Re: Maple syrup, doomed?

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Paul Arthur <junk+...@flowerysong.com> writes:

> On 2011-11-29, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'll leave it to one of our kosher-keeping regulars to point out
>> how a vegan meal could fail to be kosher (other than by not being
>> prepared in a kosher kitchen), but I can't think of a way.
>
> Chametz.

Okay, that works for some times of the year.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |When all else fails, give the
SF Bay Area (1982-) |customer what they ask for. This
Chicago (1964-1982) |is strong medicine and rarely needs
|to be repeated.
evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Adam Funk]

On 2011-11-30, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

> Paul Arthur <junk+...@flowerysong.com> writes:
>
>> On 2011-11-29, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll leave it to one of our kosher-keeping regulars to point out
>>> how a vegan meal could fail to be kosher (other than by not being
>>> prepared in a kosher kitchen), but I can't think of a way.
>>
>> Chametz.
>
> Okay, that works for some times of the year.

Aha, good point. I don't think Passover was mentioned in the episode
with Dharma's parents' wedding, so it probably wasn't relevant.


--
By dint of plentiful try...catch constructs throughout our code base,
we are sometimes able to prevent our applications from aborting. We
think of the resultant state as "nailing the corpse in the upright
position". [Verity Stob]

[Ken Arromdee]

In article <liqx35...@gmail.com>,

Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Paul Arthur <junk+...@flowerysong.com> writes:
>
>> On 2011-11-29, Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll leave it to one of our kosher-keeping regulars to point out
>>> how a vegan meal could fail to be kosher (other than by not being
>>> prepared in a kosher kitchen), but I can't think of a way.
>> Chametz.
>Okay, that works for some times of the year.

It could contain non-kosher wine.

There are more details, but the rules for kosher wine basically amount to
"made by Jews".
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."

[James Silverton]

On 11/30/2011 5:19 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> In article<liqx35...@gmail.com>,
> Evan Kirshenbaum<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Paul Arthur<junk+...@flowerysong.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2011-11-29, Evan Kirshenbaum<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'll leave it to one of our kosher-keeping regulars to point out
>>>> how a vegan meal could fail to be kosher (other than by not being
>>>> prepared in a kosher kitchen), but I can't think of a way.
>>> Chametz.
>> Okay, that works for some times of the year.
>
> It could contain non-kosher wine.
>
> There are more details, but the rules for kosher wine basically amount to
> "made by Jews".

I believe the grapes may be picked by non-Jews but I'll defer to any
experts around. I don't drink Kosher wines at all except when handed
them at Bar Mitzvahs etc.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net

[Mike Lyle]

On TV a while ago I saw a group of American Christians not merely
working as volunteer grape-pickers in the occupied territories, but
accepting the condition that they weren't allowed to carry the grapes
into the wine-making shed. It struck me that neither side was showing
itself in a very good light.

--
Mike.

[Quadibloc]

On Dec 1, 12:43 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On TV a while ago I saw a group of American Christians not merely
> working as volunteer grape-pickers in the occupied territories, but
> accepting the condition that they weren't allowed to carry the grapes
> into the wine-making shed. It struck me that neither side was showing
> itself in a very good light.

What's wrong with

a) Jews obediently accepting the rules that they believe were handed
to them by God, rather than trying to judge and re-interpret them by
contemporary _human_ standards of nondiscrimination, and

b) Christians respecting the Jewish religious beliefs, even though
they don't share them?

I mean, I suppose if one were to bring the Palestinians into the
equation, there could be something about which to raise an objection,
but otherwise...

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

The Palestinians were operating the camera and sound equipment, at
gunpoint, outside what was formerly /their/ wine-making shed. Well,
I'm speculating.

[trag]

On 12/1/2011 4:00 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Dec 1, 12:43 pm, Mike Lyle<mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On TV a while ago I saw a group of American Christians not merely
>> working as volunteer grape-pickers in the occupied territories, but
>> accepting the condition that they weren't allowed to carry the grapes
>> into the wine-making shed. It struck me that neither side was showing
>> itself in a very good light.
>
> What's wrong with
>
> a) Jews obediently accepting the rules that they believe were handed
> to them by God, rather than trying to judge and re-interpret them by
> contemporary _human_ standards of nondiscrimination, and

Well, if they really did that, they'd have to stone an awful lot of
people to death for things that we really don't consider all that
reprehensible today.

--
A friend will help you move. A real friend will help you move a body.

[Mike Lyle]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:00:29 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

Well, I'll talk the politics another time. But what I had in mind on
this occasion was that the vigneron could have been employing other
Jews for an honest wage; while the unpaid foreign Christians were
prepared to be treated as "impure" in support of dietary rules which
Christians were divinely commanded not to follow.

--
Mike.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Dec 2, 10:24 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 14:00:29 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca>

Enh. The version I heard about is that Jewish Christians have to
stick with the dietary rules, separate fish-knives and so forth,
whatever. But Gentile Christians missed out on that, and
circumcision. Lucky me (I was "born" Christian).

[R H Draney]

Robert Carnegie filted:

>
>Enh. The version I heard about is that Jewish Christians have to
>stick with the dietary rules, separate fish-knives and so forth,
>whatever. But Gentile Christians missed out on that, and
>circumcision. Lucky me (I was "born" Christian).

I was born Christian too, but they circumcised me anyway....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Robert Carnegie]

Yeah, know why?

I'm guessing not. I don't want to make this a thing, I'm just saying.

[James Silverton]

It probably wasn't to give you some slight protection against AIDS was
it? Actually, circumcision was common in Britain and America in the 1930's.

[Quadibloc]

On Dec 2, 3:24 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> while the unpaid foreign Christians were
> prepared to be treated as "impure" in support of dietary rules which
> Christians were divinely commanded not to follow.

They were Divinely instructed that they need not follow them -
perhaps.

The vision through which an unambiguous Divine command not to require
converts to Christianity to be circumcised was issued _may_ have also
hinted at something concerning Jewish dietary law in the Christian
dispensation... but that is far from unambiguous.

John Savard

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

It was a mostly-assumed thing at least through the 60s, and there was
supposedly some health reasons for it.

--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Skitt]

James Silverton wrote:
> Robert Carnegie wrote:

>> R H Draney wrote:
>>> Robert Carnegie filted:

>>>> Enh. The version I heard about is that Jewish Christians have to
>>>> stick with the dietary rules, separate fish-knives and so forth,
>>>> whatever. But Gentile Christians missed out on that, and
>>>> circumcision. Lucky me (I was "born" Christian).
>>>
>>> I was born Christian too, but they circumcised me anyway....r
>>
>> Yeah, know why?
>>
>> I'm guessing not. I don't want to make this a thing, I'm just saying.
>
> It probably wasn't to give you some slight protection against AIDS was
> it? Actually, circumcision was common in Britain and America in the 1930's.
>

I was lucky to have been born in Latvia (in the early '30s).

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Mike Lyle]

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:24:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

Peter's vision about eating everything, even including "creeping
things", seems pretty clear to me. Likewise, the proscription on
calling anybody "common or unclean". (In fairness, I should probably
mention that my respect for holy books of any provenance has worn thin
of recent years; and I'm not too happy about some of the creeping
things as nosh. But this is one of the bits I admire.)

--
Mike.

[Robert Carnegie]

On Dec 3, 8:59 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 09:24:53 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca>

> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 2, 3:24 pm, Mike Lyle <mike_lyle...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> while the unpaid foreign Christians were
> >> prepared to be treated as "impure" in support of dietary rules which
> >> Christians were divinely commanded not to follow.
>
> >They were Divinely instructed that they need not follow them -
> >perhaps.
>
> >The vision through which an unambiguous Divine command not to require
> >converts to Christianity to be circumcised was issued _may_ have also
> >hinted at something concerning Jewish dietary law in the Christian
> >dispensation... but that is far from unambiguous.
>
> Peter's vision about eating everything, even including "creeping
> things", seems pretty clear to me.

It's clearly a metaphor?

> Likewise, the proscription on
> calling anybody "common or unclean".

It's a metaphor for that? A bunch of Gentile worshippers showed up
right after, I think?

> (In fairness, I should probably
> mention that my respect for holy books of any provenance has worn thin
> of recent years; and I'm not too happy about some of the creeping
> things as nosh. But this is one of the bits I admire.)

On the issue, Christian policy has varied - during Inquisitions for
instance - and charitably their bible as a whole can be called
ambiguous on the issue, parts written by different factions, but my
impression of its resolution is that Jewish Christians were to go on
doing the Jewish things but Gentile Christians didn't have to convert
to Judaism.

Whereas later on, if the Inquisition caught anyone not eating pork,
watch out.

[Adam Funk]

On 2011-12-03, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:

> On 12/3/11 10:32 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>> On 12/3/2011 10:04 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> On Dec 3, 5:49 am, R H Draney<dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:

>>>> I was born Christian too, but they circumcised me anyway....r
>>>
>>> Yeah, know why?
>>>
>>> I'm guessing not. I don't want to make this a thing, I'm just saying.
>>
>> It probably wasn't to give you some slight protection against AIDS was
>> it? Actually, circumcision was common in Britain and America in the 1930's.
>>
>
> It was a mostly-assumed thing at least through the 60s, and there was
> supposedly some health reasons for it.

I assume they still do this in the USA because it's an additional &
profitable item on the bill.


--
I heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little
Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt]

[Snidely]

Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> scribbled something like ...

> On 2011-12-03, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/11 10:32 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>>> On 12/3/2011 10:04 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> On Dec 3, 5:49 am, R H Draney<dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> I was born Christian too, but they circumcised me anyway....r
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, know why?
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing not. I don't want to make this a thing, I'm just
>>>> saying.
>>>
>>> It probably wasn't to give you some slight protection against AIDS
>>> was it? Actually, circumcision was common in Britain and America in
>>> the 1930's.
>>>
>>
>> It was a mostly-assumed thing at least through the 60s, and
>> there was
>> supposedly some health reasons for it.
>
> I assume they still do this in the USA because it's an additional &
> profitable item on the bill.

Perhaps an inaccurate assumption. In the mid '80s, I recall it being an
elective item at the facilities my family was using. And San Francisco
has drafted a ban on male circumcision.

/dps

[Frank S]

"Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
news:1ipsq8x...@news.ducksburg.com...

> On 2011-12-03, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> On 12/3/11 10:32 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>>> On 12/3/2011 10:04 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> On Dec 3, 5:49 am, R H Draney<dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> I was born Christian too, but they circumcised me anyway....r
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, know why?
>>>>
>>>> I'm guessing not. I don't want to make this a thing, I'm just saying.
>>>
>>> It probably wasn't to give you some slight protection against AIDS was
>>> it? Actually, circumcision was common in Britain and America in the
>>> 1930's.
>>>
>>
>> It was a mostly-assumed thing at least through the 60s, and there was
>> supposedly some health reasons for it.
>
> I assume they still do this in the USA because it's an additional &
> profitable item on the bill.
>
>

Could be; plenty of recent discussion under a Google of "unkindest cut".
There's a 1966 article here:
http://www.cirp.org/news/1966.07_Foley/

--
Frank ess

[Robert Carnegie]

Interesting detail: "In addition, if smegma *were* carcinogenic, the
use of a contraceptive sheath would lower the incidence of cervical
cancer in women. Studies have shown that it doesn't (Journal of the
American Medical Women's Association, 1962)."

However, the last that I heard, it was thought that cervical cancer
was almost exclusively a complication of the widespread, sexually
transmitted, and usually relatively short-lived human papilloma virus
- the virus usually goes away harmlessly after about eighteen months,
I think. Until you're infected again with a different version. I
don't have a citation for that, though; I think I heard someone say it
on the BBC.

And maybe the cancer happens a lot later?

[Scott Lurndal]

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> writes:
> And San Francisco
>has drafted a ban on male circumcision.

No, it hasn't. Some activists got enough signatures to put
it on the ballot, but the state courts have already invalided
it as something the city may not regulate.

scott

[Snidely]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) scribbled something like ...

That's still an indication of changing attitudes. I would have to do some
actual research to find how widespread that change is, though.

/dps

[Skitt]

That all depends on the location you are talking about. I was born in
1932, and I'm fully intact. That may be because of my having been born
in Latvia, or maybe just because of the attitude of my parents. I never
asked them about it, as I thought that, except for those whose religions
make them do strange things to their boys, mine was the natural way to be.

(Yes, my parents were non-religious, as am I.)

[David DeLaney]

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> scribbled something like ...

I'm fairly sure that at least part of the supposedly-health reasons ran "Well,
we can do this once, causing the baby some pain before he can sue us for it
or talk about it ... or Mom can nag the kid at least once a week to wash INSIDE
the foreskin, not just the outside, along with the nagging about behind the
ears and the BACKS of the hands too and INSIDE the buttcheeks. Because for sure
_Dad_ won't remember to. In the interest of making things less complex..."

Dave "because one less place for eww to collect is a positive factor" DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Quadibloc]

On Dec 4, 5:50 pm, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) scribbled something like ...
>

> > Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> writes:
> >>  And San Francisco
> >>has drafted a ban on male circumcision.
>
> > No, it hasn't.  Some activists got enough signatures to put
> > it on the ballot, but the state courts have already invalided
> > it as something the city may not regulate.
>
> That's still an indication of changing attitudes.  I would have to do some
> actual research to find how widespread that change is, though.

My reaction to this is that it's a very bad change in attitudes.
Making San Francisco _Judenrein_ should not be on the ballot. And that
is precisely how this should be viewed: people really don't have a
choice when it comes to obeying what they believe to be the absolute
commands of the Creator.

Respect for religious freedom is something that should not be eroded.

John Savard

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<466c7141-8c2d-4ac0...@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

Do you hold these same view for "female circumcision"?

--
It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant
and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. -- H. L. Mencken

[Kurt Busiek]

On 2011-12-05 11:38:47 -0800, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> said:

> In article
> <466c7141-8c2d-4ac0...@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 4, 5:50 pm, Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) scribbled something like ...
>>>
>>>> Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>  And San Francisco
>>>>> has drafted a ban on male circumcision.
>>>
>>>> No, it hasn't.  Some activists got enough signatures to put
>>>> it on the ballot, but the state courts have already invalided
>>>> it as something the city may not regulate.
>>>
>>> That's still an indication of changing attitudes.  I would have to do some
>>> actual research to find how widespread that change is, though.
>>
>> My reaction to this is that it's a very bad change in attitudes.
>> Making San Francisco _Judenrein_ should not be on the ballot. And that
>> is precisely how this should be viewed: people really don't have a
>> choice when it comes to obeying what they believe to be the absolute
>> commands of the Creator.
>>
>> Respect for religious freedom is something that should not be eroded.
>

> Do you hold these same view for "female circumcision"?

Religions Quaddy doesn't respect need to be stamped out. Only proper,
right-thinking religions deserve protection.

Freedom is, after all, the freedom to choose that which Quaddy approves
of choosing.

kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!

[James Silverton]

And you would favor this argument in the case of "female circumcision"?
I would mention that the San Francisco motion on male circumcision is a
piece of over protective meddling in my opinion since the practice does
no harm and may even do some good.

[Adam Funk]

On 2011-12-05, Walter Bushell wrote:

> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>> My reaction to this is that it's a very bad change in attitudes.
>> Making San Francisco _Judenrein_ should not be on the ballot. And that
>> is precisely how this should be viewed: people really don't have a
>> choice when it comes to obeying what they believe to be the absolute
>> commands of the Creator.
>>
>> Respect for religious freedom is something that should not be eroded.

> Do you hold these same view for "female circumcision"?

Is there actually any extant religion (as opposed to cultural or local
custom) that requires it?


--
It is probable that television drama of high caliber and produced by
first-rate artists will materially raise the level of dramatic taste
of the nation. (David Sarnoff, CEO of RCA, 1939; in Stoll 1995)

[Skitt]

James Silverton wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:

>> Snidely wrote:
>>> (Scott Lurndal) scribbled something like ...

>>>> Snidely writes:

>>>>> And San Francisco
>>>>> has drafted a ban on male circumcision.
>>>>
>>>> No, it hasn't. Some activists got enough signatures to put
>>>> it on the ballot, but the state courts have already invalided
>>>> it as something the city may not regulate.
>>>
>>> That's still an indication of changing attitudes. I would have to do
>>> some
>>> actual research to find how widespread that change is, though.
>>
>> My reaction to this is that it's a very bad change in attitudes.
>> Making San Francisco _Judenrein_ should not be on the ballot. And that
>> is precisely how this should be viewed: people really don't have a
>> choice when it comes to obeying what they believe to be the absolute
>> commands of the Creator.
>>
>> Respect for religious freedom is something that should not be eroded.
>
> And you would favor this argument in the case of "female circumcision"?
> I would mention that the San Francisco motion on male circumcision is a
> piece of over protective meddling in my opinion since the practice does
> no harm and may even do some good.
>

The only problem I see is that it is a body alteration done to someone
who does not have a choice in the matter. On the other hand, waiting
until that choice can be exercised will cause far more discomfort to the
recipient of the procedure.

Fortunately, my parents were enlightened enough to leave well enough
alone, and I, certainly, have not chosen to counter that choice.

I have no tattoos or piercings either. (Yes, I am old.)

--
Skitt (Follower of the FOTIPU)
The Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic
and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know
that they are invisible because we can't see them. -- Steve Eley

[Skitt]

Adam Funk wrote:
> Walter Bushell wrote:

>> Quadibloc wrote:

>>> My reaction to this is that it's a very bad change in attitudes.
>>> Making San Francisco _Judenrein_ should not be on the ballot. And that
>>> is precisely how this should be viewed: people really don't have a
>>> choice when it comes to obeying what they believe to be the absolute
>>> commands of the Creator.
>>>
>>> Respect for religious freedom is something that should not be eroded.
>>
>> Do you hold these same view for "female circumcision"?
>
> Is there actually any extant religion (as opposed to cultural or local
> custom) that requires it?
>

There might be some gray area in distinguishing a religion from a belief
system and cultural or local custom. Some of those categories are more
defined or established than others. Some of them have no reasonable
basis, but some of them do. That, however, is not a criterion for
making a distinction between them.

Personally, I believe I'll have some lunch now.

[James Silverton]

Indeed, female circumcision is not required by all Moslems but it is
pretty widespread in many Moslem countries like Somaliland, Egypt and
parts of Nigeria. I would not favor immigrants to Europe and the US
being allowed to practice this perversion. See Ayaan Hirsi Ali

[Wayne Throop]

: Skitt <ski...@comcast.net>
: I have no tattoos or piercings either. (Yes, I am old.)

In my youth, truth be told, it seemed to me then
I'd lose dignity under the pen.
But now that I'm perfectly sure I have none,
I do it again and again.

[Adam Funk]

I don't think the practice really has anything to do with Islam,
though.


--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.

[Quadibloc]

On Dec 5, 12:45 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
> On 2011-12-05 11:38:47 -0800, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> said:
> > In article

> > <466c7141-8c2d-4ac0-ab61-b3bb5a934...@c18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,

> >  Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> >> My reaction to this is that it's a very bad change in attitudes.
> >> Making San Francisco _Judenrein_ should not be on the ballot. And that
> >> is precisely how this should be viewed: people really don't have a
> >> choice when it comes to obeying what they believe to be the absolute
> >> commands of the Creator.
>
> >> Respect for religious freedom is something that should not be eroded.
>
> > Do you hold these same view for "female circumcision"?

No. But female genital mutilation in all its forms, including simple
clitoridectomy, is *far* more serious than male circumcision.

In the case of male circumcision, one has to weigh a deeply-held
belief against the abstract principle of not modifying someone's body
without his consent. In the case of FGM, we are not dealling with a
mere abstract principle, as the modification is not slight or
irrelevant.

Thus, it would not be fair to conclude that our society's long-
established acceptance of circumcision compels us to turn our backs on
the women who are victimized by FGM.

> Religions Quaddy doesn't respect need to be stamped out. Only proper,
> right-thinking religions deserve protection.
>
> Freedom is, after all, the freedom to choose that which Quaddy approves
> of choosing.

Freedom doesn't include being allowed to violate the rights of others.
Big surprise!

So, in Egypt, under Mubarrak, when Coptic Christians were victimized
by crimes committed by members of the Muslim community, they were
pressured into "reconciliation" proceedings; when Copts were accused
of crimes against Muslims, the result was mob violence that affected
innocent people.

That kind of behavior should be stamped out with whatever force is
necessary. That has nothing to do with suppressing the peaceful
practice of Islamic worship.

It's the notion that Muslims may victimize non-Muslims with impunity
and the non-Muslims cannot rebel against this which is at the root of
the blind hostility to Israel in the Islamic world - and at the root
of terrorism.

So something has to be done to change the psychology of that part of
the world so that they will be content always with mere equality, and
will never be tempted to abuse a non-Muslim minority.

John Savard

[Howard Brazee]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2011 15:01:56 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>> >> Respect for religious freedom is something that should not be eroded.
>>
>> > Do you hold these same view for "female circumcision"?
>
>No. But female genital mutilation in all its forms, including simple
>clitoridectomy, is *far* more serious than male circumcision.

As with most of life - we are now haggling about the price.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Robert Carnegie]

Off you go, then. But I think you're only doing it to put off your
sex change op.

[Mike Lyle]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2011 22:23:15 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

>On 2011-12-05, James Silverton wrote:

[...]

>>
>> Indeed, female circumcision is not required by all Moslems but it is
>> pretty widespread in many Moslem countries like Somaliland, Egypt and
>> parts of Nigeria. I would not favor immigrants to Europe and the US
>> being allowed to practice this perversion. See Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I believe -- well, I hope -- it's a criminal offence in the UK. But
not easy to police. Of course, there was a fashion for it in some
western medical circles during the ?19th C.

>
>I don't think the practice really has anything to do with Islam,
>though.

It doesn't, except insofar as it's a social custom, like the veil, or
men squatting to piss, which is passed down in some communities which
happen to be Muslim, whose members then pretty well inevitably cannot
separate it from their religion. Christian analogues abound: Christmas
trees, Friday fish, etc. IIUC, female genital mutilation was
originally transmitted from some African societies, as a welcome gift
to misogynists (or should that be "gynaecophobics"?).

--
Mike.