It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CAIR wants McDonald’s employees fired for hiding bacon in Muslim family’s sandwiches

page: 16
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I'm sure it does in your mind, since you've chosen to comment on a side note.

The argument is not whether McDonalds is good food, but whether these folks should have been the target of religious intolerance AND that so many of you, here, echo that intolerance and hatred.

Did you get it that time?


edit on 3-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Unclean is unclean.

/shrug



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Jansy


dying from a blow to the head or conclusion (wouldn't it be concussion?)" or "dying of violent deaths"

Here's the relevant passage from the Qur'an.
Surah 5, Al-Ma'idah (The Table Spread), Ayat 3 (Pickthall translation).

3. Forbidden unto you (for food) are carrion and blood and swineflesh, and that which hath been dedicated unto any other than Allah, and the strangled, and the dead through beating, and the dead through falling from a height, and that which hath been killed by (the goring of) horns, and the devoured of wild beasts, saving that which ye make lawful (by the death-stroke), and that which hath been immolated unto idols. And (forbidden is it) that ye swear by the divining arrows. This is an abomination. This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion al-Islam. Whoso is forced by hunger, not by will, to sin: (for him) lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.




How is halal meat produced??? In the (normal) meat industry, the poor cows are knocked in the head with a sledgehammer. How do they process beef to be halal? Lethal injection??? Strangulation?? Seems odd...how DO you process thousands of cows into consumable meat products?

Basically, we can't cause the animals any unnecessary suffering, so the killing method has to be as quick and painless for the animal as possible. Slitting its throat is the most common & quickest method for this. Strangulation is strictly forbidden in the passage I quoted.



Also, that "animals killed by other animals." Aren't humans defined as "animals." So halal meat cannot be killed by humans? But they cannot eat meat from an animal already dead, so just how does this happen? Anybody know? Cuz this just doesn't make sense to me...

LOL You're over thinking it. We can't eat carrion, which is a corpse that was dead before we encountered it (like roadkill or a dead animal in the woods). And we can't eat animals that were killed by some non-human animal; meaning we couldn't permissibly snatch a kill from another animal or send wolves to maul the animal to death first. In practice, this basically just means we have to know that other humans killed it in a non gruesome way.

But also remember, the last line in that passage (and the other 2 passages I've seen about food) include a disclaimer that it's no sin for us under certain conditions.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

One of the 114 Surahs in the Qur'an is named after Mother Mariam/Mary. Three others are named after the Prophet Abraham/Ibrahim, the Prophet Joseph/Yusuf, and the Prophet Nooh/Noah. And the Prophet who's mentioned the most in the Qur'an is the Prophet Moses, with the very 2nd Surah being named after the golden calf from the Israelite-Prophet Aaron-Prophet Moses incident.

A single glance at the Qur'an's table of contents would show this. It's bewildering to me that people here can talk for days about Islam, yet literally don't know any of the basics. I've had a link to the Qur'an's table of contents with links to each Surah in my sig for probably 2 years now (Pickthall translation). But people would rather go on a multi-hour circle jerk of stereotypes than spend 2 minutes clicking the link to see any supposed quotes from the Qur'an in context.
edit on 3-8-2017 by enlightenedservant because: meant "table of contents", not "table of context" lol



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What do you mean?



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant




What do you mean?


What I mean is, I thought the Quran was sharia, and those who don't abide by it suffer the consequences.

I am by no means an expert in the Islamic tradition.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, no "unclean" isn't "unclean". You're taking substances which are scientifically dangerous to consume and comparing them to substances which are scientifically perfectly healthy to consume following standard cooking procedures. I don't give a rat's hairy ass about the customer's religious proclivities... they've got the right to worship whatever they wish and I have the right to roll my eyes at their bullcrap... BUT nobody has a right to offer food tainted with bodily excretions. There are absolutely laws about that which are enforced by the FDA and health inspectors. The same cannot be said of properly cooked pork products.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

"Sharia" is weird. Each denomination, school of thought, and community includes different additional works as part of their law/Sharia. In theory, the Qur'an should always be the most important source & the source that can never be overruled. But that's not always the case in practice, especially for the groups that don't think the Qur'an's halal restrictions are strict enough. Plus many sects interpret passages quite differently, just like Christian denominations do with biblical texts.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

No, no "unclean" isn't "unclean". You're taking substances which are scientifically dangerous to consume and comparing them to substances which are scientifically perfectly healthy to consume following standard cooking procedures. I don't give a rat's hairy ass about the customer's religious proclivities... they've got the right to worship whatever they wish and I have the right to roll my eyes at their bullcrap... BUT nobody has a right to offer food tainted with bodily excretions. There are absolutely laws about that which are enforced by the FDA and health inspectors. The same cannot be said of properly cooked pork products.


Oh, now it's a scientific question? Sure, you're absolutely correct.

I'll have to remember that you think it's okay to speak scientifically of people's religious beliefs. I look forward to it.

I didn't mention which "substance" I was referring to, why do you make assumptions? My point was intended to jar people out of complacency, to illustrate that religious beliefs (like, for example, ritual cannibalism in the case of the Eucharist) are personal issues that follow their own rules.

And for that matter, there's just as much likelihood that the pork used in this case was disease-ridden ... and yes, I saw your complex structuring of "ifs" that you have no evidence for. You don't know that this food was safe; although, that makes your argument seem nice and tight.

Too bad you don't know.

And finally, of course I know you don't give any concern to the customer's religious beliefs ... as I said, that's the point of my argument.

If it was intentional (and it was) this is a religious assault, and yes, a religious hate crime. Religions are a protected class in this country.

This was also an act intended to contaminate the customer's food; you don't believe it contaminated it, they do and in this case they are the ones who count.

Besides that aside from another chance to kick around the religious hatred can for some here ... this is of no concern to any of us; it's a matter between McDonald's and their customers.

edit on 3-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

In other words it is, like so many other things, open to the interpretation of the person, or persons, using it.

If they want to use it to justify horrible actions, they will. If they choose to use it for benevolent actions, they will.

For the life of me, I can't understand how people can't see this for themselves. Unless it's deliberate. Which is inexcusable behaviour, IMHO.

Brother, you just keep on, pardon the pun, enlightening.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
And for that matter, there's just as much likelihood that the pork used in this case was disease-ridden ... and yes, I saw your complex structuring of "ifs" that you have no evidence for. You don't know that this food was safe; although, that makes your argument seem nice and tight.
[SNIP]

If it was intentional (and it was) this is a religious assault, and yes, a religious hate crime. Religions are a protected class in this country.
[SNIP]
Besides that aside from another chance to kick around the religious hatred can for some here ... this is of no concern to any of us; it's a matter between McDonald's and their customers.


Which is it, a crime or a matter between McDonald's and their customers? If it's a crime, as you claim, please show me the charging documents or even evidence that CAIR has requested it be investigated as such. If it is a matter between McDonald's and their customers, then opinions from both sides are important here. If McDonald's feels their bottom line won't be impacted by ignoring this, seeing a large enough percentage of Americans shrugging and saying "Meh, who cares?" then that's their business, ya? At the end of the day McDonald's probably just needs to ask "how many customers would we really lose in a muslim boycott?" I don't know the answer to that nor do you, but that's how business decisions are made, not with emotions but with statistical analysis.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Jansy

originally posted by: dashen
from justaskislam.com

well these pork eating Harami muslims wont get into Valhalla now.
can they sue for that?


Everything is Halal (permissible) except for those things that are specifically forbidden.
A) Pork or pork products of any kind. (Quran)
B) Donkey meat (Hadith in Sahih Al Bukhari)
C) Animals of prey (eagles, falcons, lions, tigers, bears, etc.)
D) Animals that are already dead.
E) Anything that dies of itself (old age or disease)
F) Dying from a blow to the head or conclusion.
G) Dying of violent deaths
H) Animals killed by other animals
I) Animals that are partially eaten by other animals
J) Animals sacrificed to any other God than Allah


That's interesting...and with my relatively naive and unknowledgeable knowledge of Kosher, is somewhat understandable. However I don't get the "dying from a blow to the head or conclusion (wouldn't it be concussion?)" or "dying of violent deaths". What, do they sing the animal lullabyes and smother them with lavender-stuffed pillows??? How is halal meat produced??? In the (normal) meat industry, the poor cows are knocked in the head with a sledgehammer. How do they process beef to be halal? Lethal injection??? Strangulation?? Seems odd...how DO you process thousands of cows into consumable meat products?

Also, that "animals killed by other animals." Aren't humans defined as "animals." So halal meat cannot be killed by humans? But they cannot eat meat from an animal already dead, so just how does this happen? Anybody know? Cuz this just doesn't make sense to me...
They prefer to slice the throat and drain the blood while the animal is alive. This pleases allah, because he likes that #.

It's not just Muslims that prefer slitting animals' throats -- that's how my farmer dad's Polish butcher killed the livestock back in the day that my dad look in for our own freezers when he didn't have time to butcher them the same way himself -- it was the most humane way for an animal to go, in their opinions. Bullets and bolting skulls are preferred by some people, exsanguination is preferred by others. It's like the difference between chicken slaughter preferences, snap the neck, slit the throat, or outright behead. Why this is a big deal is beyond me.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Dispense with the false dichotomies ... the situation is still developing so technically, it can be both.

According to my claim, we are discussing a crime; in the final analysis, it's more than likely a matter between these people and Micky Ds.

Did I claim that anyone had been charged? No?

Did I claim that CAIR had requested anything? No?

So your post is little more than specious and fallacious, eh?

What are the "two sides" involved in your opinion then? Those who try to practice religious tolerance and Islamophobes?

So, it doesn't matter if people are attacked or mistreated for their religion in America to you? As long as the poll numbers are there?

I agree that there will be a decision at some level of McDonald's corporate, but it won't be a matter of "statistics" but rather of "image."

However, the fact remains that this was apparently an intentional act of religious violence even if it started out as a dumb prank among kids, and that fact could at least be acknowledged among folks who are so ultra-sensitive to any slight toward Christians.

But we both know why that's not happening, don't we?
edit on 3-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Grammar



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Blood spoils meat quickly. The most efficient way to drain blood from any animal is to inflict a wound that will allow the animal to bleed out while it's heart is still pumping. The best way to kill feeder pigs is to take a long knife and stab them in the neck, severing the jugular vein. That's why rural people call any knife that looks like a fillet knife a "pig sticker."



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're the one throwing claims of a crime around. CAIR has a long standing history of quickly calling for federal investigations of "hate crimes," so if a crime was actually at play here, I'm sure you can show me where CAIR is claiming the same.

No?

Then ya got bacon on a McDonald's sandwich... AKA jack SNIP.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're the one throwing claims of a crime around. CAIR has a long standing history of quickly calling for federal investigations of "hate crimes," so if a crime was actually at play here, I'm sure you can show me where CAIR is claiming the same.

No?

Then ya got bacon on a McDonald's sandwich... AKA jack SNIP.


If the food was contaminated intentionally based on religious prejudice then yes, it is a crime. That is my claim.

Yes, you made your point that you don't think others' religious beliefs are important at all; you did that early on.

Did you have anything else to argue?



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
There are no restrictions in the Quran and Sunnah regarding the slaughter of fish.... so a fish sandwich at Mickey-Ds is OK for Muslim folks.

With that said... the family has the right to be served food that has not been tampered with or had anything added that they did not ask for.

On a side note... I have several Muslim friends, some of whom I have lunch with almost daily. They are my friends and I am their's and I'm a Christian. The majority of Muslims, especially in the US are just like everyone else with the same hopes and fears. Let's all stop being dick heads to these folks...
edit on 3-8-2017 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blarneystoner
There are no restrictions in the Quran and Sunnah regarding the slaughter of fish.... so a fish sandwich at Mickey-Ds is OK for Muslim folks.

With that said... the family has the right to be served food that has not been tampered with or had anything added that they did not ask for.

On a side note... I have several Muslim friends, some of whom I have lunch with almost daily. They are my friends and I am their's and I'm a Christian. The majority of Muslims, especially in the US are just like everyone else with the same hopes and fears. Let's all stop being dick heads to these folks...


Thank you Blarney ... good to see there are still some folks who actually practice their religion, instead of using it as a weapon.




posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Yes, you made your point that you don't think others' religious beliefs are important at all; you did that early on.


No, I think the law made that point already. Once the cat left the bag and we entered a scenario in which bakeries and photo shops have to service homosexual weddings irregardless of the business owners' religious beliefs, we crossed the road into a society where your religious proclivities are meaningless in the face of business and services offered. In much the same way as a bakery being required to bake a cake in spite of what they think is taboo in their religion, McDonald's can freely place bacon on whatever they wish to in spite of what a customer thinks is taboo... don't like it? Hmm, don't open a business that bakes cakes and/or don't eat at McDonald's.



posted on Aug, 3 2017 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

LOL ... yeah, you can set your watch by it ...

First of all, the deal with public businesses refusing to serve valid customers is against the law in the US.

Second of all, there's nothing in the Bible forbidding doing business with someone you consider a "sinner" and nothing about making cakes for weddings.

Third, you're trying to equate the way a customer was treated with a business owner breaking the law. Illogical.

Fourth, your assertion that McDonald's can do whatever they want to ... is patently absurd. McChicken's don't have bacon.

Religious proclivities are not and have never been "meaningless," however, they also aren't an excuse to break the law.

There are laws against discrimination in public businesses; there are also laws that protect the public from having their food contaminated.

So the two situations are not comparable at all:

One involves customers who were attacked, the other involves public business owners breaking the law.
edit on 3-8-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted




top topics



 
16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join