|
December 19, 2005
I will eat green eggs and ham! (And you will too!)
What? No Christmas ham? A WA hospital has scrubbed baked ham from its Christmas menu, fearing Muslim patients could be offended.It's one thing to eat or not eat whatever you want, or refrain from eating what your religious tastes prohibit. But offering halal food as a dietary option is very different from taking "offensive" food off the menu. As far as I'm concerned, that hospital is -- by taking something off the menu which otherwise would have been there -- imposing the religious dietary restrictions of some people on people who don't share them. Furthermore, taking pork off the menu will not be enough to avoid giving offense, as it is inherently offensive to be served non-halal meat! I'm a little tired of a shrill minority of offended people demanding that the majority conform to their standards. If they get their way and succeed at forcing institutions to discontinue serving pork, mark my words: they'll up the ante and demand that no meat that isn't halal be served. To anyone! I think the best way to combat this nonsense is with proactive food satire. If the words are so offensive, why not just serve the pork anyway, but change the descriptive words on the menu to "Traditional Christmas Halal ham"? After all, it's all based on words anyway. Even the prohibition on ham. (And, as we all know, words are not truth!) What I'd like to know is why vegetarians (especially Hindus, who are vegetarian for religious reasons) don't also enjoy the right to not be offended. And what about people who find halal slaughtering methods offensive? Don't they too have a right not to be offended? From where derives this right to not be offended? What is it that constitutes offending sensibilities? The Koran prohibits a lot more than eating pork, and if eating pork in a hospital is offensive, then why wouldn't homosexual visitation rights in the same hospital be just as offensive? So what if people are offended? There are plenty of things that offend me, but my being offended does not give me the right to compel anyone not to do that which is offensive -- as long as they're not harmful to me. Does a vegetarian have any more "right" to be offended by meat eating than a meat eater does by vegetarianism? I don't see why, but these are issues of morality and not logic. Years ago in Berkeley, a friend was searching for a room to rent, and there were a number of vegetarian households which advertised that fact. My friend was a meat eater, but he didn't mind living with vegetarians, not eating meat in the household, and not bringing meat into the household. But when he was asked whether he might eat meat elsewhere, he was honest enough to tell them that he would. They refused to rent to him -- because the fact that he might still eat meat somewhere was offensive to them. At that point my friend no longer wanted to live with them, but I never forgot the illogical nature of it. In a household situation, of course, people are free to be that way. But there's something about the human need to control others which can lead vegetarians to demand vegetarianism from the whole world. And they're not even religious; they're just thinking along the lines of "the world would be a better place if everyone did what I did." Ditto for people who don't like guns. They're not content to give up their own guns; they want mine! (By their logic, shouldn't I demand that they be armed?) Throw in religion, and the "sensibilities" multiply. (Yeah, I guess atheists are claiming a similar right not to be offended.) I'll tell you what offends me: it's the fact that I have to put up with being offended, while others don't! Maybe being offensive ought to become a moral imperative. Which makes it morally imperative that I go on the moral offensive. Therefore, by the power vested in me as a morally offensive, um, imperator, I hereby declare that green eggs and ham are halal! It's official, and so certified: OK, now everyone eat! posted by Eric on 12.19.05 at 05:32 PM
Comments
What about Muslims who object to women not wearing sacks in public? They have to endure seeing women's faces? WTF? This hospital is racist! Harkonnendog · December 19, 2005 08:10 PM I do so like green eggs and ham...I'd defintely consider them halal. Are you going to rename yourself "Sam-I-Am"? Kathy K · December 19, 2005 09:46 PM Oh yes I am, Osamaham! :) Theron, shouldn't women in the West now be forced to wear slacks in public? Eric Scheie · December 19, 2005 09:59 PM Trick question: what's missing from this picture? Answer: any mention of any Muslim pressure-groups (or anyone else) actually taking any sort of action to encourage the hospital to change its menu. Is there really a political drive to eradicate non-halal food, or is it just a handful of CEOs who don't know how to make decisions that accomodate more than one group at a time? "She said no patients had complained..." Well, DUH, if I was in a hospital, I'd have much bigger problems than the food to bitch about. I also like the dismissive attitude the hospital spokesfolks take toward the staff's objections: "Oh don't mind them, they're just the help, they always complain about the work." So...there's no loud voices in favor of this decision, and plenty of loud voices against it that don't count. Raging Bee · December 20, 2005 10:34 AM "Theron, shouldn't women in the West now be forced to wear slacks in public?" I'd really like to see a bunch of female Muslims holding protest signs:
Harkonnendog · December 20, 2005 05:17 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
So, they take Ham off the menu for Muslims, but not for Jews? Is that discrimination? PC people do not think!