The Islamic bodega

LeeHo wrote: There is no motherfuckin' ham in the motherfuckin' cooler. Also, looks like the bacon selection is beef and turkey bacon.

OMIGOD.

Someone alert Homeland Security!

well, instead of reading all the threads how about you go out and take my challenge?

apollonia666 wrote: I think there's a key difference in the story you linked to and the bodega thing. Bodega owners aren't refusing anyone service by not stocking certain items. Show me a bodega owner who has refused to let you shop in his or her store and you might have a more valid comparison.

Agreed, and the article is irrelevant and silly on a number of fronts:

1. Despite personal religious bents, any employee would need to abide by local laws. So, if there isn't a local law against carrying hooch into a cab, technically, a Jew, Christian, Muslim or Hindu cabbie would need to give you a ride. Otherwise, report them to the local authorities.

2. By going to a bodega that doesn't choose to carry a particular item, no law is being violated. I have had stores that carried my favorite socks for years and then dropped the supplier for business reasons. I have no recourse but to shop elsewhere for my beloved socks, as no law has been violated and no denial of service has occurred based on a protected factor (i.e. race, creed, origin, etc.)

3. Further to point #2, see the post above that the decision was economic (i.e. the license is expensive) rather than religiously motivated. In an economic decision within a free economy, again there is no recourse but to shop elsewhere.

4. Lastly, further to your point above, being born in NYC gains you no extra rights in the city, state of New York or country. I moved to the city 11 years ago and who knows when the bodega owners moved here, but happily we all share somewhat equal rights of day-to-day citizenship. Tenure doesn't grant you ownership of a community, borrough or city (thank goodness), as we would all be the lesser were this true.

I'm so sorry for you, devincf, that the neighborhood ain't what it used to be, but I'll take today and tomorrow over yesterday anytime.

Plus, it must be difficult to walk around so mad at everything -- someone needs a hug. :-)

devin, your video example is a much closer parallel (though not *nearly* as serious, i'll strongly add) to the pharmacists who refuse to prescribe prescriptions for things they morally oppose.

however, this isn't a health issue or one of great importance: it's about your convenience, or now inconvenience, in buying beer.

as long as the merchants aren't violating your rights, they do nothing wrong. so buy your beer elsewhere--and while you're looking for a new bodega, perhaps it's time to go answer all the questions we've posed to you instead of skimming past them to find us new! sensational! video! that proves! your point!

friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=josseleen]Painful and permanent --most often against a girl's will -- scarring CANNOT (but, obviously, by an angry, close-minded man) be compared to one's choice to restrict one's own diet and not handle or sell products one personally does not endorse -- like ham and alcohol.

Doesnt that describe 'male circumcision' equally??? I know this is a topic jump and I'm sorry and I against female circumscision but I have been wondering how it is (other than our own societies prejudices) that we allow a non-doctor to cut off the foreskin of a baby with no anesthesia (nor have we outlawed religious jews from having this person SUCK the blood from the wound) but we find no hypocricy in prosecuting female circumcision criminally.

Wouldn't the hypocrisy be more in NOT prosecuting male circumcision, by your logic?

There's definitely a shift underway in the way people view male circumcision; more and more parents are opting not to do it and more and more people are coming to the conclusion that it's wrong. I include myself in that group, but that doesn't meant the two practices are the same. Female "circumcision" is hardly analagous to what happens when males are circumcised.

The "circumcision" practices most commonly used on females often involve complete removal of the clitoris, sometimes part or all of the labia minora, and even infibulation, in which the clitoris, all of the labia minora, and the inside of the labia majora are cut out and then the whole open wound is stitched together or pulled together with thorns and the girl's legs are tied together for several weeks, leaving a wall of scar tissue all the way back to the anus, with the exception of a tiny opening to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through. Oh, but then they'll slice her back open enough to let her husband get in there on the wedding night. And slice her open a little more when she's pregnant and in labor. Then sew the whole mess back up again. It's brutal.

If that much stuff got chopped off of boy babies, you could bet your bippy that there'd be as much of an outcry against it, if not more, than has happened historically against female genital mutilation. That doesn't make male circumcision okay, but acting as if the two practices are the same is just flat wrong.

And going back to Devincf's original mention of all of this, to draw comparisons between female genital mutilation and bodegas not stocking beer or ham is unbelievably stupid and insensitive.

I'm not weighing in pro/anti, but this was an interesting recent article...

H.I.V. RISK HALVED BY CIRCUMCISION, U.S. AGENCY FINDS

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63

sterling2000 wrote: I'm not weighing in pro/anti, but this was an interesting recent article...

H.I.V. RISK HALVED BY CIRCUMCISION, U.S. AGENCY FINDS

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9905E0D71531F937A25751C1A9609C8B63

Perhaps, but using condoms reduces the risk even more, without any snipping.

friendlypitbull wrote: [quote=apollonia666]

Wouldn't the hypocrisy be more in NOT prosecuting male circumcision, by your logic?

Either way - either you declare them both illegal or you allow both - (and in allowing it, obviously included in that is what you allowed - so while maybe you allow circumcsion only with anesthetic preformed by a doctor and only with "X" allowed to be removed)

Look I am personally against both BUT we are talking about what the law should allow.

apollonia666 wrote: Female "circumcision" is hardly analagous to what happens when males are circumcised.

Maybe most of the time it isnt analogous but female circumscision is illegal no matter how 'minimal' or 'severe' the procedure.

Again I am against it, and glad it is illegal - just like I am glad that dog meat is banned - yet I am not sure why eating dogs (and no one loves dogs more then me) is 'less humane' then eating Lambs (or whatever mammal you like). It just seems like we have alot of hypocricy and cultural mores inside these laws that we claim are based on 'universal truths'

apollonia666 wrote: And going back to Devincf's original mention of all of this, to draw comparisons between female genital mutilation and bodegas not stocking beer or ham is unbelievably stupid and insensitive.

I dont know about its sensitivity quotient but yes incredibly stupid.

there's a massive difference between removing the male equivalent of a clitoral hood and removing the entire clitoris, most of the labia and sewing the whole kit & kaboodle shut. no, I'm not pro-male circumcision (though, weirdly enough, my dad is trying to get circumcised due to complications from advanced diabetes - and why I know this is b/c my family is way to chatty), but I think that removing the foreskin is far less traumatizing and horrifying than removing most, if not all, of the entire sexual and orgasmic nerve clusters women are born with. men can come without their foreskin. it is arguably, and I'd argue in this direction, impossible for women to orgasm without their clitoris and the nerve clusters around their clitoris, including their labia. and sewing it all shut? sorry boys, I'm not going to equate that with removal of foreskin. don't get me wrong - I think that's not an awesome event. but I'm just not going to equate it. it's not removing your ability to experience sexuality, and sexual adulthood in any extreme way. you can orgasm and enjoy the sexual experience without your foreskin. I'm not so sure, and, in fact, I'm sure that most women couldn't enjoy the same experience without their clitoris.

RBG wrote: Notice the "No Dogs Please" sign. For what its worth, Pet Dogs (as opposed to guard dogs) are forbidden in Islam too...Does anyone care?

not true, in islam dogs are just not allowed to sleep or live indoors. so i can have a pet dog he just stays in the shed.

Perhaps all the MJ / Thriller hubbub of late.

ah, just when i was wondering whether there was anyone left who'd recognize my board title, this thread turns up like a bad penny.

devincf wrote: What if a Santeria church opened up and all of a sudden there were roosters running around everywhere?

Never been to Flatbush I take it?

only sells lamb....I wants my porks....


signed,

a concerned citizen