No soup for YOU!

[mike c]

what he said ^

i typed up a similar response, but couldnt get my point across. so i deleted it.

 

[aberkowitz]

(I really would like to believe it's more of the media blowing things out of proportion, but human nature can be cruel)

Honestly- I would like to believe that as well, but based on my own personal experiences of things that I've witnessed as well as the number of articles that have been specifically written about France and the governments overt xenophobic and racist actions, I'm not inclined to lean that way at this time.

 

[jinjuku]

I'm not disagreeing with you. If you're hungry you should eat whatever you can eat. In my opinion, I bet there probably were Muslims who were going to that soup kitchen and eating since they were hungry. The soup kitchen was providing a noble service in giving food to those who were hungry. Like I said before, my only problem is the fact that they are singling out ethnic groups who they don't believe are worthy of their food and essentially telling them to go die b/c of what they believe. Please tell me what benefit this group had in coming out and saying that they served what they served in order to specifically exclude certain groups- groups who quite possibly were already eating there. Do you think that is morally correct?

When pulling back and looking at your statement from a thousand foot view, your question can go either way.

'Morally correct' is a loaded question. Morally correct that a religion would let you go with out a nutritious meal? or a soup kitchen providing free meals that someone won't partake out of an edict that has no foundation in modern nutrition science. Just because some one 1700 years ago said 'not to'.

I question both parties motives here. You have to realize that even religion has motives. Is the entire medical society and pharma bigoted toward Scientology? Or are Scientologist making a choice?

 

[rnatalli]

If you move to a new country, it's your responsibility to adapt to that country. Not the other way around. That's how I've always seen it.

 

[aberkowitz]

When pulling back and looking at your statement from a thousand foot view, your question can go either way.

'Morally correct' is a loaded question. Morally correct that a religion would let you go with out a nutritious meal? or a soup kitchen providing free meals that someone won't partake out of an edict that has no foundation in modern nutrition science. Just because some one 1700 years ago said 'not to'.

I question both parties motives here. You have to realize that even religion has motives. Is the entire medical society and pharma bigoted toward Scientology? Or are Scientologist making a choice?

I think I already clarified my position on the morally correctness of refusing a meal when you're hungry. If you have nothing and somebody gives you something, then you should take it. And I feel quite strongly that there were probably muslims who were and maybe still are eating at that soup kitchen.

It's not religion itself that has motives, in my opinion, but the people who use and/or twist religion to their own liking that have the ulterior motives. Case in point, there is nothing wrong with Scientology having tenets around silent birth and infant care (if you're not a member, you can choose not to follow), but there's a lot wrong with somebody like Tom Cruise going on national television and specifically calling out other people for being bad parents b/c they don't follow the same tenets that he follows.