[lqet]

You have to be careful with such an argumentation. It may very well be that forbidding pork is the result of century-long observations that people who eat much pork will on average die earlier than the general population. It may even be that the only kinds of meat eaten in the culture that originally invented this rule were fish, chicken and pork, which would mean that forbidding pork was equal to the modern damnation of "red meat".

Arguments like "pigs are unclean and live in the dirt" may have been used to explain this effect and to rationalize the rule, but just because the rationalization of a rule has been proven incorrect, its original intention is not automatically wrong.

[edflsafoiewq]

It may also be that the rule was never the "shadow" of some empirico-rational observation at all.

[parrellel]

Like the milk and the calf rule from Judaism, which was pretty blatantly an authoritarian attempt to enforce social division.

[edflsafoiewq]

How so? Do you mean the Toraic rule about "seething a kid in its mother's milk" or the Rabbinic fences around it?

[jzvxkxbxjx]

:D

Maybe that’s just the way the Divine wanted it.