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: 60

Replies to This Discussion

Yes, the news reporter who wrote the headline was lazy or ignorant or just uncaring.  The law for religious and racial harassment appears to be the one law, as it is in the USA.

NOBODY deserves to be mocked. The psychopathic among us (which this guy is decidedly NOT) need to be controlled so that they don't hurt themselves or others, but harassing other people because they believe something, EVEN if it is wrong, is anti-human, unethical, and reflects more badly on the perpetrator than on those being mocked. You SURELY believe things that will turn out to be wrong -- does that mean YOU deserve to be mocked?

 

Being a "rational thinker" or a non-theist does NOT preclude having a concern for kind and appropriate treatment of our fellow human beings. The moral teachings of religion are specific about this, but you DON'T have to be religious to know that they are right, at least in this area. As a non-theist, you acknowledge that this concept does not come from an exterior deity, but from the essence of being HUMAN. I'm not sure you ARE human if you refuse or are unable to empathize with the feelings of others.

If I believed in something contrary to substantial evidence then yes, I would deserve to be mocked.  If I claimed a magical being was the answer to all unknown questions, then yes, I would deserve to be mocked.  If I believed something based on current evidence which turns out to be wrong, and new evidence was brought to light.  I would be open to a change in my belief about that particular thing.  If I continued to believe said thing despite the overwhelming new evidence, then once again, yes, I should be mocked!
Again, thank you, Natalie, good points made.
In the other hand, is hard to not make fun about so funny beliefs...
Thank you. Natalie, you make much more sense than the so called rational thinker here and some who agree with him. I just wonder, who died and made them god.
This is a stupid reaction to a stupid prank against a stupid belief - no intelligence required.

It wasn't very nice, but it was kind of funny.  It wasn't racist. It seems hypocritical to me that so many people can rant on and on about killing Muslims and that is free speech, put a little bacon in some shoes and go to jail for 6 months.  Which is worse?  Threaten to kill someone or ruin their shoes? Let the punishment fit the crime.  Some community service and sensitivity training. 

 


Let the punishment fit the crime

 

Make them wear shoes with hummus in them for a month.

The equivalent punishment would be to make the perpetrator wear shoes that had been dipped in excrement. Hummus is not intrinsically abhorrent in our culture; pork IS in theirs. This has as much to do with culture as religion, and we do not reflect well on ourselves when we cannot accept the differences of others.

I think it is easy for religion to be confused with culture.  Muslims not being allowed to eat pork is not cultural.  It is a direct result of their faith.  If Islam can be considered a culture, then it is a disgusting culture which demands no respect at all.  Accepting differences is good, unless those differences are barbaric and oppressive.  Not all cultures are equal, and to think so is naive.

 

I remember reading a story about an island in which the culture was to have sex with underage girls.  This was perfectly acceptable in their culture, even normal.  Would you accept the differences of this culture?

Who died and made you god? And equating ridiculous analogies of other cultures to respecting cultural differences in general doesn't nullify the notion of respecting other cultures, it just shows that if you have to go to sarcastic extremes to make your point, how solid is it?. You really come off as an uncaring bigoted uncompasionate arrogant asshole who carries the idea of sterile rationality to extremes. Rationality without a worthy context is useless, humans do have feelings and if your intent is to hurt, then you're just a dickhead.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service