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 has also overhauled its entire menu so that all meals are now halal – containing only meat and other food prepared according to Muslim customs.

But Port Hedland Regional Hospital staff and many non-Muslim patients are outraged, saying it is a case of political correctness gone mad.

Kitchen staff are so angry that they have organised a petition demanding ham be put back on the Christmas menu.

Other WA hospitals are also introducing halal dining, though the Health Department says Port Hedland is the only one to convert its entire menu to suit Muslims.

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:

Halalham.jpg

OK, now everyone eat!

posted by Eric on 12.19.05 at 05:32 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3141






Comments

So, they take Ham off the menu for Muslims, but not for Jews? Is that discrimination? PC people do not think!

LYNN HARGROVE   ·  December 19, 2005 06:12 PM

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:

Slacks not Sacks!
Good Jobs not hijabs!


Harkonnendog   ·  December 20, 2005 05:17 PM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits