Dutch Muslims & Jews united together

[Slargos]

Do you ever worry that your Jew blood may be impairing your judgement? 

[Neil]

Do you ever worry that your Jew blood may be impairing your judgement? 

Not really.  After all, it's not blood that impairs judgement, but rather culture.

[Razgovory]

Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.

Iron age.   

Yeah, the same time period from whence most European law is derived.

[Razgovory]

Yes, your silly ancient desert fairy tale tells you to torture animals. Your non-existent god is a sadist, I get that. You want me to respect your war criminal torturist paedophile murderer rapist bandit thief of a prophet, I get that. I'm sorry, but fuck you.

Ayesha's age at marriage is disputed.

Citations 173-76
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed#cite_note-181

I'm not sure an Icelander should be going on about people's founders who are rapists, bandits and murderers.

[Grallon]

Muslim vermin being obnoxious - joined with Jews being their usual exclusivist selves...

What's not to 'love'?


Bahh - two faces of the same irredentist coin.  They're all Semites after all!




G.

[Razgovory]

A Quebecker complaining about someone being obnoxious, exclusive, and irredentist? 

[ulmont]

It doesn't seem odd to you that the Dutch require everyone else to stun animals before slaughter but Jews and Muslims get a religious exception? I don't really think that's what freedom of religion is supposed to mean.

This issue came up in Lukumi Babalu case and the Supreme Court ruled that a local government could not pass an animal welfare ordinance that failed to exempt the Santeria practice of ritual animal sacrifice.

Yeah, but the ordinance in Lukumi Babalu was passed specifically to outlaw the Santeria practice of sacrifice, rather than a law of general applicability regarding killing of animals...

[Barrister]

Well I guess it sucks to be in a segment of a religion where your views can't adjust with the times.

In the USA you don't have to, because the Constitution guarantees free exercise.  So if the Amish want to drive their horse drawn-buggies, or if the Mormons want to wear their special undergarments, or the Sikhs their turbans, or if the Catholics want to erect huge statutes of a classical-era Jew on a Roman torture device, then they get to do all those things even if others think it is gauche and terribly out of fashion.

I would have thought that religious freedom counted for more in the Netherlands but perhaps not.

Religious freedom doesn't mean you can do anything your stone age book says.

Religious freedom means that we make reasonable accomodations to the religious concerns of our citizens.   The classic example are the various accomodations made for sikhs - they are allowed to carry a ceremonial kirpan in a variety of areas where you or I would not be allowed to carry a pocket knife.

Religion is not given carte blanche, but it is certainly given serious consideration.

That is a terrible example, since that accomodation was not reasonable at all.

  I'm not terribly bothered by it.

Sikhs provide a great many examples of reasonable accomodation.  Their turbans: they are allowed to wear a turban instead of other uniform headgear, but are still required to wear a hardhat.  The religious accomodation is given a lot of weight, but not absolute.

[Barrister]

Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. 

Halal and kosher slaughter is far from "legalized torture of animals".

[Barrister]

That is a terrible example, since that accomodation was not reasonable at all.

It was quite reasonable.

The kirpan?  That's pretty much on the borderline.

BUt this is at least progress (to my mind).  It's recognizing that accommodations can and should be made, and we're just discussing where to draw the line.

I understand that generally the kirpan for places like an airport must be very small and almost purely ceremonial - but still they are carrying an edged weapon where other people could not.

[Razgovory]

I'm surprised how seventh century Arabia is falling backwards through time.  First to the Bronze age, and now to the stone age.  By next week it may be somewhere in the middle Eocene.

[Martinus]

And I'm pretty sure that neither Marty or Slargos give a damn about the animals, either;

Fuck you about what you are "pretty sure". I donate to anti-animal-cruelty causes, I only buy eggs from free range chickens because of animal cruelty issues, I do not buy cosmetics tested on animals, I do not wear fur, I oppose hunting and when I have an alternative I try to buy meat from animals that were kept in humane conditions.

[Martinus]

I'm surprised how seventh century Arabia is falling backwards through time.  First to the Bronze age, and now to the stone age.  By next week it may be somewhere in the middle Eocene.

Weren't kosher meat slaughter rules established B.C.?

[Martinus]

My own personal opinion is that government should make reasonable accommodation to religious practice.

But (thank God) this is not what freedom of religion means in Europe. It means you can profess your belief in a deity or deities (although also with restrictions, e.g. when you are a public official) and you can worship your deity or deities, including together with fellow believers. You do not get special exceptions from laws applicable to everyone. That would be against the rule of separation of church and state (unlike in the US, it means more than just a prohibition against establishing a state church here).

[Slargos]

Yeah well if being against the legalized torture of animals forces me into the faggotry camp, then so be it. 

Halal and kosher slaughter is far from "legalized torture of animals".

dps noted that he doesn't cared what people do to their animals, and it's this attitude that I'm opposed to.