Londonistan, Eurabia

[RavenSky]

When in Rome! The idea that cultural backward group can migrate to a western nation then expect the natives to bend to their likes and dislikes. If my restaurant serves pork you don't have to order pork, but don't expect my regulars to stop eating pork because it offends your sensibilities which are purely religious anyway.

Why would this only apply to western nations?

It doesn't. If I move to a country where they regularly eat insects for example why should they stop serving insects in their eateries just because I might find it distasteful?

Well, if you were demanding that the entire country stop serving insects to suit your preferences, you would be correct that you were being unreasonable.

If, however, (even if as a result of your complaining) a very few restaurants out of the total decided it might make good financial sense for themselves to differentiate by serving up western-style food to cater to you and other westerners in the area, does that mean you are still an asshole?

 

[RavenSky]

Do you really expect them to come out and say it? But it should be obvious since one of the neighborhoods that "halal only" Subway is located is only 15% Muslim. That means 85% are non-Muslim (duh!) Yet they caved to offering a "halal only" menu there.

Much like McDonalds and the Catholics, these stores are most likely trying to widen their appeal to potential customers.

No, it's the antithesis of McD and Catholics. There is no ban on (terrestrial vertebrate) meat on Fridays, or during Lent. Neither are their fish sandwiches only offered on Fridays or during Lent. And neither are they sourcing their fish from Catholic fishermen only. As you say, they "widened their appeal to potential customers" by expanding their menu, not by restricting it. The fish sandwich might have been inspired by Catholic dietary customs but their entire menu is not based on it. Quite unlike Subway.

What intolerance? Is changing your menu to attract more business somehow caving to intolerance?

No, changing your menu to appease an intolerant minority that is offended by what the majority eats is caving to intolerance.

Geesh, give it a break. Fight intolerance where it is, not these nonsensical "oh my gawd... I can't get bacon chicken at this one restaurant!" outrages. I'm sure you can find more worthy injustices to be brought up.

200 of them. And it's not merely inconvenience but also the principle of the thing. Camel's nose under the tent stuff. Also, these Subways are discriminating against non-Muslim meat suppliers as well.

Derec, for all you know - these few particular Subway shops are owned by Muslims. If you are going to continue insisting that Subway was forced into anything, you will need to back up your claims with documented facts; otherwise, you are the one that sounds like the "aggressive minority"

 

[Keith&Co.]

Otherwise?

The two are not mutually exclusive. He can hypothetically be right AND part of an aggressive minority... Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.

 

[metacristi]

I guess that's why you're campaigning against evangelicals enforcing dry county rules in much of the US, while you don't have problems with Muslims making individual decisions about where they want to get their food.

Not a fan of that either, but at least Evangelicals are a majority in those counties. Muslims are enforcing halal only eateries, halal only workplaces, halal only schools and gender segregated university debates when they are only a small majority of the population. That is scary!

Hit the nail. They are a small minority and still there are huge problems (in Europe at least). I would suggest, as gently* as possible, that we should try to find some deeper causes for the observed militantism of muslims; my suggestion (and not only see Sam Harris for example) is that not all Abrahamic religions are equally 'evil', their basics (the attitude toward the value of Human Reason included) plays an important role for the fact that some of them are capable to enter an Enlightened phase (the American and even Jewish fundametalism cannot change that) and other no (sadly islam has never had an Enlightenment).

Or in the words of Sam Harris (paraphrased), the problem with Islamic fundamentalism is the fundamentals of islam (including the huge problem that Human Reason has basically never precedence over traditions, basically no internal logic to accept that the holy book is not perfect).

Some people talk as if the likes of Tawfiq Hamid are the norm in the Islamic communities and thus criticism of today's islam is not only irrational but also a 'hate crime' (apparently even merely advocating a healthy secular state - my goal by the way, a law for all, no to sharia and other unrealistic islamic demands - is not acceptable).

In reality it is easy to see who's winning the minds of most muslims today (or force them to comply), and it is definitely not the 'progressive' element; indeed the idyllic theoretical world populated with many 'moderates' of islam falls apart at the smallest honest reality check (http://hurryupharry.org/2013/10/31/the-quiet-death-of-moderate-islam/ or http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10775755/State-schools-isolate-non-Muslims.html and so on).

The cries of 'islamophobia' and 'bigotry' toward those who point, rationally, to these facts is not a solution, and can only put huge brakes to all attempts to reform islam entirely from inside (yes even real muslim reformers are branded 'bigots' these days just because they want to create moderate muslims in the Western acceptation of the word 'moderate'**).

Unfortunately a situation when a liberalism without borders, favouring islam, can lead to theocracies or at least to drastic reductions in the secular freedoms we enjoy today appears as too plausible, we cannot afford to just wait for time to solve the existing problems.


*sorry if some are offended; not my goal but in the past I had big problem for just saying my point of view (having enough justification by the way, not my fault that others just cannot see it). I would encourage them to read first The closing of the muslim Mind, The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West and Intellectual Curiosity and the Scientific Revolution: A Global Perspective before attacking my stance, I'm afraid there has been (still is) an important difference between the basic worldviews of Christanity and Judaism on one side and islam on the other (strongly blocking intellectual curiosity and free inquiry, there is a reason that a real quranic criticism is still inexistent in the muslim world) and this understanding is instrumental for having a correct interpretation of today's situation.

**search for example How to End 'Islamophobia' in Google to read about the case of a real reformer capable to move islam beyond 'islam is all fringe but no centre' (to paraphrase Sam Harris), the absurd stance of some, who try to block legitimate directions of research, has the effect of inhibiting a real modernization coming entirely from inside

Don't Gloss Over The Violent Texts

By Tawfik Hamid

In regards to Islam, the words "moderate'" and "radical" are relative terms. Without defining them it is virtually impossible to defeat the latter or support the former.
Radical Islam is not limited to the act of terrorism; it also includes the embrace of teachings within the religion that promote hatred and ultimately breed terrorism. Those who limit the definition of radical Islam to terrorism are ignoring—and indirectly approving of—the Shariah teachings that permit killing apostates, violence against women and gays, and anti-Semitism.

Moderate Islam should be defined as a form of Islam that rejects these violent and discriminatory edicts. Furthermore, it must provide a strong theological refutation for the mainstream Islamic teaching that the Muslim umma (nation) must declare wars against non-Muslim nations, spreading the religion and giving non-Muslims the following options: convert, pay a humiliating tax, or be killed. This violent concept fuels jihadists, who take the teaching literally and accept responsibility for applying it to the modern world.
Moderate Islam must not be passive. It needs to actively reinterpret the violent parts of the religious text rather than simply cherry-picking the peaceful ones. Ignoring, rather than confronting or contextualizing, the violent texts leaves young Muslims vulnerable to such teachings at a later stage in their lives.

Finally, moderate Islam must powerfully reject the barbaric practices of jihadists. Ideally, this would mean Muslims demonstrating en masse all over the world against the violence carried out in the name of their religion.

Moderate Islam must be honest enough to admit that Islam has been used in a violent manner at several stages in history to seek domination over others. Insisting that all acts in Islamic history and all current Shariah teachings are peaceful is a form of deception that makes things worse by failing to acknowledge the existence of the problem.

Mr. Hamid, a former member of the Islamic radical group Jamma Islamiya, is an Islamic reformer and a senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

http://blog.theproudatheist.com/is-islam-a-more-radical-religion-an-inside-view-by-kaveh-mousavi/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/marginoferr/2014/02/26/is-islam-a-more-radical-religion-part-2/

 

[Jokodo]

I guess that's why you're campaigning against evangelicals enforcing dry county rules in much of the US, while you don't have problems with Muslims making individual decisions about where they want to get their food.

Not a fan of that either, but at least Evangelicals are a majority in those counties. Muslims are enforcing halal only eateries, halal only workplaces, halal only schools and gender segregated university debates when they are only a small majority of the population. That is scary!

Hit the nail. They are a small minority and still there are huge problems (in Europe at least). I would suggest, as gently* as possible, that we should try to find some deeper causes for the observed militantism of muslims; <snip>

Off topic, even if it were true. This is a thread about a fastfood chain adapting to changing consumer base. The only "militantism" observed in this thread is that of the people who insist that Subway is morally obliged to keep selling pork in every last one of their outlets even if that might be bad for their bottom line, and the only "problem" I can detect is that people with an extraordinarily strong preference for pork have a few places less to buy their lunch, although still many more than people with a similarly strong preference for crocodile, goat, or horse meat.

If you want to talk about huge problems caused by Muslim militantism, you might consider starting a thread about a huge problem caused by Muslim militantism instead of polluting a thread about a fastfood chain adapting to market forces.

 

[angelo]

Wrong question. Nobody is saying they should - there is nothing moral about their decision. But if a significant portion of the local consumer base finds it distasteful, there's a market for a eateries that don't serve it. I'm sure there's a broad variety of eateries that don't serve insects in Bangkok or Singapure, partly because of the demand of Western tourists and expats.

I would get it if a halal kebab shop were to open in Bristol for example. But a Western chain caving to a pressure of an aggressive and loud minority is quite another. If a restaurant frequented by locals that has always served insect were to change their menu to not serve insects to appease Westerners I would understand the locals being upset. And especially so if a part of the new rules that all food must be prepared by Westerners.

There is a tendency for the Left to be too tolerant of the intolerance of Muslims. Be it Muslims demanding halal only in restaurants, schools or workplaces or Muslim speakers in colleges demanding audience be gender segregated the Left will tolerate nonsense they would never tolerate from Christian fundys. Just like they demand Indian creation myths being taken seriously (for example Kennewick Man or sacredness of every tall hill like Mt. Graham) when they would never dream of demanding the same for Christian creation myths.
I think all religions should be treated the same and none should be allowed to control the lives of non-members.

 

[angelo]

Tolerance is a two way street. In many places tolerance is a one way street.

 

[Jokodo]

Tolerance is a two way street. In many places tolerance is a one way street.

Here we have a group of people who, by making the individual choice of preferentially eating at halal places, create a market for those.

Then we have a group of people who violently object to the very existence of halal eating places even when there's still ample choice of non-halal ones.

Which ones do you consider more tolerant, and why?

 

[angelo]

Tolerance is a two way street. In many places tolerance is a one way street.

Here we have a group of people who, by making the individual choice of preferentially eating at halal places, create a market for those.

Then we have a group of people who violently object to the very existence of halal eating places even when there's still ample choice of non-halal ones.

Which ones do you consider more tolerant, and why?

I have no tolerance whatsoever for halal, kosher or any other religious rituals. We should be educating these people about their bullshit, not tolerating them.

 

[Jokodo]

Tolerance is a two way street. In many places tolerance is a one way street.

Here we have a group of people who, by making the individual choice of preferentially eating at halal places, create a market for those.

Then we have a group of people who violently object to the very existence of halal eating places even when there's still ample choice of non-halal ones.

Which ones do you consider more tolerant, and why?

I have no tolerance whatsoever for halal, kosher or any other religious rituals. We should be educating these people about their bullshit, not tolerating them.

So when you said that "n many places tolerance is a one way street", you meant to say that just because Muslims tolerate your choice of food, you feel no obligation to tolerate theirs? And when you said "[t]olerance is a two way street", you didnt really mean to say anything at all?

 

[angelo]

Tolerance is a two way street. In many places tolerance is a one way street.

Here we have a group of people who, by making the individual choice of preferentially eating at halal places, create a market for those.

Then we have a group of people who violently object to the very existence of halal eating places even when there's still ample choice of non-halal ones.

Which ones do you consider more tolerant, and why?

I have no tolerance whatsoever for halal, kosher or any other religious rituals. We should be educating these people about their bullshit, not tolerating them.

So when you said that "n many places tolerance is a one way street", you meant to say that just because Muslims tolerate your choice of food, you feel no obligation to tolerate theirs? And when you said "[t]olerance is a two way street", you didnt really mean to say anything at all?

No, I said we should be educating them that their beliefs are a load of shite as are all religious beliefs.

 

[Jokodo]

Tolerance is a two way street. In many places tolerance is a one way street.

Here we have a group of people who, by making the individual choice of preferentially eating at halal places, create a market for those.

Then we have a group of people who violently object to the very existence of halal eating places even when there's still ample choice of non-halal ones.

Which ones do you consider more tolerant, and why?

I have no tolerance whatsoever for halal, kosher or any other religious rituals. We should be educating these people about their bullshit, not tolerating them.

So when you said that "n many places tolerance is a one way street", you meant to say that just because Muslims tolerate your choice of food, you feel no obligation to tolerate theirs? And when you said "[t]olerance is a two way street", you didnt really mean to say anything at all?

No, I said we should be educating them that their beliefs are a load of shite as are all religious beliefs.

That's what you said in post #169. I'm still trying to work out what you said in #167, though. It almost looks as if those two were contradicting each other.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Angelo said that they should abandon their religion-based intolerance and come over to his way of viewing their intolerant religion intolerantly. And that's tolerance, granting the next man the right to agree with angelo.

 

[Jokodo]

Angelo said that they should abandon their religion-based intolerance and come over to his way of viewing their intolerant religion intolerantly. And that's tolerance, granting the next man the right to agree with angelo.

Why, he's overdoing it! It's alright to extend a helping hand to newcomers, but clearly, agreeing with angelo has to remain a privilege that we can't just give any odd immigrant without requiring a complete genealogy!

 

[RavenSky]

Tolerance is a two way street. In many places tolerance is a one way street.

Here we have a group of people who, by making the individual choice of preferentially eating at halal places, create a market for those.

Then we have a group of people who violently object to the very existence of halal eating places even when there's still ample choice of non-halal ones.

Which ones do you consider more tolerant, and why?

I have no tolerance whatsoever for halal, kosher or any other religious rituals. We should be educating these people about their bullshit, not tolerating them.

So tolerance is NOT a two-way street... it is your way or the highway.

 

[angelo]

What they eat or do in their own homes has nothing to do with anyone else. Except when they marry off their 9 year old daughter to a 30-40 year old uncle, then the law has to step in regardless of their perceived culture.

Having said that, we as a whole in the west should never have to tolerate sharia law for example, nor should we even allow it in their own communities as that would be just the foundation for other demands.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

BTW, Since Subway stores are franchises perhaps the owners are Muslim?

Blows your mind, eh?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Allah akbar to you!

Do you really expect them to come out and say it? But it should be obvious since one of the neighborhoods that "halal only" Subway is located is only 15% Muslim. That means 85% are non-Muslim (duh!) Yet they caved to offering a "halal only" menu there.

Who are "they"? And why do you care so much?

Much like McDonalds and the Catholics, these stores are most likely trying to widen their appeal to potential customers.

No, it's the antithesis of McD and Catholics. There is no ban on (terrestrial vertebrate) meat on Fridays, or during Lent. Neither are their fish sandwiches only offered on Fridays or during Lent. And neither are they sourcing their fish from Catholic fishermen only. As you say, they "widened their appeal to potential customers" by expanding their menu, not by restricting it. The fish sandwich might have been inspired by Catholic dietary customs but their entire menu is not based on it. Quite unlike Subway.

You missed the entire point. McDonalds changed their menu to suit Catholics. They did this EXPLICITLY, to boost sales during Lent.

What intolerance? Is changing your menu to attract more business somehow caving to intolerance?

No, changing your menu to appease an intolerant minority that is offended by what the majority eats is caving to intolerance.

Are you the intolerant minority? Are you a shill for the Pork Producers Union? Because all I see here is outrage over a business offering a different menu at some of their locations. This happens all the time, but since it is the scary Muslim menu, this becomes the gateway to complete Sharia Law across the globe. Mohammed uber alles.

Geesh, give it a break. Fight intolerance where it is, not these nonsensical "oh my gawd... I can't get bacon chicken at this one restaurant!" outrages. I'm sure you can find more worthy injustices to be brought up.

Camel's nose under the tent stuff.

How nice of you to keep using a uniformed bigoted stereotype.
Fried chicken and watermelon on the porch back at you.

 

[RavenSky]

we as a whole in the west should never have to tolerate sharia law for example, nor should we even allow it in their own communities as that would be just the foundation for other demands.

I'm assuming you (& Derec) will be consistent and can show me evidence that you have also protested kosher deli's and kosher sections within grocery stores, right?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What they eat or do in their own homes has nothing to do with anyone else.

Wait, wait. So if they want to, say, observe sharia law in their homes, it's not a thing we need to concern ourselves with.
However,

tolerate sharia law for example, nor should we even allow it in their own communities as that would be just the foundation for other demands.

Gotcha.
And this is to fight intolerance.