snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01 October 2010, 05:49 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,556
Pig Pigs in (Muslim) Space

Comment: An interesting angle in the wake of the decision to allow a mosque near ground zero in New York

In Spain, Sevilla

Some local people found a way to stop the construction of another mosque in their town ..

They burried a Pig on the site, making sure this would be known by the
local press..

The Islamic rules forbiding to erect a Mosque on "Pig soiled ground" ..

The moslems had to cancel the project ..this land was sold to them by
government officials..

No protests were needed by the local people ... it worked !!!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01 October 2010, 05:53 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,556
Fright

This item seems to fit a pattern we've seen in other pieces of portraying Muslims as so fanatical and backwards that simply thrusting a pig in their direction is sufficient to make them scream and run away (kind of like the old stereotype of blacks and "spooks").
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01 October 2010, 05:59 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 19,736
Default

Wouldn't this be akin to preemptive vandalism? If Muslims were really that anti-pig, how would this be different than sticking a swastika on someone's property to prevent them from opening a synagogue?

ETA: Or, to make it secular, spraying a long-term herbacide on someone's property so they couldn't start a neighborhood garden?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01 October 2010, 06:43 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,844
Whalephant

Well, but those two examples are real and concrete. Herbicide actually changes the soil; the swastika is visible to everyone.

Much of the pork contamination is "magical." It outlasts the physical real contamination.

The physical contamination itself is real, and is odious, to be sure, and entirely illegal. It should be prosecuted, not only as a crime, but as a hate crime. On the other hand, I'd say to the Muslims: "Clean it up, and build anyway." Don't let the bad guys have that kind of magical power over you!

(Imagine if a religion sprang up where people had "secret names," such that, if someone learns yours, he has immense magical power over you, the power to issue death-curses, etc. Now suppose that I'm a journalist, and learn Obama's true name -- or Lindsay Lohan, or whatever: someone we could call a "public figure." I publish their secret name, and, later, someone else issues a death curse, and they actually die. Should I be liable in civil court for contributing toward their wrongful death? Or was I merely exercising my free speech? What are the limits? What if I merely publish that person's home address or cell phone number?)

I figure, as the religious wars get nastier and nastier, Muslims (and Jews) will simply become inured to the persistent magical effects of pork contamination. The overt act will be punishable by law, but the ritual uncleanliness will be responded to with rituals of purification.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01 October 2010, 06:51 PM
redspider
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If it helps in anyway, Christians shouldn't eat pork either. Or touch it.

Oh and I suspect Muslims already have a purification method, but I don't know enough about Islam to cite.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01 October 2010, 07:04 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,114
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by redspider View Post
If it helps in anyway, Christians shouldn't eat pork either. Or touch it.
Very true, in much the same way that Alcohol is prohibited by the constitution in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01 October 2010, 07:16 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 19,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
Well, but those two examples are real and concrete. Herbicide actually changes the soil; the swastika is visible to everyone.

Much of the pork contamination is "magical." It outlasts the physical real contamination.
I wanted to clarify something here. Are you saying it is okay to bury a pig on someone else's property because you think it will bother them because it doesn't have a physical affect and isn't visble?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01 October 2010, 07:42 PM
fitz1980 fitz1980 is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,252
Default

I'd imagine that story is not true. Islam forbids the eating of pigs, in much the same way that Jewish law forbids eating pigs. It's not like it bans ever stepping where a pig may have been or died before.

Plus the only reference I can find to this happening in Spain are reproductions of that e-mail.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01 October 2010, 07:43 PM
redspider
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
Very true, in much the same way that Alcohol is prohibited by the constitution in the US.
Someone should tell those muslimists that you don't have to follow everything in the Koran, you can just pick and choose the bits you like the most.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01 October 2010, 07:44 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,114
Wolf

I cannot speak for silas, but I would presume that his statement that he believes that the act "should be prosecuted, not only as a crime, but as a hate crime" is a pretty strong indicator that he does not see that action as "okay."
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 01 October 2010, 07:46 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,114
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by redspider View Post
Someone should tell those muslimists that you don't have to follow everything in the Koran, you can just pick and choose the bits you like the most.
Well, most Christians consider Acts 10 to be a repeal of the dietary restrictions in Leviticus. I am unaware of any part of the Koran that makes such a repeal.

Which is why I mentioned the unconstitutionality of alcohol. Does a repeal by a later passage count as "picking and choosing?"
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 01 October 2010, 07:50 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is offline
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 19,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
I cannot speak for silas, but I would presume that his statement that he believes that the act "should be prosecuted, not only as a crime, but as a hate crime" is a pretty strong indicator that he does not see that action as "okay."
I read that to mean that the prosecution part only applied to the physical contamination. IOW, he thought that if a group performed a pig exectution in a manner that there was no physical contamination, then there would be no issue.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01 October 2010, 07:58 PM
redspider
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
Well, most Christians consider Acts 10 to be a repeal of the dietary restrictions in Leviticus.
Umm well I was thinking of Deutronomy 14:8, but only cos I looked it up earlier.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
Does a repeal by a later passage count as "picking and choosing?"
In a way yes, because you have to get to the end of the book, and say "OK where are we? Which bits do we actually follow, and which bits got revoked later on?"
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 01 October 2010, 08:06 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,114
Wolf

Are Americans hypocrites because we consume Alcohol despite it being abolished by our 18th amendment?

ETA: Does your country never repeal laws?
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 01 October 2010, 08:19 PM
redspider
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonWolf View Post
Are Americans hypocrites because we consume Alcohol despite it being abolished by our 18th amendment?
Hypocrites isn't the right word.

And the legal system isn't a religion.

Essentially, yes, Americans (or rather the US legal system) are picking and choosing which laws to abide by. But the legal world has always accepted laws own fluidity.

Saying...

THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD.
(don't worry this bit gets repealed later)

...seems a bit strange. Revisionist. And what's the point in reading (and learning) something if it's going to get "repealed" later?

There are Christians who don't eat pork, probably because they don't see any revision provided in the New Testament.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01 October 2010, 08:27 PM
diddy's Avatar
diddy diddy is offline
 
Join Date: 07 March 2004
Location: Plymouth, MN
Posts: 10,630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redspider View Post
THIS IS THE WORD OF GOD.
(don't worry this bit gets repealed later).

I like: THIS IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD
(subject to change)
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01 October 2010, 08:38 PM
DemonWolf's Avatar
DemonWolf DemonWolf is offline
 
Join Date: 24 April 2002
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 13,114
Wolf

Quote:
Originally Posted by redspider View Post
Hypocrites isn't the right word.

And the legal system isn't a religion.
Some books of the bible are referred to as the laws. Others are the histories. God At one point forbid the eating of certain animal. At a later date, he repealed that law. It really is that simple. Revisionist would be if it was insisted that the Bible never said it or had always meant something else. It is up to the practitioner to read the book and know what part s/he is expected to follow. It's not like there's been an amendment to it lately, so s/he has plenty of time to get through it.

Or, if you prefer, you can see the bible as God's plan. In phase 1 (old Testament), he did not want certain things done. Later, then he proceeded to phase 2 (New Testament) some things became accountable. It'd be like if you were building a house and you told the carpenter not to paint the walls. Later, after the electrical conduits and plumbing were done, you told him to paint the walls. You are not being revisionist, you are simply advancing to a later stage of the plan.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 01 October 2010, 11:36 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,844
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
I wanted to clarify something here. Are you saying it is okay to bury a pig on someone else's property because you think it will bother them because it doesn't have a physical affect and isn't visble?
Huh? Heck no! I said: it's a crime, and, worse, it's a "hate crime." I said it ought to be prosecuted.

My view is that it is not a wise feature of a religion to have a susceptibility to "Kryptonite" (so to speak) built in to its theology.

For fun, watch the old movie "Tales of a Bengal Lancer." In it, there is a scene where the Muslim assassin is forced to tell all his secrets by a threat to bathe him with pig's blood. If that's all it takes, then the religion is fatally flawed.

I suspect that Islam is not so fatally flawed, and that the burying of a pig on a construction site would be met with purification, not with the abandonment of the mosque.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 01 October 2010, 11:43 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,844
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
I read that to mean that the prosecution part only applied to the physical contamination. IOW, he thought that if a group performed a pig exectution in a manner that there was no physical contamination, then there would be no issue.
Well, can it be done entirely within the law? For instance, a protester might drop a slice of ham from his sandwich onto the sidewalk outside the construction site -- entirely on public property -- and then pick it up again (so there's no charge of littering.)

Or he might mail a properly wrapped and sealed package of ham to the address.

There are no laws against "acts of magic" in this country; by the First Amendment, there cannot be. If I sit outside your church and loudly recite the Lord's Prayer backwards, while burning black candles and marking pentagrams in chalk on the sidewalk, I may be acting in a remarkably offensive manner, but there is no legal way to stop it.

The moment I make a chalk mark on your private property, I've trespassed, and can (and should) be prosecuted.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 01 October 2010, 11:49 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,844
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by redspider View Post
. . . Essentially, yes, Americans (or rather the US legal system) are picking and choosing which laws to abide by. . . .
Um, no. We changed the law. We can do that. For a period of time, under the 18th Amendment, Congress had the power to pass laws forbidding the importation, production, and sale of alcoholic beverages. Then the 21st Amendment was passed, and the 18th was repealed; Congress no longer has that power, and the laws it passed under that authority are null and void.

Here in San Diego, lots of homeowners have trust deeds that specify that their homes may never be sold to black families. These clauses are nullified by the 14th Amendment. We don't "pick and choose." We write laws, and, upon occasion, change them and reverse them. There is still only one law; it just might not be the same law as it was yesterday.

"Picking and Choosing" would be if a judge said, "It's okay to spray a swastika on a synagogue, but not okay to spray a pentagram on a Baptist church," or if a city attorney chose to prosecute only the second violation but never the first.

Silas
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Guinea pigs can't burp; rats can't vomit? moonfall Critter Country 14 26 October 2009 01:10 AM
Catching Wild Pigs Class Bravo Inboxer Rebellion 6 16 March 2008 10:10 AM
Pigs, worms and ex-boyfriends ... wait, I think we have a theme snopes Snopes Spotting 1 21 March 2007 06:19 PM
Sunset From Space WildaBeast Fauxtography 5 22 February 2007 07:48 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.