Talk:Religious restrictions on the consumption of pork

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A'Jenai Thompson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Clean-up attempt

I agree that this article is not very good. I made an effort to remove the more dubious claims, and here are some of them:

One in six people in the US and Canada has trichinosis from eating worms that are found in pork. One in six people in the US and Canada has trichinosis from eating worms that are found in pork.

WHAT! I cannot possibly imagine that a good 60 million people in North America suffer from trichinosis pr 2006. As for that, trichinae is well representeed in numerous other animals we consume.

A common misconception about pork is that if it is cooked well, these ova die. In a research project undertaken in America (USA), it was found that out of twenty-four people suffering from Taenia tichurasis, twenty-two had cooked the pork very well. This indicates that the ova’s present in the pork do not die under normal cooking temperature. These worms are not noticed during meat inspections, nor are they killed by salting or smoking. Few people cook the meat long enough to kill the trichinae. The rat (another scavenger) also harbors this disease.

Which goes for ALL MEAT, not only pork. If you write for an ENCYCLOPEDIA, keep you bias to yourself!

Surely if a pig has ingested the blood of another animal, it is unclean — and God-forbid ingesting the pork would be (in the words of Jean Soler) “doubly unclean”.''

Please, this is not very scientific. There is a long list of animals that (qv.) "ingest the blood of another animal", but are supposedly OK to consume.

Were the internal organs, for example the heart, the liver, or the brain crippled or damaged, the animal could die immediately and its blood would congeal in its veins and would eventually permeate the flesh. This implies that the animal flesh would be permeated and contaminated with uric acid and therefore very poisonous; only today did our dieticians realize such a thing

Hello! If YOUR brain, liver or heart was crippled, YOU would die as well! This is nonsense.

Sausage contains bits of pigs' lungs, so those who eat pork sausage tend to suffer more during epidemics of influenza.

THAT would be an interesting SCIENTIFIC study to see. And what about Avian Flu? From pigs with wings?

Pig meat contains excessive quantities of histamine and imidazole compounds, which can lead to itching and inflammation; growth hormone, which promotes inflammation and growth; Sulphur-containing mesenchymal mucus, which leads to swelling and deposits of mucus in tendons and cartilage, and replacing it with the latter resulting in arthritis, rheumatism, etc. Sulphur helps cause firm human tendons and ligaments to be replaced by the pig's soft mesenchymal tissues, and degeneration of human cartilage.

And the medical and scientific evidence for this claim is...?

Pork has very little muscle building material and contains excess of fat.

Wrong! A pig is in fact a very agile, strong and powerful animal. It is perhaps the most dangerous of all domesticated animals because of its strength, speed and aggression.

This fat gets deposited in the vessels and can cause hypertension and server strokes that lead to heart attack in later life.

That goes for ALL fat, not specifically pigs!!!

Also it is said that the pig’s brain is similar to that of the human brain but on much smaller scale if you would to compare them together, an example would be a dwarf planet recently one such named Pluto quite distinctive with comparison to the Earth in the sense that they both are rocky or "inner core" but are worlds apart so Pigs are classed biologically similar to humans, and their meat is said to taste similar to the human flesh and that is classed as cannibalism if God-forbid one eats a Human meat it would taste exactly the same as the swine but only a lot stronger a bit like alcoholic liquids.

I don't know. This is not even close to being scientific. This is hodge-podge of misunderstood comparisons, various non-relevant trivia (from geology and astronomy, nonetheless!), and some twisted culinary digression about alcohol-flavored humans (a la cock-au-vin?)

Pigs have been used for dissection in biology labs due to the similarity between their organs and human organs.

Or simply because they are accessible? What about the use of mice, rats, monkeys, kittens, frogs, fish etc.?

--Sparviere 14:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is a DISGRACE!!!! It is full of superstition, quasi-fundamentalist ranting and POV. If you belong to ethnicities or religious orientation where you have to deny yourself certain kinds of food, then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Isn't the object of an encyclopedia to be, well, OBJECTIVE?--165.155.192.142 14:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this particularly nice piece of unfounded information:

"3. Consumption of pork causes several diseases

The other non-Muslims and atheists will agree only if convinced through reason, logic and science. Eating of pork can cause no less than seventy different types of diseases. A person can have various helminthes like roundworm, pinworm, hookworm, etc. One of the most dangerous is Taenia Solium, which is in lay man’s terminology called tapeworm. It harbours in the intestine and is very long. Its ova i.e. eggs, enter the blood stream and can reach almost all the organs of the body. If it enters the brain it can cause memory loss. If it enters the heart it can cause heart attack, if it enters the eye it can cause blindness, if it enters the liver it can cause liver damage. It can damage almost all the organs of the body.

Another dangerous helminthes is Trichura Tichurasis. A common misconception about pork is that if it is cooked well, these ova die. In a research project undertaken in America, it was found that out of twenty-four people suffering from Trichura Tichurasis, twenty two had cooked the pork very well. This indicates that the ova present in the pork do not die under normal cooking temperature."

Though I'm not going to deny that even thoroughly processed or cooked meat of any kind can still contain highly resilient parasites (which nowadays is quite exceptional as I've never heard of massive numbers of people getting sick after eating pork or any other kind of meat), unless these claims can be backed up, they have no place here. Carbon warrior 16:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I second that, Carbon Warrior! This has the unmistakable flavor of POV. --Sparviere 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article suffers from a lack of references and some highly POV text. The 'Great Facts on Pork' is especially bad. --Nydas 18:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It ("Great Facts on Pork")was deleted a few times (twice by me), but some fellow seems to have raised it from the dead once again for motives known only to himself. NJW494 18:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "Great Facts on Pork" should be an article unto itself. You have to be pretty heartless to delete something that hilarious. Extremeleigh 03:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The article uses the Muslim name for Jesus (Isa) and says PBUH (which only Muslims use) after the name. This is obviously from a Muslim POV. It also omits other bible verses that would contradict this such as: Mat 15:16 And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Mat 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? Mat 15:18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.

Still crazy after all this editing...

I move to delete entire section "Side effects of pork consumption". Some religious crackpots have certainly done a great job filling in all sorts of (unsourced) claims to why their taboos are scientifically based and not cultural. I can see that other editors have taken a serious approach and emphasize the original eco-socioligal reasons for the taboo (Harris). Anything besides that is POV. Medico80 01:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

(one year later) you're right. I have moved the section to Pork where it belongs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line

It's as clean as any cow after cooking, or not? --AnY FOUR! 04:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In the section, 'Consumption of pork in Jewish Law', or something like that, it says:

They cannot forage grass like ruminants. Instead, they compete with humans for expensive grain. Unlike many other forms of livestock, pigs are omnivorous scavengers, eating virtually anything they come across, including carrion and refuse. This was deemed unclean, hence a Middle Eastern society keeping large stocks of pigs would destroy their ecosystem. It says, citation needed. I don't understand the sentence. Pardon my ignorance, but if a pig is omnivorous eating everything in site including carion and refuse, wouldn't that be good for the ecosystem? Doesn't that mean it gets rid of the garbage? Just my opinion.Mylittlezach (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. Andrewa (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much in this article about pork, per se, rather plenty of discussion aimed at prohibition of eating pig, pork, ham, bacon, trotters, snouts, whatever. Have I missed something? I propose moving to Religious restrictions on the consumption of pig meat or similar. Comments? --Dweller (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on where you stick the goalposts really....the problem is the duality of the meaning of the word pork, which can mean either, meat of a pig, or fresh meat that is not cured. I must admit I have no problem with the title either way. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pork is, however, the usual and expected phrasing. I see no great advantage to leaving the reader wondering why we are not saying it, as long as the lead is clear what we mean. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been meaning to pul out my magnifying glass and preuse my longer oxford dictionary to address this in both this and the parent article on the food of the gods...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Does pork really mean pig meat in general? Would you describe trotters as pork? I wouldn't! Is this a cultural thing? --Dweller (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, could be my ignorance. I'll do some homework and get some soundings. Happy for this to be speedily aborted if I'm just being daft/ignorant. --Dweller (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...if someone asked me what type of meat trotters were though, I'd say 'pork' (rather than pig-meat) as I would with gammon or bacon. Still, interesting concept though...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave the article where it is. In this context, pork means any pig meat; It's the normal English term, while pig meat is legalese. The article on pork starts out Pork is the culinary name for meat from the domestic pig (Sus scrofa), often specifically the fresh meat but can be used as an all-inclusive term. It's said that since at least 1 March this year, I didn't check further back. Andrewa (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguity Dictionary.com gives the inclusive definition. I don't think this title is confusing and I know that I personally assume all pig flesh with the term "pork." -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unreferenced

The article is extremely unreferenced and may contain WP:OR. Many inline citations should be used in the article. And in this way some other articles also can be created like Religious restrictions on the consumption of beef etc. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Umm...yes. Agree, actually many food articles are in a fairly indifferent shape. I am planning to (eventually) take pork to FAC at some point but it is a long way off and much more work than the horde of biology articles I done so far. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Should be added?

Should a Christianity section be added? In the version of the Christian religious text is says:

3 Do not eat any detestable thing. 4 These are the animals you may eat: the ox, the sheep, the goat, 5 the deer, the gazelle, the roe deer, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope and the mountain sheep.[a] 6 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2014&version=NIV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.26.81 (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I came looking for a little information on why and when Christians stopped observing the rules about kosher foods. There is no real information about that here. --60.242.61.222 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

When after the fulfillment of the Old Law, its ceremonial parts were taken away, see Acts 10,10:16 (cf. also 1 Cor 8,8 for the theoretical standpoint; though this is talking about meat butchered in idolatrous sacrifices, it is a fortiori true about pigs). The consumption of blood and suffocated meat, though not pork, was kept on for some time as a disciplinary matter of positive human law, see Acts 15,19:22. This law too has since been voided by contrary custom. --91.34.248.15 (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Scholastic allegory

Shouldn't someone who knows (that is, better than me) add for explanation the medieval analogy of
- a ruminant: the theologist must always keep repeating the same doctrine and
- split hooves: it is necessary to distinguish right from wrong?
which was quite popular at some time, including Dante who says of someone in high position to be "a ruminant but without splitting hooves", or something? --77.4.72.236 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Other religions

Are there any other religions with similar prohibitions? A mention of vegetarian religions? Is there a difference in conservative or radical members of these religions?

46.9.189.44 (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I'll add a mention of Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism. 73.170.203.143 (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens' on the pork taboo

What Christopher Hitchens Taught Me About Jewish Law and Pork – Tablet Magazine. I think this might help improving this article. Komitsuki (talk) 07:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Marvin Harris

The apparent summary of Marvin Harris' views don't make sense. "Pigs require water and shady woods with seeds, but those conditions are scarce in Israel and the Middle East": Pigs do require water, but so do all animals. Pigs do not require seeds any more than poultry do. Water and shade are generally found where people settle, and were much more common in the ancient Middle East. Deforestation is relatively recent. "Unlike many other forms of livestock, pigs are omnivorous scavengers, eating virtually anything they come across, including carrion and refuse. This was deemed unclean": pigs are scavengers, but poultry too (and even goats) will eat anything, including carrion. If that makes a pig unclean, why not poultry?. The conclusion that "hence a Middle Eastern society keeping large stocks of pigs would destroy their ecosystem" simply does not follow. Ritual uncleanliness does not result in the destruction of an ecosystem - unless God smites the environment of the Ungodly who keep ritually unclean animals! Scavenging animals of any type can destroy an ecosystem, pigs are no worse than any other omnivore - or herbivore for that matter. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the religious grounds for prohibiting pork make no reference to scavenging or being an omnivore. Since they relate solely to appearance, I cannot help but conclude that the ritual uncleanliness was based purely on superstitious grounds, not ecological or scientific - which is a hardly surprising conclusion given the time from which these prohibitions must date.

Was this a fair summary of Harris' arguments? They seem rather weak and confused.

Has there been any scientific investigation into why pork should have been ritually unclean - or other animals?Royalcourtier (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Relation to cannibalism?

I'm surprised no one brings up the fact that human flesh is, apparently, very similar to pork... Can someone look into that and see if there is any correlation between this and religious restriction? Or if a well-read enough person has anything to say on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1801:A170:4449:12E0:E632:D5BA (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Basically you’re correct because the pig already has human DNA that’s why we can clone organs in it. so to eat pig is to commit cannibalism and if we need a physical body to reach ascension it would make sense why we were told not to eat it. (Without a reason considering we weren’t evolved enough yet to understand science of the situation)and it was even repeated in the Quran. commandments are internal experiences that you can grow and learn from eating pork kills your physical body which is a hindrance of spiritual growth. DaedalVirtuoso (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I added information regarding the consumption of pork under Islamic Law. There was a lot more information regarding other religions, but there needed to be more information regarding the Islamic religion. I added that information. Tuj53916Tuj53916 (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Mary Douglas

I added another scholarly opinion on the origin of the taboo from anthropologist Mary Douglas, to present a differing explanation from Harris's

Tuk12017 (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

merge request

I went to add all the vegetarian religions that are missing from this page and I was basically starting to replicate that page over here. This page should be folded into the vegetarianism in religions page. "pigs" can be a sub-category in the relevant religious sections. Pigs are already mentioned there in religions that are missing here. 73.170.203.143 (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

There are definitely some issues with the current scope. On the one hand the page is oddly specific, and on the other hand, the title is quite misleading. Clearly it is basically just Abrahamic religions that are being discussed, and essentially just Judaism, Islam and some minor Christian sects. It could be merged elsewhere or alternatively retitled more specifically. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is completely wrong!!!

Christians can most definitely eat pork. I am a Christian and have it all of the time. With Jesus we are now not tied to the law of the Old Testament. With his grace we don’t need to be perfect because we aren’t perfect! Pork does not condemn you the only thing that does is not receiving the free gift of salvation God gives us. Jesus loves you and wants you to enjoy the food he has provided, like pork. 98.97.36.110 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope. In Matthew 7:19 contextually Jesus purified the food not touched by tradition, not declaring pork clean. Some bible translation added them as a late edition, but some such as KJV does not, or other bible have some foot notes on it. Lellyhatesanimals (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A lost poem of Hermesianax, reported centuries later by the traveller Pausanias, reported an etiological myth of Attis destroyed by a supernatural boar to account for the fact that "in consequence of these events the Galatians who inhabit Pessinous do not touch pork"

This does not belong in the lede. Drsruli (talk) 03:35, 12 February 2024 (UTC)