Fish Shall Not Be Eaten

[Bolrieg]

Death by 1000 readings of the OP's threads.

Making them read 1 IM thread would be acceptable. 1000 is too much.

Well they're very strict parents with harsh punishments.

[Infected Mushroom]

Religion should not prohibit any eating food.

I would agree with you.

[Gim]

I am assuming we are talking about Christianity?
Imposing restrictions on food eating is preposterous in that God tells us in an early part of Genesis that a man should subdue all creatures. I cannot post the verse because I am on mobile. My apologies.

No this is a hypothetical religious code

I'm actually not aware of any religion that disallows fish-eating, they might exist though

I'm pretty sure it's pork-eating.

[Blakullar]

No to all questions provided. Suddenly declaring food 'unclean' with the only evidence of uncleanliness being a thousand-year old piece of paper, and then banning your child from eating it on that basis, is on an entirely new level of stupid.

Actually no things like this aren't created within an instant.

(Example) The Jains didn't decide to adopt veganism within a fortnight. So I fail to see how it could possibly be stupid.

Let's use the fish example given in the OP for this. Apart from the holy scripture of this hypothetical religion, what evidence is there to suggest that fish is 'unclean'? Even the semantics of the declaration is questionable: how is 'unclean' defined? According to the scripture, are all fish diseased (in which case there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary), or did the person who wrote the declaration simply not like fish and wanted to make sure nobody else ate fish?

Having an entire type of food banned because a little bit of old paper says so sounds stupid to me, as the person implementing the ban clearly hasn't made any attempt to approach it empirically.

[Novsvacro]

No child is logical enough to comprehend religion, and so you might as well be forcing the kid to swallow penis enlargement pills from Ron Jeremy for all it's worth.

[USS Monitor]

No to all questions provided. Suddenly declaring food 'unclean' with the only evidence of uncleanliness being a thousand-year old piece of paper, and then banning your child from eating it on that basis, is on an entirely new level of stupid.

It's not new at all.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

No child is logical enough to comprehend religion, and so you might as well be forcing the kid to swallow penis enlargement pills from Ron Jeremy for all it's worth.

An incredibly unfair comparison, and frankly stop insulting Ron Jeremy .

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Do you see any difference between a religious restriction on a certain food because it's "unclean" despite all evidence to the contrary and a religious restriction on a certain food because the animal it comes from is 'sacred', which cannot be empirically proven one way or the other?

[Infected Mushroom]

Do you see any difference between a religious restriction on a certain food because it's "unclean" despite all evidence to the contrary and a religious restriction on a certain food because the animal it comes from is 'sacred', which cannot be empirically proven one way or the other?

Well, personally I would see both as very problematic

[In-outheart]

But it is nutritious....

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

But it is nutritious....

Depends on the quality of fish to be honest.

Since retrieving it from a lake labeled a severe health hazard by the EPA might be a bad idea.

[Urran]

oh boy, another IM thread....

[Infected Mushroom]

But it is nutritious....

I would agree with you

[Pope Joan]

It seems to me that the heart of religion has to do with deeper meanings of life than the everyday observances. Jesus said it is not what goes into a man but what comes out of him that defiles him. Funny Jesus!

There is an emphasis in belonging, when it comes to religion. Re-ligio means tied together, like a bundle of sticks (yes, like fascism). So you do things that identify you as part of the group, including forms of dress, sacred days, and diet. None of which have any deep meaning, they simply show that you belong.

And then people confuse this with salvation and force it upon each other, which is sad.

[Gauthier]

Someone insisting that the French government did nothing wrong banning non-pork school meals I see.

I wonder what would happen if House Lannister banned the eating of pork and fish?

[Rusozak]

I don't believe in forcing dietary restrictions on anyone for any reason other than health. Whether it be a religious person making their kids not eat pork, or a vegan forcing their kid to be vegan. It's just unnecessary.

[Nocturnalis]

Well, fish do have a high concentration of mercury in their bodies...

And, quite to the contrary, the beliefs are very much scientifically supported; though, admittedly, the people back then weren't savvy to such.

The point is, this sort of dietary restriction (fish in your example, pork in the Abrahamic religions; I will default to pork) do have a logical basis to them, even if the people who wrote these texts didn't understand the full situation of what they were writing about. Firstly, look at what pigs eat. They will eat, quite literally, anything around them, including food scraps, insects and their own feces. As well, the digestive system of the pig differs from that of the cows and other ruminants in that ruminants digest their food over a period of 24 hours through multiple stomachs, allowing them to get rid of excess toxins in the food they consume. Pigs, on the other hand, metabolize food very quickly, in 4 hours, through one stomach. As well, pigs do not perspire, so those toxins the pig consumes are sent straight to its organs and cells. Pigs are the garbage trucks of the natural world, to put it into perspective. The basic nature of the pig does not lend itself well to elimination of toxins, which is why it is 'unclean'. Not sure how much that has changed in present times (well, we do eat pork now, and probably make sure pigs don't eat trash), but that is the basis for the ban on consumption of pork in the times of the Bible and such. In practical terms, this most likely would've come out of many instances of people repeatedly falling ill after consumption of pork, which is just as good a reason as any to not eat the stuff.

This applies to fish as well, as fish are entirely capable of concentrating high levels of toxins, most notably mercury, in their bodies. This phenomena has been scientifically proven, or else all those warnings about the consumption of certain fish are lies. Course, there are plenty other reasons not to consume fish, but mercury poisoning is a pretty good one.

Assuming that these ancient peoples just randomly decided one day to ban the consumption of pork for no reason at all is the height of atheistic arrogance. The invocation of God to justify not eating pork is less a divine order and more an attempt to explain why pork is bad from a people that have no idea why, exactly, it is. Less "God tells us not to eat pork, so don't eat pork" and more "God made pigs unclean creatures, so don't eat their meat".

[Australian rePublic]

Why do I feel tha this thread is tied in with [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=358273&p=26444633#p26444633]This one]

[Gauthier]

Why do I feel tha this thread is tied in with This one

Because it is. IM likes to make threads on whatever crosses his attention span. Usually something that deals with Game of Thrones, but not always.

[Australian rePublic]

No this is a hypothetical religious code

I'm actually not aware of any religion that disallows fish-eating, they might exist though

I'm pretty sure it's pork-eating.

He's is NOT talking about Christianity!
As a Chrostian, I can confirm that Christianity does NOT ban the consumption of any type of food!
Judaism and Islam (both of which believe in the same God as the Christians do) ban pork and pork products. The Jews also ban shell fish. Judaism and Christianity both follow Genesis, and I think Islam does as well (though don't quote me on that). Before you start the "Christians are evil" rant, get your facts straight!!!
Also Hindus don't eat beef

[Trollgaard]

I see nothing wrong with the OPs scenario. It is the right of the parent to set the rules their children follow.

[Gauthier]

I see nothing wrong with the OPs scenario. It is the right of the parent to set the rules their children follow.

Unless of course it's Muslims families banning pork consumption, in which case cue the 180 Spin.

[Trollgaard]

I see nothing wrong with the OPs scenario. It is the right of the parent to set the rules their children follow.

Unless of course it's Muslims families banning pork consumption, in which case cue the 180 Spin.

Who said that? Muslims are free to ban eating pork in their own families. Just not for everyone. Same goes for any religion. They are free to forbid people of their faith from eating x, but it should not be against the law of the land to eat x for everyone.

[Gauthier]

Unless of course it's Muslims families banning pork consumption, in which case cue the 180 Spin.

Who said that? Muslims are free to ban eating pork in their own families. Just not for everyone. Same goes for any religion. They are free to forbid people of their faith from eating x, but it should not be against the law of the land to eat x for everyone.

IM wrote this brainfart of a thread based on this thread, where alternatives to pork were planned to be removed from a local French school system menu with only side dishes being offered as alternatives if the family could not afford to make their own lunches for children.

[Diopolis]

If the parent really believed that fish should not be eaten, he made the most ethical decision he could have. Of course, as an authority figure he would have had to have taken into account such things as "did the child know he was eating fish" and "how well has the fish prohibition been explained in the past".