cultural-identity, religion-in-realityI speak specifically about some religions view regarding cleanliness and food handling, such as Kosher and Halal laws. I can imagine why both belief systems don’t eat pork, at the time of their inceptions there was probably a real physical risk to eating pork, i.e. trichinosis, E. coli, etc. I also understand why in some underdeveloped areas it still has relevance.
The question I pose is why are these rule systems relevant in the areas that don’t have these risks? (US, Most of Europe, etc). Is this something that our society will reject as scientific discovery exposes these risks, and finds a way to deal with them? Or will they remain as vestigial cultural practices (Christian male circumcision)?
They are likely to remain as vestigial practices. If scientific research were enough to convince someone of giving up religion customs, most religions would have died out a long time ago.
Something to consider about many of these laws is that they serve not or not only concerns like food safety, but cultural identity. I’ve had it explained to me that the dietary laws, for example, cause Jews to seek out other Jews for meals rather than to mingle with members of other faiths. Similarly, when travelling, pious Jews will try to visit other Jews where they can share traditional food. Basically the dietary restriction forces Jews more tightly together - and the same applies to Muslims, of course.
Similar considerations apply to communal prayer, dress codes, grooming and whatnot. One of the things that describe a religious community is “we are the people who do XXX,” for whatever XXX may be. Judaism has 613 commandments, and whenever one of these commandments is followed that is a reinforcement of the in-group, the culture and the faith.
EDIT: On the subject of physical detriment, I have read about some archaeological evidence that Jewish, non-pork eating groups often lived right across the street from non-Jewish people who did indulge. This was easy enough to determine from examining their respective middens. The thing to note is, both groups flourished; it’s not as if the pork-eaters succumbed to horrible diseases with great regularity. I get the impression that the trichinosis argument is more of a post facto rationalization than an original “divinely inspired” reason for the commandment.
I think religion doesn’t favour to ask too many questions, that’s why many people still follow the things (that might be meaningful as in you example) that described in old jewish comics.
Never underestimate the power of tradition. Most of these habits and customs stem from the fact that “my father and mother did it, so I will too”. That, and a belief that “My god said to, so I’d better listen.”
Mainly because the relevent Holy Books don’t say ‘You must not eat pork until it’s safe to do so’, but merely, ‘You must not eat pork’.
Does it still have relevence? If you are a believer, yes. An atheist, no.
I think its the typical religious dogma of, “God said, I believe it, that settles it”
All content is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.