the prohibition against pork: it is too much like cannibalism?

nov 23rd, 2009

i was listening to a podcast by christopher hitchens from kqed's forum program, and he -- an atheist and a true secularist -- claims that the proscription against pork in judaism is because the pig is very close to humans, and eating pork is pretty much akin to eating human flesh. in fact, pigs are biologically close to humans, so much so that pig livers and even pig skin have been transplanted into humans. pigs are also very smart -- i read in new scientist that they are among only a small handful of animals that are self-aware, that is, if they see themselves in a mirror, they realize it is themselves, not some other pig. also, i understand that pigs are one of the few animals that deliberately lie: if a pig knows where some food is hidden, it will deliberately throw others off the trail! so human!

once jews made this prohibition, mohammedans blindly followed it. 

does anybody have any opinion on the truth or plausibility of this assertion?

i have enjoyed a bit of barbecued baby-back rib in my time, and it is rather tasty. that also reminds me of a short story about how gourmands were treated to the most exquisite and tasty meat (if a little salty) at a restaurant, and how they loved it until they noticed that the fattest among them were regularly disappearing -- they realized the meat they ate was from their peers!

also does anybody remember the hilarious film "eating raoul" about a couple of restaurateurs (one a stunning female) who lure S&M enthusiasts via ads, dispatch them by beating them over their heads with frying pans, and then serve them as delicacies? yes, eating raoul. literally.

there was also a peter greenaway film ("the cook, the thief, the wife, and her lover") where the wife bakes her murdered lover and forces her cruel husband the cook to eat him, or at least parts thereof ("it's a delicacy", says she fetchingly).