Just like Mom used to make.

Fellow noshers,

I try not to be surprised here anymore. Occasionally, they surprise me, though. Since when do owners and franchisees of the Diner care about the health of anything except their wallets?

But there are nights I'll meander over to my usual seat at the Diner, to hear some conversation like this: "That was my favorite thing on the menu! I can't believe they took it off!" "You know, they're just doing it because of the health-food nuts. They can't stand it when anyone is enjoying themselves. They only want us to eat granola and grass!"

You know how these things come and go. For example, for centuries people were eating eggs. Then some brainstormer had the idea that eggs were bad for you, and nobody ate eggs. The information out more recently has said,"Maybe we were wrong. Maybe eggs aren't so bad for you. In fact, they might be good for you."

Can't they make up my mind? What exactly is good for me? What exactly can I expect on the menu here? Why does management at the Diner occasionally express a conscience that doesn't make sense?

___________________________________________________________________

While some within the faddish health-food movement have renounced infant cannibalism, I think it’s time to reconsider putting it back on the menu in light of the differences between the culture of our day and the cultures that existed in Bible times.

It has long been assumed in the "civilized" West that infant cannibalism is wrong. Of course, a healthy child should not be eaten except under the most extreme circumstances (e.g. on a life-boat stranded at sea, as Melville pointed out). But is it really fair to continue to assume and assert that eating the very young is wrong under all circumstances?

The Old Testament is quite clear on this matter - the ancient Hebrews were not to sacrifice, and thus eat, their young. However, the language used is not specific enough to condemn all child-eating, particularly that done in the right context, and with the right motives.

God’s primary concern in prohibiting child sacrifice seems to be to discourage the adoption of pagan practices, which would distract the Israelites from their worship of the one true God. We might also safely assume that the widespread sacrifice of infants would lead to the murder of infants, since the number that died naturally might not be sufficient to meet the demand. So, God’s prohibition against consuming infant flesh was founded on two very sensible premises:

1. Infant cannibalism would lead Israel into idolatry.

2. Infant cannibalism would result in harm to living infants.

Do these premises remain valid today, and should we still abstain from infant cannibalism? First, let me say that I’m not talking about gratuitous, pig-out infant cannibalism; just as I don’t advocate eating a whole bag of chips at one sitting. I’m talking about moderate, civilized infant cannibalism (which I prefer to call fetal consumption), much as one might eat caviar - occasionally, responsibly, and with the utmost tact and taste.

The Bible may condemn child sacrifice and pagan cannibalism, but those are quite different from modern fetal consumption, which was not known in the days of Moses or Paul. Today, we have a steady supply of deceased infant flesh, from a variety of legitimate sources, which I need not enumerate. Suffice it to say that, if prices were fixed at a fairly high level, say, $10 per ounce, the demand could be met without difficulty, and there would be no risk to living children. The same medical technology that allows organs to be "kept on ice" until transplantation allows the flesh of our young to be preserved until it reaches the marketplace.

But why bother defending fetal consumption? Who is interested in it? The fact is, the Christians who are in favor of infant cannibalism have been ostracized from our churches. They have been forced to seek refuge and community elsewhere. There is tolerance for all other types of behavior within the church, it seems, except infant cannibalism.

How long can we allow this hypocrisy to continue, while our alienated brothers and sisters in the faith are left outside in the cold, picking their teeth and longing to be let inside to warm their feet by the fire? Here and now, I am calling for an end to the outdated, judgmental taboo against infant cannibalism. Will you join me?

_________________________________________________________________

Obviously, this is a satirical post intended to elicit discussion about the process we use to determine whether a moral prohibition in the bible is applicable today. For instance, consider the post above in light of the modern arguments for approval of homosexuality. More than once I have encountered the argument that loving, monogamous homosexual relationships were not existent in Paul’s day, nor was homosexuality recognized as a biologically influenced or genetically determined trait; therefore, biblical injunctions against it are irrelevant.

I want to call this line of reasoning into question. I will agree that the practice of monogamous homosexuals today is vastly more preferable in every way than the idol-worshipping, prostitution-based, commitment-free version familiar to Paul.

But how far can we take the argument that our culture has created a new version of some particular practice, that falls outside of scripture’s jurisdiction? Is adultery OK if your spouse doesn’t mind? Watch TV today, eat at the Diner today, and you see that this is more than a theoretical argument. We could easily argue that "consensual adultery" didn’t exist in Paul’s day, due to the level of stigma and shame surrounding extramarital relations; today, this stigma is largely absent in many cultures, so the bible’s statements on adultery are not relevant, because they’re addressing a different set of circumstances entirely.

In many of the discussions on the subject, homosexual activity is treated as a sin different from all others, misunderstood and attacked by homophobes today. I am attempting to frame a debate about the terms in which we discuss this and other other topics of morality. I don’t think the argument I’ve described above (with infant cannibalism, monogamous homosexuality, and consensual adultery as examples) is a particularly good one, but it does get your attention, doesn't it?

-----

Do you see anything you like on the menu here?

Your friendly, Neighborhood Apatheist, With the Iron Stomach,

~Bill