Muslims Protest Over Pet Food Factory That Could 'Rain Down' Pork

what happened to separation of religion from church and state?

Now tell me, why should they move, when the factory hasn't been built? Why don't they have the right to oppose a pet food factory being built by their neighborhood? How many people here would actually enjoy waking up everyday with pork raining down on them or breathing in the odor of meat 24/7?

Listen I live near a fish factory, and have the odour of fish smell for years, there are ways for them to stop the odor from spreading. You dont see me objecting to this factory basing this on religion. Everytime something happens to the muslim community they use the religion card everytime. It is becomming rather boring to say the least. Eventually they will be ignored, just like the majority of Christians in the UK.

Why should other people comform to the way they live. They come here as immigrants, they are meant to comform to the way we live in this country not the other way around.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
They come here as immigrants...

What horrible old tosh that is.

Almost half of all British Muslims were born in the UK according to the last census and that was 6 years ago, many more are full British citizens. Why should they be treated as second class members of our community because they do not fall into the white European stereotype?

Everyone has a right to complain, you know pigs are stinky, but cute, look

www.homestead-farm.net...

Look at this cute little fellow,

religious laws, pfffffft!

Just like that old Catholic law you can't eat meat on friday?

Good grief, you think GOD CARES?!

The great high Poobah, Omnipotent God, Omniscience, Omnipresent God cares what we eat?

Poobah must find us very amusing.

All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
The Beatles

Originally posted by timeless test
Almost half of all British Muslims were born in the UK according to the last census and that was 6 years ago, many more are full British citizens. Why should they be treated as second class members of our community because they do not fall into the white European stereotype?

Let me ask you this, if they choose to move to The UK or if their parents did, they must have wanted a better way of life right? But that is not what is happening here they move to the UK and want it their way which others have pointed out is not correct.

Lets us assume for just one minute that you get invited over to a friends house and they are serving their guest booze are you going to tell them hey you have to stop serving that stuff? If you do, my guess is they will throw you out on your ear, as you have no right dictating to them what goes on in their home. That is in effect what they are doing in most of their caes, why can't you realize that it is not right to force your ways onto others????

Ever hear the old saying when in Rome do as the Romans do?

Firstly, as I said above, nearly half of all Muslims (46%) at the 2001 census were born in the UK, they are British citizens by birth and I fail utterly to see why they should have any less input to British society than anybody else. Over three quarters considered their ethnicity to be British, good for them.

If those who moved here, either through choice or necessity are legal citizens or residents they acquire the basic rights and privileges of all citizens or residents. You seem to be suggesting that the fact that their lifestyle here may be better than that they left behind in their homeland somehow disbars them from any rights to try and make it better still through the same rights of protest, complaint or comment that are open to other citizens. I find that attitude quite bizarre.

No one is suggesting that their opinions should be more valuable or carry more weight than those of other ethnicities or religions, in fact quite the opposite is true due to our prejudicial blasphemy laws but they do have the right to voice their opinion as often and as loudly as they like which is exactly as it should be in my opinion. If they do so in a way which is not consistent with British law, such as during the protests against the cartoons published in Denmark, then they will find that not only do they have the same rights as other citizens or residents but they also have the same responsibilities and are liable to be prosecuted for abusing our free and inclusive way of life which is also as it should be.

As for your cocktail party analogy, you will be pleased to hear that I agree entirely, I would not dream of being so rude as to instruct my hosts as to what was or was not acceptable behaviour. However, if I shared that house, paid my share of the mortgage, contributed to its upkeep and was encouraged to express my opinions on how everyone in the house should behave I would be more than slightly surprised if I was then told to shut up and mind my own business as soon as I said something that not everyone else agreed with simply because I believed in a different god.


[edit on 3-8-2007 by timeless test]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
religious laws, pfffffft!

Just like that old Catholic law you can't eat meat on friday?

No, not just like. The no eating meat applied only to Catholics and they never tried to impose it on others or other religions. Blurring distinctions does a disservice to the discussion. Some Muslims in this world try to impose their system of beliefs on an entire civilization. Ie some want to totally ban alcohol or movies or certain art or make you dress a certain way, even if you are not a Muslim, is that right?

Originally posted by timeless test
As for your cocktail party analogy, you will be pleased to hear that I agree entirely, I would not dream of being so rude as to instruct my hosts as to what was or was not acceptable behaviour.

Fine you accept that analogy yet you insist what these individuals are doing is OK in your mind. That does not compute because not in this instance but in others that is exactly what Muslims are doing they are telling the Brits or US citizens we now have to conform to their beliefs/ways. In one case, a middle school in CA merged with a failed charter school with an all Muslim student about 100 total moved into the public school and demanded the school schedule be changed so they could pray. They also banned pork in the school cafeteria. Hello here is that drink scenario only in this case it is food. Why should every member of the whole school now be banned from eating pork?

In another instance, Prisoners demanded that bathroom facilities be changed because the toilets faced the wrong direction. Come on give me a break we should pay tens of thousands of dollars to redesign prisons built heaven knows how many years ago? I don't think so. If it was such a big a deal why did they wait so many years to complain about them? What were they doing in the homes they lived in before they went to prison? What did they do if they had to go to the bathroom in a shop or resturant that did not have conforming toilets? Surely you are not going to insist they held it are you? I am positive all of the toilet facilities in the world could not have met their demands, see how stupid they are being?


However, if I shared that house, paid my share of the mortgage, contributed to its upkeep Blah blah blah snip


Don't try and change the subject I gave you one scenario and one scenario only.





[edit on 8/3/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
Don't try and change the subject I gave you one scenario and one scenario only.

Yes you did, and I didn't change the subject so please stop being dishonest. I considered your scenario and agreed with your analysis, however, it bore no resemblance to the facts of the issue this thread was started to discuss so I gave you one other, (rather more meaningful), scenario, "and one only" - not surprisingly you chose not to respond to it but went on the defensive instead, I wonder why?

Originally posted by timeless test
I wonder why?

It is obvious what you were trying to do that is why I did not address it. In fact you added something that was not relevant when you put yourelf in the same scnerioro under differant circumstances.

And why did you not address my other questions regarding public school students where they banned pork in the cafeteria or what about why didnt or havent they ever complained about the toilets in prisons prior to last year?

[edit on 8/3/2007 by shots]

Originally posted by shotsAnd why did you not address my other questions regarding public school students where they banned pork in the cafeteria or what about why didn't or havent they ever complained about the toilets in prisons prior to last year?

I didn't address those questions for two reasons:

1. They are not situations that I know the background to as they have not been publicised in the UK so I felt that I was not qualified to comment on them meaningfully.

2. I didn't think it would be helpful to get into a lengthy "did, didn't" style argument about issues which did not appear to be central to the point of the thread. Please bear in mind that I am talking about the thread which you started in order to criticise Muslims who were unhappy about a proposed pet food factory in the UK. (Forgive me for labouring the point but that's a bit rich coming from someone who has accused me of changing the subject).

It is obvious what you were trying to do that is why I did not address it.

I'm glad it was obvious. I was presenting your scenario but adjusted it slightly to more accurately represent the facts of the situation that your thread set out to address but which you have carefully avoided talking about for 5 or 6 pages now. I will confess that I'm not really sitting here wondering why you failed to respond to it as honestly as I responded to yours - I can make a fairly good stab at what the problem is.

Let's cut to the chase shall we, what is it you really object to?

a) Immigrants
b) Muslims
c) People with a different colour of skin than you
d) None of the above

No offence intended naturally, I'm just really curious. (Of course, I'm just guessing what colour your skin is but you'll be sure to tell me if I'm wrong won't you?)

[edit on 3-8-2007 by timeless test]

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
Listen I live near a fish factory, and have the odour of fish smell for years, there are ways for them to stop the odor from spreading.

I drive by a pet food factory every week and let me tell you, it's the most disgusting smell ever, even with my windows up and me spraying air freshener everytime I have to drive near it. Sure there are ways to stop the odor, but is it something the business will spend lots of money on? Nope.

Now if you were living there and you hear word that a fish factory would be built next to your home, would you object?

You dont see me objecting to this factory basing this on religion.

Has your religion stated that fish are unclean?

Everytime something happens to the muslim community they use the religion card everytime.

Here's a shocker for you - Maybe because it is a religion.

It is becomming rather boring to say the least. Eventually they will be ignored, just like the majority of Christians in the UK.

This is your opinion and I can't tell you you're wrong for stating it.

Why should other people comform to the way they live.

No one is forcing you to live as a Muslim. O the other hand, if you force Muslims to live in a way that conflicts with their faith, you're trying to conform them.

They come here as immigrants, they are meant to comform to the way we live in this country not the other way around.

Once again, you're treating Islam as a race and not a religion. So you're telling me there is not one native born Muslim in your country? Every Muslim immigrated to there from somewhere else?

[edit on 3-8-2007 by DJMessiah]

I ask that you consider this specific part of Marvin Harris' quote.

because over the passage of centuries it is the collective wisdom that to do so is to waste resources

Just what is religion?

I know it tastes great... but should you eat pig?

Should you be allowed to waste resources while others go hungry; because you can afford to?

also consider...

not every muslim is born in iran or syria and is looking to infiltrate your country. Islam is a religion... and it is growing in every country. A religion is a way of life... one that has come to be known to produce Divinity and bring Grace.

I am,

Sri Oracle

Originally posted by timeless test
Let's cut to the chase shall we, what is it you really object to?

a) Immigrants
b) Muslims
c) People with a different colour of skin than you
d) None of the above

I would have to say none of the above. In case you have not read some of my posts you would know I have Friends who immigrated from Muslim countries and some of my doctors are also presumably Muslims although I have never asked them specifically what their religion is.

Fair enough...

You still don't want to respond the the scenario I put to you then? After all, I could be way off in my assumptions.

Originally posted by timeless test

You still don't want to respond the the scenario I put to you then? After all, I could be way off in my assumptions.

Unlike your scenario which had no relevance to the topic/thread, I have clearly stayed on the same issue which is that some muslims are forcing their beliefs on others.

Here is what you stated above

However, if I shared that house, paid my share of the mortgage, contributed to its upkeep and was encouraged to express my opinions on how everyone in the house should behave I would be more than slightly surprised if I was then told to shut up and mind my own business as soon as I said something that not everyone else agreed with simply because I believed in a different god.

Now where is resemblence to the topic??? All you did was put yourself into the issue with several if's ands or maybes. this is not about you nor did you respond to the actual issue of pushing ones religous beliefs on others.

I on the other hand gave you specific instances and examples of what I was talking about


[edit on 8/3/2007 by shots]

I came across this article, well actually it is a video and further proves that some muslims clearly have an agenda

Muslim buys Dunkin Donut Franchise then says it is against his religion to handle pork

Now i ask you why on earth would a Muslim buy a franchise knowing the products they sell are against their religion?


The answer of course is obvious they want to take over the US or any other country with their religion thats why.

[edit on 8/3/2007 by shots]

No, not just like. The no eating meat applied only to Catholics and they never tried to impose it on others or other religions. Blurring distinctions does a disservice to the discussion

Oh I beg to differ, back in the day they thought if you were not Catholic you were doomed.

They no longer have the ,

Thou must eat fish on Friday rule.

That's what I mean by reformation, it is not the Catholics fault there were stupid religious laws, nor you average Muslims fault either.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Oh I beg to differ, back in the day they thought if you were not Catholic you were doomed.

Please back up your opinion with document-able facts that Catholics sought to impose a ban on eating meat on the general population regardless of your religious beliefs. You are blending different parts of Catholicism to try and prove your point which as a Catholic myself, I have never seen any non Catholic forced into not eating meat on a Friday. I, nor anyone I know of, don't go about snatching Big Macs out of people's hands and giving them a Filet-O- Fish.

That kind of talk smacks of ignorance or preconceived ideas about my faith. The same thing can be said of the Muslim faith in most Western nations, it is "foreign" to most of the general population and the only people speaking up on the Muslim side tend to be more hardline/Radical than moderate. We have had discussions here in Metro Detroit if Mosques should be allowed to have amplified Minarets to broadcast call to prayers, should they? Is it a noise nuisance on the rest of the non Muslim neighborhood, yet a valuable form of communication to the Muslim community, which way is the right way? Tough questions, if I remember correctly, the problem was resolved with a splitting of the differences, with both sides being reasonable.

As long as all religions are respectful of each other, it goes a long ways towards reaching mutually agreeable solutions. Muslims in the West and in the U.S. have a hard row to travel due to the actions of a relative minority of their religion, they must be aware of that and seek to work out things with the rest of the population. Religon has become political and less personel due to lack of understanding and respect of each other's faith.


If Muslims don't want to eat pork or drink, that's fine by me, just don't force me to change my lifestyle for your convenience. If you don't want to work for a company or own a company because of it's rules clash with your religious beliefs and you know that ahead of time, then just don't work for them. If you want to get a pet food plant blocked, use the quality of life arguments more than the "raining" down pork ones. How would you feel about Catholics protesting at a Steakhouse on a Friday? What about a store that refused to sell to Non Muslims? Sounds crazy doesn't it?

Most branches of religions tend to think theirs is the truest form of worship.

You also say "back in the day", we are commenting on current events dealing with a religion. Apples to Oranges in my book.

I don't want to upset you, and didn't mean to offend you, you are correct they didn't force anyone other then Catholics to eat fish on Friday,

However at certain points in history the Catholic church did consider itself the only way and other churches were concidered heretical.

With that in mind I imagine they would have liked for everyone to convert to Catholicism in order to be ligit, and once you convert you would have had to eat fish?

Yes?

I thought they did away with this, am I right?

These are laws of men, not the laws of God. IMHO, I imagine you believe they are the laws of god given to the Pope, God's spokesperson.

If I remember right they also have had changes in many areas, for one their saints, weren't some saints demoted?



Also, when considering this,
"Pope Apologizes for Sins of Church"

I found this interesting,

The document acknowledges sins only by those acting in the name of the church. It does not acknowledge any sins by the church itself or those who have served as its popes; both are considered infallible.

archives.cnn.com...
Do you think jesus was a Catholic?
www.foxnews.com...

Peace out, IMHO opinion no man is infallible, but this is just my opinion, I am sorry if I offended you.

We are way off topic, sorry again.


[edit on 4-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]