SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Halal Supermarket in France Told to Sell Pork and Alcohol or Face Closure
A halal supermarket in France has been ordered to start selling pork and alcohol or face being shut down.
Good Price discount store in north-west Paris has been accused of breaching the conditions of its lease by not acting as a general food store, the local housing authority has claimed.
It argues that the local community in Colombes are not being served properly at the shop if no pork or alcohol products are sold there.
[...] The shop is allegedly prioritising a certain group within society which breaches the country's principles, the authority said.
Source: Metro
Cannes Bans "Burkinis" Over Suspected Link to Radical Islamism
The mayor of Cannes in southern France has banned full-body swimsuits known as "burkinis" from the beach, citing public order concerns.
David Lisnard said they are a "symbol of Islamic extremism" and might spark scuffles, as France is the target of Islamist attacks.
France is on high alert following a series of incidents including July's truck attack in nearby Nice.
Anyone caught flouting the new rule could face a fine of €38 (£33). They will first be asked to change into another swimming costume or leave the beach.
Source: BBC News
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tekk on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:00AM
Does the area have markets that cater to Jewish people? Halal and Kosher aren't exactly the most different concepts, after all. Whatever you think about Islam, surely a store should be able to carry or not carry products as they want right? Excluding stuff like (oh hey) alcohol, where you might need a special permit to sell it in parts of the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:17AM
While I'm not a fan of the pushback against Islam (well, at least not in such a trite fashion), I'd be interested in what the terms of the lease were for the store. It would be easier just to have a beer and sausages street vendor in front of the store.
I see this as the mirror to dry counties in the US.
I wonder if I can get Christian bookstores to stock so softcore porn with the same arguments?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:33AM
Christian Sharia = virtuous
Muslim Sharia = terrerist
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Subsentient on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:36AM
Well Christian religious law was never anywhere near as brutal, except for probably a few flukes in the middle-ages.
I'm agnostic, but Islam scares the hell out of me, because I spent some time reading the Quran.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:50AM
Well Christian religious law was never anywhere near as brutal
I lay the rise of organized crime in the US at the feet of Christians as well as the weirdness the US still has towards sex (although that banner is being carried by feminist now).
Luckily, the west has had a long secular tradition as a pushback against the worst aspects of totalitarian Christianity (abortion clinic bombings weren't that long ago).
I know Muslims (even the non-separatist black variety). I know Christians. There's good people to be found in both.
Take a trip to the deep south where the snake-handlers hold court. Tell me that Muslims are really that assbackwards in comparison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @04:26AM
Well, small nitpick. I gather you're correctly blaming alcohol prohibition for organized crime, but that was more the work of early feminists, though many were also Christian. It took another 50 years or so for feminism to evolve into a religion in its own right that's more an offshoot of Wicca. Ritual genital mutilation as practiced in the USA is squarely the fault of Christians, perhaps with behind-the-scenes urging by the Jews.
Abortion clinic assaults still trickle in. This nutbar [denverpost.com] popped up recently again. He's expecting that all the aborted fetuses will thank him when he gets to heaven. Granted, suicide bombers probably look sane next to him.
Otherwise, same here. I gather it's different in France, but I've noticed that a lot of Muslims have successfully integrated over here and are role models, teachers, business owners, community leaders, etc. It's nothing out of the ordinary for me to see a group of women in hijabs going about their grocery shopping at the supermarket. If they're all secretly plotting to implement Sharia law in my town, I guess the wool has been successfully pulled over my eyes to the point I apparently can't even perceive the male escort they're supposed to have.
Look in the right places, and one can find examples of Christians who are just as pants-on-head stupidcrazy as the Muslims we're all quaking in our boots about.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:11AM
Oh-kay. I live in the South. I can go to town anytime, and get a huge argument started, just by talking about the Civil War. I can get a similar argument going by talking about slavery. Oddly, I've never seen any of these snake handler freaks. I only read about them in the papers now and then. I've met more Satanists and wicca than I have met Christian snake handlers.
Maybe you can be more specific, and tell me where these snake handlers hold court? If you know where they are, I might even take a weekend to go watch them. Maybe I'll take along some sulfur - known to be a snake repellant. Toss a little sulfur here and there around the stage before things get started, just to see how it might make the entertainment even weirder.
And, it seems necessary to point out here that Muslims in the US are not the same species/flavor/variant to be found throughout the mideast, Asia, and the Pacific. Muslims in the US amount to a very small percentage of the population. In the mideast especially, they are at least 80% of the population.
Have you ever examined the Salem witch hangings? The "judges" never uncovered a single fact. What happened there was, a bunch of pious people engaged is some rather petty accusations at first, then drove each other into some hysterical excesses. Nothing they did was "legal", but it seemed all right and proper in a moment of hysteria. THIS is what Sharia is all about. You get a bunch of pious people to examine an incident in light of threats, promises, and contradictory guidance from the Quran. Each of these pious people might be reasonable in person, but in the "court", they become something else.
So, your accused stands in front of a crowd of people, and some religious zealot who has to make examples, to satisfy the hysterical crowd in front of him.
"Off with his head" becomes reasonable in such an environment.
Go ahead, take some lessons from Christianity. Go get yourself a book or ten, and study the Salem witch hangings, as well as the legal and religious inquiries into the hangings. Really, analyze the witch hangings. Sharia courts offer us all of the worst of Christianity's most embarrassing incidents.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @07:09AM
Just read the news. it seems a death always shows up every few years.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/kentucky-snake-handler-bit-during-church-service-refuses-medical-treatment-and-dies-142061/ [christianpost.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:11PM
I've got nothing against suicide. If he were insisting that someone else not get treated, that would bother me. If he refused to get treated himself, it's just a Darwin Award.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @01:10PM
Maybe you can be more specific, and tell me where these snake handlers hold court?
Once again Runaway's ignorance of his own environs needs the resources of SoylentNews to bail him out. How can such ignorance survive in the modern world? Any-whooo: Pentacostals. The "burn on the fifth day" people. Protestants, fundamentalists, they take a few lines about how true believers can handle venomous vipers (not the car, idiot) and not be harmed; drink deadly poison, and not die; listen to Fox News, and not be turned into glibbering imbeciles. Turns out, they were wrong about all of these, or what is more likely their own explanation, they lack sufficient faith. You know how much faith it takes to withstand Fox News? Have you ever contemplated what it would be like to pleasure Roger Ailes? This is the level these snake handlers do not rise to, but average Republicans manage to do this every day, some of them twice a day! (And, no, I will not name names. )
So, we have Catholics, whom most of the wacko (waco?) christians do not consider to be christian. Does the Pope shit in the woods. Then there are the Lutherens, mostly northern, Scandanavian or Kraut types. Of course, there are the Anabaptists sects, Hutterities and Menonnites and Stalagtites: all pacifists and mostly harmless. Regular Baptists not so much. Most of these are the "holy rollers", prone to demonic possession, speaking in tongues and writing bad checks. Then we have the Methodists, Episcopalians, and Anglicans: they think Jesus was British, and that both Trump and Hillary are one of them. Finally, two very bad kinds of christians: Prosperity Gospel, and Identity Christianity. Creflo Dollar thinks Jesus wants you to be rich; pretty obvious he never read the gospels. Rich people burn in hell, along with their money, which is what keeps the hellfires burning, so hell is really not likely to freeze over soon. And then the Identity folks: Neo-Nazis, Jesus was a white guy, because what kind of loser inbreed Aryan type would want to follow a Jewish carpenter? I mean, they would much rather just handle snakes, drink poison, and die! And really, this is the best we can hope for.
Now, as for the Planet Kolob; Christianity as a means to get a prophet laid! Yeah! And if only there were some way to get it to propagate over generations. Hmmmm?
So now, Runaway1956 from the Missouri Synod, do you know where the snake-handlers hold court? It is not a reference to a "Conan" movie. Right there, down the gravel street from you! Pentecostals? Assembly of God-ites? Calvary Chapel? Steeple-jackers, Dominionists, Republicans.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:20PM
You seem to make the mistake of ASSuming that all Pentecostals are snake handlers. In fact, you almost seem to think that all Christians are Pentecostals, and thus, snake handlers.
Again - I've not seen any of these snake handlers "holding court" anywhere around me. Among the craziest "Christians" I have seen, are Jehovah's Witnesses. We don't even have any Mormon/Latter Day Saints, or similar offshoots near by. One of them tried to move into a town south of Texarkana, but the law snatched his ass up. http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/texarkana/story/2008/sep/26/fbi-arrests-tony-alamo/87603/ [texarkanagazette.com]
Snake handlers. Most of the dimmest of rednecks around here think that snake handlers are freaking crazy. They aren't attending any snake handler sermons, shows, conventions, courts, or whatever. I suppose that there might be a few crazies within a hundred miles who believe in that crap, but they aren't building any Snake Handler churches.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 15 2016, @06:34PM
We don't even have any Mormon/Latter Day Saints, or similar offshoots near by.
You'd be surprised, we're everywhere ;) [lds.org]
One of them tried to move into a town south of Texarkana, but the law snatched his ass up.
As they should, Warren Jeffs and his ilk are self-destructive nutjobs. The 10+ Million of the rest of us worldwide are law abiding and want nothing to do with that crowd.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:38AM
Organized crime and bombing is against the word and example of the Christ.
What about terrorism (self sacrifice taking out lives of infidel) and the word and example of the Prophet pbuh (peace LOL)?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Sunday August 14 2016, @07:06AM
Are you calling the crusades flukes?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @07:46PM
The Crusades had a lot of different reasons. Religious zealotry, the same economics that drive many young people to enlist today, plain old politics, and, of course, a history of warfare.
652: Sicily is attacked by Muslims coming out of Tunisia (named Ifriqiya by the Muslims, a name later given to the entire continent of Africa).
653: Muawiya I leads a raid against Rhodes, taking the remaining pieces of the Colossus of Rhodes (one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world) and shipping it back to Syria to be sold as scrap metal.
654: Muawiya I conquers Cyprus and stations a large garrison there. The island would remain in Muslim hands until 0966.
655: Battle of the Masts: In one of the few Muslim naval victories in the entire history of Islam, Muslim forces under the command of Uthman bin Affan defeat Byzantine forces under Emperor Constant II. The battle takes place off the coast of Lycia and is an important stage in the decline of Byzantine power.
669: The Muslim conquest reaches to Morocco in North Africa. The region would be open to the rule of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates until 800.
August 23, 676: Birth of Charles Martel (Charles the Hammer) in Herstal, Wallonia, Belgium, as the illegitimate son of Pippin II. Serving as Mayor of the Palace of the kingdom of the Franks, Charles would lead a force of Christians that turn back a Muslim raiding party near Poitiers (or Tours) which, according to many historians, would effectively halt the advance of Islam against Christianity in the West.
691: Birth of Hisham, 10th caliph of the Umayyad Dynasty. It is under Hisham that Muslim forces would make their deepest incursions into Western Europe before being stopped by Charles Martel at the Battle of Poitiers in 0732.
700: Muslims from Pamntelleria raid the island of Sicily.
711: With the further conquest of Egypt, Spain and North Africa, Islam included all of the Persian empire and most of the old Roman world under Islamic rule. Muslims began the conquest of Sindh in Afghanistan.
July 19, 711: Battle of Guadalete: Tariq ibn Ziyad kills King Rodrigo (or Roderic), Visigoth ruler of Spain, at the Guadalete River in the south of the Iberian peninsula. Tariq ibn Ziyad had landed at Gibraltar with 7,000 Muslims at the invitation of heirs of the late Visigoth King Witica (Witiza) who wanted to get rid of Rodrigo (this group includes Oppas, the bishop of Toledo and primate of all Spain, who happens to be the brother of the late king Witica). Ziyad, however, refuses to turn control of the region back over to the heirs of Witica. Almost the entire Iberian peninsula would come under Islamic control by 718.
712: Muslim governor of Northern Africa Musa ibn Nusayr follows Tariq ibn Ziyad with an army of 18,000 as reinforcements for the conquest of Andalusia. Musa's father had been a Catholic Yemenite studying to be a priest in Iraq when he was captured in Iraq by Khalid, the "Sword of Islam," and forced to choose between conversion or death. This invasion of Iraq had been one of the last military orders given by Muhammed before his death.
714: Birth of Pippin III (Pippin the Short) in Jupille (Belgium). Son of Charles Martel and father of Charlemagne, in 0759 Pippin would capture Narbonne, the last Muslim stronghold in France, and thereby drive Islam out of France.
715: By this year just about all of Spain is in Muslim hands. The Muslim conquest of Spain only took around three years but the Christian reconquest would require around 460 years (it might have gone faster had the various Christian kingdoms not been at each other' throats much of the time). Musa's son, Abd el-Aziz, is left in charge and makes his capital the city of Seville, where he married Egilona, widow of king Rodrigo. Caliph Suleiman, a paranoid ruler, would have el-Aziz assassinated and sends Musa into exile in his native Yemen village to live out his days as a beggar.
716: Lisbon is captured by Muslims.
717: Cordova (Qurtuba) becomes the capital of Muslim holdings in Andalusia (Spain).
For many more reasons to hate the Mohammedan, look here.
http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html [thelatinlibrary.com]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Sunday August 14 2016, @12:32PM
The Inquisitions (yes, that's plural, it wasn't just Spain). The Crusades. The heretics burned at the stake (sometimes for political reasons). The wars between various factions of Christians (e.g. Huguenots). The torture and execution of Joan of Arc. The genocide of American First Nations and quite a few other native peoples. The trans-Atlantic slave trade, complete with widespread rape and torture. All of these were justified via Christian religious law.
And Christianity is used to justify acts of terrorism in modern times, including but not limited to the activities of the KKK and attacks on abortion clinics. And laws like the death penalty for homosexuality going on in Uganda.
The cause of brutality is people who want to be brutal. Some of them wrap up those desires with religious language, and some with various political ideologies.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:18PM
Actually, if I read my histories correctly, the main driver of both the Crusades and the Inquisitions was to steal the wealth that other people had accumulated. Think of it as Civil Forfeiture on steroids. This isn't to deny that a few of the instigators actually did have "religious" intent, but without the support that stealing the wealth provided they would never have gotten off the ground.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday August 14 2016, @08:27PM
Actually, if I read my histories correctly, the main driver of both the Crusades and the Inquisitions was to steal the wealth that other people had accumulated.
The main driver of any religion being adopted and used by a government is to use it to control the masses. Stealing their wealth is part of that.
Christianity advanced in Rome because the powers that be realized it is a religion perfect for capitalism oriented governments. Christianity is firstly a religion tailored for the poor and down-trodden in that it offers an after-life for people that are not enjoying the present life, much propagandizing of the virtue of being poor and suffering, and paradoxically, the worship of feudal/monarchical/hierarchical authority. It still works that way today.
Islam is a spinoff of that, specifically adapted to gain support of the large number of men who, because of a lack of wealth, will have limited or no access to women in their life. Promise them a pile of virgins after they die and send them off to wage war for the wealthy.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Monday August 15 2016, @12:40AM
To paraphrase Kevin Smith, so long as you didn't eat meat on a Friday, you didn't get put to the racks by the Church.
compiling...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @04:58AM
You have a serious problem with your Christian Sharia gimmick. See, it was tossed out centuries ago. There WAS a time when judges in Europe were actually Catholic clergy. I suppose there was an interim period when Protestant judges acted as judges, in place. But, eventually, all of Europe tossed the Christian clergy judges, and put secular judges in place. Secular judges have been known to adhere to Christian standards - and they have also been known to depart wildly from Christian standards.
Here, in the US, there were no instances of Christian cleric acting as judges. If they did so, they were violating several laws, primary among them, practicing law without a license. After about 1776, the church and the state were clearly separated. "Congress may enact no laws with respect to religion".
There is no Christian Sharia, and you only make yourself sound foolish when you try to make one up. It is unfortunate that the US still has "blue laws" on the books. Without those blue laws, your claims of Christian Sharia would sound not only foolish, but ridiculous.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:44PM
I'm not going to engage in a discussion about GP's analogy. But there are a bunch of problems with your claims.
See, it was tossed out centuries ago. There WAS a time when judges in Europe were actually Catholic clergy. I suppose there was an interim period when Protestant judges acted as judges, in place. But, eventually, all of Europe tossed the Christian clergy judges, and put secular judges in place. Secular judges have been known to adhere to Christian standards - and they have also been known to depart wildly from Christian standards.
I think you're confusing a lot of things here. There are these things called ecclesiastical courts [wikipedia.org], which are run by religious bodies and determine religious standards for conduct, etc. They have a long history and were generally more powerful in the Middle Ages in Europe (where they had broad purview over moral law). But most organized countries in Europe have had civil courts as well dating back to the Middle Ages and sometimes earlier, which could pass sentences for civil offenses. Ecclesiastical courts still exist in many Christian denominations, both in Europe and in the U.S. They just now have very limited jurisdiction compared to earlier times, mostly dealing with internal church matters. And as for Protestants, you may want to look into your anti-Catholic bias. (I'm not Catholic, not that it should matter.) The Protestant Reformation saw some of the worst abuses of the church taking over civil power in many areas -- quite a few Protestant church reformers essentially ruled as dictators for a while within their town or city.
Anyhow, clerics were (and are) commonly judges in ecclesiastical courts. Civil courts generally have been presided over by secular judges or local magistrates (sometimes, depending on the region of Europe, the local magistrate might have been a cleric centuries ago).
Here, in the US, there were no instances of Christian cleric acting as judges.
As noted in the link above, there are functioning ecclesiastical courts in the U.S. which have clerics as judges. They just have limited jurisdiction these days. And I'm just going to assume you're ignoring the long history of Puritan law in the colonies prior to the Revolution, which gave us things like the Salem witch trials. (However, it should be noted that even in things like the Salem witch trials, the judges were NOT clerics, but nevertheless followed the general religious laws established in the colonies of the time.)
If they did so, they were violating several laws, primary among them, practicing law without a license.
It should be noted that ecclesiastical courts determine their own qualifications for judges. And entrance to the (civil) bar in the 19th century and earlier was generally a rather casual thing, often just consisting of a conversation with a local judge in many municipalities to ensure you weren't a complete idiot. It wouldn't be hard at all for a Christian cleric at that time to gain proper credentials for practicing law, and indeed many did. (Though relatively few became judges, not because they were barred from it, but likely because being a major court judge was a full-time job, so it would take them away from church responsibilities. And in smaller towns, etc., local civil magistrates traditionally served as local judiciary for minor matters, regardless of whether they passed the bar or not.)
After about 1776, the church and the state were clearly separated. "Congress may enact no laws with respect to religion".
This is probably the most questionable of all of your claims. First of all, the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) wasn't adopted until 1791. Second, the text reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In the early U.S., the Bill of Rights was only perceived as applying to the FEDERAL government, so this was taken (and MEANT) literally by the Founders of the U.S.: CONGRESS (i.e., the federal government) shall not make a law ESTABLISHING a religion (or regarding whether or not it could be established for that matter). A few states thus maintained official established religions for decades after the Constitution was enacted -- Massachusetts was perhaps the last to repeal its official Congregationalist religious affiliation in the 1830s. (Note that during this period, state law required all Massachusetts residents to attend a local parish church, as chosen by the majority of the town residents. Technically, the church's denomination could be chosen to be different by the town leaders, but in Massachusetts it was almost solely Congregationalist. The last state to officially have a statewide established religion was Connecticut, which disestablished its Congregationalist affiliation in 1818.)
It wasn't until Everson v. Board of Education [wikipedia.org] in 1947 that the Establishment Clause was officially ruled to apply to state and local governments. Prior to that, many states had all sorts of laws relating to religious stuff. Some states maintained religious tests for public office for decades after they official disestablished their churches -- North Carolina, for example, allowed only Protestants to hold public office until 1835 and required office-holders to be Christians until 1876. Another area of prominent religious policy for states and local governments was in the public schools. My father still tells stories of how his public elementary school principal used to read from the Bible at a weekly assembly devoted essentially to prayer and Christian religious teachings (this was prior to the SCOTUS decision mentioned; he also remembers when it suddenly stopped).
Anyhow, yeah, today there's a pretty clear separation. It just happened over 150 years after you said it did. And one could argue that the influence of religious moral law still reaches far into secular law in the U.S., with arbitrary moral laws against homosexuality for example only recently being overturned. That's a prominent example, but there are plenty of other remnants of Christian teachings enshrined in legal statutes in the U.S.
Again, obviously that has a very different standing and scope that Sharia law, but pretending our legal system and government has always been completely separated from Christian religion just isn't true.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:38PM
Good, you have a much better understanding of religious law history than I do.
But, pretty much everything I've read here essentially agrees with me - Christianity hasn't had the authority to put people to death in this country for - how long, exactly? A long time, right?
Now, compare to Sharia courts, where death sentences are routinely handed down by imams.
And, that's what kills me about "progressives". They fight so hard against Christian law - but then they want to permit the Muslims to establish their own Sharia in our land. They seem to believe that a Sharia court is equal to the ecclesiastical courts you mention. In fact, the Christian ecclesiastical courts amount to little more than a regulating board for "club members". If you're a member of the club, or church, you agree to abide by the rules of the club. No death sentences though. They can't confiscate your property. The worst they can do, is to excommunicate you from the church. Am I right?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday August 15 2016, @11:18PM
Ha!! Got ya, Runaway1956!
And, that's what kills me about "progressives". They fight so hard against Christian law - but then they want to permit the Muslims to establish their own Sharia in our land.
No, progressives don't want to establish sharia law, we just want yokels like yourself to think we do so you will crap your pants in fear because it is so darn funny! Sometimes we even encourage the right-wing nut-job delusion that the President of the United States would somehow have the legal ability to establish a national religion. You know, like when JFK was going to make all Americans be Catholic? When if same-sex marriage was legalized, we would have to all get gay married? But then, these are the people who ran Romney, a know proponent of religious law and special underwear from behind the Zion Curtain!! All of these are paranoid right-wing fantasies. Why do conservatives get so much pleasure out of being so afraid? Boo!! Look out, there's a sharia behind you! Ha ha!!!
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:21PM
There might not be a Christian "sharia" law per se, but we are inflicted with many laws because True Christians™ pass stupid laws to make everyone else comply with their idea of morality.
Some years ago, I was living in Bexar County (San Antonio, TX) and on Sunday you could not buy anything at the supermarket but food; no tools, alcohol, clothes, etc.
A while ago, under pressure from businessmen the law was reduced to no sale of alcohol on Sunday, except in restaurants or hotels. See Ordinance [localalcohollaws.com]
The "sharia" is what some old men want everyone to do, regardless of the people's opinion about it.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:33PM
So by your own observations, the church is LOSING GROUND. I believe I mentioned above that there are "blue laws" still on the books. Some of them have been repealed when challenged in various parts of the country. The prohibition on the sales of alcohol on Sundays will be the last of those to go, but it's coming.
Obviously, there are no Christian Sharia laws left - the clergy can't haul you in off the street and have you hanged, stoned, beheaded, or thrown off the top of the tallest building around.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Arik on Sunday August 14 2016, @12:13PM
"I wonder if I can get Christian bookstores to stock so softcore porn with the same arguments?"
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:38PM
That put me in mind of a scene in Oscar Wilde's Salome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMO4Qi4AFhc [youtube.com] at 26:36 though to be fair, Wilde's is more porny.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday August 14 2016, @04:07PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday August 14 2016, @03:39AM
This issue in this case is that the lease specified that the lessee would run a general food store.
He is really being evicted for breaking the terms of his lease. It comes down to the definition of "general". I think that, if you only cater to a subset of the population, you are not running a "general" food store.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 14 2016, @04:35AM
Sure, but lets be honest, this is a shot fired in a culture war. Perhaps no constitutional (?) rights were violated since it is supposed a lease violation, but it is pretty clear they owner has an axe to grind. Personally I see it as a great opportunity for someone to open a liquor and meat shop nearby.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:17AM
Yeah, great opportunity, except for zoning laws. Here in the States, one would have to deal with the EPA, the Health Department, as well as zoning laws to open a new butcher shop in most areas. In the case at hand, there is an established shop, which has all the applicable permits etc, and which is expected to cater to the needs/wants of the general community. It may be difficult to convince city hall that another market is required, and to get the zoning laws changed to permit it.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday August 14 2016, @08:37PM
Yeah, great opportunity, except for zoning laws. Here in the States, one would have to deal with the EPA, the Health Department, as well as zoning laws to open a new butcher shop in most areas.
I know it is fashionable among conservatives to blast the EPA, but why drag them into this argument? I doubt you will find more than a handful of ordinary small businesses in the US that struggle because of any Federal regulations. Those are well known and fairly static, with established businesses to help one comply. It is the ever changing blizzard of city, county and state permits and regulations that are always the biggest barrier, especially if some local politician is opposed.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday August 14 2016, @09:00PM
I didn't specify that the EPA is especially difficult to deal with - but they must be dealt with. If you're going to open a butcher shop, you're going to jump through a myriad of hoops before opening day arrives, and the EPA holds some of those hoops.
What is more, the EPA can be used as a bludgeon by some clown who objects to industry standards. They've been called on my plant a couple of times. We weren't violating EPA regulations, but they have to check out any allegations of pollution. When they are being nice, but thorough, they are a pain to deal with. One can easily imagine what they might be like if the agent assigned takes a dislike to the personnel, and/or the plant involved.
I only meant to point out that there isn't just one agency to deal with.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday August 14 2016, @07:09AM
So they need to carry goat heads for Ethiopian immigrants as well? Otherwise it's just a subset they're catering to. Does your local general store carry goat heads? Surely they have lutefisk as well.
I think it's fairly clear what this is all about.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gravis on Sunday August 14 2016, @02:19PM
what is expected to be sold at a general store is defined by the national culture. so yes, they are catering to a subset of the global population, the french. so if what you say is true, if this store were in ethiopia, they could be expected to sell goat heads.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday August 14 2016, @05:45PM
They are also catering to a subset of the local population. Native born french with no sense of culinary adventure.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 15 2016, @07:14AM
You do realise that cuisine world-wide is measured against the standards of a French company who devised a system of assessing the cuisine in France - the Michelin star? French cuisine is famous all over the world. Many of the top chefs are also French.
To suggest, if I am reading it correctly, that native born French people do not appreciate fine cooking or are lacking in a sense of adventure is a well wide of the mark, although I do accept that the description could be applied to a small subset of any country. However, French cuisine is based on quality rather than quantity - the large portions served in many other countries are viewed with horror here and suggest gluttony rather than refined dining. As a result there are far fewer overweight people in France than might be common elsewhere.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday August 15 2016, @08:41AM
I am aware of Michelin and have no problems with them or their guide book. I also have no problems with French cuisine. If one is looking for French cuisine, I have no doubt the ingredients can be found in many shops in France. If one is looking for other cuisine, you might have to find a specialty store. But yes, if that's all you're ever interested in, it does suggest a lack of a sense of culinary adventure.
The idea that every little store serves 100% of the food interests of all of the local people is a bit unlikely, shall we say, given an influx of immigrants and hopefuls.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Monday August 15 2016, @11:25AM
I live in France. I have little problem buying ingredients for European, Asian, African, Caribbean, or even American cuisine - well actually the latter can be slightly difficult because they tend to contain too much salt or sugars to meet EU recommendations and tastes. There are specialty stores which are very well stocked, but most supermarket chains (Carrefour, Leclerc, etc) have a adequate supply of ingredients. I am the sole cook in my household and I produce a very mixed menu for my wife and I.
But I dare say there are many here who do not have such an eclectic palate. And in rural areas some things are harder to find than others.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday August 16 2016, @06:18AM
I get the feeling that the supermarket in question is much smaller than either of those.
I feel fortunate here that we have several significant immigrant communities around here so the markets do carry a wide variety (no lutefisk). Alas, sushi grade fish is a fair drive away. My wife does much of the cooking but I take over some days and I'm the designated pastry chef (well, I cook the desserts anyway).
Sadly, far too many people here seem to have lost the art of cooking and become dependent on microwave food. Slowly the pendulum is swinging, in part due to the Food Network helping people learn what their parents should have taught them.
(Score: 3, Funny) by AthanasiusKircher on Sunday August 14 2016, @02:36PM
Does your local general store carry goat heads? Surely they have lutefisk as well.
I'm fine with the goatheads, but lutefisk? Sorry, that stuff is literally toxic. (For example, the state of Wisconsin actually passed a specific act to exempt lutefisk from toxic disclosure laws.) And the smell... it can infect an entire building.
Look, I've had it. I have nothing against those who want to eat it. But when a toxic substance will could render an entire grocery store so odoriferous that no one would want to shop there, I think that's something we should agree need NOT be required for a general store. It should go in the same category the French put Epoisses cheese in (note that Epoisses is banned on public transportation in France due to its odor). I'd rather eat a pound of Taleggio than a taste of that stuff. Speaking of cheese, maybe we can include some Gjetost for Scandinavian diversity rather than lutefisk?
(Score: 3, Touché) by sjames on Sunday August 14 2016, @06:59PM
Admittedly, I went a bit extreme with the lutefisk.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Sunday August 14 2016, @07:40AM
It certainly isn't hard. Most of you have called the support line ...
"Yeah, we sell Bacon, but due to high demand, it is currently out of stock. Call back sometime next month."
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday August 15 2016, @01:32AM
Halal and Kosher are both stupid.
What kind of weirdo micro-managing god cares what we eat?
Yes, yes I know it comes from hygiene rules but surely refrigeration removed the need for that?