Demand Koran Replace U.S. Constitution

[SteveGrenard]

I have been searching the net for reputable sources on what will happen if a muslim eats pork by mistake, or are somehow forced to do it (as in getting shot with pig lard). I didn't find anything of value, for or against.

I did this, because as a child I clearly remember asking a muslim in my class what would happen if he ate ham by mistake. And he answered that it didn't matter if it wasn't his own fault. Purely anecdotal of course.

Nobody objected to this, and nothing more was said about it.

Anecdote also:
I have also have had conversations with moslems. I asked once if cutting off the right hand of a thief was a punishment commensurate with the crime. The answer I got was that if the thief was stealing because he was hungry then he would not be punished. It wasn't his fault.

Apparently there is always an out or a rationalization. I guess we call it a defense.

 

[Darat]

"Attack the argument not the arguer" - it should not make one iota of a difference who or even what is putting forward an argument or claim. If you have personal issues with a particular Member deal with it elsewhere i.e. use your own resources not the forum's - and this applies to Steve, Claus and anyone else trying to discuss their personal issues here.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Thomas]

Apparently there is always an out or a rationalization. I guess we call it a defense.

Do you think they would apply a similar innocence argument if someone shot them with pig lard? As they did with the two examples I gave in my last post, and the one you mentioned?

 

[SteveGrenard]

If pig lard is being put in buses, who will use the buses at all?

Anybody who needs to use the bus and doesn't mind the pig lard if they hope it will prevent them from being blown to bits by some whacko moslem fanatic.

Why is forcefeeding Christians for information not torture?

I don't know. I don't recall saying force feeding Christians should be used to obtain information. Can you show me where I said that please?

Why shouldn't the religious fanatics welcome that you kill them, if they think that it will not only earn them martyrdom, but also doom you to eternal hell?

Unfortunately my moral compass does not allow me to contemplate the taking of another human life as a desirable act designed to insure that the deceased will go to vast reward in heaven. Since I know of no heaven or hell I cannot even contemplate the meaning of this question. I am afraid I would persist in using pork to defend myself if it works and would resort to lethal force if and only if it was in my defense or the defense of others.

 

[SteveGrenard]

Do you think they would apply a similar innocence argument if someone shot them with pig lard? As they did with the two examples I gave in my last post, and the one you mentioned?

I am sure they would but if they knew in advance that pork powder was going to be used against them and they could avoid it by laying down their guns and going home, then they can't be certain such an attack
would be construed by allah as NOT their fault.

 

[Thomas]

I am sure they would but if they knew in advance that pork powder was going to be used against them and they could avoid it by laying down their guns and going home, then they can't be certain such an attack
would be construed by allah as NOT their fault.

Wouldn't it first be their own fault if they meant to get shot by those bullets?

I'm being the devils advocate here, I know, but I think we have to adjust to their mindset in this situation, and consider how easily it would be for them to render themselves innocent.

 

[CFLarsen]

Anybody who needs to use the bus and doesn't mind the pig lard if they hope it will prevent them from being blown to bits by some whacko moslem fanatic.

But Jews also need to use the bus, and they don't like pig lard either. Now what? You have punished Jews, even though they have done nothing.

Are Jews also "collateral damage"?

I don't know. I don't recall saying force feeding Christians should be used to obtain information. Can you show me where I said that please?

Post #209. You accept the precedence of force feeding, and you would use such a weapon against Christians to obtain information.

Why is that not torture?

Unfortunately my moral compass does not allow me to contemplate the taking of another human life as a desirable act designed to insure that the deceased will go to vast reward in heaven. Since I know of no heaven or hell I cannot even contemplate the meaning of this question. I am afraid I would persist in using pork to defend myself if it works and would resort to lethal force if and only if it was in my defense or the defense of others.

It isn't a question of your moral compass, but of how religious fanatics think. You have argued that the religion teachings of fanatical Muslims result in them fearing pig lard enough to make them stop committing terrorist acts. That means you cannot feign ignorance about how they think, just because an uncomfortable question arises.

Answer the question: Why shouldn't the religious fanatics welcome that you kill them, if they think that it will not only earn them martyrdom, but also doom you to eternal hell?

 

[CFLarsen]

I am sure they would but if they knew in advance that pork powder was going to be used against them and they could avoid it by laying down their guns and going home, then they can't be certain such an attack would be construed by allah as NOT their fault.

But you would only threaten with the use of pig lard? How would they know in advance that pork powder was going to be used - in reality, not theoretically - against them?

 

[SteveGrenard]

Wouldn't it first be their own fault if they meant to get shot by those bullets?

Certain knowledge that their enemy was using pork weapons against them
indicates it would be their own fault should they be hit. And since they were in battle they could not know if they wouldn't die before being absolved, thus barring them from paradise.

I'm being the devils advocate here, I know, but I think we have to adjust to their mindset in this situation, and consider how easily it would be for them to render themselves innocent.

They can rationalize things like accidentally eating a ham sandwich which wouldn't be their fault, get dispensation and go on with their lives. This is an altogether different situation involving life and death and the risk that they may die before purification. The pork based weapon, as a deterrent, needs to be made known to them. This insures that they have knowledge of it and places the responsibility for their own decent into hell on their own shoulders. It's like being forewarned about something but going forward anyway.

 

[SteveGrenard]

But you would only threaten with the use of pig lard? How would they know in advance that pork powder was going to be used - in reality, not theoretically - against them?

It would have to be used in a non-lethal form such as the pork rind powder so that samples of it can be analyzed and confirmed for them. Word would then spread rapidly.

 

[SteveGrenard]

But Jews also need to use the bus, and they don't like pig lard either. Now what? You have punished Jews, even though they have done nothing.

Are Jews also "collateral damage"?

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Jews are only prohibited from eating pork, they are not prohibited from touching it or having pig based products such as shoes or wallets or footballs made from it. They have no problem dealing with it. And besides the Rabbis have said even eating pork is allowed if
a life is at stake. Thus the Jews have a point of view which is diametrically opposed to that of the moslems when it comes to pork except that both cannot eat it but only Jews can come in contact with it.

Post #209. You accept the precedence of force feeding, and you would use such a weapon against Christians to obtain information.

Why is that not torture?

You have construed this by yourself without resorting to the true meaning of the words I wrote. I said the British force-fed IRA prisoners so there was precedence for this. These prisoners were on a voluntarily hunger strike so force feeding them, yes, may've been considered torture since it subverted their wish to die in the name of whatever it was they were trying to prove. Oh yes, getting the British out of Northern Ireland so they can kill all the Protestants without fear of interference. I did not say it was not a form of torture, I did not say it was used to extract information. It was in fact used to prevent ignorant people from needlessly killing themselves so on that level I would have to agree with it. Ah yes, Northern Ireland, another wonderful example of why religion works.

It isn't a question of your moral compass, but of how religious fanatics think. You have argued that the religion teachings of fanatical Muslims result in them fearing pig lard enough to make them stop committing terrorist acts. That means you cannot feign ignorance about how they think, just because an uncomfortable question arises.

It is very much a question of my moral compass. And yes, I do know how religious fanatics think and again while you advocate killing moslem terrorists or extremists, I advocate offending them without killing them.
I am not feigning any ignorance about that.

Answer the question: Why shouldn't the religious fanatics welcome that you kill them, if they think that it will not only earn them martyrdom, but also doom you to eternal hell?

I don't care what they welcome. I will not kill someone because they would welcome it. End of story. If you would that's your choice. There is no evidence that they would end up martyrs in paradise. If you know there is then by all means follow your heart and kill them. I have not seen that evidence.

 

[Thomas]

Certain knowledge that their enemy was using pork weapons against them indicates it would be their own fault should they be hit. And since they were in battle they could not know if they wouldn't die before being absolved, thus barring them from paradise.

They can rationalize things like accidentally eating a ham sandwich which wouldn't be their fault, get dispensation and go on with their lives.

This is an altogether different situation involving life and death and the risk that they may die before purification. The pork based weapon, as a deterrent, needs to be made known to them. This insures that they have knowledge of it and places the responsibility for their own decent into hell on their own shoulders. It's like being forewarned about something but going forward anyway.

If a Mullah says that one who dies to a pig bullet shall be forgiven and welcomed in paradise, then wouldn't that be a dispensation which would render the "pork weapons" useless?

 

[SteveGrenard]

If a Mullah says that one who dies to a pig bullet shall be forgiven and welcomed in paradise, then wouldn't that be a dispensation which would render the "pork weapons" useless?

An Iman can issue an edict but it would have to be accepted by a larger body. I believe that dispensations are handed out individually and not for groups. I think an Iman would have a hard time trying to get pork legalized for devout moslems en masse but I could be wrong.

He would have to directly contravene the word of Allah in the Koran.

 

[Thomas]

An Iman can issue an edict but it would have to be accepted by a larger body. I believe that dispensations are handed out individually and not for
groups. I think an Iman would have a hard time trying to legalize pork for
devout moslems en masse but I could be wrong.

We're talking about dispension from getting shot by bullets with pork on them. And since nobody goes to war with the intention of getting shot in the first place, then it is easy to declare that it isn't the fault of the muslim who got shot because he didn't seek to get shot anyway. Just as well as someone who eats pork by mistake didn't seek to eat pork.

 

[HarryKeogh]

stuff I learned in this thread

It clearly says in the bible that Christians can't eat pork

There were Christians around during the time Deuteronomy was written even though Christ wasn't born yet.

There is such a thing as "weapons-grade pork rinds"


I'm going to be a hit at my next cocktail party.

 

[SteveGrenard]

stuff I learned in this thread

It clearly says in the bible that Christians can't eat pork

There were Christians around during the time Deuteronomy was written even though Christ wasn't born yet.

There is such a thing as "weapons-grade pork rinds"


I'm going to be a hit at my next cocktail party.

And don't forget if you are an Irish-American Catholic you CAN eat meat on St Paddy's day if it falls on a Friday so as not to be deprived of the corn beef and cabbage.

 

[PBTree]

Liar.

How low will you stoop in your campaign to smear non-pork eating Christians?

Hmm. How low do you have to stoop b4 you are no longer in the sky but in the hole? Would lower than a pork belly be low enough?

 

[HarryKeogh]

And don't forget if you are an Irish-American Catholic you CAN eat meat on St Paddy's day if it falls on a Friday so as not to be deprived of the corn beef and cabbage.

actually, I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic schools, lived in a Catholic neighborhood and most of my friends were Catholic. I had St. Patrick's day dinner at my best friend's house (best friend since childhood) who happens to be an Irish Catholic so they had all the traditional foods. After the meal I realized everyone in the very religious household just ate meat on a Friday during lent. That's a no-no. So I brought it up to my friend later (he's pretty much an agnostic now...I didn't want to offend his parents by questioning their actions, they just fed me) and he told me about the dispensation then we had a good laugh over it. Some sacrifice! Can't go without corned beef so the bishop gives permission to have some.

The point of my story is corned beef sucks. It sucks even more with boiled cabbage.

And soda bread is iffy.

The beer was delicious.

 

[Walter Wayne]

I was Anglican, and only half the parish seemed to realise that Sunday's were feast days. So Sunday would come around and the after mass snacks would be woefully devoid of anything tasty. You would get the odd blessed person who would contribute something sweet for us young'ns.

Walt

 

[gumboot]

It is very much on topic. I want to know if you treat Christians the same way as you treat Jews and Muslims. You brought up the topic of pork bullets against Muslims. I want to know if you are willing to use the same methods against Christians. All you need to type is a "Yes" or "No":

With all due respect,

You appear to be entirely missing the entire point of this proposal. What we are talking about is a form of psychological warfare designed to hinder the enemy's ability to fight.

Nothing about this is new. Nothing about this is specific to Muslim terrorists. Would modern armies use psychological warfare against Christian terrorists? Yes, of course.

What we are talking about SPECIFICALLY, is exploiting the PRACTISED BELIEFS of said enemy. Note the careful distinction there. Not the religious dogma. Not the non-practised beliefs. not the verbatim text of their religious or cultural documents. The PRACTISED BELIEFS.

Would we support exploiting the PRACTISED BELIEFS of Christian terrorists as a form of psychological warfare? Absolutely. Is force feeding Christian Terrorists a form of psychological warfare? Well, it's unlikely you'd be able to force feed an enemy unless they'd been captured, so that would make them a POW, and force feeding them would be illegal.

What you don't seem to get is the PRACTISED BELIEFS part. The rules of their religion are actually irrelevant. If fighting rabid Christian terrorists who believed sugar was evil and touching it condemed you to the nether regions for all eternity, I would support showering said terrorists with sugar. Is it in their religious text? Of course not. But that's irrelevant. If they PRACTISE the prohibition of sugar that makes the tool useful for psychological warfare.

In the same way, if some Muslim terrorists refuse to fight, out of fear of being shot with a pig-grease oiled bullet, the tactic is a useful psychological warfare tool. If there are NO Muslim terrorists who would stop fighting out of fear of pig-grease oiled bullets, obviously the tactic is NOT useful for psychological warfare.

Notice how in the above train of logic the Koran, Allah, and religious teachings are in NO WAY mentioned?

Hence your line of reasoning re: Christians and text in the Bible are totally irrelevant.

-Andrew