Subway

But what about my second point?

Question too difficult mate.

It seems we have to respect the views of other religions. The amount of outrage when some muslim prisoners were fed non halal was enormous.
If non muslims decide they don't want to eat halal then they have started another them vs us argument and are stirring up racial hatred. Usual pattern.
Muslims are entitled blah blah others are racists for wanting similar treatment. Is so blatently obvious yet so many try to hide it.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
Sponsored Links
Perhaps Subway should have put up a sign saying:

"All meat products prepared in such a way that will satisfy all views however nonsensical".


Quite a good reason on Radio 5 this morning from a Muslim person stating that it was not god's wish but merely a method of ensuring the meat was fit for consumption in a hot climate hundreds of years ago.
He did not believe it was necessary today but of course not everyone can think for themselves.

Oh, and they, the presenters and newsreaders, with no hint of irony kept saying that it was a requirement that the animal must be alive when it is killed.

Despair grows daily.
 
Furthermore, why do I have to respect other's beliefs when they think mine irrelevant?


If my neighbour worships squirrels and thinks they created the world why should I respect this and not rightly think him a nutter?

It's the same with those who believe their god requires them do such things as cut off the end of their penis and mutilate girls and have other equally ludicrous beliefs.

I do know the answer to my question but some of us, at least, are seeing through such nonsense and hypocrisy.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
Sponsored Links
Perhaps Subway should have put up a sign saying:

"All meat products prepared in such a way that will satisfy all views however nonsensical".


Quite a good reason on Radio 5 this morning from a Muslim person stating that it was not god's wish but merely a method of ensuring the meat was fit for consumption in a hot climate hundreds of years ago.
He did not believe it was necessary today but of course not everyone can think for themselves.

Oh, and they, the presenters and newsreaders, with no hint of irony kept saying that it was a requirement that the animal must be alive when it is killed.

Despair grows daily.


As JBR (I think?) and myself also discussed elsewhere, there were probably good reasons for these rules when they were invented,for example the 'alive til dead' rule just meant you did not eat carrion, presumably ,and thus would not eat an animal that had died from disease or poison.
 
Furthermore, why do I have to respect other's beliefs when they think mine irrelevant?


If my neighbour worships squirrels and thinks they created the world why should I respect this and not rightly think him a nutter?

It's the same with those who believe their god requires them do such things as cut off the end of their penis and mutilate girls and have other equally ludicrous beliefs.

I do know the answer to my question but some of us, at least, are seeing through such nonsense and hypocrisy.

Red or grey squirrel?

I sense a schism coming on......
 
It's the same with those who believe their god requires them do such things as cut off the end of their penis and mutilate girls and have other equally ludicrous beliefs.

I do know the answer to my question but some of us, at least, are seeing through such nonsense and hypocrisy.


I don't think this was a "God" edict; more a custom for cleanliness (males), and purity / faithfulness / lack of desire to stray (females). Very egalitarian........ :rolleyes:
 
What are you saying?

That their religious beliefs are nothing to do with their god?

I think that generally , there were rules, and dressing them up as edicts from God or Gods chosen intermediaries made them easier to enforce.

Then some came later, like the Roman Catholic ban on priests marrying, not a religious law but an admin one.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JBR
Yes, but the followers presumably don't think their god disagrees with these rulings.

Therefore...
 
Whiteshite then tries to suggest that my mention of 185 outlets out of 1400 is an attempt to downplay the situation. The numbers do that. Not to mention the demand and the business desicion. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
As usual, coathanger is trying to downplay the real situation.

Then he comes out with another wierd and wild statement. Why doesn't he tell us instead of making devious and sinuous implications
I think people would be surprised to know how much halal there is out there in supermarkets, takeaways and school meals.

Not wishing to go over old ground, but a story in this week's Sun backs up my 'weird and wild statement'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/07/pizza-express-halal-debate_n_5279050.html

Coathanger can use figures to try to down play the situation, as if 185 out of 1400 Subway stores is not significant. Pizza Express are now using halal chicken in ALL of their outlets.

Coathanger can squirm and insult all he wants, but the truth is that halal meat will be enforced by stealth on the UK population; whether they like it or not.

Businesses are like governments in that they will do what they think they can get away with. Food chains like Pizza Express won't be honest and serve non-halal food as well as halal. This is partly because of cost and economies of scale. However, their real fear would be having both on the menu, and a follower of The R O P accidentally being given non-halal. There would be protests in the street and calls for a fatwa on the Pizza Express CEO. No, far easier to let everyone else eat halal than upset The R O P.

People like coathanger will sit and snear, and try to rubbish those who know what is REALLY going on. He has some hidden agenda and will stop at nothing to cover up the gradual takeover that is going on.

This is all pointless though. Seven pages ago (Jeez, how many more :rolleyes: ), I made a brief, unsubstantiated statement. Coathanger used juvenile insults (which eventually turned racist) to try to discredit the statement. He demanded links and proof. I provided them. He wanted more. I provided more, namely the one above from this week's media.

So, everyone - believe coathanger. Everything in the garden's rosey. There's nothing going on: nothing to worry about. Anyone who says different, even with proof, is a racist and either deluded or lying. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
First of all: Coathanger, You keep apologising for mistakenly making a racist 'error'. Now, if that was any other poster on here, I would probably give them the benefit of the doubt. But, as you seem to be the world's expert on racism (the only reason you joined the forum infact), there is absolutely no way you could have made that remark by accident.


Secondly: If there is little difference between animals being slaughtered in the conventional and having their throats cut, why does it have a muslim title? Halal. Why not 'bled to death?'

It doesn't bother me at all if every restaurant, café, supermarket in the country sells 'halal' meat, but just out of politeness to those who object, the facts should be made clear and should be given the choice whether to eat it or not. Personally, I would not choose to eat because I do not agree with the method.
 
First of all: Coathanger, You keep apologising for mistakenly making a racist 'error'. Now, if that was any other poster on here, I would probably give them the benefit of the doubt. But, as you seem to be the world's expert on racism (the only reason you joined the forum infact), there is absolutely no way you could have made that remark by accident.

Didn't he state somewhere that is why he joined.It was no accident he meant it.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top