The pig?  -  Some slices of bacon


The sheep? - Some Muslims in a mosque


The clothing? - Their shoes


This is the story about a drunken man who thought it would be funny to put bacon inside the shoes left outside a mosque.  Frankly, I agree, this is rather funny.  Of course the man was arrested and charged with crimes relating to "racial hatred."  Here's where the problem lies.  This is not in any way racial.  It is religious.  The offended Muslims aren't restricted from eating pig due to their race, so in what way could this ever be considered racist?  The fact that the people are in a mosque in England gives very little clue as to the races of those inside, they could be from any number of countries.  They were mostly Somalian by the way.  Are Somalians not allowed to eat pig?  Well yes, if they also happen to be Muslim.  It makes me very angry that religion is so often confused with race.  Racial hatred is inexcusable.  Religious hatred makes sense.  Not that I'm saying we should cause harm to religious people, but they should be mocked, they are a joke.  They are an embarressment to humankind.


Anyway, I was interested to see how offensive you all thought this was.  Or more precisely, what level of offence is appropriate for this act of religious mocking.


In a sane world, the offended Muslims would simple chuckle "ha, that's funny because we can't eat pig, oh you clever sod!" and maybe be a little peeved that their shoes now smell of bacon.


In this world, I'm suprised it wasn't followed by a parade of angry imbeciles demanding a gruesome execution.

Views: 190

Replies to This Discussion

Oh yes, of course, a sane world would indeed be free of religion.


I agree it is insensitive, I would never do anything like this myself.  It was just the actions of a drunken idiot, but I still found it amusing :)

There was this same discussion about thunderf00t burning a hard drive with 40,000 copies of the Quran on it. Most of the big time atheists agreed that it was insensitive, and that's exactly why it should be done. To de-sensitize the general population to acts like this so they are no longer a big deal. We're atheists so why should we care if a hard drive gets burned? Classic book burning is different because in the past it was meant to suppress knowledge by literally destroying the books containing the knowledge, but burning a book today like the Quaran isn't the same. Today it  is destroying the symbol, not suppressing knowledge.
I am in no way a fan of any kind of censorship.

This would seem to be an act of vandalism in my mind.  And if it was done simply due to their religion, they it was a hate crime of vandalism. Of course this is from a US point of view, I don't know the British laws.


Now how serious is this vandalism?  Somewhere below burning poop and/or grease on the door knob.  So the question is: is it REALLY vandalism from a legal prospective.  I'd not want raw meat in my shoes.

Well, the culprit was sentenced to 6 months in jail, but could have received up to 2 years.  2 years in jail for putting meat in someone's shoes?  He only got off with 6 months because he apologised.  It's not the act that he was punished for.  It's not the vandalism to property.  He was punished in order to protect a religion not worthy of protection.  To avoid Muslims kicking off in the way they so often do.  This kind of religious protection needs to stop.

With no link to any news piece, and no insight into the court's actions, I have no idea WHY he was placed in jail.  The question is: What does the law have to say about whatever crime he was charged with?  I agree, calling this "racial" hatred is nonsense, but it is an act of religious bigotry.  When you start messing with other people's property to make a religious statement, you've went too far in my book.  I don't want people putting crosses in my yard, so I'm not going to put bacon on theirs.

So, if I kick this man ass because he ruined my snickers, would it be considered "hate crime"? I´d really hate him!
In the United States, "hate crimes" are normal crimes committed due to the hatred of a protected classification.  Race, sexual orientation, religion, creed, gender are some of the currently protected classes.  As "snickers ruiner" is not a protected class it would not be a hate crime.  Again, that is in the USA.

You're right, it's not racist, it's religious. But I don't think it's any more acceptable to mock people because of their religion than their race. We live in a big world, and we are obligated, as humans, to get along together. You surely have beliefs and practices which I don't agree with, but that does NOT give me the right to harass you or damage your possessions. (Shoes that have had bacon in them are permanently damaged).


If you are interested in spreading atheism, then do it in a humane and respectful way. These people are HUMAN, and they deserve our kindness and friendship, not being made fun of.


And while I agree that this should NOT be an executable offense, it IS, nevertheless, an offense.

Is it an offence that demands a punishment of 6 months in jail?


In my opinion, this is not an offence, it's a prank.  A harmless prank.  The shoes would not be ruined, people step in shit, mud, all sorts of crap and it can be washed off.


Religious people deserve to be mocked, they are idiots.  Though they are entitled to believe what they like, they are obviously morons for doing so.

So, when people are raised religious with little to no exposure to anything else and taught that such exposure is dangerous, they are idiots and morons? 




They are deluded, sure.  They are confused.  They are wrong.  But that doesn't have anything to do with their intelligence or abilities.


Your statements are unfortunately bigoted.  I've said such things in the past in all likelihood, but I hope you'd stop and consider the falsehood in what you say.

Everyone can think for themselves no matter what they've been taught.  We all have the ability to see the world around us and compare it to what we're told.  Providing they have had a relatively good education, even if it is perverted by religion, they can think and reason and criticise.  So yes, anyone who is fully developed and still believes things they've been told without proof is an idiot.


© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service