Date: 10/10/2005
Dear Sir/Madam, /// With reference to letters about the disappearance of pigs from Britain, the forwarded article will be of interest to your readers. /// I can only suggest that you save anything to do with Pigs. In few years time these will become collectors items. /// I have saved TESCO bags with Pigs pictures, they have diasppeared since the last few years. /// PR /// ++++++++++++++++++++++ xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: /// > Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 20:00:46 -0700 (PDT) > Subject: [WaronTerror] Britain's War on Pigs By Robert Spencer ///> > http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19712 > /// Britain's War on Pigs By Robert Spencer > /// > Pigs are disappearing all over England, but not because of some > porcine variant of Mad Cow Disease: rather, the most implacable foe > of the swine is turning out to be multiculturalism. > > The latest assault came in the benefits department at Dudley Council, > West Midlands, where employees were told that they were no longer > allowed to have any representations of pigs at their desks. Some had > little porcine porcelain figurines. Others had toys or calendars of > cute little pigs. One had a tissue box depicting Winnie the Pooh and > Piglet. All of this had to go, not because of new some new > anti-kitsch ordinance, but because Muslims might be offended — > particularly now, what with Ramadan beginning. How could a pious > Muslim in the Dudley Council, West Midlands benefits department > redouble his efforts to conform his life to the will of Allah with > all these…pigs staring him in the face? It was an insult! > ///> This was not the first anti-pig initiative in Britain. In Derby, > Muslims took offense at plans to restore the statue of the Florentine > Boar, which had stood in the Derby Park for over a hundred years > before it was decapitated by a German bomb in 1942. Recent plans to > rebuild the Boar’s head ran into resistance from local Muslims. Suman > Gupta, a local Council member, warned: “If the statue of the boar is > put back at the Arboretum I have been told that it will not be there > the next day, or at least it won’t be in the same condition the next > day at least. We should not have the boar because it is offensive to > some of the groups in the immediate area.” However, after more than > 2,000 locals signed petitions in favor of the Boar, local authorities > decided to bend to public opinion and go ahead with their original > plans to restore the statue. > > /// > > Elsewhere in England pigs did not fare so well. In March 2003, > Barbara Harris, head teacher at Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery > School in Batley, West Yorkshire, banned stories mentioning pigs./// > “Recently,” Harris explained, “I have been aware of an occasion where > young Muslim children in class were read stories about pigs. We try > to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is > offensive.” Harris didn’t mention whether or not she intended to > allow Muslim students to possess copies of the Qur’an at the school, > despite its repeated mention of how Allah cursed Jews and turned them > into apes and pigs (2:62-65; 5:59-60; 7:166). > > /// > > Why have pigs become so unpopular in Britain? Mahbubur Rahman, a > Muslim Councillor in West Midlands, summed it up in explaining why > the toy pigs had to go: “It’s a tolerance,” he said, “of people’s > beliefs.” > > /// > > How’s that again? It’s “a tolerance of people’s beliefs” to deny to > others the right to display harmless pictures and figurines? Mahbubur > Rahman seems unacquainted with the dictum, widely attributed to > Voltaire, that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to > the death your right to say it.” Yet this is what tolerance really > is: the acceptance of the fact that in a free society, some will do > and say things of which one may disapprove, and that one has no > consequent right to command or force them to stop. If this is not > recognized in any given society, that society is not in fact free at > all — any more than Henry Ford’s offer that “You can have a car in > any color you want, as long as it’s black” represented a genuine > choice. > > > /// > For Rahman instead to equate a British capitulation to Muslim > sensibilities with tolerance indicates that he has confused Islamic > supremacism with tolerance. This is perhaps not surprising given the > near-universal tendency among Muslims and non-Muslims alike to laud > Medieval Muslim Spain as a proto-multiculturalist paradise of > tolerance, when actually it was a paradise for Islamic supremacists. > Christians and Jews lived in harmony with Muslims only as inferiors. > Historian Kenneth Baxter Wolf notes that the after the Muslim > conquest, the conquerors imposed new laws “aimed at limiting those > aspects of the Christian cult which seemed to compromise the dominant > position of Islam.” After enumerating a standard list of the laws > restricting non-Muslims (dhimmis) — no building of new churches, no > holding authority over Muslims, distinctive clothing, etc. — he adds: > “Aside from such cultic restrictions most of the laws were simply > designed to underscore the position of the dimmîs as > second-class citizens.” > > /// > > Multiculturalism? Tolerance? Not by any modern standard. And neither > are the disappearing pigs of Great Britain. > > /// ***************************************************************** ///> > www.faithfreedom.org/oped/BarbaraStock50927.htm > /// > Things that Offend Islam/// > By Barbara J. Stock > /// > > Burger King will be withdrawing and changing the logo for its ice > cream cups because, if one looks very closely and has a good > imagination, the logo appeared to some Muslims to look sort of like > the word Allah in Arabic if it was viewed from just the right angle. > Not wanting to offend, Burger King caved in to the constantly > complaining and whining Muslims who seem to find some offense in just > about everything these days. One has to wonder just how many Western > Muslims can even read Arabic. > > > /// > The Taliban found offense in the ancient statues of Buddha in > Bamiyan, Afghanistan, and blew them to bits. These Muslims also > found offense in several smaller and much easier to destroy ancient > clay and wood-carved statues at the same location. All of these > irreplaceable pieces of history were destroyed because some Muslims > found them “offensive.” Should the great pyramids of Egypt be > destroyed if someone finds them offensive? > /// > The Taliban also found music, flying kites, dancing of any kind, > women leaving the house without a male family member, and balloons > offensive. Any woman leaving the house without being covered from > head to toe was so offensive that she risked being beaten to death. > /// > Strict Islamics find the human female body offensive and feels every > woman should be covered from head to toe. Muslims will tell you that > they cover their women out of modesty and respect but this simply > isn’t the case. Strict Islamics believe a woman is born in sin and > is just one living, breathing sin that needs to be covered at all > times so that the public cannot see her shame. If a woman crosses a > man's path while he is praying, he must begin anew because the woman > is offensive to Allah. > /// > An incomplete list of people Islamics also seem to find offensive is: > all Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, ex-Muslims, and all > non-Muslims. > /// > These days, it seems that Sunni Muslims find Shia Muslims to be > offensive as well. > /// > Also offensive is any reference to the Quran by non-Muslims that does > not expound on how every word is perfect and written by God himself. > Anything less than complete agreement is an offense that often > carries a death sentence. Just ask Salman Rushdie, author of > “Satanic Verses,” who had to hide for years to stay alive, and Theo > Van Gogh, who paid with his life for speaking the truth about Islam. > > /// > This past week, Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts suggested that > since virtually every terrorist attack around the world has been > carried out by Muslims, it might behoove us to listen in on what is > being preached in American mosques. Just as a reminder, the 1993 > World Trade Center bombing was planned with the assistance of Muslim > cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, better known as the “Blind Sheik.” > /// As expected, the Council of American/Islamic Relations (CAIR) went > ballistic. To no one’s surprise, CAIR did not claim that Islamic > governments don’t eavesdrop on Christian churches. Of course, > Islamics don’t do that; Islamic governments just burn churches down, > occasionally with the people still in them. > ///> Strict Islamic countries find women wearing white socks sexually > provocative and offensive. Pictures of humans or animals are > offensive and men who shave their faces are offensive. Card playing > is offensive. Girls attending school and receiving an education are > also offensive. Women who vote are also offensive. > /// > A woman daring to leave her home without permission even to rush her > sick child to a doctor is offensive. Of course, female doctors are > offensive so any woman requiring medical care can’t receive it > because all the doctors are men. > /// > Islamics also seem to be offended by: America, Great Britain, > Poland, Israel, Australia, Spain, Italy, Japan, Russia, and New > Zealand, just to mention a few countries. Interestingly, Islam > doesn’t seem to be as offended by France or Germany. > /// > In fairness, what Islam doesn’t find offensive should be examined. > Many Muslims did not find the murder of 3000 people on 9/11 > offensive. Saddam Hussein, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of > thousands fellow Muslims, was not offensive. Forbidding the practice > of other religions in an Islamic country is not offensive while > daring to question what might be going on inside a mosque in America, > is terribly offensive. > /// > The murder of thousands of Iraqi Muslims doesn’t seem to offend > Islamics, as long the killing is being done by other Muslims. If an > American soldier kills a Muslim trying to kill him, that is > offensive. The beheading of helpless prisoners by “freedom fighters” > is not offensive. Putting mass murderers in a prison camp that > provides good food, allows time to pray, provides copies of the Quran > and prayer rugs, gives medical and dental care, and allows Islamic > clerics to provide the prisoners with religious council, is > offensive. > /// > The Quran touching the floor is offensive but urinating on or burning > the Bible is not. Profiling people from Islamic countries that > support terrorism is offensive but imprisoning Christians for wearing > a cross is not. > /// > Teaching people about Islam is encouraged, but teaching Christianity > is a beheading offense. > /// > Islamics are not offended when Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council > on American-Islamic Relations, declares that it is the goal of CAIR > to replace our Constitution with the Quran and is incensed if > Americans are offended. After all, that is being disrespectful of > the Quran. Any American who does not want the Quran replacing the > Constitution and who speaks out against Islam is immediately labeled > an “Islamaphobe.” When Islam is involved, there is no freedom of > speech. > /// > Another thing that doesn’t seem to offend many Muslims is the killing > of a ten-year-old rape victim. She must have been “asking for it.” /// > The little vixen soiled the family name and was probably wearing > white socks. Also not offensive is the stoning to death of women who > are merely suspected of “being with a man not their husband.” > Hanging college students who dare to speak out against oppressive and > cruel ayatollahs isn’t offensive to many Muslims either. > /// > Muslims are not offended by the age-old Islamic tradition of forcing > their young daughters to marry their 60-year-old uncles. Girls as > young as 12 are forced to marry their cousins and occasionally even > their half-brothers. This is done to keep the family money in the > family. However, this practice also produces the genetic defects > caused by constant inbreeding. > /// > What Americans should find offensive is how the media, the American > Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), CAIR, and American leftists recoil in > horror if a cruel word is said about Islam as they all set about the > business of destroying our own Christian-based society. As > socialists and atheists slowly remove all traces of God from America, > Islamics are standing ready to fill the void with Allah and Islamic > law. Any American who doesn’t believe that we are war with Islam > isn’t paying attention. > /// > Americans need to wake up from their liberal-media and > television-induced stupor. CAIR and the ACLU do not represent > American culture but they are both being allowed to destroy it. That > offends me. It should offend you. > /// > ==================================== /// ----------------- /// To: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk ///Sent from the Internet (Details) /// Dear Sir/Madam, /// With reference to letters about the disappearance of pigs from Britain, the forwarded article will be of interest to your readers. /// I can only suggest that you save anything to do with Pigs. In few years time these will become collectors items. /// I have saved TESCO bags with Pigs pictures, they have diasppeared since the last few years. /// ++++++++++++++++++++++ Britain's War on Pigs By Robert Spencer ///> > http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19712 > Britain's War on Pigs By Robert Spencer > /// > Pigs are disappearing all over England, but not because of some > porcine variant of Mad Cow Disease: rather, the most implacable foe > of the swine is turning out to be multiculturalism. > > The latest assault came in the benefits department at Dudley Council, > West Midlands, where employees were told that they were no longer > allowed to have any representations of pigs at their desks. Some had > little porcine porcelain figurines. Others had toys or calendars of > cute little pigs. One had a tissue box depicting Winnie the Pooh and > Piglet. All of this had to go, not because of new some new > anti-kitsch ordinance, but because Muslims might be offended — > particularly now, what with Ramadan beginning. How could a pious > Muslim in the Dudley Council, West Midlands benefits department > redouble his efforts to conform his life to the will of Allah with > all these…pigs staring him in the face? It was an insult! > > This was not the first anti-pig initiative in Britain. In Derby, > Muslims took offense at plans to restore the statue of the Florentine > Boar, which had stood in the Derby Park for over a hundred years > before it was decapitated by a German bomb in 1942. Recent plans to > rebuild the Boar’s head ran into resistance from local Muslims. Suman > Gupta, a local Council member, warned: “If the statue of the boar is > put back at the Arboretum I have been told that it will not be there > the next day, or at least it won’t be in the same condition the next > day at least. We should not have the boar because it is offensive to > some of the groups in the immediate area.” However, after more than > 2,000 locals signed petitions in favor of the Boar, local authorities > decided to bend to public opinion and go ahead with their original > plans to restore the statue. > > > /// > Elsewhere in England pigs did not fare so well. In March 2003, > Barbara Harris, head teacher at Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery > School in Batley, West Yorkshire, banned stories mentioning pigs. > “Recently,” Harris explained, “I have been aware of an occasion where > young Muslim children in class were read stories about pigs. We try > to be sensitive to the fact that for Muslims talk of pigs is > offensive.” Harris didn’t mention whether or not she intended to > allow Muslim students to possess copies of the Qur’an at the school, > despite its repeated mention of how Allah cursed Jews and turned them > into apes and pigs (2:62-65; 5:59-60; 7:166). > > > /// > Why have pigs become so unpopular in Britain? Mahbubur Rahman, a > Muslim Councillor in West Midlands, summed it up in explaining why > the toy pigs had to go: “It’s a tolerance,” he said, “of people’s > beliefs.” > /// > > > How’s that again? It’s “a tolerance of people’s beliefs” to deny to > others the right to display harmless pictures and figurines? Mahbubur > Rahman seems unacquainted with the dictum, widely attributed to > Voltaire, that “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to > the death your right to say it.” Yet this is what tolerance really > is: the acceptance of the fact that in a free society, some will do > and say things of which one may disapprove, and that one has no > consequent right to command or force them to stop. If this is not > recognized in any given society, that society is not in fact free at > all — any more than Henry Ford’s offer that “You can have a car in > any color you want, as long as it’s black” represented a genuine > choice. > > > /// > For Rahman instead to equate a British capitulation to Muslim > sensibilities with tolerance indicates that he has confused Islamic > supremacism with tolerance. This is perhaps not surprising given the > near-universal tendency among Muslims and non-Muslims alike to laud > Medieval Muslim Spain as a proto-multiculturalist paradise of > tolerance, when actually it was a paradise for Islamic supremacists. > Christians and Jews lived in harmony with Muslims only as inferiors. > Historian Kenneth Baxter Wolf notes that the after the Muslim > conquest, the conquerors imposed new laws “aimed at limiting those > aspects of the Christian cult which seemed to compromise the dominant > position of Islam.” After enumerating a standard list of the laws > restricting non-Muslims (dhimmis) — no building of new churches, no > holding authority over Muslims, distinctive clothing, etc. — he adds: > “Aside from such cultic restrictions most of the laws were simply > designed to underscore the position of the dimmîs as > second-class citizens.” > > > /// > Multiculturalism? Tolerance? Not by any modern standard. And neither > are the disappearing pigs of Great Britain. > > ......................000000000
[_private/ftarc.htm]