(Close Window)
Topic: Terror Works
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 5, 2011 04:38PM)
Terror works. They are winning. [url=http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-muslim-inmates-meals,0,2543782.story]They are succeeding in their explicit program of imposing their law on the rest of the United States:[/url]

[quote]COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A decision by Ohio officials to remove all pork products from prison menus in response to a lawsuit by Muslim inmates is not sitting well with the state's pork producers and processors.[/quote]

That's right. All pork products removed from all menus in all prisons.

[quote]If Ohio would provide Muslim inmates with pre-packaged meals similar to those given to Jewish inmates, as the lawsuit requests, it wouldn't be necessary to remove pork from menus, said David Singleton, executive director of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, which is suing on behalf of the two inmates.

Assistant prisons director Steven Huffman has spoken with Isler, but the system isn't changing its mind, spokeswoman JoEllen Smith said Wednesday.

She said she couldn't comment on the lawsuit specifically, but said removing pork assures that inmates' religious practices aren't jeopardized by pork coming into contact with other food during preparation.

Ohio joins California, Florida, Maryland and Massachusetts among states that don't serve pork in prisons. Massachusetts stopped serving pork more than a decade ago to satisfy religious preferences, said prisons spokeswoman Diane Wiffin.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 5, 2011 04:40PM)
I find it extremely insensitive to all the vegans in prison that ANY meat is severed within prisons! (And I'm expecting their lawsuit sometime in the near future although I don't expect a favorable ruling unless they happen to be Muslim Vegans.)
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 5, 2011 04:46PM)
"[T]he inmates' lawsuit doesn't involve pork at all; it demands that non-pork meats like beef come from animals slaughtered according to Islamic law. But the prisons system responded by simply removing pork as an option altogether."

"If Ohio would provide Muslim inmates with pre-packaged meals similar to those given to Jewish inmates, as the lawsuit requests, it wouldn't be necessary to remove pork from menus, said David Singleton, executive director of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, which is suing on behalf of the two inmates."

So, really, it is the bureaucrats who should get the blame. Or Republican Governor Kasich. I guess the buck stops at his desk, after all.

I suppose to be fair, he should take away the pre-packaged meals being served to the Jewish inmates as mentioned in the excerpt above while he is at it.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 5, 2011 04:51PM)
Yes, balducci, that is exactly right. Spineless bureaucrats motivated by fear of terror. They never thought they had to provide Kosher food to every inmate, they just thought they should follow the Shariah as closely and as cheaply as they could. (I would agree that "cheaply" was probably very important.)

I doubt that the State will do much to accommodate vegans. They haven't carried out more than 17,000 deadly terror attacks since 2001 . . .
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 5, 2011 04:52PM)
[quote]If Ohio would provide Muslim inmates with pre-packaged meals similar to those given to Jewish inmates, [b]as the lawsuit requests,[/b] it wouldn't be necessary to remove pork from menus, said David Singleton, executive director of the Ohio Justice and Policy Center, which is suing on behalf of the two inmates.[/quote]
This isn't the terrorists winning. This is Ohio pouring salt in the punch bowl and handing the empty container to the Muslims. Same sort of thing that one high school did when they cancelled a prom after being told they couldn't bar a gay student from attending it with her date.

"You want to be treated equal? Fine, we'll just take it away entirely and you'll get the blame." Very easy to do when your target is a disliked minority.
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Oct 5, 2011 04:54PM)
Next the prison will have to be shut down and remodeled, so that no toilets are facing mecca, because that is againest muslim sensabilities.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 5, 2011 05:07PM)
Oh, so THAT'S what Al-Qaeda wants! I had no idea that they were trying to change prison menus in Ohio. It all makes sense now.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 5, 2011 05:14PM)
Magnus, make light of it all you want, but you of all people should be aware that the jihadi extremists explicitly agitate for the imposition of Shariah law all over the world, and the replacement of all other governments by a Caliphate. Shariah law is totalitarian, and ideally governs all aspects of private and public life, including prison menus in Ohio. They are serious about their aims, and willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 5, 2011 05:18PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:14, Woland wrote:
Magnus, make light of it all you want, but you of all people should be aware that the jihadi extremists explicitly agitate for the imposition of Shariah law all over the world, and the replacement of all other governments by a Caliphate. Shariah law is totalitarian, and ideally governs all aspects of private and public life, including prison menus in Ohio. They are serious about their aims, and willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.
[/quote]

That's just stuff the government makes up so they can pay people to fondle you at airports.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Oct 5, 2011 05:20PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:14, Woland wrote:
Magnus, make light of it all you want, but you of all people should be aware that the jihadi extremists explicitly agitate for the imposition of Shariah law all over the world, and the replacement of all other governments by a Caliphate. Shariah law is totalitarian, and ideally governs all aspects of private and public life, including prison menus in Ohio. They are serious about their aims, and willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.
[/quote]
Come on. Even Chris Christie thinks the whole anti-"Sharia Law" is crap.
Message: Posted by: HerbLarry (Oct 5, 2011 05:22PM)
This isn't political or religious.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 5, 2011 06:51PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:14, Woland wrote:
Magnus, make light of it all you want, but you of all people should be aware that the jihadi extremists explicitly agitate for the imposition of Shariah law all over the world, and the replacement of all other governments by a Caliphate. Shariah law is totalitarian, and ideally governs all aspects of private and public life, including prison menus in Ohio. They are serious about their aims, and willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.
[/quote]

That's just stuff the government makes up so they can pay people to fondle you at airports.
[/quote]

:rotf: !!
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 5, 2011 08:02PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:14, Woland wrote:
Magnus, make light of it all you want, but you of all people should be aware that the jihadi extremists explicitly agitate for the imposition of Shariah law all over the world, and the replacement of all other governments by a Caliphate. Shariah law is totalitarian, and ideally governs all aspects of private and public life, including prison menus in Ohio. They are serious about their aims, and willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.
[/quote]

"Hello! I am just listening to this record with my wife and our au-pair and I’d like to say how shocked we are that a pleasant collection of Norwegian folk songs should be turned into an excuse for communist propaganda of the shoddiest kind. What’s gone wrong with the world? I can’t even take a bath without 6 or 7 communists jumping in with me. They’re in my shirt cupboard and Brezhnev and Kosygin are in the kitchen now eating my wife’s jam. Oh, they are cutting off my legs! I can see them peeping out of my wife’s blouse! Why doesn’t Mr. Maudling do something about it before it is to late? Ohhhh….God…"

Another Monty Python Record
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 5, 2011 08:10PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 21:02, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:14, Woland wrote:
Magnus, make light of it all you want, but you of all people should be aware that the jihadi extremists explicitly agitate for the imposition of Shariah law all over the world, and the replacement of all other governments by a Caliphate. Shariah law is totalitarian, and ideally governs all aspects of private and public life, including prison menus in Ohio. They are serious about their aims, and willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.
[/quote]

"Hello! I am just listening to this record with my wife and our au-pair and I’d like to say how shocked we are that a pleasant collection of Norwegian folk songs should be turned into an excuse for communist propaganda of the shoddiest kind. What’s gone wrong with the world? I can’t even take a bath without 6 or 7 communists jumping in with me. They’re in my shirt cupboard and Brezhnev and Kosygin are in the kitchen now eating my wife’s jam. Oh, they are cutting off my legs! I can see them peeping out of my wife’s blouse! Why doesn’t Mr. Maudling do something about it before it is to late? Ohhhh….God…"

Another Monty Python Record
[/quote]

Those bits about being afraid of Communism are hilarious. Though they don't sell too well in Cambodia.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 7, 2011 03:46AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:14, Woland wrote:
Magnus, make light of it all you want, but you of all people should be aware that the jihadi extremists explicitly agitate for the imposition of Shariah law all over the world, and the replacement of all other governments by a Caliphate. Shariah law is totalitarian, and ideally governs all aspects of private and public life, including prison menus in Ohio. They are serious about their aims, and willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.
[/quote]

I agree.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 7, 2011 04:27AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 19:51, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:18, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:14, Woland wrote:
Magnus, make light of it all you want, but you of all people should be aware that the jihadi extremists explicitly agitate for the imposition of Shariah law all over the world, and the replacement of all other governments by a Caliphate. Shariah law is totalitarian, and ideally governs all aspects of private and public life, including prison menus in Ohio. They are serious about their aims, and willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.
[/quote]

That's just stuff the government makes up so they can pay people to fondle you at airports.
[/quote]

:rotf: !!
[/quote]

Many a true word is spoken in jest
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 7, 2011 04:38AM)
Thank you, Pakar Ilusi.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 7, 2011 05:01AM)
Occupy Prison!
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 7, 2011 05:46AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 05:38, Woland wrote:
Thank you, Pakar Ilusi.
[/quote]

You are welcome, Woland.

It lurks the danger but many choose not to see. :(
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 7, 2011 06:12AM)
The fact that it has become illegal in many or most European countries to criticize Islam or the Prophet Muhummad PBUH in any way (while the abuse of Christianity in any way is considered artistic, philosophic, and sporting) shows that the fear of terror has brought about a gradual and piecemeal imposition of Shariah law. This is the camel's nose under the tent, as they say.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 7, 2011 08:08AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 04:46, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-05 18:14, Woland wrote:
Magnus, make light of it all you want, but you of all people should be aware that the jihadi extremists explicitly agitate for the imposition of Shariah law all over the world, and the replacement of all other governments by a Caliphate. Shariah law is totalitarian, and ideally governs all aspects of private and public life, including prison menus in Ohio. They are serious about their aims, and willing to kill anyone who stands in their way.
[/quote]

I agree.
[/quote]

But are the people advocating for Hallal meals in Ohio prisons "jihadi extremists"? Or is this just racist stereotyping? I vote B.

John
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 7, 2011 08:35AM)
You never hear a word about separation of church and state when it comes to any similar situation with regards to accommodating muslim demands. Why are they catered to rather than being shot down by the separation clause of the first ammendment?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 7, 2011 08:38AM)
Of course you do, Magnus. But the fact is, the jihadi agenda is being successfully advanced because of the fear of terror attacks.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 7, 2011 09:29AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 09:35, GlenD wrote:
You never hear a word about separation of church and state when it comes to any similar situation with regards to accommodating muslim demands. Why are they catered to rather than being shot down by the separation clause of the first ammendment?
[/quote]

Jewish prisoners get Kosher food in Ohio. Why do you hold a double standard?
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Oct 7, 2011 10:59AM)
I'm not in favor of their receiving kosher food when in prison. Sorry you lose a few citizenship type of rights as to what you get to eat, wear etc when you're a ward of the state. I'm an equal opportunist on this one.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 7, 2011 11:14AM)
There is a difference between providing Kosher food to those who require it, on the one hand, and removing pork from all prison menus for all prisoners, on the other hand.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 7, 2011 11:19AM)
GlenD: OK. What about communion? Christian prisoners can have communion in prison. Does that bother you?

Woland: The request from the prisoners was for Hallal food, not for a pork ban, as already discussed. Someone within the system opted for a pork ban, which satisfied no one.

John
Message: Posted by: Big Jeff (Oct 7, 2011 11:22AM)
ISLAM is NOT a race.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 7, 2011 11:28AM)
Magnus, that's my point exactly. Due to a fear of terrorism, the authorities are instituting Shariah law even when that was not explicitly demanded by the inmate who sued. This illustrates why and how Al Qaeda is winning.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 7, 2011 11:28AM)
I'm fine with accomodating everyone's religious traditions, even people who are being otherwise punished. This kind of respect for others' religions is what seperates a civilized person from an uncivilized one.
But I am not happy with the results here. It is not okay to force those peoples' religious traditions on everyone else.
If Charles Manson wants a porkchop, give Charles Manson a pork chop! (Okay, that last sentence was meant to be ironic. The rest I meant.)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 7, 2011 11:37AM)
What if an integral part of someone's religious tradition is that it be forced on everyone else in the world?
Message: Posted by: Matthew W (Oct 7, 2011 11:51AM)
If you don't want to have to complain about what you are being served in prison, don't get your ass landed in prison. If you are in prison, you are being punished for something. Eat what you are served or don't eat.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 7, 2011 12:04PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 12:28, Woland wrote:
Magnus, that's my point exactly. Due to a fear of terrorism, the authorities are instituting Shariah law even when that was not explicitly demanded by the inmate who sued. This illustrates why and how Al Qaeda is winning.
[/quote]

Either that or he thought that he found a cheap and easy solution to his "problem". And failed.

John
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 7, 2011 12:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 12:51, Matthew W wrote:
If you don't want to have to complain about what you are being served in prison, don't get your ass landed in prison. If you are in prison, you are being punished for something. Eat what you are served or don't eat.
[/quote]

Kindly send the above message to Muhammad Ali.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 7, 2011 12:09PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 12:37, Woland wrote:
What if an integral part of someone's religious tradition is that it be forced on everyone else in the world?
[/quote]

For what it's worth, I won't drop a plane on you if you don't meditate.

OK for serious though; My tolerance does have limits. My basic guiding principal is that I accept everyone's religious practices until they try to force them on me.
There may be exceptions, but I can't think of them right now.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 7, 2011 04:15PM)
This may or may not be of interest to anyone:
"Prisoners given some control over their environments... exhibit less stress, exhibit fewer health problems, and [b]commit less vandalism[/b]..."
Sources:
Ruback, R.B., Carr, T.S., & Hoper, C.H. "Percieved Control in Prison" from the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1986. Volume 16.
Wener, R., Frazier, W., & Farbstein, J. "Building Better Jails" from Psychology Today, June 1987.

Not a huge thing, nor should this necessarily have any influence on the conversation. But related and kind of interesting.
I highlighted the vandalism part because the stress and health problems may or may not matter depending on personal views, but the vandalism is externally directed.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 7, 2011 04:21PM)
In case you can't tell, I think prisoners should have legitimate religious needs met. This would include diet, prayers, religious texts, access to religious leaders, etc. It is common here in Alberta for Aboriginal prisoners to have periodic access to Elders and a sweatlodge. None of this seems at all unreasonable to me.

Other requests would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Some requests may be unreasonable; some may not. But if any of the above help prisoners to establish mental and spiritual health, why in the world would we want to deny it?

John
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 7, 2011 04:39PM)
Is loss of limb and decapitation for certain crimes part of the Sharia law they want to live under?
If so, why would those who have been convicted of such crimes go there?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 7, 2011 07:16PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 12:37, Woland wrote:
What if an integral part of someone's religious tradition is that it be forced on everyone else in the world?
[/quote]
I've been trying to get them to open the schools on Christmas for years, but no one will listen.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 7, 2011 07:50PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 20:16, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 12:37, Woland wrote:
What if an integral part of someone's religious tradition is that it be forced on everyone else in the world?
[/quote]
I've been trying to get them to open the schools on Christmas for years, but no one will listen.
[/quote]

Wow. I'll bet if you succeed, that'll get the union pretty mad at you!
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 7, 2011 08:07PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 20:16, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 12:37, Woland wrote:
What if an integral part of someone's religious tradition is that it be forced on everyone else in the world?
[/quote]
I've been trying to get them to open the schools on Christmas for years, but no one will listen.
[/quote]

Why are you so anti-Pagan?
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 7, 2011 08:09PM)
I believe that would be "Yule."
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 7, 2011 08:21PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 20:50, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 20:16, landmark wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 12:37, Woland wrote:
What if an integral part of someone's religious tradition is that it be forced on everyone else in the world?
[/quote]
I've been trying to get them to open the schools on Christmas for years, but no one will listen.
[/quote]

Wow. I'll bet if you succeed, that'll get the union pretty mad at you!
[/quote]
Nah, me I was trying to get Joe Hill's birthday off.
Message: Posted by: Salguod Nairb (Oct 7, 2011 09:18PM)
The whole pork/halal thing does not apply when you are a prisoner. A lot of people thought we should have fed the inmates in Guantanamo Bay pork rinds and beer. In Islam they are allowed to eat what they need to survive.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Oct 8, 2011 09:01AM)
I did not read the whole thread. But let me get this straight. We have a bunch of people who broke the law and are imprisoned for breaking the law and I am sure the law of their "good book". So they decide they can break some of the laws in their "good book" but do not want to eat pork. Is that about right?
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 8, 2011 09:06AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 10:01, acesover wrote:
I did not read the whole thread. But let me get this straight. We have a bunch of people who broke the law and are imprisoned for breaking the law and I am sure the law of their "good book". So they decide they can break some of the laws in their "good book" but do not want to eat pork. Is that about right?
[/quote]

I took it as being about the politico who decided that nobody gets to eat pork if it might offend these certain guys who don't want pork.

And again, please address all questions on Muslim tradition for prisoners to Muhammad Ali.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Oct 8, 2011 09:12AM)
Woland and Pakar are correct.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 8, 2011 09:36AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 10:01, acesover wrote:

I did not read the whole thread. But let me get this straight. We have a bunch of people who broke the law and are imprisoned for breaking the law and I am sure the law of their "good book". So they decide they can break some of the laws in their "good book" but do not want to eat pork. Is that about right?
[/quote]
You make good points but, as the article notes: "Ironically, the inmates' lawsuit doesn't involve pork at all; it demands that non-pork meats like beef come from animals slaughtered according to Islamic law. But the prisons system responded by simply removing pork as an option altogether."

Also, cost cutting (not religion) is apparently what originally removed pork from the menu in the first place:

"Ohio first took pork off the menu in 2009 after, in a money-saving attempt, it closed the pig farm and processing facility it operated to provide meat for inmates."
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Oct 8, 2011 10:20AM)
Of course they are winning. How on earth can we defeat someone we are afraid of offending?
Imagine if we were bound by political correctness in ww2?
We would have been labelled Germaniphobes and been forced to seek counselling for not sympathizing with their quest for world domination.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 8, 2011 10:28AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 11:20, magicfish wrote:
Of course they are winning. How on earth can we defeat someone we are afraid of offending?
Imagine if we were bound by political correctness in ww2?
We would have been labelled Germaniphobes and been forced to seek counselling for not sympathizing with their quest for world domination.
[/quote]

"They" are Americans.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 8, 2011 10:32AM)
On the topic of religious demagogues who want to forge the world in their own image, I see that [url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsQzpPxfGvblQXTVuvU_SQPTYLIQ?docId=CNG.8756e4686c67fa077cb0e4b81a81b8e4.241]Mitt Romney[/url] claims that God made America for the purpose of leading the world.

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 8, 2011 11:11AM)
If you think its right to ban pork from USA prisons for the reasons they have given, then do you think its right to ban all pork from all of the USA for the same reason?
Message: Posted by: gdw (Oct 8, 2011 11:13AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 11:32, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
On the topic of religious demagogues who want to forge the world in their own image, I see that [url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsQzpPxfGvblQXTVuvU_SQPTYLIQ?docId=CNG.8756e4686c67fa077cb0e4b81a81b8e4.241]Mitt Romney[/url] claims that God made America for the purpose of leading the world.

John
[/quote]

And Bachman wants to ban gay marriage and porn, via an amendment to the constitution.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 8, 2011 11:30AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 12:11, tommy wrote:
If you think its right to ban pork from USA prisons for the reasons they have given, then do you think its right to ban all pork from all of the USA for the same reason?
[/quote]

As far as I can tell no one in this thread has supported the pork ban. Depending on who you ask, either the ban was capitulation to terrorism or it was a stupid bureaucratic move that showed no appreciation of the content of the problem being addressed.

John
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2011 01:44PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 12:13, gdw wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 11:32, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
On the topic of religious demagogues who want to forge the world in their own image, I see that [url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsQzpPxfGvblQXTVuvU_SQPTYLIQ?docId=CNG.8756e4686c67fa077cb0e4b81a81b8e4.241]Mitt Romney[/url] claims that God made America for the purpose of leading the world.

John
[/quote]

And Bachman wants to ban gay marriage and porn, via an amendment to the constitution.
[/quote]

At least it's better than wanting to ban them [i]without[/i] a constitutional amendment.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 8, 2011 02:21PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 11:32, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:

On the topic of religious demagogues who want to forge the world in their own image, I see that [url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gsQzpPxfGvblQXTVuvU_SQPTYLIQ?docId=CNG.8756e4686c67fa077cb0e4b81a81b8e4.241]Mitt Romney[/url] claims that God made America for the purpose of leading the world.
[/quote]
A lot of "red meat" in his speech that will play well to his domestic audience, I am sure.

His best and most quotable line, I think, was "The blessings of faith carry the responsibility of civil and respectful debate."
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 8, 2011 02:42PM)
Does "faith" have to mean that you don't expect anyone else to bother you after doing "his will" ... even if the sanitation department and the families of the departed don't know how to sort through the mess? That one can make demands upon the property and rights of others, matters that go beyond a respectful freedom on how one chooses to frame their internal representations of things in the world?

I believe folks are sufficiently intelligent to celebrate existence without needing to believe they have some monopoly on valid perspectives.

So go enjoy that double bacon cheeseburger. I just don't see how it benefits a prisoner convicted of theft to seek out justice under a system of law where they would lose their hand. Or if a violent crime against the the state - their lives by beheading.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 8, 2011 09:03PM)
1) It's disingenuous to equate Mitt Romney's expression of his personal religious beliefs with the quasi-religious ideology of the jihad. The LDS Church may believe a lot of things about the United States that many non-members find odd, but they do not go around blowing up churches of the Reformed LDS Church, other churches, non-Mormon religious shrines and monuments, and thousands of innocent civilians in order to impose Mormonism on the world.

2) It does seem odd that some thieves and murderers would apparently prefer Shariah law to America's lenient legal system, but then of course, we may be forgetting that everyone in prison is innocent - just ask them.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 8, 2011 09:19PM)
I was at a book launch yesterday. A friend of mine created some school-level materials about the Ukrainian internment in Canada during the first world war. Innocent people were placed in forced labour camps because they originated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was now an official enemy. The story is a horror. These people were stripped of their rights not for anything that they did, but for their ethnicity and place of birth. I don't know if a similar atrocity occurred in the US.

30 years later Japanese-Canadians and -Americans were stripped of their property and forced into internment camps. Again they had done nothing wrong. They lost their citizenship rights because of their race.

Across the Atlantic, 6 million Jews were killed for no crimes of their own, but because of their ethnicity. Many sought refuge in other countries; many were turned away.

What does this have to do with this conversation? The US is at war because of Islamic fundamentalists who have committed atrocities. As in the first two examples above, war was waged against the perpetrators; and back home the innocent are vilified. Are we no better than our xenophobic predecessors? Are Muslims living in American automatically guilty of anything? Are they less citizens than their next-door neighbours?

When the Holocaust was happening, much of the silence was justified by beliefs in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. It was a lie, started by evil people and spread by gullible fools.

Have we learned nothing in the past century?

John
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 8, 2011 09:40PM)
The US is at war because of Islamic fundamentalists who have committed atrocities......allegedly.

It was a lie, started by evil people and spread by gullible fools.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2011 09:48PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 22:40, tommy wrote:
The US is at war because of Islamic fundamentalists who have committed atrocities......allegedly.

It was a lie, started by evil people and spread by gullible fools.
[/quote]

Which part?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 8, 2011 09:52PM)
The part that you spread.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 8, 2011 09:54PM)
When someone makes a move
of which we don't approve
... till somebody we like can get elected
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2011 09:56PM)
You mean the planes weren't hijacked, they didn't hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, AND the non-hijackers weren't Islamic fundamentalists?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 8, 2011 10:03PM)
Please don't be so dishonest by trying to put words into my mouth, Mr Lawyer.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2011 10:11PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 23:03, tommy wrote:
Please don't be so dishonest by trying to put words into my mouth, Mr Lawyer.
[/quote]

Well, if you weren't deliberately trying to be too vague to be refuted...

I mean, I *did* ask you which part was a lie.
Message: Posted by: Chance (Oct 8, 2011 10:21PM)
How about you quit baiting Lobo, and tell us all what [i]you[/i] think about something for a change? Go ahead and expose [i]your[/i] innermost beliefs to public riddicule for once.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Oct 8, 2011 10:59PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 22:54, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
When someone makes a move
of which we don't approve
... till somebody we like can get elected
[/quote]
Send the Marines!
What was amusing in my youth becomes depressing when it is still true 40-odd years later.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2011 11:22PM)
Man, I even got Chance sticking up for me! October is shaping up to be an interesting month.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 8, 2011 11:27PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 22:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
I was at a book launch yesterday. A friend of mine created some school-level materials about the Ukrainian internment in Canada during the first world war. Innocent people were placed in forced labour camps because they originated in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which was now an official enemy. The story is a horror. These people were stripped of their rights not for anything that they did, but for their ethnicity and place of birth. I don't know if a similar atrocity occurred in the US.

30 years later Japanese-Canadians and -Americans were stripped of their property and forced into internment camps. Again they had done nothing wrong. They lost their citizenship rights because of their race.

Across the Atlantic, 6 million Jews were killed for no crimes of their own, but because of their ethnicity. Many sought refuge in other countries; many were turned away.

What does this have to do with this conversation? The US is at war because of Islamic fundamentalists who have committed atrocities. As in the first two examples above, war was waged against the perpetrators; and back home the innocent are vilified. Are we no better than our xenophobic predecessors? Are Muslims living in American automatically guilty of anything? Are they less citizens than their next-door neighbours?

When the Holocaust was happening, much of the silence was justified by beliefs in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. It was a lie, started by evil people and spread by gullible fools.

Have we learned nothing in the past century?

John
[/quote]

I suspect that your average interred Japanese-American circa the 1940s would say that we've learned quite a lot, and that 21st century American is far more dissimilar than similar to the version 65 or 70 years ago (let alone 100!) But it's been about 10 years since I've interviewed one.
Message: Posted by: Chance (Oct 8, 2011 11:43PM)
Lobo, you read the emphasis backwards. That message was directed at you. I'm waiting to hear what Lobo believes for once, instead of just equivocating and then picking apart what everyone else says without revealing anything of your own that could be subjected to scrutiny.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Oct 9, 2011 12:08AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 00:43, Chance wrote:
Lobo, you read the emphasis backwards. That message was directed at you. I'm waiting to hear what Lobo believes for once, instead of just equivocating and then picking apart what everyone else says without revealing anything of your own that could be subjected to scrutiny.
[/quote]

Ahhh, dang.

I have to tell you, and I don't mean this antagonistically, but if you're "waiting to hear what [I believe] [i]for once[/i]," then man, you haven't been paying attention. Those opportunities come around all the time, and I'm pretty explicit about it.

With respect to this thread (and this latest sub-thread), I think that Muslim fundamentalists hijacked some planes and flew them into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, killing thousands of people in the process. And I think that makes the following:

[quote]
On 2011-10-08 22:40, tommy wrote:
The US is at war because of Islamic fundamentalists who have committed atrocities......allegedly.

It was a lie, started by evil people and spread by gullible fools.
[/quote]

pretty much nonsensical.
Message: Posted by: Chance (Oct 9, 2011 12:20AM)
Do you think that the attacks were aided or abetted by any person(s) and/or organization(s) within the federal government?
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 9, 2011 12:32AM)
The federal government of Afghanistan?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 9, 2011 06:28AM)
Thanks for the interesting historical review, Magnus. You raise some important points that we would all do well to keep in mind.

1) First of all, with regards to the internment of German or Austro-Hungarian aliens in Canada and the United States during the Great War. You refer to the Canadian internment of Ukrainians originating in the Austro-Hungarian Empire as an "atrocity." I think that if you want to talk about "atrocities" affecting Ukrainians, a better example would be the Holodomor, or deliberate famine when, by a deliberate "redistribution" of food supplies within the Soviet Union, Stalin's government murdered --through starvation-- about 5 million Ukrainians. I think the term "atrocity" when applied to the Canadian internment is a bit overboard.

2) There was a smaller internment of aliens in the United States during the Great War. Remember, that the United States did not declare war until April 1917, after the fall of the Tsar's absolutist regime made an alliance with Russia acceptable and after unrestricted German attacks on American shipping provided an immediate causus belli. During the one year or so that America was in the war, there was a great deal of concern and suspicion about German nationals and German-Americans in the United States (the prohibitionists inveighed against Germans they said were more dangerous to America than the Kaiser, for example: Joseph Schlitz, August Busch, Frederick Miller etc) but there were few significant internments. No US citizens were interned, but approximately 2,000 German nationals who were citizens of other countries, were interned at one of two forts in Georgia and Utah - including 29 players in the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Remember that German-Americans comprised one of the largest immigrant populations in the United States at that time. Most of the big cities along the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers (Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Louisville, Minneapolis-St Paul, St Louis) had very large if not predominantly German-American populations, and German was up until 1918 widely spoken in those cities, some of which even had German-language public elementary schools.

3) During the Second World War, as you note, Japanese nationals and Japanese Americans on the American mainland were interned, and many lost their property in the process. (Japanese in Hawaii, where they comprised a significant part of the population, incidentally were not interned; and it is well-known, but deserves to be remembered again, that the most decorated fighting unit in the history of the United States Army, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, was an all-Japanese unit recruited mainly in Hawaii, where 10,000 Japanese-American men volunteered - 3,000 were enrolled along with 800 from the mainland. Eventually, with replacements, about 14,000 Japanese-Americans served in the 442nd. The men of the 442nd earned more than 18,000 awards including 21 Medals of Honor, 52 DSCs, 560 Silver Stars, 4,000 Bronze Stars, and almost 10,000 Purple Hearts.) Incidentally, the internment of the Japanese was ordered by Franklin Roosevelt, upon the recommendation of California Governor Earl Warren.

Although not widely known, German nationals and Italian nationals were also interned in the United States during the Second World War. About 2,000 Italian nationals were interned, and for a while various restrictions were placed on other Italians in the United States. About 11,000 Germans living in the United States and about 5,000 Germans from Latin America were interned during the war.

4) The massacre of European Jews by the National-Socialist German regime was altogether different from the internments of Ukrainians, Germans, Japanese, and Italians in North America. The [i]Endloesung[/i] was not a program of internment, but of extermination; it was intended to be an actual [i]genocide[/i] in the fullest, correct sense; that is, not merely a massacre or a mass killing, but the actual elimination from the world of an entire national people. And it was very nearly successful; over 90% of the Jews in the occupied Eastern countries were in fact killed - roughly half of the Jewish population in the world.

The sentiments that motivated the National-Socialist extermination campaign were altogether different than the sentiments which motivated the internment of suspected aliens in the United States and (I presume) Canada in the First and Second World Wars. By classifying the genocide along with the internments, I think you over-sensationalize the latter while reducing the horrors of an actual atrocity to the level of comparative peccadilloes. Historically speaking, these were very different episodes.

To use the National-Socialist campaign of extermination as a proof-example for your [i]plaidoyer[/i] on behalf of Muslims whom you feel are endangered by those who criticize the worldwide jihad is wrongheaded. Some would probably find it deeply offensive to the memory of the exterminated Jews.

5) Now what of the apparent anti-Muslim sentiment in America and, perhaps, Canada, about which you are worried? What evidence is there of any organized, governmental sanction against Muslims, citizens or non-citizens in our countries?

As reported by official agencies, the vast majority of religiously-motivated "hate crimes" in the United States and Canada over the past few years have been directed against Jews -- many committed by Muslims. The number of reported religiously-motivated anti-Muslim "hate crimes" in the US and Canada remains quite small, and has not increased very much despite the atrocious attacks of September Eleventh and repeated jihadist attacks and attempted attacks since then.

There has been no anti-Muslim "Kristallnacht" in the United States.

What of the example that started this discussion thread? When the Ohio prison system became concerned about complaints from a small number of Muslim inmates, it responded by deciding to eliminate pork from all prison menus altogether. Is that an example of an anti-Muslim cracking-down? Hardly.

In many States, Muslim women are allowed to be photographed for driver licenses with their heads covered -- a privilege accorded to no others. Is this an example of the sort of vicious discrimination that makes you think of the National-Socialist holocaust?

6) The most significant murderous religiously-motivated attacks against Muslims over the past decade have taken place in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where Shi'ite Muslim worshippers in Shi'ite Muslim mosques are repeatedly bombed and shot by Sunni Muslim jihadists. More than 1,000 Shi'ite and other minority Muslims (Ahmadis, Qadianis, and Barelvis) were killed in Pakistan in 2010 alone.

The most dangerous places for (Shi'ite) Muslims to live in the world today are not the secular Western democracies, but in Muslim countries. Muslim lives are not endangered by those in the West who have called attention to the explicit aims of jihadi terror, but by the jihadi terrorists about whom these Western voices are warning.

By all means, let us learn from the experience of the XXth century. Let us remember that an extremist group of fanatics, who when they first appear on the scene look to have no chance of success, may come in time to acquire political and military power sufficient to enable them to plunge the world into a war that will take tens of millions of lives. The jihadists explicitly promise to exterminate the Jews, kill or convert the Hindus, reduce Christians to the second-class status of dhimmi, and subjugate the entire World. They have already killed tens of thousands of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Jews in their efforts. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that they don't mean what they say, or that they won't try to do what they swear is their most solemn religious obligation, will not make the problem go away.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (Oct 9, 2011 08:30AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 11:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 11:20, magicfish wrote:
Of course they are winning. How on earth can we defeat someone we are afraid of offending?
Imagine if we were bound by political correctness in ww2?
We would have been labelled Germaniphobes and been forced to seek counselling for not sympathizing with their quest for world domination.
[/quote]

"They" are Americans.
[/quote]
No, "They" aren't.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 9, 2011 09:24AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 09:30, magicfish wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 11:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-08 11:20, magicfish wrote:
Of course they are winning. How on earth can we defeat someone we are afraid of offending?
Imagine if we were bound by political correctness in ww2?
We would have been labelled Germaniphobes and been forced to seek counselling for not sympathizing with their quest for world domination.
[/quote]

"They" are Americans.
[/quote]
No, "They" aren't.
[/quote]

How do you come by this information. The two men launching the lawsuit are Cornelius Causey and Abdul Awkal. Why do you believe that they are not Americans?

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 9, 2011 09:26AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 07:28, Woland wrote:

Japanese in Hawaii, where they comprised a significant part of the population, incidentally were not interned;
[/quote]
They most certainly were (though the numbers involved were small):

http://hawaii.gov/dlnr/reports-to-the-legislature/2008/2008/shpd/HP08-Japanese-Internment-Camp%20-Act163SLH07.pdf

There were five known internment camps in Hawaii.

[quote]
On 2011-10-09 07:28, Woland wrote:

5) Now what of the apparent anti-Muslim sentiment in America ... In many States, Muslim women are allowed to be photographed for driver licenses with their heads covered -- a privilege accorded to no others.
[/quote]
Which States? If you are going to say Florida, that is untrue except in a very technically misleading sense. A couple were "allowed" to have such photos taken in ERROR, errors which were later corrected.
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 9, 2011 10:56AM)
I see, balducci, that you have focused on the most important parts of my comment.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 9, 2011 11:19AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 11:56, Woland wrote:

I see, balducci, that you have focused on the most important parts of my comment.
[/quote]
I see, Woland, that you ignored my question. :)

Well, most of your earlier lengthy post was opinion. Which you attempted to support with a few "facts", several of which were not facts at all.

I addressed a couple of your "factual" points which were patently incorrect and fairly simple to demonstrate as such.

Would you rather I quibble over your opinions or choice of words rather than the facts? Okay. You said:

"I think the term "atrocity" when applied to the Canadian internment is a bit overboard."

You are free to your opinions, but many Ukrainians and others in Canada do view the Canadian internment as an atrocity.

You also said:

"To use the National-Socialist campaign of extermination as a proof-example for your plaidoyer on behalf of Muslims whom you feel are endangered by those who criticize the worldwide jihad is wrongheaded. Some would probably find it deeply offensive to the memory of the exterminated Jews."

Whereas the EXTERMINATED JEWS would (if they could) be enormously dismayed to see another group persecuted.

"Now what of the apparent anti-Muslim sentiment in America"

Besides many of the posts on this forum?
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 9, 2011 12:19PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 07:28, Woland wrote:

They have already killed tens of thousands of Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Jews in their efforts. Sticking your head in the sand and pretending that they don't mean what they say, or that they won't try to do what they swear is their most solemn religious obligation, will not make the problem go away.

[/quote]

That there is it.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 9, 2011 12:44PM)
Woland (and Pakar) you are conflating two completely separate issues.

There are wicked people in this world doing wicked things. NOBODY DENIES THAT.

It is pure bigotry to blame all people of the same faith (or ethnicity or colour etc.) for these wicked acts.

In America (site of the issue of the OP) people have religious freedom. The actions of the Indonesian or Saudi or Yemeni governments are irrelevant to this case.

The main issue of the OP is whether Muslim prisoners should get Halal food. The lawsuit takes the position that since Jewish prisoners get Kosher food, the precedent is set and the cases are equivalent.

The secondary issue is that the Ohio prison system took the step of banning pork in prisons, which failed to address the issue.

The issue raised by several people in this thread is that the blame for Islamisist terrorism is somehow related to this lawsuit.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 9, 2011 02:10PM)
Magnus, Neither I nor Pakar Ilusi are blaming all Muslims for the actions of the jihadis. I have never expressed one word of anti-Muslim sentiment or any criticism of Islam as a religion. However, if we are going to resist and control jihadi terror, we have to recognize it for what it is and understand it on its own terms.

balducci, the Muslims in America are NOT being persecuted. Decidedly unlike the National Socialist German government with respect to European Jews, the American government is not waging a propaganda campaign to demonize Muslims, is not organizing mobs to harass, beat, and murder Muslims, is not systematically destroying and/or expropriating Muslim property, and is not organizing a campaign to destroy Muslim mosques. To equate the systematic National Socialist persecution and genocide of the European Jews with the complete absence of anything like it in the United States is delusional.

I'm sorry I did not directly answer the question in your last post. I think your question was "Which States?" allow driver license photographs to accommodate the wishes of Muslimahs to maintain head coverings.

According to the [url=http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LWVJ.pdf]Council of American-Islamic Relations,[/url] a self-described Muslim civil rights group (that has been identified as a non-indicted co-conspirator in several terror cases, and which is apparently the American organ of the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood):

[quote]Most states, except Georgia, Kentucky and New Hampshire, have addressed religious
accommodation concerns in codes, policy manuals or administrative practices.

* Five states—Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, and Maine—recognize only certain
religious practices.

* The other 42 states have adopted more inclusive approaches to religious accommodation
policies.

* Contrary to earlier news reports, the trend in favor of religious accommodation increased after 9/11. While three states—California and the Carolinas— scaled back some of their
religious exemptions, six states—Alabama, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West
Virginia—increased the exemptions.
[/quote]

Therefore, I think my original statement is correct. But thanks for allowing me to provide the documentation.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 9, 2011 02:23PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 15:10, Woland wrote:

I

According to the [url=http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LWVJ.pdf]Council of American-Islamic Relations,[/url] a self-described Muslim civil rights group (that has been identified as a non-indicted co-conspirator in several terror cases, and which is apparently the American organ of the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood):

[quote]Most states, except Georgia, Kentucky and New Hampshire, have addressed religious
accommodation concerns in codes, policy manuals or administrative practices.

* Five states—Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, and Maine—recognize only certain
religious practices.

* The other 42 states have adopted more inclusive approaches to religious accommodation
policies.

* Contrary to earlier news reports, the trend in favor of religious accommodation increased after 9/11. While three states—California and the Carolinas— scaled back some of their
religious exemptions, six states—Alabama, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West
Virginia—increased the exemptions.
[/quote]

Therefore, I think my original statement is correct. But thanks for allowing me to provide the documentation.
[/quote]

This is important. The issue in the lawsuit is about religious rights for prisoners and bureaucratic bungling. It has nothing to do (IMO) with "jihadi terrorists".

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 9, 2011 02:37PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 15:10, Woland wrote:

I'm sorry I did not directly answer the question in your last post. I think your question was "Which States?" allow driver license photographs to accommodate the wishes of Muslimahs to maintain head coverings.

According to the [url=http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/LWVJ.pdf]Council of American-Islamic Relations,[/url] a self-described Muslim civil rights group (that has been identified as a non-indicted co-conspirator in several terror cases, and which is apparently the American organ of the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood):

[quote]Most states, except Georgia, Kentucky and New Hampshire, have addressed religious
accommodation concerns in codes, policy manuals or administrative practices.

* Five states—Arkansas, Mississippi, Kansas, Missouri, and Maine—recognize only certain
religious practices.

* The other 42 states have adopted more inclusive approaches to religious accommodation
policies.

* Contrary to earlier news reports, the trend in favor of religious accommodation increased after 9/11. While three states—California and the Carolinas— scaled back some of their
religious exemptions, six states—Alabama, Maine, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and West
Virginia—increased the exemptions.
[/quote]

Therefore, I think my original statement is correct.
[/quote]
Well, not really. All manner of faiths are accommodated. Your statement was:

"Muslim women are allowed to be photographed for driver licenses with their heads covered -- A PRIVILEGE ACCORDED TO NO OTHERS."

In at least some states, other faiths ARE allowed head coverings in their photos. Jewish men wear yarmulkes; Sikh men wear turbans. Jewish and Christian women may wear religiously-prescribed head coverings.

Mennonites in some places can obtain drivers licenses without a photo entirely.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17725931/ns/us_news-life/t/mennonites-plan-move-over-photo-ids/#.TpH3lHKZSh0
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 9, 2011 02:37PM)
Au contraire, Magnus. The reason the bureaucrats "bungled" this issue is because of the fear of jihadi terrorism.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Oct 9, 2011 02:54PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 15:37, Woland wrote:
Au contraire, Magnus. The reason the bureaucrats "bungled" this issue is because of the fear of jihadi terrorism.
[/quote]

The reason the bureaucrats bungled the issue is because they are bureaucrats.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 9, 2011 03:01PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 15:37, Woland wrote:
Au contraire, Magnus. The reason the bureaucrats "bungled" this issue is because of the fear of jihadi terrorism.
[/quote]

On what information do you base this?
Message: Posted by: acesover (Oct 9, 2011 04:25PM)
They would not let me wear my "Lone Ranger Mask".
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 9, 2011 05:30PM)
It's a question of degree, balducci, and how much is covered. However, even if I stipulate that the Muslimahs are accorded no specific privilege that is not available under any circumstances to members of the other groups you mention, that still doesn't demonstrate that Muslims are in any way persecuted by the State bureaus of motor vehicles. It shows au contraire that Muslimahs benefit equally.

Magnus, if you can show me another example of where a State prison system completely revamped its procedures (e.g. adopted a menu change across the board) to cater to one small group of prisoners, I will withdraw my supposition.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 9, 2011 06:05PM)
A temper test for religiousity?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 9, 2011 06:41PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 18:30, Woland wrote:

Magnus, if you can show me another example of where a State prison system completely revamped its procedures (e.g. adopted a menu change across the board) to cater to one small group of prisoners, I will withdraw my supposition.
[/quote]
But that's not what happened in this case, either. The menu was revamped and pork was originally taken off the menu in 2009 as a cost-savings measure. NOT because of religion. They added it back for one year, then decided it was easier and better to go back to the non-pork menu they had rather than get involved with "excessive entanglement of government with religion" (borrowing this quote from below).

However, in any case, you can find prison systems in the U.S. that force “non-red-meat meals” on Fridays during Lent and the Catholic holiday of Ash Wednesday on prisoners, apparently in order to accommodate Catholic Religious Dietary Ritual. Unless you really think it is just a coincidence that those special days are the meatless ones. Note also:

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nyndce/9:2009cv00775/76909/139/0.pdf

"[The prison’s] actions had the secular purpose of feeding the inmates. The services of these meals did not have the primary effect of advancing Catholicism or inhibiting other religions, nor did it foster the excessive entanglement of government with religion. The eating of a vegetarian repast is not inherently linked to a religious practice. Vegetarian meals are regularly eaten by many different people on an everyday basis, regardless of their religion."
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 9, 2011 09:03PM)
You may be right. Let's hope so.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Oct 10, 2011 09:05AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 12:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
GlenD: OK. What about communion? Christian prisoners can have communion in prison. Does that bother you?

Woland: The request from the prisoners was for Hallal food, not for a pork ban, as already discussed. Someone within the system opted for a pork ban, which satisfied no one.

John
[/quote]

So you suggest we give them a menu and have them pick what they want? Let see I will have the prime rib with a side of apple sauce, and make that a rare cut. Remember no pork. I think each prisoner should have his own chef. Remember he is a great asset to the community.

Did you forget he is in prison for committing a crime aganist society?

Communion in prison...what has that got to do with changing the meal program for the whole prison population?

Tell you what if they are on death row give them the choice of the needle or eating prison food (pork in this instance) and see what they decide. That way they can meet their maker and say, see I ate no pork, reward me.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 10, 2011 09:43AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-10 10:05, acesover wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-07 12:19, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
GlenD: OK. What about communion? Christian prisoners can have communion in prison. Does that bother you?

Woland: The request from the prisoners was for Hallal food, not for a pork ban, as already discussed. Someone within the system opted for a pork ban, which satisfied no one.

John
[/quote]

[quote]So you suggest we give them a menu and have them pick what they want? [/quote]

Let see I will have the prime rib with a side of apple sauce, and make that a rare cut. Remember no pork. I think each prisoner should have his own chef. Remember he is a great asset to the community. [/quote]

Do you really think that that is what I said? Why not try responding to what I say honestly?

[quote]Did you forget he is in prison for committing a crime aganist society? [/quote]

nope.

[quote]Communion in prison...what has that got to do with changing the meal program for the whole prison population? [/quote]

Read carefully. I have argued the opposite. I do not think that religious requirements should result in a meal program for the entire population. Just the opposite; I think that prisons should make reasonable attempts to accommodate the religious needs of the prison population. This might include dietary restrictions for Jews and Muslims, access to Elders for Natives, prayer time, and the like.

[quote]Tell you what if they are on death row give them the choice of the needle or eating prison food (pork in this instance) and see what they decide. That way they can meet their maker and say, see I ate no pork, reward me.
[/quote]

If this is your notion of justice, there is little else to discuss.

John
Message: Posted by: gdw (Oct 10, 2011 12:25PM)
I do find it interesting the fuss made over accommodating privileges, after inhibiting rights.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 10, 2011 12:32PM)
Eeeehhhh... nevermind.
Message: Posted by: gdw (Oct 10, 2011 12:56PM)
...
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 10, 2011 12:57PM)
"."
Message: Posted by: acesover (Oct 10, 2011 10:54PM)
In respnse to your post answering my proposition for needle or meal.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell you what if they are on death row give them the choice of the needle or eating prison food (pork in this instance) and see what they decide. That way they can meet their maker and say, see I ate no pork, reward me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If this is your notion of justice, there is little else to discuss.

John


Is this my notion of justice? Don't make me laugh. If they are on death row and have been convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of their peers, do you really have to ask me what my notion of justice is?. Because that is what I said, "if they are on death row".

You are usualy not on death row for jay walking or shopifting. These are murderers and rapists and paid for hire killers. They kill for money, and their own satisfaction and a better lifestsyle and they do it without remorse. Of course they get religion after being in prison. However if not caught and imprisoned they do not get religion and their diets take a back seat.

Remember they are in prison. I believe they forfeit a few of their rights when that occurs, and choice of diet may well be one of them. On the days sereved pork related products let them fast and offer it up as a sacrifice. I will make them morally stronger.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 11, 2011 02:56AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-09 13:44, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Woland (and Pakar) you are conflating two completely separate issues.

There are wicked people in this world doing wicked things. NOBODY DENIES THAT.

It is pure bigotry to blame all people of the same faith (or ethnicity or colour etc.) for these wicked acts.

John
[/quote]

Etnicity. Yes.

Colour. Yes.

These should never be used to discriminate or judge people by.

Faith?

Imho, that really depends on what is being advocated in that faith. Especially when it comes to "advocated violence". (You are given a path to "Heaven" doing those.)

I for one would rather have love and peace.

But for some "love and peace" only comes with submitting to their unproven belief/faith (because some guy came out of a cave sayin' "God has spoken me...").

That is the problem for me, someone believing God advocating violence for His pleasure... :(
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 11, 2011 03:14AM)
I know.

What I just said is besides the original thread's issue.

For that, I am sorry... But I come from the "inside" of this issue and I see things brewing that most of you don't. :(
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 11, 2011 04:38AM)
Thank you, Pakar Ilusi. Be careful and stay well! As they say, "keep five yards . . ."
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 11, 2011 05:00AM)
Thanks for the concern Woland. :)
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 11, 2011 08:02AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-11 04:14, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I know.

What I just said is besides the original thread's issue.

For that, I am sorry... But I come from the "inside" of this issue and I see things brewing that most of you don't. :(
[/quote]

In a sense you are right; but in another you are very much outside. Indonesia is very different from North America. The character names are similar, but the situation--legally, culturally and historically is quite different.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 12, 2011 04:43AM)
[url=http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/10/07/2673163/us-state-dept-contacts-khan-family.html#ixzz1aXGFOl5F]Whose side is the State Department on?[/url]

[quote]An official from the U.S. State Department has called the Charlotte family of al-Qaida propagandist Samir Khan to offer the government's condolences on his death in a U.S. drone attack last week in Yemen, according to a family spokesman.

"They were very apologetic (for not calling the family sooner) and offered condolences," Jibril Hough said about the Thursday call from the State Department to Khan's father, Zafar.

The phone call came a day after the family released a statement through Hough that condemned the "assassination" of their 25-year-old son - a U.S. citizen - and said they were "appalled" that they had not heard from the U.S. government to discuss their son's remains or answer questions about why Khan was not afforded due process.

On Friday, State Department spokesman Harry Edwards confirmed to the Observer that the call had been made, but said "privacy issues" kept him from offering details.

Hough said the Thursday conversation lasted a few minutes.

"It wasn't just 'I'm sorry' and hang-up," said Hough, who added that the phone call included no discussion of the status or condition of Khan's remains.

Khan was killed along with cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.[/quote]
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 12, 2011 04:55AM)
Did Jesus eat pork?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 12, 2011 06:14AM)
Of course not, tommy. But did Jesus ever incite his disciples or other followers to prevent Romans or Greeks from eating pork?
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 12, 2011 07:13AM)
Is it not terror tactics to tell someome they will burn in hell for eternity if they don't follow you?

I don't know, isn't there something about what you should and should not eat in the book?
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 12, 2011 07:36AM)
Did Jesus ever tell anyone they would burn in hell for eternity if they didn't follow Him? I don't remember reading that in the Gospels.

The Bible certainly records Divine instructions regarding what was proper for the Jews to eat. Those instructions don't apply to other people. Jesus preached to Jewish people, and if I understand the Sermon on the Mount, He expected them to follow every jot and tittle of the Divine instructions. But I don't think He ever told Greeks or Romans or other people that they had to follow those instructions. In fact, Saint Paul, if I am not mistaken, said that none of those specific instructions applied to Christian believers, anyway, even if they had been Jews.

And no, I don't think it is "terror tactics" to tell people they will burn in hell or to tell them anything at all. It is terror tactics to murder people in order to frighten them into doing what you want them to do.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 12, 2011 08:38AM)
Oh I see so his teachings were for Jews only. I thought he told them to spread the word to everyone. What about The Inquisition can you explain that to me.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 12, 2011 08:42AM)
I didn't realize Jesus was around during the inquisition.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 12, 2011 09:02AM)
I thought that he was always around.

So what was he during the inquisition, a triangle?

:)
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 12, 2011 09:22AM)
Well, tommy, that raises an interesting theological or philosophical question, if the Deity is indeed omnipotent and omniscient, why doesn't the world seem more benevolent? But that's beyond our scope.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 13, 2011 03:12AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-11 09:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-11 04:14, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I know.

What I just said is besides the original thread's issue.

For that, I am sorry... But I come from the "inside" of this issue and I see things brewing that most of you don't. :(
[/quote]


In a sense you are right; but in another you are very much outside. Indonesia is very different from North America. The character names are similar, but the situation--legally, culturally and historically is quite different.

John
[/quote]


I am NOT from Indonesia anyway... ;)
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 13, 2011 11:31AM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-13 04:12, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-11 09:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-11 04:14, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I know.

What I just said is besides the original thread's issue.

For that, I am sorry... But I come from the "inside" of this issue and I see things brewing that most of you don't. :(
[/quote]


In a sense you are right; but in another you are very much outside. Indonesia is very different from North America. The character names are similar, but the situation--legally, culturally and historically is quite different.

John
[/quote]


I am NOT from Indonesia anyway... ;)
[/quote]

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/my.html

BTW, cool flag bro!
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 13, 2011 11:38AM)
Yes, it is cool flag right? :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 13, 2011 02:21PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-13 04:12, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-11 09:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-11 04:14, Pakar Ilusi wrote:
I know.

What I just said is besides the original thread's issue.

For that, I am sorry... But I come from the "inside" of this issue and I see things brewing that most of you don't. :(
[/quote]


In a sense you are right; but in another you are very much outside. Indonesia is very different from North America. The character names are similar, but the situation--legally, culturally and historically is quite different.

John
[/quote]


I am NOT from Indonesia anyway... ;)
[/quote]

My mistake. You are from Malaysia and I mistyped. My apologies. Indonesia came to mind because of its more obvious Islamic governance.

Malaysia is an interesting country which, so far as I can tell, has institutionalized freedom of religion, while maintaining Islam as a state religion.

My bad. You can call me American or something equally insulting to even things out.

John
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 13, 2011 02:25PM)
Actually, Magnus, I think Malaysia is a much more Islamic and Islamist country than Indonesia . . . although Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. But I would leave that to Pakar Ilusi to explain.

And since you live in North America, Magnus, you are an American already. Whether your comment indicates that you deserve the label or not, I shall leave to others, perhaps more charitable, to judge.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 13, 2011 02:35PM)
Magnus Eisengrim, WHILE WE MAY DISAGREE ON SOME ISSUES, I think of you as a friend... :ohyes:

It's a mistake that I understand.

And you should be proud to be American. ;)
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Oct 13, 2011 10:16PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-13 15:21, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...

My bad. You can call me American or something equally insulting to even things out.

John
[/quote]

I'm just curious. What would be equally insulting? (This might give me an idea of how insulting calling you an American would be.) :)
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 13, 2011 10:22PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-13 23:16, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-13 15:21, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...

My bad. You can call me American or something equally insulting to even things out.

John
[/quote]

I'm just curious. What would be equally insulting? (This might give me an idea of how insulting calling you an American would be.) :)
[/quote]

Calling him a possum.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 13, 2011 10:29PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-13 15:25, Woland wrote:

And since you live in North America, Magnus, you are an American already. Whether your comment indicates that you deserve the label or not, I shall leave to others, perhaps more charitable, to judge.
[/quote]
Channeling Palin (and Bachmann and Hayes), are you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102449.html
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 13, 2011 10:35PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-13 23:22, critter wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-13 23:16, rockwall wrote:
[quote]
On 2011-10-13 15:21, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
...

My bad. You can call me American or something equally insulting to even things out.

John
[/quote]

I'm just curious. What would be equally insulting? (This might give me an idea of how insulting calling you an American would be.) :)
[/quote]

Calling him a possum.
[/quote]

That's a pretty good comparison.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 14, 2011 04:32AM)
Possums?

I prefer beavers myself. :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 14, 2011 04:36AM)
[quote]Quote:


On 2011-10-13 15:25, Woland wrote:

And since you live in North America, Magnus, you are an American already. Whether your comment indicates that you deserve the label or not, I shall leave to others, perhaps more charitable, to judge.


Channeling Palin (and Bachmann and Hayes), are you?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/21/AR2008102102449.html[/quote]

Not at all. I was actually thinking of my South American friends, who are very certain, and very proud, that the adjectival appellation "American" belongs to them, as much as it belongs to those they are careful to call "North Americans."

And you are an "American," too, my Canadian friend.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 14, 2011 04:41AM)
I'd like to be an "American" too... :ohyes:
Message: Posted by: Woland (Oct 14, 2011 06:34AM)
You would be more than welcome, dear Pakar Ilusi!
Message: Posted by: tommy (Oct 14, 2011 06:48AM)
Dead meat.
Message: Posted by: critter (Oct 14, 2011 11:10AM)
Oh great, somebody left Rocky III playing in Tommy's cell and he's quoting Mr. T again.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Oct 14, 2011 01:11PM)
[quote]
On 2011-10-14 07:34, Woland wrote:
You would be more than welcome, dear Pakar Ilusi!
[/quote]

Thanks Woland... ;)