![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 !!! |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
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").
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
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? |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
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 |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
|
Very true, in much the same way that Alcohol is prohibited by the constitution in the US.
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
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?
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
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."
|
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Which is why I mentioned the unconstitutionality of alcohol. Does a repeal by a later passage count as "picking and choosing?" |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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?" |
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Are Americans hypocrites because we consume Alcohol despite it being abolished by our 18th amendment?
ETA: Does your country never repeal laws? |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I like: THIS IS THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD (subject to change) |
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
#18
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
#20
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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 |
![]() |
|
|
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 02:10 AM |
| Catching Wild Pigs | Class Bravo | Inboxer Rebellion | 6 | 16 March 2008 11:10 AM |
| Pigs, worms and ex-boyfriends ... wait, I think we have a theme | snopes | Snopes Spotting | 1 | 21 March 2007 07:19 PM |
| Sunset From Space | WildaBeast | Fauxtography | 5 | 22 February 2007 08:48 PM |