Deep Critical Exploration of the Peace Through Pork Agenda





"Peace Through Pork" is an evolving practice that is based on interpersonal contact and dialogue.



The core element of "Peace Through Pork" is the offering of delicious, fried, cured, pig flesh to passers by. This is done in front of a banner proclaiming the event in english, arabic and hebrew. The desired result of this situation is to provoke individuals to approach a representative and inquire about either the theory of "Peace Through Pork" or express an interest in eating some bacon.



The one on one dialogue that ensues is critical to the process. A primary function of "Peace Through Pork" is to explore the importance of a live oral dialogue vs a dead written text. It is through this dialogue that explorations into the superstitions and fears that are generated by "dead text" religions and belief systems are possible.



The dialogue can take many directions, as it should since it is based on a unique instance in time and space, but generally it is an exploration into the superstitious belief systems that promote actions by invoking fear.



There are many factors that might lead one to decide to avoid the consumption of pork.

If I were to ask you if you eat bacon and you said "no," there may be many reasons.

Perhaps the high fat content makes you ill, or you might be watching your cholesterol, or perhaps the thought of eating animals makes you uncomfortable. Heck, I even met one woman who had a pet pig when she was young and her parents served it for dinner.

There are many reasons to avoid bacon, thoughtful, rational reasons.

Avoiding pork products is not, in of itself, what is being critiqued here.



Some religions ban the consumption of pork. This is not a critique of those religions, it is an exploration of how individuals interact with superstition and fear. Often, in my discussions, the people I meet will make statements such as "well, Muslims are (fill in the blank)" or "Christians have their own issues." These modes of thinking are dead ends. The spectrum of individuals that makes up any group allows for examples to be made to substantiate any position. Some muslims are more moderate than some christians, and vice versa. Generalization about groups of individuals is a dangerous precedent that ties into superstition and fear.



If you were to respond to my question with "God told me not to eat bacon" then we have the stage set for discussion of superstition and fear motivating ones actions. Even if you do eat bacon, the thought process behind "Peace Through Pork" drives straight at the heart of our preconceptions and fears.



One can approach things in ones life through a rational, thoughtful exploration of ideas. Taking a religious text as the basis for anything without examining the surrounding evidence and exploring your own personal beliefs is a dangerous precedent.

When a thought (or delicious pork product) is repressed, it finds an outlet somewhere. By cutting off the exploration of an idea (or a tasty food) from rational exploration and dialogue, we are repressing it. When we push a thought or an idea down into the dark corners of our minds and our memories, it will bubble to the surface of our consciousness in unexpected and unpredictable ways. Could it be that all of this violence stems from the repression of bacon?

Maybe not, but bacon tastes really good and you certainly shouldn't deny yourself that joy just because of fear.



If we can't talk about bacon in a rational and thoughtful manner, then how can we ever hope to talk about any other issue that we allow to infect our lives with fear and superstition. Bacon is so simple and so tasty, how could it ever be a flashpoint? If it can not be addressed, how can we address real issues; our distrust of each other, our misunderstanding of each others customs, our lack of respect for each others humanity.



Can we allow bacon to be that first step towards a broader conversation?



Is bacon not the metaphor for all of our fears and desires?