The pig?  -  Some slices of bacon

 

The sheep? - Some Muslims in a mosque

 

The clothing? - Their shoes

 

This is the story about a drunken man who thought it would be funny to put bacon inside the shoes left outside a mosque.  Frankly, I agree, this is rather funny.  Of course the man was arrested and charged with crimes relating to "racial hatred."  Here's where the problem lies.  This is not in any way racial.  It is religious.  The offended Muslims aren't restricted from eating pig due to their race, so in what way could this ever be considered racist?  The fact that the people are in a mosque in England gives very little clue as to the races of those inside, they could be from any number of countries.  They were mostly Somalian by the way.  Are Somalians not allowed to eat pig?  Well yes, if they also happen to be Muslim.  It makes me very angry that religion is so often confused with race.  Racial hatred is inexcusable.  Religious hatred makes sense.  Not that I'm saying we should cause harm to religious people, but they should be mocked, they are a joke.  They are an embarressment to humankind.

 

Anyway, I was interested to see how offensive you all thought this was.  Or more precisely, what level of offence is appropriate for this act of religious mocking.

 

In a sane world, the offended Muslims would simple chuckle "ha, that's funny because we can't eat pig, oh you clever sod!" and maybe be a little peeved that their shoes now smell of bacon.

 

In this world, I'm suprised it wasn't followed by a parade of angry imbeciles demanding a gruesome execution.

Tags: bacon, hatred, islam, mocking, mosque, muslim, pig, religion

Views: 63

Replies to This Discussion

Everyone can think for themselves no matter what they've been taught.  We all have the ability to see the world around us and compare it to what we're told.  Providing they have had a relatively good education, even if it is perverted by religion, they can think and reason and criticise.  So yes, anyone who is fully developed and still believes things they've been told without proof is an idiot.
You are so naive.  You have to stop seeing things as black or white.

Everyone can think for themselves no matter what they've been taught.

 

Funny that your next statements directly contradict this.

 

...Providing they have had a relatively good education...

 

Which, of course, is comparatively rare among the religious. 

 

So yes, anyone who is fully developed and still believes things they've been told without proof is an idiot.

 

Well, they've been given proof, but it isn't true.  They are also taught that there is danger to go against such evidence.  When you are taught that critical thinking is BAD and you are given apologetics and false evidence for claims, you will tend to accept them.  When people try to show you critical thinking, you are prepared: they are doing a bad and evil thing.

By "a relatively good education" I mean being taught to read and write etc.  So this is not a contradiction to what I said. 

 

Anyone living in the civilized world is capable of seeing things for what they are.  Plenty of people have been able to break free from their religion, so it is posiible for everyone to.  Unfortunately, humans are only a primitive form of intelligent life and the majority still require belief in superstitious nonsense.  So yes, they should be mocked.  But they should not be attacked, there is a difference.  As I have already said, I would not physically attack a religious person, of course I wouldn't.  And I have also said I would not put meat in a muslim's shoes.  But mock them verbally, yes of course, they deserve it and I couldn't give two shits if they are "offended"

Have you ever been to small-town USA?  They have some impressive reality filters in some of the more out-of-the-way corners.  It's difficult for anyone to learn critical thinking, with all of the immersion in the religious mindset.

Anyone living in the civilized world is capable of seeing things for what they are.  Plenty of people have been able to break free from their religion, so it is <sic>posiible for everyone to.  Unfortunately, humans are only a primitive form of intelligent life and the majority still require belief in superstitious nonsense.

 

These two sentences contradict each other.  Can they all break free, or are they too primitive to break from "superstitious nonsense?"

 

So yes, they should be mocked.

 

Mock religion all you want.  You'll get no complaints from me.  Thing is, if they are too primitive or too idiotic, then it wouldn't do any good.  I think mocking them works specifically because they aren't all idiots and mocking them helps them see things from different perspectives. 

 

 

Be as condescending as you like, it really doesn't bother me.  It's just not a good way to put an argument across.

 

I never claimed that mocking people would help at all, nothing will help.  But that doesn't take away my right to offend people for their ridiculous beliefs.  Beliefs that are on a par with santa claus or the easter bunny.  Nobody has the right to not be offended.

I'm not being purposefully condescending, I'm actually trying to be civil but your avoidance of answering any question or addressing any point I've put forward is making it difficult.

I've already said mock away.  Now you are saying that mocking won't change their mind.  You are just spouting nonsense.  You say everyone can change, but then they are too idiotic or primitive to change.  Then you follow with nothing can change them. 

You say a good education is reading, writing, etc, and yet that should somehow give people quality critical thinking skills to allow them to change...except that now you say nothing can help them.

I agree with mocking religious people, I agree with offending them.  No one has the right to not be offended.  But I never brought those up.  My point was no one should be allowed to violate someone else's property to make a statement, and if you do be prepared to pay the price. 

I don't know Britain's laws on this, and you haven't given me any clues.  Hell, you haven't even given me a link to where this story is coming from, so it might just come out your ass.

Additionally, what kind of person does it make you to offend and mock people you think are idiots and can't change their positions (even though at some points you think they all can)?  Isn't that like making fun of the mentally challenged?  What is the POINT of your offending them?  Your personal entertainment?  Your positions make no sense to me, and seem self-contradictory.

Nobody has the right to not be offended, but they DO have the right to be safe from attacks on their person and on their belongings. Bacon in the shoes was vandalism, which IS punishable.

What I'm saying is not contradictory.

 

Everyone have the capacity to change, but we all know the vast majority won't, despite any overwhelming evidence which may be presented to them.  How is it a contradiction to say that they can change, but they probably won't?  I could say you can jump off a cliff, you have that option if you so wished, but you probably won't.  Where's the contradiction?

 

When I say nothing can change them, I simply mean no outside influence.  They have to use their own senses to realise what they've been told is a lie.  People have done this, no matter how brainwashed they have been.  So it IS possible.  But we all know it won't happen on a vast scale, if only it would.

 

The article I read was in a newspaper, not online.  If you're that interested I'm sure you could find it somewhere.  And I'm not a fountain of knowledge on the british legal system, so I can't help you there.

 

And once again, I have said I would not commit an act against a human or their property to get a point across, so stop implying I would or talking to me as if I did it.  I don't think this is right, but I can still laugh at it when it happens, providing it is a harmless prank.  Yes, harmless, as in putting bacon in someone's shoes is not harmful in any way.  It's unpleasant sure, but not harmful.  If you went and put bacon in an atheist's shoe, would you be imprisoned?  Would you even be punished at all, probably not.  The act itself is not an offense, if you take away the religious connotations.

 

Now to stoop to your level of argument.  You are contradicting yourself.  You say you agree religious people should be mocked, but then you say "what kind of person does it make you to offend and mock people"  See, I can take what you say out of context too, it's not big and it's not clever!

Everyone have the capacity to change, but we all know the vast majority won't, despite any overwhelming evidence which may be presented to them.  How is it a contradiction to say that they can change, but they probably won't?

 

Well, that's the first time you've said this, and if that has been your position the whole time, I'll agree with that.

 

When I say nothing can change them, I simply mean no outside influence.  They have to use their own senses to realise what they've been told is a lie.  People have done this, no matter how brainwashed they have been.

 

This I'll disagree with as if you present those senses of theirs with information that can help them make better decisions.  Mocking things that  are ridiculous helps some people look at those issues more closely, and if it is clever mocking that gives information too, all the better.

 

The article I read was in a newspaper, not online.  If you're that interested I'm sure you could find it somewhere.  And I'm not a fountain of knowledge on the british legal system, so I can't help you there.

 

Fair enough.  As for the news piece, I went ahead and looked for it since you didn't have an online piece:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394864/Racist-filled-Musli...

Apparently, he isn't in jail, but has walked FREE with a suspended sentence.  And he did this by entering the mosque, and placing ham on railings, and yelling at people in the mosque. 

The crime: He pleaded guilty to causing racially or religiously aggravated harassment and could have been jailed for up to two years.

See, I can take what you say out of context too, it's not big and it's not clever!

 

And if you think that's what I was doing, you haven't even been reading what I'm typing.

Fair enough, It was a suspended sentence, I must have missed that.

 

But look at the headline.  "Racist" being the key word there.  That's the main point of my original post.  I think you'll agree his actions were not racist.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service