h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

So why does your neighbour put on a call to prayer in the morning, especially one loud enough to wake others? Is he particularly forgetful, that an ordinary alarm clock wouldn't remind him what he had to do? Is he trying to attract other sky-fairy worshippers? Or is he ostentatiously flaunting his pious nature in a way that wakes others up?

It's only about loud enough for me to hear out of the open window in the mornings when I am already awake. I've never heard complaints from any other neighbours. I doubt he's an actual practicing muslim, he seems pretty secular to me. It's only once in a while, not daily. I think he puts it on to be reminded of home.

Any other prejudices you wish to share?

PS I don't "wake up to it" as I suggested before. I wake up drenched in sweat usually a full hour before.

When I started this thread I was actually thinking about freedoms in general, and gave the veil and the Raoul Mote/Facebook thing as examples of indications of attitudes towards certain things by certain government/coalition back benchers..though these particular issues were very much connected specifically Tory back benchers suggesting that the state should become involved

If anyone's interested in opening up discussion about this topic more generally, though feel free to ignore if people just want to continue with the Muslim angle, it appears the tabs are getting themselves in a frenzy about a certain well known British actress apparently shown smoking in front of her kid. Though there is talk that the Mail photo is, to say the least, possibly giving a slightly misleading impression.

But to get away from that specific story, (we may run into yikesing problems here, libel etc), should we bring in laws to ban smoking around children? Some people say smoking around kids, is child abuse. Should the state become involved with this issue?

Any thoughts if anyone's interested?

***Reformed smoker alert***

No, I'm not going to rant about smoking, live and let live I say (can you say "let live" about passive smoking?).

OK, smoking isn't illegal so I can't see why it can't be done in front of kids. Yes they're impressionable but let's face it, anything you try not to impress on them is going to filter through from their mates anyway.

However, I do think people should refrain from smoking in the home where there are kids (how hard is it to step outside?) and certainly no-one should be smoking in a car with kids - it's choking apart from anything else, and it makes EVERYTHING stink, something I never realised when I smoked. Do you want your kids going to school smelling like an ashtray? Because they will.



Going back to a topic raised earlier, animal slaughter, it made me wonder. If certain religions can be exempt from animal cruelty laws because of their religion, why can't "christians" (I use to term to cover the likes of catholics, baptists, born again christians, etc) refuse to have gay/lesbian people in their guesthouses? Please note I'm not saying I think they should have that right, because I don't. I'm just asking if this is a bit of a double standard?



As to the veil issue, I find it quite intimidating when I come across women wearing the full face cover, especially where the eyes are also covered. This is something I generally accept as my problem, but there is a small part of me that wonders why it's necessary, when in Rome, etc. Other than the full-face veil, I have no problem with other cultures integrating with ours, it makes it richer and more interesting. Although I do think immigration needs to be better controlled as the country's resources are already stretched.

Gosh I've rambled on a bit. Sorry, as you were.

Deb

You haven't rambled Deb

Good to have input from others here.

Hope you stick around.

"If certain religions can be exempt from animal cruelty laws because of their religion, why can't "christians" (I use to term to cover the likes of catholics, baptists, born again christians, etc) refuse to have gay/lesbian people in their guesthouses? Please note I'm not saying I think they should have that right, because I don't. I'm just asking if this is a bit of a double standard?"

No, I don't think it is. Exempting certain religions from one aspect of animal cruelty laws allows the people who follow those religions to continue their cultural practices, and whatever the rest of us think, that's something that's very important to them. What's the cost of this? Well, the cost (if there is one) is to animals, and as I've said before, if you think that the interests of animals trump human interests on this occasion, you need to be consistent about a lot of other examples that don't involve Muslims. Some people are, and some people only seem bothered because it's Muslims.

The 'Christian B&B' issue is a bit of a red herring. The legislation made it illegal (with a few exceptions) to discriminate on irrelevant grounds in the provision of goods and services. The advantage here is that it gives historically disadvantaged groups equal rights, and equal access to goods and services. Now there is a price to be paid for this, and it is that those who provide goods and services can't discriminate on irrelevant grounds any more. Yes, that is a restriction on freedom, but it's surely justified in that it makes it illegal to go back to the days where boarding houses could have "no blacks, no Irish" signs outside.

Chris - post 182 is a long way from the impression given in post 179.

Anything else you want to back-pedal on?

Not really.

>>
My neighbour downstairs >>occasionally<< puts what I imagine is a call to prayer on in the morning. It doesn't annoy me in the slightest - his predecessor in that flat was a crackhead whose nightly fists-n-furniture fights with his "friend" drove me to drink. It was NINE MONTHS before the police finally acted and barred entry to him for three months, when the little girl on the ground floor brought a crack pipe home to mummy. He was evicted a while later.

Instead, now I get a beautiful lilting muezzin to [edit: hear in the morning], when he's not drowned out by some idiot's car stereo.
>>

I can't see anything outside of that one oversight that would warrant your portrayal of him. Thanks for the words of support in relation to the previous tenant, by the way.

On the subject of double standards, do those who have no interest in the animal welfare of sky-fairy-method-killed animals support the ban on fox hunting?

RF

>and whatever the rest of us think, that's something that's very important to them.

Are you seriously suggesting Otto that Muslims and religious Jews can't possibly come to terms with something like the way animals are slaughtered, being done in accordance with Law of the country they live in?

Apparently it's also very important for religions to discriminate against gay people and women, in terms of who can be employed as clerics, so we compromise and let them get on with their nasty prejudices, essentially based on the desire to *control* certain groups.

My view is that compromise should be expected. The state compromises about certain things as above. But where do these religious groups compromise, unless brought kicking and screaming to it?

Simple example. An art magazine I was involved in showed the image of a well known surrealist painting at the Tate on the front cover. It featured some naked flesh. This magazine was aimed at the whole multi cultural of Southwark. But only the local Muslims kicked up an absolute stink. A promise was given to them that it wouldn't happen again. This was a blatant disregard for the art and culture of anglos; something very important to many of us. But the Muslims couldn't care less about that. They didn't rest until all such paintings were in future banned from the cover of the art magazine.

This constant appeasement to every little facet and aspect of faiths isn't healthy. It just builds huge resentment on behalf of the rest of the community as they see compromises all seeming to go one way.

And yes lots of people here do care about the way animals are slaughtered. It's an ordinary thing, not an animal rights issue. It's the very reason we have laws about it here. I'm really getting increasingly tired of the lack of any sort of compromise coming from religious groups basically living in a medieval time warp. They shouldn't be surprised if increasing resentment builds up about this from the rest of society. It's as much about the symbolism of it. And because many of us argue for such freedoms for them without Laws, it would be nice to see a little give and take rather than constant taking advantage of the fact that we do allow on the whole, religions to do things differently.

>support the ban on fox hunting<

Mixed views. Having once seen the hunt in full flight across the landscape and read about it in novels, I feel its quite an important part of culture, especially for people in the countryside. But then they can do the drag thing. It's like what I said about the Canadian communities and seal hunting.

I just don't know for sure how basic it is to the culture and way of life of rural communities. They certainly say it is.

And it's hardly slaughter on a mass scale.

On the whole I'm probably in favour of fox hunting.

The rural communities have certainly been forced to make many compromises with townies coming in for second homes, public transport disappearing, villages losing their traditonal character, farmers losing out because of EU laws. So yeah given that context, let them keep it.

Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the fox hunting issue (personally find it hard to feel strongly about it) surely there is a qualitative difference between the activity of killing animals for sport, and killing them for food?

I would have thought so anyhow.

FB

Sport is a huge part of our cultural identity. It's another one on Otto's list. I'd say in some contexts that *might* trump the caring for animals one on Otto's list.

Yes it's not easy. These things are complicated. But its basically for me, as I said, all groups be prepared to show a bit of give and take if such a complex society as ours is to function properly.

And yes of course sometimes there'll appear to be contradictions when so many different cultural values and traditions collide in one little over crowded island.

's advocate.

So then a traditional english working class blood sport like bear/badger baiting or dog fighting which has long history should be ok then effers?

FB

Nah the riff raff still have boxing don't they?

Don't forget weasel-fighting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNmBAUyy7Go

There's an excellent Mike Winterbum film called In This World where you get to see the halal slaughter of a cow. It's horrifying. I don't like that at all, and if I could I would stop it - but I'd be more exercised by the conditions of battery farms. If said cow was taken down by a lion it wouldn't be ritually slaughtered, just slaughtered. No-one would object to the lion's case for doing so (unless it was their cow). At least he does it to eat, not to get a power trip.

The film follows the true stories of two young Afghan refugees who flee Pakistan across country; Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Italy and France by ship and finally to Britain via Chunnel, clinging to the chassis of a truck. It's harrowing to watch, never mind go through.

"This constant appeasement to every little facet and aspect of faiths isn't healthy. It just builds huge resentment on behalf of the rest of the community as they see compromises all seeming to go one way."

Let's be clear about this.
1. Exemption from rules on butchery is, in my mind, a tiny compromise. Others who consistently care more about animal rights may feel differently, and that's fine.
2. Concessions to homophobia are *not* a tiny compromise and therefore are not acceptable. So, no, we don't allow discrimination *by anyone* against gay people or women, and that's backed up by the force of law.

So.... "we" compromise on something that I argue doesn't really matter, and we absolutely don't compromise on something that absolutely does matter. We impose "our" liberal democratic (by which I mean majority rule, minority rights) on "them" (anyone who doesn't agree) and they must obey the law or face the consequences - though they retain their rights to free speech and to campaign and organise.

Incidentally, it's entirely wrong to say that all the compromises are going one way. The starting position is that the dominant culture(s) has pretty much everything it wants, because it is dominant and can rearrange things as it likes. The compromises that those from outside the dominant culture (whether that's gays/lesbians, hardline Muslims or Christians, or whoever) have to make are more or less invisible to those in the dominant culture because the dominant culture is not aware of them.

This has come up in a parallel discussion about homosexuality and public displays of affection between same sex couples. The historically dominant culture sees this as flaunting (or whatever) and keeping the relationship hidden from public view as the default, whereas the couple concerned would see doing that as a concession to dominant values (which is what it is) that they are no longer willing to make. Kea expresses this sociology stuff much better than I do, but hopefully you get the idea.

On the art magazine issue (which I'll take at face value, although pretty much every story like this tends to evaporate under scrutiny). I'm not familiar with the magazine or the art in question, but surely it's not a major compromise to put something else on the cover, surely? Especially if it's a free magazine that's being put through people's doors. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me, as long as the art can appear inside. I can think of plenty of artworks that would not be suitable for the cover of a magazine where they might be seen by children. If I had children, I'm not sure I'd want a magazine with a Mapplethorpe picture on the cover being posted into my house.

To call this "blatant disregard for the culture of the Anglos" just seems like a massive overreaction to me. But... perhaps I don't know the full story.

So... one little compromise. Don't put anything with nudity on the front cover. In return, the picture can appear inside the magazine, it can be exhibited, talked about, subsidised by the taxpayer through the arts council with everyone's taxes. Meanwhile, the dominant culture's attitudes have their way on pretty much everything else, we have partial nudity on free-to-air television, bra adverts on billboards, and so on and so forth. What's wrong with that?

<>

Yes we do. Who's prosecuting the Church?

We do of course allow and encourage discrimination against men and white people

The poor dears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG4f9zR5yzY