These impressive qual's no doubt explain why you can't tell the difference between an evangelical Christian and an Orthodox Jew.
So, are you willfully refusing to read what I actually wrote, or does the thought sharing a rhetorical style with adherents of another faith freak you so much that you're just completely unable to process what I actually wrote?
Alrighty, once more, with feeling:
1) You broke down "religions that have hangups with food" into two categories. Category one, the Western Religions, has proscriptions, according to you, based on cleanliness and forbidding impure animals. Category two, certain non-Western religions with hangups about food, specifically about meat, does no, according to you, actually have hangups about food, but about killing, and so they aren't really a category.
Of course, this is a false dichotomy, because Judaism has a couple different bodies of law about food, one of which is entirely about avoiding cruelty, avoiding eating a "living animal" (which may include an animal killed improperly).
You decided that this was irrelevant, because you had already classified Judaic food laws. I disagree. You classified Judaic food laws wrong. As with so many things, here, life defies categorization.
2) You are a religious apologist. I said so. I didn't say anything about you being an apologist for over-controlling or patriarchal religions. In fact, I didn't use either of those descriptors. Or um, any descriptors.
3) I said that you and members of the yeshiva world use the same sorts of arguments. This is not actually the same this as saying you are a Jew, or as saying you defend Jews, or that you have anything to do with Jews. All it means is that you use the same sorts of arguments.
Like, for example, when you don't understand a comment but suspect that it's somehow being used against you (an assumption you jump to pretty quickly), instead of asking for clarification, you choose an alternate and generally non-sensical reading and then try to insult the utterer on the basis of your bizarre re-reading. You act as though you you are unable to process any comment as anything other than slavish agreement or a substantive attack. Hence, "Dude, your categorization scheme doesn't work for these reasons" becomes in your mind some kind of attack that somehow equates you with Jews.
But, hey, probably the most delightful thing about Fundamentalists of all stripes is how profoundly convinced they are that people who disagree with them are stupid or ignorant. You've already decided that I can't possibly know what I'm talking about, apparently because I have an emotional interest in religion, a comment that certainly raises questions about your logic system. I could lay out my intellectual background and credentials in theology, law, comparative religion, and logic, but really, what would be the point? This isn't about anything other than your refusal to actually read what I wrote, or your inability to understand it, preferring to attack me on the basis of your refusal to actually read it. And that's just dumb. But very yeshivish.
