SC - Religious dietary restrictions

[Siegfried Heydrich]

    People who have religious proscriptions against consumption of blood
(whether religiously or ethically motivated) eat Kosher. I've done Kosher
dinners for orthodox Jews, and understand their need to conform to the
Mosaic code. But (as any practicing Jew knows), if it doesn't have the star
and Rabbinical approval, NOTHING is to be considered Kosher. Including an
SCA feast. And that's not just meat products, either. Anyone with such a
restriction wouldn't have eaten that particular feast to begin with, as I
had several pork products in it.
    Any time we serve pork, we run the risk of offending Islam. (and they're
a lot more touchy about pork than Jews, I've found) If we serve beef, we may
offend a Hindi. If we serve meat (whether Kosher or not) with a milk/cream
sauce, we violate Kosher bigtime. And I've been griped at repeatedly by
vegans who want more non-meat 'pure' dishes. I try to accommodate all
requests, but I can only go so far.
    While I'll concede that it was a potentially upsetting trick to play on
people, on the menu I did state that I would be serving both rabbit and
chicken, and that all dishes would be prepared in a period manner. I also
posted an ingredients list, and on it was 'rabbit'. (I documented and
redacted all dishes, and handed out copies of the recipes to the High table)
And rabbit blood is rabbit. (parts is parts, right? at least, according to
the USDA.) I fried off the rabbit and chicken in the same kettle, placed the
same sauce on both meats. Rabbit that the High table didn't scarf up was
eaten by others at feast. (I should have made a LOT more)
    I find the idea that one can eat the flesh of a given creature with no
problems, yet have an allergic or any reaction other than psychological to
the blood of that creature to be somewhat specious. Blood is used as a
thickening agent in commercial, industrial cooking all the time. It's just
listed in the ingredients as 'beef' (or whatever) and 'beef byproducts' (you
REALLY gotta watch those byproducts) It's just that you don't know about it,
and it slips in under your horizon, so you don't care.
    I think I caused less psychic damage than if I were to tell them what's
actually in many of their daily foods (believe me, you DON'T want to know
how NutraSweet is made. trust me on this.) The whole idea was to get them to
realize that just because something is culturally foreign, doesn't mean it's
not good. It's ludicrous that someone who gulps at the notion of a sauce
containing blood will chow down on a 7-11 hot dog without a second thought.
(Bright thought - if you start off every morning with a 7-11 hot dog,
nothing worse can happen to you the rest of the day!) I doubt very seriously
that many of those who turned green would have batted an eyelash at sopping
up the blood flowing from a medium rare steak with a dinner roll. What's the
difference?
    I really don't want to go down the path of politically or religiously
inoffensive feasts. It might be fun to do a Kosher feast, but virtually
everyone who eats a feast, eats American, no matter what we call it. Those
with dietary restrictions bring their own foods to events.
    And lest you think I disagree with your points, I don't. Enough people
were upset at the mere thought that I haven't done anything like that since.

    Sieggy

>
> This was, while maybe cute and effective and a way to get people to eat
> something new, A REALLY BAD IDEA. Had it occurred to you that you might
> have violated someones dietary or religious proscriptions? While I find
> the 'hiding' of ingredients just a little rude if you are trying to get
> around picky eaters, sometimes ingredients can be lethal. Or in the case
> of blood products and a practicing Jew, you have just caused them some
> considerable psychic agony. Do you _really_ want to treat you fellow
> SCAdians like this? While I understand the motivations that might lead
> to this, I would hope that you don't do it again. PLEASE- always label
> ingredients. For your safety and the confort and safety of your diners.!
>
> 'Lainie

> I have to agree.
>Not telling people what they are eating is "stealth cooking"
>I would have felt somewhat violated. Nobody should determine what
>goes into my tummy but me!
>
>ALWAYS have a _complete_ ingredient list.
>There are far too many and varied allergies and sensitivities among us,
>that this sort of thing is taking too damn much of a risk.
>
>Sigfried, you are lucky you weren't slapped with a lawsuit!!
>(and the SCA would _not_ have protected you because you were
>engaged in "deceptive practices")
>Even if no one was sensitive/allergic, you could well have been liable
>for punitave damages due to "mental pain and anguish"
>
>This is a SCARY thing to do.
>Please do not do it, however noble the purpose.
>
>PLEASE??
>
>Brandu