French court rules pork soup kitchen not racist

[TechBear_Seattle]

An interesting twist. If a right-wing group in the US tried this, would they be exorcated for being racist, or praised for taking some action -- any action -- towards helping the poor and needy?

PARIS (Reuters) - A French court ruled Tuesday that an organization with far-right links can continue offering pork soup to the homeless, rejecting police complaints that the food distribution was racist.

Police banned the soup kitchen last month, arguing that the handouts discriminated against Jews and Muslims who do not eat pork on religious grounds.

The administrative court said the distribution was "clearly discriminatory," but could not be stopped because the organizers offered to feed anyone who asked for help.

The full article can be read at http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070103/od_nm/france_soup_pork_dc

[CTguy78]

1. How is that racist?

If they dont like pork, dont eat it. They arent being forced to are they?

Political correctness gone way too far..........

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Given it's a far right group...

it seems their purposefully using pork soup in order to discriminate against Jews and Muslims.

Sounds like racism to me.

[CTguy78]

3. then they can starve

They can either eat what is given to them for free, starve, or find a job and buy their own damn food.

[Lurking Dem]

7. I think maybe

you need to find your own damn message board.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Well, at least we agree that it's racist now.

And given that it's right wing it's apparent they don't really care about feeding the poor either.

And these people call themselves Christians. Sheesh.

[karlrschneider]

62. Not to defend the newbie, but how is it racist?

If they were giving out free hamburgers and the Hindus wouldn't eat them would -that- be 'racist'?
sheesh...

Edit: After reading the silly shit in this thread, I've decided I agree 100% with the newbie.

[mondo joe]

66. Couldn't they give a hindu everything but the burger?

I think a starving Hindu would accept it.

[karlrschneider]

75. The Hindu can throw the burger (the beef part) away.

Or feed it to a dog.
:eyes:

[mondo joe]

80. The point is, serving hamburgers does not exclude Hindus.

They can opt to ditch the burger.

Can't do that with pork soup.

[karlrschneider]

98. They can't pick out the pieces of pig? Are they blind too?

:eyes:

[gollygee]

103. Huh? You think Muslims can just pick the pork out?

if it's cooked with pork, it's unclean. It isn't that they don't like the taste of it. :eyes:

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

119. So you're saying muslims and jews are dumb fucks?

Can we quote you on that, Karl?

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

150. Alright.

So people who eat kosher are dumb fucks, and people who pray in public are, what was it again? Idiots?

[karlrschneider]

200. Christians who pray in public are violating a clear instruction from Jesus.

People who refuse to eat some particular food because a book of myths says it's bad are dumb fucks. Yes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

229. Who Christians should obey clear instructions from Jesus...

But Muslims who obey clear instructions from God, i.e. eating kosher (what's the arabic word for kosher again) and praying five times a day are dumb fucks?

Seems a bit inconsistent.

[karlrschneider]

239. Look, there ARE no 'clear instructions' from imaginary deities.

Anybody who thinks there are is just fucking nuts. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of those who SAY they 'believe' but are in reality just lying assholes. And yes, anyone who prays 5 times a day, or once, is a delusional idiot. It actually is just that simple.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

241. So you're saying muslims are delusional idiots.

Is that what you're saying, Karl?

Why don't you just come out and say it?

[Name removed]

245. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mondo joe]

166. Too bad KARL's posts were deleted.

I doubt I can imagine ideas as bad as what he posted.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

172. That's our Karl.

Check your PMs.

[karlrschneider]

198. Uh, to whom are you referring?

???

[Poll_Blind]

123. I wouldn't say "dumb fuck", I'd say "extremely orthodox". Sometimes...

...the two are synonyms, sometimes not.

PB

[karlrschneider]

133. Ultra orthodox is fine when it embraces sensible principles. It's just stupid

if it intrudes on common sense. How many "bible believers" eat shellfish? Doesn't bother many of -them-.

[Critters2]

152. The same Orthodox people who don't eat pork don't eat shellfish

[karlrschneider]

169. That's bullshit. Maybe not when the priest/rabbi is nearby.

99.999% of people who PUBLICLY eschew 'verboten' foods happily eat them in private. The first time I ever saw a microwave oven was at the home of a Jewish friend, he cooked up a big plate of bacon to show how fast it was. I said "I thought you didn't eat pork"...he said "this isn't pork,it's bacon"

It was tasty.

[mondo joe]

171. Oh good - now you've moved on to the made-up-statistics part of your losing

argument.

And so soon!

[Critters2]

175. So your friend wasn't Orthodox. What's your point? nt

[karlrschneider]

186. That he was sane.

He's a Jew but in many ways he's more of a Christian than most people who claim to be.

[Critters2]

187. Since Jesus' teachings were mostly quotes from the Hebrew Bible

there shouldn't be much difference.

[karlrschneider]

190. I'm not sure I would agree with that. There's not much in the Torah like the

Sermon on the Mount. There were a lot of nasty pricks around when the OT myths got started. But then of course Jesus wanted it both ways...he affirmed much of it (jots and tittles) and also denied them
in other places. I don't personally believe in a divine Messiah ever existing but don't really have much of a quarrel with most of what he supposedly said.

[Critters2]

199. The Great Commandment (Love God), and the Second (love your neighbor)

are direct quotes from the Torah, the first from Deuternomy, the second from Leviticus. Also the phrasing of the Beatitudes uses a common rabbinical practice of contrasting good with bad human traits, seen most explicitly in Proverbs.

For starters.

[karlrschneider]

203. True but it doesn't refute my observation.

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I
found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first: "Hi!
I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I
want to kiss his ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, he'll give you a million dollars; and if
you don't, he'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank
owns this town. He can do what ever he wants, and what he wants is to
give you a million dollars, but he can't until you kiss his ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million
dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has he given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no, you don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money,
and he kicks the shit out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the
million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year,
and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think he'll actually give you the money if you've
never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, he gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll
get a raise; maybe you'll win a small lotto; maybe you'll just find a
twenty dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?

John: "Hank has certain connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And
remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass he'll kick the shit of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to him, get the details straight
from him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss his ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow him a kiss, and think of his ass. Other
times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's
ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that
Hank wanted you to kiss his ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl's got a letter Hank sent him years ago explaining the
whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

John handed me a photocopy of a handwritten memo on "From the desk of Karl"
letterhead. There were eleven items listed:

1 Kiss Hank's ass and he'll give you a million dollars when you leave
town.
2 Use alcohol in moderation.
3 Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4 Eat right.
5 Hank dictated this list himself.
6 The moon is made of green cheese.
7 Everything Hank says is right.
8 Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9 Don't drink.
10 Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11 Kiss Hank's ass or he'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This would appear to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's
handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago he would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said he was a philanthropist. What sort of
philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're
different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says Everything Hanks says is right.' That's good enough
for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides,
item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' item 4 says 'Eat right,' and
item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone
knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But #9 says 'Don't Drink,' which doesn't quite go with #2. And #6
says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2; 9 just clarifies 2. As
to 6, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of
rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out
of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon came
from the Earth has been discounted. Besides, not knowing where the rock
came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Aha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know
Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 5 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the
list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated
it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than
saying 'Hank's right because he says he's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around
to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary blushes. John says: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's
way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary looks positively stricken. John shouts: "There's no need for such
language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be
out of the question?"

Mary sticks her fingers in her ears: "I am not listening to this. La la la,
la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary faints. John catches her: "Well, if I'd known you where one of
those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of
you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass
for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

[Ellen Forradalom]

300. that was hilarious

Thanks for my belly laugh of the day!

Oh, darn, it's nearly 2 PM! Gotta run and kiss Hank's ass.

[mondo joe]

168. Christian bible believers are permitted to eat Shellfish, pork, etc per

divine mandate described by Saint Paul.

[karlrschneider]

194. Yeah, Saul, the Terrorist of Tarsus who hallucinated from bad mushrooms

and fell off his donkey. Now, THERE is one asshole with a LOT of credibility.
:eyes:
(Who, even according to the mythology wasn't even contemporary with Jebus...)
:eyes:

[mondo joe]

196. That's the Christian mythos.

I don't consider it credible myself, just like the rest of the bible.

But the point remains, Bible Believers are not called on to refuse shellfish.

[karlrschneider]

208. Leviticus 10:10?

I guess the 'salad-bar' believers can pick and choose whatever the fuck they want to accept.

[mondo joe]

212. Matthew 15:10-11

"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, "Listen and understand. 11What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.' "

[karlrschneider]

217. Well, that is precisely the POINT, isn't it? You can find something in scripture

to support your position on just about anything. That is exactly why it's worthless crap.

[mondo joe]

224. Number 1: I am addressing your observation that bible believers eat

shellfish, by pointing out to you that "Bible Believers" have a biblical okay to do so. So why wouldn't they?


Number 2: I am of the opinion that the bible is worthless crap as well - but that is neither here nor there.

[karlrschneider]

226. Yeah, they have an "okay" in ONE place, and a PROHIBITION in another.

Which one takes precedence? Careful when you answer this one.
...

[mondo joe]

230. If you are a BIBLE believer (rather than a Torah believer) the second takes

precedence because it overturns the pre-Christ law.

Try a harder question next time.

[karlrschneider]

235. Fine. Tell it to the millions of 'christians' who get orgasmic over the

stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, among others. They don't give a rat's ass what the supposed icon of their faith, Jebus, said, they'd rather rely on the blood & gore from the OT to justify their misanthropy. Did you miss the 'jot and tittle' part, by the way?

[mondo joe]

238. I concur - most Bible Believers are biblically ignorant.

I am not.

I am, after all, an atheist.

That does not change the fact that per the bible, the Talmudic laws are overturned, and succeeded by only the two great laws (which are not changed, one jot or tittle).

[karlrschneider]

243. I am an atheist also and I fucked up with that comment. I intended to

refer to the alleged quote (and I'm ashamed to admit I can't recall chapter/verse) where Jesus supposedly said something like "I come not to change the law but to validate it..." my paraphrase.
It's yet another built-in contradiction.

I need to check http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com
;-)

[rebel with a cause]

279. there is actually no such thing as common sense.

Common sense is only shared values/morals. What may be common sense for one is not that for another. Much of what you have posted goes very much against my common sense and moral sense.

[Clark2008]

124. Well, a great many people, myself included, are allergic to pork;

and you're correct. I couldn't eat the soup either - and I'm neither Jewish or Muslim (but, have been married to a Muslim and am currently married to a Jew).

And, I couldn't eat it if I was starving, either. It would just make me sick, I'd throw up for days; therefore, killing any chances of nurishment.

Of course, try eating in any Southern restaurant. The lengths I have to go to eat is ridiculous. Hey, cooks, not everything tastes great laden in pork!

[Matariki]

143. you *could* find another soup kitchen if you were starving

it sure beats suing the soup kitchen so that NO hungry people get any FREE soup.

[Ms. Clio]

178. yeah, the world is full of free food! Soup kitchens on every corner!

And limousines to get there.

I'll bet this "charity" isn't even in business 6 months from now; they've made their nasty bigoted point.

[karlrschneider]

227. I'm sure you are right. The only hungry/homeless people in France are obviously

Jews and Muslims.

[mondo joe]

182. Heck, why bother with soup kitchens? Let them eat cake.

:puke:

[Matariki]

189. RIGHT - and the answer is to obviously close it down

because they serve food that some people won't eat.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

191. Let's go back to basics -

Who here said it should be shut down?

[Matariki]

201. It *was* shut down for serving soup with pork fat in it.

if they were serving soup with pork fat as a deliberate 'fuck you' to Muslim and Jewish homeless/hungry people then they're assholes. But shutting them down so that no homeless/hungry people get soup is stupid. Last time I checked charity isn't a mandatory thing - I mean they don't owe soup to anyone. It's nice they run a soup kitchen AND they're dicks if they're using food to make a racist political point. I think if you go to the salvation army's soup kitchen you have to listen to a bunch of christian propaganda.

[mondo joe]

205. Let's try again: I asked "WHO HERE SAID IT SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN"?

And that's still what I'm asking.

[Matariki]

210. ask away.

what's the point of your posts? what do YOU think should happen to the soup kitchen?

[gollygee]

213. We're just speaking out against injustice!

I personally have no solutions. But if I see injustice I will speak out anyway.

I don't think it even should be illegal. But I hate that they're doing it.

[Matariki]

219. couldn't agree with you more

it's a bit of a paradox, eh? they're assholes for using their charity this way and they're charitable for feeding the hungry.

[mondo joe]

214. What should happen to the soup kitchen?

They should be permitted to give away whatever they like.

That's the legal answer.

[karlrschneider]

223. It also happens to be the moral answer.

There's a reason for the old saw "don't look a gift horse in the mouth."

And I seriously wonder if there actually ARE any homeless/destitute Muslims in France. They take care of each other...moreso than we do in this country in many cases.

[Ms. Clio]

192. nobody said it should be closed down

We are just exposing its actual purpose and motives.

Again, I doubt that it's a genuine "charity" in any respect. Are you aware that the KKK was very "charitable," too? Klan members would stride into churches and pass out money to widows and whatnot. Guess you're right, and we should still be blessed with their benevolence today.

[Matariki]

209. so what do you suggest - keep it open or close it down

you seem to be contradicting yourself. in your last post you implied that there aren't soup kitchens on every corner (or limousines to get to them), which would make me think that ANY soup kitchen would be welcome. Now you are comparing them to the KKK giving money to widows - which I take to mean that you think they shouldn't exist?

I agree that if they're using this to make a racist point, well they're dicks. but the point i was making is that they are a charitable organization giving away food to the hungry. They have no obligation to do that - a point that many people here seem to miss.

[Ms. Clio]

216. hey, the KKK had no obligation to give money to widows and children, either

The law didn't stop them from doing it; nor should it. It didn't make them a real charity, either.

[Matariki]

222. well then, back to my post stating that a person could go to another soup kitchen

if you were a hungry widow with orphans and the kkk gave you money, would you take it?

[mondo joe]

228. Your notion that there are abundant choices for hungry homeless people betrays

a regrettable naivete.

[Matariki]

258. you misunderstand my point

the lack of charities giving away food is the reason that this one should remain open (as was decided by the court). that doesn't make them any less dickheaded for using their charity to make some bigoted nationalistic point. however i doubt this is the ONLY soup kitchen in france and if pork is an issue - or beef - or dairy products or whatever a person can't or won't eat then they need to find some alternative. does this place ONLY serve pork soup - every day - nothing else? kind of weird.

[Ms. Clio]

232. No

You would? Knowing that the hands that gave you the money adjusted the noose around a black man's neck?

[Matariki]

237. no, i wouldn't either.

i'd find other help or go without.

[mondo joe]

240. And if your children hadn't eaten food in 3 or 4 days?

And no one else was offering?

[Matariki]

244. that would be a tough call. a real dilemma.

probably true for the pork soup too. i'd eat the soup. i wouldn't take money from the kkk. the kids would probably die. i'm glad i don't have to make choices like that.

if you were starving, would you eat your cat or dog?

[mondo joe]

246. I might eat my cat and I'm barely even hungry.

He's just such an annoying fat fuck. ;-)

[Matariki]

248. if only the keyboard had a 'grill' option

:evilgrin:

[mondo joe]

252. Skewer the fat bastard.

Leave the skinny one - she's a good pet.

[Matariki]

255. the one at the top looks like a fried chicken already.

kidding. they're really cute.

[Madspirit]

293. Absolutely NOT

No.
Madspirit

[karlrschneider]

225. What is a 'real charity'? One that only gives to people you approve of?

:eyes:

[gollygee]

231. One that has charitable motivations

rather than discriminatory motivations.

[Ms. Clio]

233. So you think we need the KKK again, Karl?

Interesting POV.

[mondo joe]

234. In popular use the term Charity is often used as a synonym

for voluntary, or not-for-profit organizations, popularly understood as organization that raise funds for or offer support to the disadvantaged in society.

Organizations intended to exclude some disadvantaged based on race or religion could arguably considered not "real charities".

[karlrschneider]

254. I think I will start a charity (that comports with your definition) that gives free condoms

to anyone who cannot afford them. Oh, wait...that would be discriminating against (insert the appropriate group here)...

(Actually, I think there are people who do this, maybe not for the usual 'charitable' reasons, but the analogy still works)

ks

[Ms. Clio]

256. no, it wouldn't be discriminating against anyone

that doesn't even makes sense. It's not withholding something from anyone who might want it.


<typo edit>

[karlrschneider]

259. No...it's OFFERING something FREE that may offend certain people.

Just like the pork offends a few assholes who base their dietary intake on an idiotic belief system.
Catholics don't HAVE to accept the rubbers, Muslims don't HAVE to accept the pig meat. Same goddamn thing.

[mondo joe]

261. Offense is not the question, and never has been

"Offense" can suck my dick.

The issue is a soup kitchen that operates with the intent to exclude semitic persons from the services it provides.

Please, do not pretend.

[karlrschneider]

263. I think we're just arguing for the sake of argument now. If somebody can "NOT"

eat pork because of a religious proscription, and someone else can "NOT" use a condom because of THEIR religious proscription, the situations are perfectly parallel if not logically analogous since fucking isn't necessary for individual survival like eating is (or so I've heard) but ultimately it boils down to "cutting off the nose to spite the face" insanity. To repeat myself ad nauseum, any human who bases his diet on the interpreted rules of ancient superstition is an ignorant moron.

[mondo joe]

265. Let's just expose the tremendous flaw in your analogy.

Hungry and homeless people do want food - though it needs to be food they feel they can eat.

Orthodox Catholics don't WANT birth control - they are not being discriminated against.

The simple fact is that this soup kitchen is attempting to exclude some religious minorities, and has found a legal way to do so.

I see no benefit in pretending otherwise.

[karlrschneider]

270. That's pretty funny considering so many on this thread think it's RACISM.

You're correct, it is RELIGIOUS discrimination. I never defended their motives but they have every legal and moral right to do it within their own religion-based morality (to their way of thinking.)

I'm still waiting to see something good for humankind done in the name of religion of any stripe.

[Ms. Clio]

262. Nobody's actual physical well-being depends on access to condoms

And if you're trying to piss people off, then I question your motives. Why you want to defend bigoted assholes is simply beyond me. This has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with hate and politics.

[mondo joe]

266. Rather, offering condoms does not deny any service to those who don't want them.

Serving meals which BY DESIGN exclude religious minorities who might otherwise benefit from the service is very different.

[Ms. Clio]

269. yes, thanks

that was an example I could barely make sense of at all.

[karlrschneider]

267. With all due respect, it has EVERYTHING to do with religion.

No RACE has any built-in prohibition against eating pork...or any other food. As for questioning my motives, spare me the breast-beating, I've heard far too much of that kind of crap for over 60 years.

[Ms. Clio]

268. What part of the whole "guys running the charity hate Muslims" do you fail to understand?

spare me the anthropology lectures.

[karlrschneider]

271. Well, pardon the fuck out of me for attempting to educate.

I will shut up now.

[sendero]

301. I wanna ask you something..

... what do you think we, or anyone, should do about charities that discriminate? The US is FULL of them, from the Salvation Army on down.

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean there is a viable remedy. There is none in this case other than folks who don't wish to eat what is served going somewhere else.

There simply is no rational counter argument.

[pitohui]

287. i can't believe you just said that -- ever heard of aids/hiv?

a great many people's physical well-being and nay even their survival depends on access to condoms

this thread is over the top!

eh, this in reply to the very silly person who claimed that no one's well-being depends on access to condoms, unfortunately, my reply did not fall in the right place in the thread

[mondo joe]

257. I can't imagine how that would discriminate in the least. NT

[Hoping4Change]

289. My absolutely favourite meat is pork but once I realized how

intelligent these animals are I couldn't bear to eat one. I have been a vegetarian for 15 years now. Anyway I personally find it insulting when Muslims, some Christian sects, and Jews go on about pigs being filthy. I was just as insulted when I once worked with a very narrow minded WASP who went on a roll about carp being a garbage feeder when I told him that carp is traditional dish eaten at Ukrainian Christmas.

Call me crazy but pigs are part of god's creation and they are sensitive and intelligent to boot. I find it ironic that the two meats that are disease carriers in this modern age are chickens (salmonella) and beef (mad cow).

[rebel with a cause]

281. Let them eat cake. Hey, that's my line.

The whole subject of this thread has been lost. The discussion should be on whether a group can purposely prepare food to exclude some while feeding others. If there was a large group of people homeless, with half of them being from other cultures and half of them Americans, I could cook food from other countries and try to feed it to good ole Americans, and I can promise you that they would starve before they ate it. Now would that be because their common sense told them not to eat this food, or because they did not believe in eating horse, dog, rat, or multiple other meat sources. And if I did this purposely to starve the Americans, would that be wrong of me to do?

[Hoping4Change]

290. I agree. I also think that people should have a right to completely

ignore religious sentiments. To not serve pork means in effect that you agree that it is filthy.

[Ms. Clio]

113. yeah, there is some damned foolish stuff posted here

:plonk:

[TechBear_Seattle]

125. Out of a soup?

It not's just the meat, but the broth too.

[karlrschneider]

140. I rest my case.

...

[mondo joe]

165. Pick out the pieces of pig in pork broth?

Do you know what broth is?

[Ms. Clio]

95. really? Then maybe you should see post #86

[cherokeeprogressive]

276. Racism, or Religious Discrimination?

Race? How does RACE apply to whether a person eats pork or not? I don't THINK it does, and for now, I'll stick with that.

Religious discrimination is another story. And even THAT dog doesn't hunt. I've seen ten, a hundred, a thousand and maybe more posts on DU (and NO, I don't have links) that imply or infer that anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Personal Saviour is loony, devoid of the ability to reason critically, or otherwise fucked up beyond all recognition (FUBAR). Catholics don't (or aren't SUPPOSED TO) eat meat on Fridays. How many Catholics do you think have visited soup kitchens in this country on Fridays and eaten something that could be considered a "beef by-product" at the very least?

In the face of those facts, methinks it's totally hypocritical to defend a starving person (muslim or otherwise) who refuses food based solely on religious grounds. Eat or Die. Yeah, I think I'll go with that...

A person either wants to live, or wants to visit God, Allah, The Great Spirit, or whomever he/she believes is responsible for the way things are at this moment; good, bad, or otherwise.

Fuck Religion. Let's Eat.

Hug your Koran, and die.

Which would YOU choose?

[Ms. Clio]

280. Try reading the whole thread, especially #86, and perhaps go google "xenophobia"

"nativism" and "ethnocentrism." It's discrimination against a group of unwanted people by attacking them via their religious beliefs about food, in a deliberately cruel and hateful manner.

And can the persecuted martyr complex re: Christians. Your argument about Catholics is inane -- they have not been required to avoid meat on Fridays for decades. For Jews and Muslims, the restrictions against pork, shellfish, and certain other foods are still in effect.

[SoCalDem]

16. 3-2-1-

[geek tragedy]

21. Can they eat Freedom Fries? eom

[CrispyQ]

42. What a kind heart you have toward your fellow man --

NOT.

:puke:

[TechBear_Seattle]

45. "Are there no prisons? No workhouses?"

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

-- Excerpt from A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. Public Domain.

[Crunchy Frog]

56. Good answer. n/t

[JerseygirlCT]

253. Just what came to my mind, too. nt

[rockymountaindem]

48. Wasn't Christmas last week, Scrooge? n/t

[mondo joe]

59. Yes, people can use their own money to discriminate.

And they can set up services for the poor intended to exclude minorities.

People are free to be assholes.

[JerseygirlCT]

250. Wow.

[rebel with a cause]

278. Why aren't you special?

Bless your heart. :sarcasm: old fashion homestyle

[geek tragedy]

15. Probably. On the other hand there's no

way the state should be forbidding people from giving away pork products just because some can't accept it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. It's not my state to say.

[geek tragedy]

20. Good point.

But, government officials should have better things to do than supervising menus.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Not if the menus are in restaurants that discriminate against...

certain members of that state's citizens.

Or, even moreso, if it's a "charitable" organization that gets grant from the government or tax breaks for the organization's members.

[geek tragedy]

35. So, all-pork restaurants should be illegal?

In Madrid, there's a chain of restaurants called Museo de Jamon. Should the Spanish government close them down?

[mondo joe]

70. Commercial businesses represent a choice for consumers.

The starving don't have the same sort of options.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

97. If a restaurant discriminates against black people...

should it be shut down?

[slackmaster]

109. There was an effort to shut down Church's Fried Chicken here in the '80s

There was a rumor that Church's was spiking their food with potassium nitrate, so as to render black people impotent. It turned out to be a hoax ("black propaganda" if you will) by a competitor.

To answer your question, any restaurant that refuses service to anyone because of their race, gender, etc. should be made to pay some kind of remedy.

[geek tragedy]

275. Did the soup kitchen forbid Muslims or Jews

from accepting food?

Serving food that is unavailable to certain religious groups shouldn't be a crime.

[mondo joe]

68. Depends. If the agency uses public funds in a way intended to discriminate

there'd be a very good reason to butt in.

[geek tragedy]

285. I would hope that those Le Pen-supporting

bastards wouldn't get a cent from the state.

[slackmaster]

23. I would not characterize it as racial discrimination

Surely it was an "in your face" type business decision to make some kind of point, but neither Jews nor Muslims inherently belong to any particular race.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. I would.

It's antisemitism.

[architect359]

4. Yeah, but was that their intent?

I think that if they knew that pork would be an offensive food that caused people to turn away, that'd be discrimation. It's just not overt, in your face. It's a weasel move, imo. (edit for grammer)

[slackmaster]

24. If a Filipino nationalist organization offered only baluts

Would that be discrimination against the majority of people who couldn't get one past their noses?

[Poll_Blind]

54. You're using the term intent in an emotional/spiritual sense but...

...many in this thread are inclined to look at it in a legal sense, which is why I think there is some apparent friction of opinion.

  Looking at this in a legal sense, intent in this matter is a moot. A service and product are being provided free of charge and the provider does not select who does or does not receive the service and product. All who request it are given it on equal terms.

  Proving intent is extremely difficult and would almost be impossible in this case. Even if they stated publicly that it was to dissuade the religiously-observant from taking them up on the offer, no laws of any sort are broken. It is the recipient who self-selects their participation in this instance, not the provider. This removes any burden from the provider.

PB

[Missy M]

6. Because it is a right wing group I believe it is definitely racist...

and deliberate against Jews and Muslims. I think they have the right to do it but it is hateful.

[Momgonepostal]

193. A well-intentioned right wing group would serve something else

with out having to be asked twice. Serving pork once could be a mistake, an error in judgement, but continually serving it, when they know there is a large population of non-pork eaters in the area is not.

Any group running a soup kitchen purely out of the goodness of their hearts to help the downtrodden, would make an effort to serve things that the majority of the people in the area could eat. Even if it were a matter of pork being significantly cheaper, they could still make pork stew but offer a beef option.

Obviously, this is a group out to make a point.

[Matariki]

247. I wonder if the BULK of their clients couldn't eat pork - or just a few

I wonder why the police decided to shut them down. I think the whole story isn't reported - so it's hard to know what their motives were - whether it was in your face racism or something else.

[Ms. Clio]

251. It's not hard to understand their motives if you read post #86

[Gormy Cuss]

22. Absolutely, if your alternative is no food, eat whatever the mean-spirited xenophobic bigots offer.

Calling something "political correctness" is an easy way to dismiss a practice when one has no defensible argument against it.

[China_cat]

38. It isn't political correctness when it is ingrained religious 'rules'.

[Bridget Burke]

39. Perhaps "xenophobic" or "nativist" or "antisemitic" are better descriptions.

These kind folks are the offspring of the French collaborators who gladly turned their Jewish neighbors in to the Nazis.

(Hey, aren't you on another thread, standing up for the fine folk who work for health insurance companies? Just like you?)

[rebel with a cause]

277. About political correctness this is not. and whether or not they like pork.

Say you are homeless and starving, and the people offering food to people like you purposely make said food out of pork, which according to your religion you cannot eat. And say these people who made the food are so evil and hateful that they planned this all out so they can feed Christians and no one else. It is not because pork is cheaper or healthier to eat than say chicken. They are using pork as a cruel form of (what I would call) torture...........well, hopefully you should get the message now.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. I believe it is ok

for a Muslim to eat pork if they are starving. Don't have my references here now, but know that forbidden foods are allowed to be eaten by those in dire straits.

[architect359]

11. Ah. I didn't realize that fact

However, as I mentioned above, this move is dubious considering the nature of the group(s) that's sponsoring the soup kitchen.

[Poll_Blind]

17. You're right. Here is a Wiki link with relevant verses.

Islam and Pork. Basically: If it's out of necessity (no other food options), it's not willfully disobedient and you don't eat more than you need to then you are "guiltless".

  Similarly, I doubt there's a Rabbi on earth who would suggest that a Jew starve if the only option available is pork. It wouldn't make any sense.

  That's not to say that in some conditions observant Muslims and Jews would rather go hungry than eat forbidden food but they're off the hook, spiritually.

PB

[China_cat]

40. Jews are under commandment to save lives.

Their own as well as others. If it came down to starvation or forbidden food, the more serious offense would be to die of starvation.

[Poll_Blind]

44. Thanks. I did vaguely remember that there was a heirarchy and...

...that "Be fruitful and multiply" was very very close to the top, superceding other less-important commandments, at least according to halachic interpretation. I don't know if you're familiar with approaches to Halachic Infertility but that's another case of a lesser commandment being superceded by a greater one.

PB

[Karenina]

19. Kitchen pot religion

(as Swami Vivikenanda called it) gets on my nerves. Dietary restrictions once had their place in terms of hygiene. Personal preferences and convictions have their place. But if I'm hungry and am offered well-cooked food, I EAT unless it clashes too loudly. I ate organ meat on New Years. It was leftovers from the Schlachfest. A's sister cooked it. I DON'T EAT ORGAN MEATS. I was HUNGRY. It was late. A's sister cooked it with much love. I ATE IT. It was GOOD!!!

[TahitiNut]

36. "But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience or transgressing due limits, ..."

"But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience or transgressing due limits, then is he guiltless. For God is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful." 2:173

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

122. Thanks

I don't keep a Qur'an at work, which is where I was when I posted.

[BuyingThyme]

9. Is racism illegal in France?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. I think that technically it is.

But the law often looks the other way.

Not sure.

[wuushew]

12. religion is an idea, if anything it is theist not racist

n/t

[VelmaD]

28. thank you

I was wondering if anyone was going to note that being Jewish or Muslim is not technically a race.

[gollygee]

33. Discrimination on basis of religious beliefs

not racism, but a parallel kind of discrimination

[Poll_Blind]

49. Actually they are not discriminiating against anyone. The recipients are...

...choosing not to take what is offered freely to everyone on the same terms. That's a distinction worth recognizing.

Those who are providing the soup are not selecting those who do not receive it. Those who do not receive it are self-selecting themselves based on religious belief.

  There are two types of people in this thread: Those who are viewing it based on an emotional level and who are prejudiced (in the legal sense) by knowledge of the organization's beliefs and those who are viewing it in a legal sense, as though the case had been brought before a court. That's also worth recognizing because I think everyone here probably agrees that the organization holds some unsavory ideas.

  I'm looking at it in the latter, "Is this legally actionable?" sense.

PB

[gollygee]

51. I agree that *legally* it isn't discrimination

and therefore the government really shouldn't be able to do anything. They can use their money to give out whatever they want.

But they are discriminating as far as purposely setting it up in a way to try to keep Islamic and Jewish people from being able to participate.

[TechBear_Seattle]

53. And that, it seems, is what the court ruled

They said it was discrimination, but of a type that was not legally actionable.

[Poll_Blind]

57. Even then, I would disagree that it is discriminiation of any sort. The...

...selection of who receives the goods/service is not made by the provider but by the participants. The participants decide their own level of religious observance in the matter.

  If an anti-Christian/anti-Semitic/anti-Muslim group were to offer lobster dinners to anyone who asked, is there any burden on them because potential recipients may or may not be dissuaded from accepting the offer because their religious books forbid consumption of lobster, shrimp, crab, mussels, etc. as "an abomination"?

  None at all. As long as the provider is willing to provide on equal terms to all, the burden of who does or does not self-select the offer lies on the potential consumer.

PB

[gollygee]

58. There's an ethical issue and a legal issue

if you are providing food to the poor, and you choose the menu based on the hope that it will keep a group of people you don't like from participating, then you have been unethical.

It isn't legally discriminatory because it doesn't meet the legal definition. But I think it very clearly does meet the definition of discrimination as far as ethics are concerned if they did it because they didn't want to help people based on their religious beliefs.

[Poll_Blind]

65. But it won't "keep" people from participating. I know this sounds like...

...I'm arguing a very little, extremely subtle point here but I think it's actually the heart of the matter. All those who request the service/good receive it on equal terms. If they choose not to receive it, it's their choice.

  While I consider it incidental to my argument, both religions in question (Islam/Judaism) allow for their members to consume that otherwise-forbidden meat if there is no other food available. Again, I consider this point incidental but it shows that in both religions (on this point, anyway) there is built-in wiggle room taking into account the general hardship and adversity of life.

  While a well-off Jewish or Muslim family would probably never use this organization's service because they would not have economic reason to seek out a free meal, importantly, neither would a well-off Christian family. All from those religious groups who did need a free meal are either entirely free to consume the product (Christians) or allowed to by their religion because of economic circumstance(Jewish/Muslim).

  I would even say that the organization is still quite within the bounds of ethical behavior, certainly conventional ethics. From a specific spiritual standpoint, it is possible to condemn almost anyone as unethical. Eating shellfish, wearing mixed-fiber clothing, having sexual relations with women who are currently or have recently stopped menstruating, homosexuality- these are all things condemnable as unethical from a specific religious standpoint but not necessarily from a conventinally-ethical standpoint.

PB

[gollygee]

67. The intent is there regardless

ethics are about what is happening inside a person when they're making these kinds of decisions, not on what choices the people impacted by their decisions have available to them. It sounds like they made their choice because they don't like new immigrants, who are largely Islamic. That is a discriminatory choice.

[Ms. Clio]

72. gosh, who are you, the thought police?

The real X-perts here know it was really all about the looooooove those far-right wing groups have for all mankind.

[mondo joe]

74. Not knowing anything more than that the group has far right connections

I defer to the court and Mayor who know more and concluded it was intended to discriminate.

[Ms. Clio]

79. of course it was

anyone who thinks this is some harmless charity is deluded or abysmally stupid.

[Poll_Blind]

89. Certainly, but that does not mean that there is any actual discrimination present.

I'm not defending the organization. I'm defending their (and others') right to provide a free service and product without having to provide other products as well. Charity vs. obligation.

PB

[mondo joe]

92. People have the right to be incredible discriminatory assholes

in many circumstances.

I don't deny their RIGHT to do so.

[gollygee]

76. If I were the the thought police, I'd say it should be illegal

but you must have missed the part where I said it isn't legally discrimination.

What they did was unethical regardless.

[Ms. Clio]

81. sorry, I forgot to use a sarcasm thingie n/t

[gollygee]

90. I didn't catch that it was sarcasm

sorry LOL

[karlrschneider]

71. What about vegetarians who are hungry? Should charities be obliged

(morally if not legally) to offer meatless meals as well? Force them to hand out Kosher plates to those who request them? Good grief.

[mondo joe]

82. Depends.

Depends on a lot of factors.

[karlrschneider]

102. Yes. EVERYTHING depends on a lot of factors.

:eyes:

[mondo joe]

155. If you have a more specific question I'll be happy to answer it, Karl.

I gave you a broad answer to your broad question.

[karlrschneider]

170. I went back through the thread and did not find a broad or other sort of question.

So I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[gollygee]

83. They don't have to give people anything they don't want to give them

If they're only serving pork because they don't want Islamic and Jewish people there, they are discriminating. If they just happen to have pork and that's what's on the menu that day, then they aren't. That's why it isn't something that a government could possibly get involved in - it's all about intent, not about menu. There's no way to legislate something like that. That doesn't mean it's nice and something I'll give them a pat on the back for.

[karlrschneider]

107. Not all discrimination is immoral let along illegal.

I think their motivation probably IS reprehensible but none of us here at DU get to decide whether they should be -allowed- to discriminate. And all this breast-beating is bullshit...EVERY HUMAN on the planet discriminates every day of their lives in one way or the other. Anybody who says he/she doesn't is a liar.

[gollygee]

110. Did I say they shouldn't be allowed to?

I specifically said it is legal and should be. Just that it is ethically wrong and I won't be congratulating them on their charity.

[Poll_Blind]

84. While I would love to live in a world where the needy...

...would be able to pick and choose what they received, philanthropy (regardless of motivation) is a choice not an obligation.

PB

[karlrschneider]

108. As is the decision to accept it.

...

[slackmaster]

111. They can always go to a Hare Krishna temple

Good veggie food for anyone who needs it.

[rebel with a cause]

282. I will agree with that.

My problem is with the hate that has been posted by some here. Not with the discussion of whether it is legal or not. I can see that in the legal system it might be hard to proscecute this as discrimination. But when it comes to right and wrong on a human level, it should not be that hard to understand.

[Poll_Blind]

47. Thank you. Good point. n/t

PB

[Rosemary2205]

13. Oh for pete's sakes

some civic minded person gets a great deal on pork and decides to use to feed hungry people and gets this? So close up the whole soup kitchen and let everyone go hungry.

This makes no sense to me at all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Civic minded person?

:rofl:

[TechBear_Seattle]

25. I get the impression that this group serves ONLY pork

And that, coupled with the group's published material, the pork is served specifically to encourage Jewish and Muslim people to stay away.

[Rosemary2205]

37. So they are racists.

They aren't going to stop being racists. They'll simply close up and leave. i don't see how forcing them to close the soup kitchen helps anyone.

[slackmaster]

41. If a restaurant has no vegetarian dishes on its menu,

Is it discriminating against Hindus?

[TechBear_Seattle]

43. Many Hindu's eat meat

It is beef, specifically, that many Hindus avoid. But to answer your question....

Does the Keg Steakhouse serve beef because that is their specialty, or do they serve beef to specifically tell observant Hindus that they are unwelcome in their restaurants?

The Keg serves meat that is still bloody, which is an offense to Orthodox Jews (the consumption of blood, cooked or otherwise, is prohibited by the laws of kashrut.) Do they do this because many of their customers want their steaks rare, or do they do this to keep Orthodox Jews out of their restaurants?

The stated intent of the SDF is to force the exclusion of Muslims from French culture and life (among other xenophobic and racist goals.) As far as I know, the Keg Steakhouse has no such stated intent to exclude Hindus or Jews. Further, the Keg is not operating as a private charity serving the poor and needy, while the SDF's soup kitchen is. I think these are very important considerations.

[Rosemary2205]

46. From what I've seen in my few decades of life

whipping out the thought police to determine people's motives or ideals just hasn't been very successful. I've seen quite a lot of racism and in the US we passed a lot of laws to change the behavior of persons at the institutional level (stopping Jim Crow etc). But racism persists because we cannot possibly hope to read or control people's minds.

IMHO this soup kitchen is performing a civic duty by bother to feed anyone. They aren't out in the street beating up people that look muslim or jewish or pushing them out of the doorway or refusing to serve them pork soup. They are just there serving free food to anyone who wants it, not bothering a soul.

[Poll_Blind]

50. Agreed. And while the organization may be odious in it's beliefs...

...those beliefs do not apparently affect the level of service provided. As in, all who request the service (the food in this case) are given it without apparent prejudice.

PB

[Ms. Clio]

60. so YOU'RE the "thought police" determining their motives, instead

"They are just there serving free food to anyone who wants it, not bothering a soul."

YSR.

:puke:

[Rosemary2205]

99. So who did they bother?

I'm talking about behavior. Perhaps I missed something. Are they denying service or roughing people up? I didn't see that in the article and if they are then that's another story entirely.

[Ms. Clio]

104. see post #86 n/t

[Rosemary2205]

112. A website is ideas and thoughts not behavior.

I'm assuming they have refused service to someone coming in to ask for pork soup or some other behavior?

Obviously I'm missing something in their BEHAVIOR at the soup kitchen.

I have no doubt the organization is racist. I don't like it but like I said, legislating thoughts and ideas has never been successful in my lifetime that I know of.

My concern is who is coming to the soup kitchen for free pork soup and being harmed instead of helped.

[Ms. Clio]

116. The point is the people who are being deliberately turned away from the soup kitchen

out of racist hate.

That is the behavior.

[Poll_Blind]

126. But no-one is being turned away from the soup kitchen.

The selection of who receives the food is made not by the provider but by the potential consumer. I'm going off the information in the article and there was nothing which stated that the provider made a choice about who received the food/clothing and who did not.

PB

[Ms. Clio]

127. The choice of the food guarantees that some people will not access it

So how is that not in fact turning people away?

It's their intent, in fact -- see post #86.

[Rosemary2205]

128. You've lost me with that logic.

I choose not to access my local mosque either, but I don't view them as racists because their services don't cater to christian beliefs.

A strict religious vegetarian I know does not access the services of McD's because they slaughter animals. I don't know of anyone who thinks McD's is bigotted against this religion.

Germany is offering income assistance to people having kids. Since so many whites in Germany are NOT having any kids but the minorities in Germany are having a lot more kids then does that make this German program racist against white Germans because they will never access it?

I apologize. I just don't understand your logic.

[Ms. Clio]

131. Apples and oranges

Your physical well-being does not depend on you accessing a mosque, and your vegetarian friend obviously has the MONEY to choose to eat somewhere else.

Your German example is simply incoherent, sorry.

[Rosemary2205]

141. I'm still lost

Muslims and Jews are permitted by their religion to eat pork for their physical wellbeing plus on one is required by French law, that I know of, to give away food to ANYONE. So I don't see how any charity is responsible if someone choose not to come in for pork soup.

I really am trying here. But I can't see how a homeless person's personal choice is a charity's responsibility when the charity is serving to any and all who come.

[Ms. Clio]

144. Because the charity has set it up so that really not "any and all" will come

It's a passive-aggressive ploy. Just like Republicons believe in "bipartisanship."

Sorry I really cannot make it any clearer.

[Lurking Dem]

147. The problem is

the charity is making sure, by the very fact they serve pork and very clearly advertise Our Own Before Others, that the "any and all who come" are only the people they want.

[gollygee]

148. It's their reason for chosing pork

first, no one thinks they should be shut down. No one thinks it is or should be illegal.

What our anger is directed at is the reason why they chose to serve pork. They chose that particular food because they knew most Muslims wouldn't go to their soup kitchen if they were serving pork. That is mean. It's like it's their way of saying "F You" to the poor Muslims in the area. "Yeah, we'll set up a soup kitchen, but we don't particularly want to feed you, so we'll serve something we know you won't eat."

[mondo joe]

154. The charitity is intentionally setting up barriers.

It is within their legal right to do so.

But don't pretend it's not going on.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

132. Businesses need to make some concessions towards...

their customers.

For example, they need to have restrooms that both genders can access, or ramps for handicapped people can get in. Just because you don't have a penis or climb stairs, doesn't mean you should have to wet your pants or wait outside on the sidewalk.

I see no reason why this organization can't have a pot of vegetable soup next to their pork soup, other than they're a bunch of worthless racist fucks. Can you?

[Rosemary2205]

149. Well, like I said.

Instead of having racists serving the homeless we could just force them to close up all together and quit helping anyone.

BTW, speaking of making consessions. Just recently a local Atlanta charity that specializes in helping people in need of wheelchairs to get them for free had to close it's doors. Why? Someone sued them for $400,000 because the handicapped bathroom had the handrail 1/4" too low. The suit was not to fix it, the suit was money. The charity settled and had to close it's doors for lack of funds.

To tell you the truth, I can't explain to you why people just can't be reasonable. Why they can't put in some veggie soup to shut everyone up or why can't this person live with that 1/4" variance or whatever. But like I said, legislating how people think just hasn't been very successful.

[Ms. Clio]

151. do you have a link for that story?

TIA

[Rosemary2205]

163. More info

The charity was Shepherd's wheels based in Downtown Atlanta. They closed in 2003. I believe the person on the lawsuit was John Avery (or maybe it was James). My first wheelchair came from them and when my insurance finally agreed to cover me and offered a nicer one I sent the freebee back to the charity and they had a notice up about the lawsuit and why they were closing soon. I was ill at the time and was told this second hand through my nephew. I have no idea if it hit the media or not.

[Ms. Clio]

164. well, that's interesting, but still not sure how it applies

one anecdote to prove, what, exactly?

I'm lost.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

I guess they should have made their place...

more handicapped accessible.

"The suit was not to fix it, the suit was money."

The court disagrees with you. Lawsuits are to "make whole." Not make people rich.

"To tell you the truth, I can't explain to you why people just can't be reasonable."

It is reasonable. You have to make reasonable changes in order to make things handicapped accessible. You don't need to make handicapped accesible chimneys for handicapped chimney sweeps. That said, putting in a new handicapped rail in a handicapped bathroom is reasonable. Making two kinds of soup is reasonable.

[mondo joe]

85. You seem to know a lot about this soup kitchen with far-right ties.

What's your source?

[Poll_Blind]

129. That's an unfair jab. No-one has any obligation to give...

...food away to anyone else. The fact that they are offering food of any sort is generous. Really. We may not like their motivations but that does not change the fact that it is generosity and that it is, regardless of what you think of the providers, a good thing that homeless folks get a free meal.

  Further watering down the impact of their menu choice is that both observant Muslims and Jews are allowed to eat pork if no other food is available. In at least three places in the Qa'ran, specifically, it states that you may eat pork if there is no other food available, that you don't do it out of intentional disrespect and that you eat only as much as you need to survive.

  If an observant Jew or Muslim's expression of piety is to go beyond even what the word of their god requires them to, it is not worthy of consideration. A Jew or Muslim may be the most orthodox and still consume pork freely and without any religious guilt if the criteria above are met.

  No one is trying to say this organization is not run by people who harbor ill-will toward Muslims, because apparently they do. But no-where in the article does it show evidence that this is enforced in any way: All who ask will receive the food on equal terms.

PB

[mondo joe]

161. But I asked a poster how s/he knows they are simply civic minded.

What does that have to do with requiring anyone to do anything?

[Ms. Clio]

167. some folks are apparently authorized "thought police"

others rely on wacky things like evidence.

[slackmaster]

55. OK, I can buy an argument about state of mind, intentions, etc.

FWIW a lot of Muslims and Jews (most Jews I have known, by far) eat pork.

[hughee99]

27. I'm not sure what the percentage of religious people in France is...

but it seems to me that if it's anything like the US, a vast majority of them are not really religious at all, and don't give a rats ass what's on the menu.

[TechBear_Seattle]

34. Most nominal Christians in France are non-religious. French Muslims, on the other hand...

I recall reading that France has one of the highest concentrations of Muslims in Europe, mainly because many of the former French colonies in Africa and the Middle East were Muslim, and the conditions of former colony-hood allow for immigration. Particularly in Paris, Muslims are starting to dominate city culture which scares a lot of the xenophobes. The bigotry that Muslim immigrants have faced because of these xenophobes (remember the ban on the public wearing of veils?) has led to cultural isolation and helped create a well of anger among many French Muslims. This, in turn, has given Islamic extremists a fertile recruiting ground, which further scares the xenophobes, which hardens the cultural isolation, which deepens the immigrants anger, which makes them easier to recruit, which scares the xenophobes... you get the idea.

[hughee99]

134. I was particularly interested in those who would eat at the

soup kitchen and how religious they are, but I wouldn't know where to even start looking for that information. Personally, I think what their doing is a not-so-disguised attempt at discrimination, but I have a hard time thinking that this should be the kind of thing you'd actually shut down an organization that's helping (at least some) people. At the very least, there's fewer people at the other soup kitchens that do not serve only pork.

[SoCalDem]

283. Zealots have always carefully crafted their attacks.

By cloaking their hatred in something so kind and generous as food for poor people, how on earth "could" anyone dare to criticize them :puke:


It's passive aggressive behaviour raised to the nth degree.

[gollygee]

29. This is a tricky one

I can see arguments for both sides.

On one hand, it looks like discrimination to me, and they shouldn't be discriminating.

On the other hand, I think it's probably their right to give away what they want how they want. I personally think it's wrong of soup kitchens in the US to make people listen to sermons if they want to eat, and that's discriminatory too IMO, but it's their food and their space and they can do it if they want.

Edited to add - this is assuming it's all private money. If governmental money or tax breaks are involved, then the gov't should be able tell them to cut it out or lose the money/tax breaks.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

274. I'd guess the motive is different ...

If a soup kitchen gives out sermons with the meals, they're not doing it to be deliberately offensive. They probably believe the sermons help people. Or they do it because that's what's always been done.

This French right-wing group is probably doing it just to piss off the Muslims. And if they piss off some Jews, so much the better.

But as you say, it's their food and their space, so it's their rules.

In a sense, it's not much different than Oprah's new school in Africa. Only black females of a certain age need apply. Her money, her rules. Her motives are good, but the exclusionary results are the same.

[Bethany Rockafella]

30. I hear the American prisoners are fed pork everyday also. n/t

[bluewave]

32. I hope we never become like this

Let the racists have their day, why give them legitimacy by fighting them? It's not like they're bombing abortion clinics or hurting anyone, just handing out "racially insensitive" food.

[seriousstan]

52. If the fucking foolish Jews and Muslims won't follow their OWN RELIGION'S RULES

and eat what is necessary to sustain them, then so be it. Let them starve.

[mondo joe]

64. I don't know where this anti semitic shit comes from, but I'm constantly

amazed to see it.

[seriousstan]

73. It is anti semitic to expect people following a religion to follow it?

How so? In both religions allowances are made for dire circumstances. What is anti anything to expect those religious people to follow their own rules?

Your ignorance amazes me.

[mondo joe]

78. So the soup kitchen should serve in such a way as to force the hungry to decide

when they are starving enough to merit the exception?

Nice.

[seriousstan]

87. But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits

But if one is forced by necessity, without willful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.


If you are at a soup kitchen it is by necessity.

If you don't understand yet, I will use smaller words.

[mondo joe]

91. Necessity is not a binary. There are degrees of necessity.

And for some right wing asshole to get off on forcing semitic people to be hungry or eat pork is shitty.

[bluewave]

118. I'm not a fan of racism

But it is not for the government to decide how a private charity distributes their food, even if the charity is a bunch of right wing sickos.

[mondo joe]

153. I don't recall advocating government intrusion.

I'm sure if you can point me to such a statement I can amend it.

[bluewave]

173. You asked if the soup kitchen should serve this way.

The article is about a court decision saying that they may. From your tone I assumed you disagreed with the court decision.

My mistake.

[mondo joe]

180. I disagree with the choice of the far right group. Not the court's decision

to uphold their right to be assholes.

[hogwyld]

61. Why can't they just serve Tofu and Chicken Soup?

That way, they won't offend anyone.

[slackmaster]

63. Tofu offends me

You can't win for losing.

[dogday]

69. It has to be Kosher for Jewish Religion

Blessed by Rabbi and all cooked separately and not with anything else.

[Poll_Blind]

77. They have the right to decide what to give away free. To place an...

...undue burden on what they can or cannot give away, so long as the item is not illegal in some other way, acts to squelch the philanthropic result.

PB

[mondo joe]

88. Why don't they just use the Paper Bag test? NT

[hogwyld]

105. I'm almost afraid to ask...

What is the "Paper Bag Test"?

[Poll_Blind]

117. LOL! Same here. I didn't query. I was too afraid! LOL! n/t

PB

[mondo joe]

157. Google is your friend. NT

[slackmaster]

207. GAK! I looked.

It's not worth it.

[DFLer4edu]

86. This is clearly aimed at Muslims (I checked out their website for those who don't speak French)

If you think the US has a problem with racism, you'll find that it pales in comparison to French animosity for Muslims. This story sounds crazy because there is nothing comparable in the US. A much higher percentage of French Muslims are homeless than the general population. They are intentionally serving the pork because they know the Muslims can't eat it. Hats off to the mayor for challenging them. That can't be popular with his constituents.

If you speak French head on over to their website. http://www.association-sdf.com/ For those who don't here is a description of it:
Once you go past the logo which has two white hands linked in solidarity you get to a video. They were twice told they couldn't do this by the police and twice got a court order saying they could, so the first part of the video has written across the screen Pork: 2 Chicken: 0. Then you have a woman who is apparently the leader of the group smugly talking about getting their way and the nutritional value of pork. At one point in the video she comments that they went through the courts because they are right wing and believe in law and order. At the end of the video the screen shows what I presume is their slogan "Our Own Before Others" which is code for French Muslims aren't French. If you read the explanation of why they are doing this (under pourquoi) it lists the amount of money that has gone to both immigrants and several former French colonies which are predominately Muslim. Making the snide comment next to one of them "independent for half a century!" From what they have on their website I would say that they are the charitable equivalent of the National Front, the ultra right wing party who's candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen made it into the second round of the last French presidential elections capturing 20% of the vote in the first round. They knew this would anger Muslims, that's why they did it.

[Ms. Clio]

93. Thank you for the additional info. that clearly indicates the hateful motives

uh fucking huh.

[mondo joe]

94. Gee, I thought it was a humanitarian group that got a good price on pork!

:puke:

[Ms. Clio]

96. just so sweet and innocent and not meaning to bother anybody, no sir n/t

[TechBear_Seattle]

100. Thank you for the translation

I've read reports about the level of xenophobia and anti-Muslim sentiment in France; this gives some perspective.

[Poll_Blind]

101. Even the most religiously observant Muslim or Jew may consume pork...

...if their is no other food available. The Qa'ran, for instance, is very specific in releasing Muslims from their requirements of not eating pork if there is no other food available, as long as they do not do it to be intentionally disrespectful to their creator and as long as they do not consume more than they require to sustain themselves.

  There is something of an upside to this- the bigots at the organization do not bother to understand Islam enough to know this and probably have already provided many meals to Muslims simply out of ignorance. There are greater instances of poetic justice in the world, but there is that very thin silver lining on the cloud.

Ripper:

Have you ever seen a commie drink a glass of water?

Mandrake:

Well, no I... I can't say I have, Jack.

Ripper:

Vodka. That's what they drink, isn't it? Never water?

Mandrake:

Well I... I believe that's what they drink, Jack. Yes.

Ripper:

On no account will a commie ever drink water, and not without good reason.

Mandrake:

Oh, ah, yes. I don't quite.. see what you're getting at, Jack.

Dr. Strangelove

PB

[Ms. Clio]

106. Yes, but these are probably not people starving to death

They might be pretty damned hungry, and still not hungry enough to eat pork. Why should they go hungry at all, when there is so much food that can be offered?

[Poll_Blind]

115. Not sure I follow. I reread my post but I'm not sure...

...how to jive that and your response. Can you clarify? Specifically the "still not hungry enough to eat pork" and the "when their is so much food that can be offered?" (especially the latter of those two)

PB

[Ms. Clio]

121. I think people might be willing to go hungry for an extra day or two if forced into it

if their religious beliefs are strong. But why should a "charity" do that to anyone? Why focus on just one exclusionary food?

I don't think we are disagreeing, exactly. I understand your point that they really don't know much about the religion they are attempting to discriminate against. I just think that many people with strong dietary restrictions would suffer unnecessarily before eating something "taboo," and it's really distasteful that they should suffer at all.

[Poll_Blind]

135. The charity is not doing anything to anyone. The potential consumers....

....are doing it to themselves.

  The reason they provide the "excuslionary food" (which I feel is more-accurately described as "conditionally taboo") is because they don't like Muslims. Although there have been insinuations in this thread (none at all by you that I saw) that somehow those who defend the right of this organization to provide only pork soup agree with the intentions of the providers I think we do all agree that the organization appears to be composed of individuals who are racist. And racists are bad people. Again, I'm not saying this in response to you, I'm just exhausting the extinguisher every other chance I get in this thread, hopefully to effect.

  Your interpretation of the biblical prohibition as "strong dietary restrictions" in lieu of what, again, I think is more accurately described as "conditionally taboo". By the nature of the conditions under which it is taboo and, more germane, when it is not taboo, I do not feel that people who self-select to follow the biblical prohibition "suffer unnecessarily".

  Indeed, it is the potential consumers of this soup who decide their own extent of suffering.

PB

[Ms. Clio]

136. I would have to pretty damned hungry to eat a dog or a horse or a bowl of fried crickets

And anybody who would set up a "charity" and serve that to hungry Americans (assuming there were few other sources of food support) would be an asshole deliberately trying to hurt and humiliate them.

Thanks for all your careful disclaimers!

[ruiner4u]

260. I think you just put it eloquently.

Ive been reading the back and forth of this thread and am honestly dumbfounded.. restaurant chains vs charitable soup kitchens.. what jews and muslims CANT eat vs what they can if they need to... hell, even beef vs tofu.

I agree with some posters that this 'charity' should be allowed to only serve pork if they want.

However Ms. Clio said it best "And anybody who would set up a "charity" and serve that ***dog or a horse or a bowl of fried crickets*** to hungry Americans (assuming there were few other sources of food support) would be an asshole deliberately trying to hurt and humiliate them."

Dogs, horses, and crickets are very acceptable foods in other cultures but us Americans pretty much cringe, if not dry heave, at the thought.

and THAT is the kind of statement the charity is trying to make to the muslims.

[Ms. Clio]

272. Exactly -- it's a hate-filled FU to a specific subset of hungry people

front a bunch of neo-Nazis.

[mondo joe]

158. And yet it puts hungry Semitic people in a serious bind.

One I think you fail to appreciate.

[Poll_Blind]

174. What's the serious bind? Neither Jew or Muslim breaks covenant if...

...they consume pork when: There is no other food available, as long as they do not do it with intentional disrespect for their creator and if they do not consume more pork than they require to sustain themselves. Now those three examples are from the Qa'ran, but if you dig into Judaica you're going to find almost the exact loopholes, albeit loopholes from the way certain commandments are looked at as superceding others.

  What is the serious bind they face when their own religious tenets clearly state the taboo food may be consumed under certain circumstances, with their God's full approval?

PB

[mondo joe]

177. Let's play out the scenario:

Devout Jew has a few dollars to his name - he picks up a little cash doing day labor when he can get it.

So he has a few bucks - maybe he can get a room for a night, or he can buy some food. Well let's see -- there's the anti semitic soup kitchen, but they are serving pork soup.

Is he at the end of his rope? Is he dying of starvation? No. He can use his few dollars to buy some food and sleep in the park instead of getting a room for a night.

Make sense yet?

[Poll_Blind]

197. But those are his actions based on his perceived choices. And those...

..actions are not necessarily reflective of the order of choices presented in Judaism. As I'd said in an earlier post, there are a hierarchy of commandments in Judaism which are defined, if only in their relation to other commandments. Orthodox Judaism is a very old religion which is, at the same time, well defined and with a built-in "humanist" factor so that a Jew may make a personal interpretation of what they believe to be their creator's intentions. This is mirroring of Jewish rabinnical interpretation of the Torah, which covers many volumes over thousands of years. Even if the commandment was more strongly worded (which it's not, it's pretty low on the totem pole of commandments), consultation with a Rabbi (if even necessary) would allow for the Rabbi to make exceptions if necessary.

  The Laws of Moses make up something like 600+ commandments, the 10 Commandments being "the big ones". From your example, I think the Average Observant Jew in question would make a decision based on what would be best for them. For instance, if it's the summer he or she may very well decide that keeping kosher is worth sleeping outside. However, if it's the dead of winter, a room would provide much-needed safety from the elements versus the consumption of a taboo meat. Taboo food doesn't come in until like 176 of the 613 commandments, but you can bet as a Jew, their creator wants them to live through the night.

  I recognize the quandry in your example, but those have to do with personal interpretaitons of biblical law, nothing to do with the provision of the food itself. Keeping kosher, eating food prepared by Jews and according to Jewish law, is actually a little higher on the list and certainly if an observant Jew is unable to find Kosher, they are allowed to consume non-Kosher food.

PB

[mondo joe]

202. To the contrary - those are his choices reflecting Judaism.

Unless it's life-and-death, it's an ugly decision to be made.

The fact that this is being done by an anti-semitic group with the intention of fucking with people just makes it worse.

[Poll_Blind]

215. Exactly- HIS choices, not the soup provider's. n/t

PB

[mondo joe]

220. No one said it wasn't his choice. Just that the kitchen is a racist asshole

organization.

Got it?

[Nye Bevan]

120. If you are afraid that your God will get pissed off at you

for accepting free pork when you are homeless and hungry, perhaps it is time to change religions.

[Ms. Clio]

130. Do you eat dog? Cockroaches?

For people who have grown up with strong dietary restrictions, eating a forbidden food evokes all the visceral revulsion of this:

[Poll_Blind]

137. LOL! I grew up in the deep south and for like 5 seconds I...

...thought, probably because of the red-and-white bowl, that those were uncooked crawfish! Very little difference, by the way, in their diet in comparison to roaches. Probably worse, come to think of it. I was caught off guard was like "Sweet! Crawfish!" Whew, what a 180. I need to start wearing my glasses when I'm using the computer!

PB

[Ms. Clio]

139. I cannot eat crawfish precisely because they look like giant bugs to me

ewwwwwww!!!!!

[karlrschneider]

145. Crustaceans are first cousins to insects.

Plenty of humans on the planet have bugs as a primary part of their diet. You've probably eaten millions of them without knowing it. We all have.

[karlrschneider]

142. More accurately, dump them all. Probably every fucking edible thing on earth

is banned or frowned on by SOME fucking cult.
:grr: :puke: :mad:

[genie_weenie]

146. This is where Rousseau was right.

Do away with all Religions submit to the General Will (All Praise on the General Will which can never be wrong) and then allow everyone to eat anything... Even Soylent Green!

Edit: spelling error

Edit 2: Hat tip to JustABozoOnThisBus...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

159. the General Will which can never be wrong ...

:rofl:

good one! The General Will brings us to Olive Garden.

(also, another spelling error: Soylent) :)

[genie_weenie]

160. Poo!

Soylent Green is people! It's made of people!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

264. Soylent Green - The meal of, by, and for the people.

Olive Garden would serve Soylent Green Alfredo, or Soylent Green Marsala. Mmmmm.

[HuffleClaw]

156. i'm appalled to find people defending this travishamockery

just appalled.

[Poll_Blind]

162. Ponder this: Is this more or less harmful to Islam than a Christian Soup Kitchen?

  We've already gone over when pork is and is not taboo to Jews and Muslims and it is conditionally taboo, not ultimately taboo.

  Given that shorthand for a number of more-lengthy messages above:

  Which is more harmful to a Muslim or Jew: This situation or one in which (as you would find in a typical Christian mission), you would be fed but only on the condition that you attend church services afterward. At 7pm the doors are locked and eating is followed by churching. There is no way to opt-out after the food.

  What is more harmful to a Jew or Muslim: Causing them to potentially remain hungry for longer while they decide if they are hungry enough to qualify for the exemptions from their dietary taboo or attempting to change their religious beliefs entirely as the sole condition for consuming food, period?

I think, anyway, interesting questions. I'm an atheist but recognize that it comes down to what you consider more painful: Earthly or spiritual suffering...or something like that, anyway.

PB

[Ms. Clio]

176. I find it infuriating that people are forced to endure any kind of religious proselytization

in order to receive a meal.

[Poll_Blind]

179. I agree. It is "the way things are" insofar as given resources...

...always come at some price. I was watching Time Bandits yesterday with my son and I recall the scene where Robin Hood is handing out gold platters and candle sticks to the poor who, immediately afterward, are decked by one of Robin Hood's henchmen as the price for accepting them.

PB

[Ms. Clio]

181. yeah, well, Robin Hood was a myth

and in a perfectly reasonable and attainable world, hungry people and families who are down on their luck would be entitled to a meal without having any strings attached.

[mondo joe]

183. Having worked with non profit human service boards for years, one of my

favorite things is to give a ROBIN HOOD AWARD FOR REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH to Board members who do an exceptional job of building support through contributions. :-)

[Ms. Clio]

185. LOL!

That's terrific!

[mondo joe]

184. Giving all new meaning to the name SOUP NAZI.

[gollygee]

188. ROFL

I didn't think of that. :D

[Ms. Clio]

195. hahahahahahahaha !!!

:thumbsup:

[TechBear_Seattle]

273. You are awful!

:spank: :hi:

[SmokingJacket]

204. One question: pork soup???? nt

[mondo joe]

206. I almost always use ham hocks in my soup.

Pasta too.

But that's an Italian thing.

[Ms. Clio]

211. ham in the navy bean soup, bacon in the frijoles, pork roast in the caldillo

yeah, it's a Midwest-meets-Tex-Mex thing.

[Poll_Blind]

221. If you ever get a chance to go to the Capitol in DC, have lunch at...

..the Senate cafeteria and try the Navy Bean soup. It's pretty good, especially for being "famous". I prefer more ham in a soup like that, the blandness of beans kinda gets to me sometimes.

PB

[Ms. Clio]

236. I actually have a can of bean soup in my pantry that claims to be that famous recipe

But alas, canned soup just never come close to the real thing from scratch.

[gollygee]

218. There are lots of soups with pork in them

soups with sausage, and doesn't split pea soup usually have pork in it? And potato soup can have ham or bacon in it. The options are limitless.

[mondo joe]

242. In fact, I'm reheating some split pea soup cooked with a bunch of ham in it.

If there ain't no ham I ain't interested.

[JerseygirlCT]

249. I'd say the best solution would be for other groups to step up

and offer kosher and halal meals to the homeless.

Wouldn't it be great if a "feed the homeless" war was touched off with all competing to do the job?

I've no doubt this group is working from anything but good motives. But even rotten motives can sometimes be turned around to do unintended good.

[cali]

284. Irrefutably ugly and CLEAR racism

It's intent was a slap in the face of Muslims and Jews. Anyone who refuses to see this is racism, is being deliberately obtuse.

[Scurrilous]

286. French judge bars group's pork soup plan

French judge bars far-right group from serving pork soup to needy, citing discrimination

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3348998,00.html

<snip>

"A top French judge ruled that an extreme-right group cannot serve pork soup to the needy, saying the charitable handouts aim to discriminate against Muslims and Jews who don't eat pork because of their faith.

Judge Christian Vigouroux of the Council of State, the country's highest administrative body, said late Friday that such giveaways by the far-right group Solidarity of the French threaten public order.

His ruling approved a decision by Paris police to refuse permits to the group on the grounds that such handouts could spark angry reactions.

France is home to more than 5 million Muslims and some 600,000 Jews. Both Islam and Judaism prohibit eating pork, and Vigouroux said the group had shown "a clearly discriminatory goal" with its charity.

Solidarity of the French was just one of several far-right groups that began distributing pork soup across France over the last four years."

[Nikia]

292. The group's actions are discriminatory

This isn't about a charitable group who just happened to be serving something that some of their potential clients would not eat because of their beliefs. I think that most charitable groups who really wanted to help the poor would offer alternatives once they discovered that there were a sizeable number of people who weren't being served for that reason. Such a group might have the pork soup in one pot and a vegitarian soup in another once it was called to their attention.
The group is ideologically xenophobic and insists on serving pork soup only because it is food for the "real French".
Muslem French are the most discriminated/hated minority. This group's actions are a purposeful act of hate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

297. The Pink Floyd approach to food distribution

Le Griel argued that no needy Jew or Muslim was forced to consume the pork soup. But the judge said the group's Web site indicated it was a policy to refuse dessert to anyone who did not eat some soup first.

"How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?"

[LeftishBrit]

302. And to set this sort of rule for adults is certainly a form of discrimination

Either discrimination against Moslems and Jews (making sure that they have no choice but to eat the pork soup if they want anything at all) or discrimination against 'paupers' who don't have a right to choose what they eat. Knowing the sort of group involved, certainly the first form of discrimination is involved, and very likely the second as well.

[Hoping4Change]

288. .

[Madspirit]

291. Intent

This Group's intent is what makes it racist. It's not that expensive to make a pot of beans and rice...something a homeless Jew or Muslim could eat. It's the intent...they are tied to right-wing racism AND they serve only pork soup. They aren't out there to be sweet and nice and I really doubt they give a crap about the homeless. They are out there specifically to be offensive, obnoxious, right-wing asshats. Intent counts.
Madspirit

[LeftishBrit]

294. To me, this is a good reason why the government should have a major role in the prevention and

relief of poverty, rather than relying predominantly on private charities (as many on the right seem to recommend).

The government has, or should have, an obligation to treat people equally, and not discriminate against, or humiliate, people on the grounds of their religion or lack of religion - or any other characteristic. (I say 'humiliate' because Jews and Moslems *can* probably justify eating 'forbidden' foods if their need is so desperate that to refrain from doing so is essentially suicide - but *needing* to do so in such a context is a humiliation that drives home their 'pauper' status.) It is almost impossible to prevent private charitable organizations from carrying out such discriminations, since it is up to them what charity they do or do not dispense.

The way to deal with such situations is, in my view, to make basic relief from severe poverty a human right assured by the state; rather than regarding it as a gift to be left to charity and then attempting the almost impossible task of regulating how lots of independent organizations distribute it.

By the way, I detect quite a lot of prejudice against *all* religious people in a few of the posts. I'm a total atheist myself, but I disapprove of all fundamentalist prejudices, even atheist fundamental prejudices.

[Hoping4Change]

298. Following your logic govt soup kitchens should not serve any pork

because Muslims are not permitted to eat anywhere where pork has been prepared as you can read below
which would IMHO be ludicrous. The solution is for the Muslim community to provide Halal soup kitchens and Jewish community to provide its poorer members Kosher kitchens.



"If you decide to eat out at a non-Halal restaurant, choose the ones that do not have pork items on the menu. Most restaurants serve pork products as well as beef, chicken and fish. The degree to which a restaurant keeps these products segregated in storage and preparation depends upon each restaurants' standard practices. The use of common grills, common utensils, same fryers for pork and non-pork items significantly increases the chances of pork and lard getting mixed into beef, chicken, seafood and vegetarian items.

Besides such unintentional contamination, there have been many reports in the USA, UK and Australia that beef was intentionally mixed with cheaper pork or poultry. In the UK there were even reports that beef was prepared with a solution of pork powder. This wisdom of the Hadith, “Halal is clear and Haram is clear …” becomes even more evident as you consider the above problems of cross contamination.

Finally, the other items that make up the meal including the bread, buns, condiments, use of wine or alcohol in cooking, desserts, etc. may contain Haram or questionable materials. Consumers need to be sure these items are not Haram. Frequently these items contain animal derived ingredients or alcoholic drinks.

If you still decide to eat out, follow certain precautions:

Select an establishment that does not serve pork.
Avoid fried items unless the restaurant has a separate fryer for fish and fries, in which they do not fry meat items."



http://www.ifanca.org/newsletter/2004_11.htm

[rebel with a cause]

299. Actually, this has already been discussed .

Muslims and Jews can sit aside these rules under certain circumstances. What the poster is proposing, I believe, that with a government ran program there would be foods prepared for all the people. Some with pork,some without.

My son is a vegetarian, the rest of the family is not. I cook our food in one set of pans and his in another. His food never touches anything that has had meat in it, unless it has been washed and scalded. So it is very possible to cook pork in a kitchen with other food and keep it completely separate from it. It takes a little effort, but is not that much trouble. It is all in respecting another person's ideals/beliefs.

[Hoping4Change]

303. But what if a soup kitchen is run by atheists or secularists?

A charity run by people who are adamantly opposed to any sort of religious sentiment and don't want to give any credence to any religious notions regarding food. IMO people have a right to open soup kitchens and discount religious sensitives if they so choose. To my mind this is like the Danish cartoon controversy, when Western society discovered that many Muslims believe that religious sentiments trump free speech. Forcing people to cater to religious sentiments is wrong. People have the right to their beliefs but but have the right to expect others to cater to them.

[Oak2004]

295. What's being forgotten here is the historical and political context

Just as many things in the US connected to slavery, lynching, etc. might be perceived as more innocent than they really are by Europeans unfamiliar with the political and social context, we in the US are often unacquainted with the historical, social, and political context of certain acts in Europe.

The context here is antisemitism ("racism" in Europe where the term is used to denote nationality or ethnicity rather than the color-based usage here). The fallout from Dreyfuss affair in the end destabilized and toppled a government. More recently discrimination against Arab immigrants led to widespread rioting. How would we look upon antisemitism if it had historically led to the collapse of central government and the adoption of a new American constitution? Every government in the world has a compelling state interest in maintaining stability.

And of course there were the Nazis. Not only did the Nazis set Europe ablaze and murder millions within living memory, France was itself full of Nazi collaborators, sympathizers, and homegrown fascists. Furthermore, there continues to exist throughout Europe, including France, a genuine, potent, neo-Nazi movement bent on returning Europe to those days. How would we look upon even symbolic antisemitism if it was intimately connected to the recent invasion and subjugation of our nation and an active subversive movement? In France, organized antisemitism is a hair's breadth away from treason, and every government in the world has a compelling state interest in preventing treason.

A final bit of context: serving pork-based soups (yes, pork soup in particular) to starving Jews was often done by the Nazis. They did it not because they thought the Jews would refuse it -- they knew well that they could not -- they did it in order to humiliate them.

For these reasons and many more, antisemitic symbolic statements which in the United States are considered legal, though offensive, are throughout Europe subject to legal sanction. Under French law and the laws throughout much of Europe, the soup kitchen in question is at best right at the edge of legality.

If any of this still seems beyond the pale, look at the American laws on hate speech and the older anti-Klan laws which, for example, make it illegal in many places to demonstrate wearing masks and hoods. And look back even further to the laws governing the South during Reconstruction (understanding that Europe has been out from under Nazi rule not that much longer than the South was (despicably) prematurely let out from under Reconstruction as a result of a backroom deal between our two parties.

[LeftishBrit]

296. All good points

Le Pen and his National Front have far too much of a base in parts of France. And their racism is most of all against Jews and Moslems. They have for instance made ugly verbal attacks against Jewish politicians in the recent past; and their hatred for Moslem immigrants is possibly even worse than against Jews. One must remember that French anti-Moslem prejudice pre-date the post-9-11 hysteria by quite a long while, with Algerian immigrants being a prominent target since at least the 1960s.

There was of course the 'Vichy' regime collaboration in WW2, and this was not the start of anti-semitism in France.

A few years ago, there was a real danger that Le Pen's party would do frighteningly well in the general elections, and might end up holding the balance of power. The danger was so serious that the Socialists voluntarily withdrew their presidential candidate and backed Chirac's Conservatives, just to scuttle the chances of the National Front. Fortunately, it worked. But the racist right are *there*.

None of this is intended to be anti-French; the extremists are certainly a minority. But it shows that this 'soup kitchen' incident is not just some fringe thing, to which excessively PC people are over-reacting, but a reflection of some really dangerous attitudes. There may be little that can be done legally, as long as it involves a voluntary soup kitchen, and as long as the far-right-wing party is after all legal. But it is not a silly or trivial issue either.