PM5461: Concerning Pigs

Pig is a species of animal, also known as boar or hog; its meat is known as pork.

Maratreanism does not consider the pig to be a sacred animal, hence the eating of its meat is permissible to Maratreans.

Maratreanism is opposed to the keeping of non-sacred animals as pets, hence Maratreans are not permitted to keep pigs as pets, neither to advocate or encourage the same.

Jews and Muslims are notable for refusing to eat pork. Although, in both cases, pork is not the only meat prohibited, it is the prohibited meat which gets all the attention. A Jew is not allowed to eat rabbit, nor pork either. But, try to get a non-observant Jew to eat rabbit, it's a lot easier than to get them to eat pork. The pig is only one non-kosher animal among many; but it's the one with all the attention - it's a non-kosher animal celebrity. The same comment applies to Muslims, although their dietary laws prohibit a lot less species than the Jews' do.

From a Maratrean perspective, it is prohibited to eat any sacred animal, but permissible to eat all unsacred animals. So, anyone who refuses to eat a particular animal, must hold that animal be sacred, and thus be a worshipper of the tutelary (or subtutelary) deity of that animal. Of course, vegetarians/vegans are excluded from this rule, since their objection is not to eating any particular animal, but animals in general.

However, Jews and Muslims are quite insistent they don't think pigs are sacred - quite the opposite actually - and would not dare be seen worshipping some pig deity - they find the suggestion rather offensive.

That is fine; they are inconsistent, let them be. This is a sign of the error in their beliefs, by false and lying prophets authored.

If they wish to become consistent, they can become Maratreans. Or they can join a Maratrean auxiliary ecclesia based on the Jewish or Islamic tradition. But, they will have to eat pork to do so. This is for two reasons:

  • it is a requirement for all auxiliary ecclesiae that they only prohibit the eating of a meat if they consider the animal it is of to be sacred, and thus they must worship a corresponding tutelary or subtutelary
  • it is not permitted for the auxiliary ecclesiae to hold as sacred animals the central ecclesiae does not hold as sacred.

They may object to worshipping a pig deity on the grounds of monotheism; they could get around this by simply honouring the pig spirit, the pig angel, the pig saint, or something similar - this can be seen as equivalent to worshipping a pig deity, even if they don't see it that way. But even if they were willing to do this, they would then be having an additional sacred animal, which is unacceptable in the auxiliary ecclesiae.

But, they could adopt vegetarianism, in which case they are excused from eating any meat. So, their choices in the central ecclesia or the auxiliary ecclesiae are to either eat pork or become vegetarians.

It might be objected "I just don't like pork, I shouldn't have to eat something I don't like". Fine, you don't have to eat pork regularly. It is enough to do it once, publicly, as a public statement of one's rejection of false doctrine. You might not like the taste, but surely it is not that bad - unless, it's not really the taste which bothers you, but rather your adherence to false doctrine.

Alternatively, they could join a derogative ecclesiae instead. They could derogate from the rejection of the pig as a sacred animal, and thus honour the holy pig. If that offends their monotheism, they can derogate from tutelary-worship too (although, we can simply deem them as tutelarians even as they insist they aren't.) They could even derogate from the principle that prohibited-to-eat animals must be sacred animals, which would be derogating basically to their current beliefs. But such a derogation is a greater derogation, and further from the truth; thus, while still permissible, it must be more strongly discouraged. It is our task to bring them to the truth, by whichever path they will take (and there are multiple such paths). In the same way as they could do this in a derogative ecclesiae, they could of course do it in a federative or prefederative ecclesiae also. (Indeed, prefederative ecclesiae is precisely what they are doing.)

An auxiliary ecclesiae is not permitted to have more sacred animals than the central ecclesiae. It can have less; however, while it may refrain from holding as sacred a particular animal held to be sacred by the central ecclesiae, it must nonetheless obey all the central Maratrean laws for the protection of that animal, including the prohibition on eating it.

Comments