingenuous arts of sophistry and post hoc rationalisation - which they then apply in debates with atheists.
Posted by: desertfroglet
|
July 30, 2010 10:56 PM
Not that I can add a lot to the pig ecology discussion, but that won't stop me.
Feral pigs are enormously successful in Australia, including areas well away from the coast. They are opportunistic scavengers and will eat just about anything they can get their teeth into, including livestock.
These aren't scrubby little porkers, barely scratching a living, but great big baconlicious beasts. Water is the key to their distribution, but they can certainly dig up a living on what might be considered poor quality agricultural areas.
Posted by: timpanogos
|
July 30, 2010 11:08 PM
Yeah, the Pope approved capybaras as "fish" for Friday consumption because they are mostly aquatic -- and there was a shortage of other meat and fish, originally.
Paraguay had the great misfortune to go to war with Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil (or Bolivia -- one of them "B" nations that neighbors Paraguay) at the same time, in the early 20th century. Perhaps needless to say, Paraguay was soundly thrashed.
So soundly thrashed, in fact, that there were almost no males over the age of 13 left in the country. How to keep the population up?
The Pope approved polygamy.
Never let it be said the Papacy can't be practical: Giant rodents as "fish," polygamy as "faithful in marriage."
Whatevs, right?
Best,
Ed Darrell
Posted by: John Morales
|
July 30, 2010 11:26 PM
desertfroglet @117, I know I was rooting for the razorback :)
But yeah, there's even magazines about hunting them.
Posted by: MadScientist
|
July 30, 2010 11:27 PM
Oh goody, someone posted a pic of a capybara - I was going to describe it as looking something like a giant gopher (as you can see from the pic).
So, is the Jesus meat OK to eat of Fridays? (Goddamn, that sounds kinky - no answers like "you can eat it but not blow it", 'K?)
Another one I heard as a kid was that chicken is OK because it's not red meat - if I had a broader, coarser vocabulary at the time I would have said "you're making this shit up, aren't you?" The claim in this post that mammals and birds are off the menu is proof that they just make this shit up. Can we feed 'em crow on Friday?
Posted by: MadScientist
|
July 30, 2010 11:39 PM
@desertfroglet #117: Any and every pig I'd ever known would eat anything and everything. I've often heard this myth that pigs were herbivorous and I really can't understand how that nonsense started. Pigs don't even have an aversion to eating other pigs. They are not mere scavengers either; they will kill and eat lizards, snakes, ckickens, just to name a few.
Posted by: ronsullivan
|
July 31, 2010 12:10 AM
That ain't the half of it.
Posted by: Robbie
|
July 31, 2010 12:45 AM
It's wierd you know. Those two major religious groups that activly hate each other, the muzzies and the jewish, share many similarities in their menu restrictions. I'd have thought that one side would differentiate itself from the other by tarting up the menu with a few interesting banned items. Perhaps the muzzies could embrace bacon and other desirable things on the 'don't eat list'because their jewish brothers do not. Another thing, has anybody ever heard gawd actually say what to and what not to eat?
Posted by: Dahak
|
July 31, 2010 2:42 AM
McDonald's worker here, it makes me chuckle to think about all the Catholics that pay for our hilariously overpriced fish fillets on Fridays.
Posted by: lilith
|
July 31, 2010 2:50 AM
To Robbie @123 -
Tim Minchin already thought about taht:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UO6YlkYNJQ
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/Tz4Fp.gMjpZBeSdmJ8peOaDGW7LRaEDS#e1735
|
July 31, 2010 3:46 AM
About the beaver: only the beaver's *tail* is fish (being scaly in appearance). The remainder is meat.
And this is not anecdotic. It almost drove French beavers to extinction in the middle-ages.
Posted by: OurSally
|
July 31, 2010 7:18 AM
We visited a monastery museum and there was a monk giving a talk on food. He said in the old days anything that lived in the water counted as fish, so on Fridays they could eat ducks, beavers, otters, and so on.
Posted by: Enkidu
|
July 31, 2010 8:28 AM
Hi everyone. You do know that the fish was the earliest christian symbol, even before the cross? And Friday is the beginning of shabat, so the early "christian" jews were perhaps commemorating their god/man. Actually I'm not sure how ancient the practice is, but this seems possible.
Atheists should know as much about religion as possible, on the principle of know your enemy!
Pigs are interesting! Nearly all old world cultures/religions either hate or love pigs. Someone above mentioned Marvin Harris's book, which I have but can't put my finger on at the moment - must tidy bookshelf - a fascinating book if not entirely convincing. Anyway pigs are so loved in parts of New Guniea, that piglets will be suckled by women along with their children. Hope that didn't gross anyone out too much.
The argument about trichinosis from pork doesn't stack up because well cooked pork cannot infect the eater and other meats can pass on infections if undercooked - chicken salmonella anyone? According to Leviticus the pig is unclean because it "divides the hoof", its foot has two toes, like a cow, but doesn't "chew the cud". Thus, and this comes back to the taxonomy of the posts title, it is anomalous in the local folk taxonomy which distinguishes cud chewing hoof dividing animals from non cud chewing non hoof dividing ones.
The best thing is to recognise that nearly all dietry restrictions or requirements are symbolic in nature, we shouldn't look for 'rational' reasons for these facts. It's worth remembering, at least in my experience, that believers get more upset if you point out these symbolic features, rather than just calling them stupid or unscientific. They are used to thinking symbolically and this can get them wodering.
Posted by: Enkidu
|
July 31, 2010 8:32 AM
wondering not wodering. Tripped at the finish line!
Posted by: Quagmire
|
July 31, 2010 8:42 AM
I can has cheezburger?
Posted by: inflection
|
July 31, 2010 11:09 AM
A favorite little photo of mine on this subject:
My Salad Fears Not Your God"
Posted by: Anton Mates
|
July 31, 2010 10:00 PM
desertfroglet,
Right, but as you say later, they still need water. They penetrate inland along creeks & rivers--environments that AFAIK were highly prized by humans in the Levant.
Yup, which is another reason why a sheep/goat-herding culture like the ancient Hebrews would want to discourage pig-keeping. Australian feral pigs are one of the continent's three most significant sheep predators (along with dingoes and invasive red foxes), killing 15-30% of newborn lambs in some places.
Posted by: tatarize
|
July 31, 2010 11:45 PM
@Steve LaBonne
#5 "She should convert to cladism, then if reptile flesh is allowed that will have to include birds. ;)"
If she did that, then alligators really would be a type of fish. After all, since we're more related to lung fish than tuna and more related to tuna than to sharks, you'd have to accept that cladistically we're all just rejiggered fish including all of the tetrapods, which includes reptiles like alligators.
Posted by: Harry Varty
|
August 1, 2010 5:52 AM
The Canaanites reared and ate pigs before they morphed into the Israelites. Not eating pigs was probably something invented to distinguish us from them. The 'them' in this case probably being the Philistines.
Posted by: latsot
|
August 1, 2010 8:35 AM
mmmmmm.... capybara....
Posted by: latsot
|
August 1, 2010 8:48 AM
My parents are very religious but not catholic. Nevertheless, they usually had fish on Fridays. Not for religious reasons, Friday was Fish Day and that was that.
It amazes me that people are so determined to adopt random superstitions that they'll even adopt ones from an enemy religion. Even though they've no idea why. Obviously if a bunch of people believe something stupid, it's worth acting like you believe it too, right?
Posted by: latsot
|
August 1, 2010 9:05 AM
I'm compelled to point out that capybaras are the most dignified-looking animals in the world.
I know every single person who reads this will immediately post that easily-found picture of capybaras copulating, but I still maintain that they look more dignified than when I do it.
By which I mean when I mount a capybara, presumably.
Posted by: latsot
|
August 1, 2010 9:20 AM
Sometimes I wonder if all these random rules weren't just invented to give people an excuse. Don't like that motherfucker down the street who has a bigger goat than you? Well, I hear he....yes, that's it, he wears two different kinds of fabric at the same time and he eats whatever he likes on Fridays. He sometimes says "jehova" without standing on one leg, closing one eye, crossing his fingers and chanting.
It's so obvious now that god is commanding me to kill him and rape and enslave his family.
Posted by: ChemMama
|
August 3, 2010 3:15 PM
Forget restrictions, how about requirements? The Catholic church requires that the communion host be made of wheat. See here: http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/celiasprue.shtml "...the Church believes that it is impossible to consecrate anything except wheat bread and grape wine. " However, people with celiac disease can't eat wheat, and since most celiacs tend to be of northern european descent, that's a fair number of catholics. The church has actually approved one type of 'low gluten' host made with deglutenized wheat, made by some very practical Benedictine sisters who made a communion host that still follows the 'rules' yet won't make celiacs sick.
However,there are some Catholic celiacs who believe that they can eat the regular wheat communion and not get sick because 'it is blessed' or 'God will protect them'. Yikes. My response is "If he'll protect you, why did he give you this disease in the first place?"