I note in the other thread about attacks on Mosques in Australia and sometimes Islamophobes defile Mosques or land intended for a Mosque with a pig's head.

Now, I'm aware of the Islamic injunction against eating Pork and I'm also aware that Muslims regard pigs in general as "unclean", however it appears it is quite easy to purify oneself and objects/places from contact with Pigs/Pork.   All you need do is wash your hands or in the case of your mouth if having eaten it, with water (and according to some pundits, Earth).

So, are the Islamophobes acting out of ignorance, in the belief that by placing the Pig's head where they do, they are going to render the site unclean for ever?   It appears so to me.

I am sure the usual crowd will respond in the usual way.  However, I'm genuinely interested to understand this phenomena.  Anti-Semites appear to believe the same thing and occasionally defile Synagogues in a similar manner.

Do both groups believe it is impossible for Muslims or Jews to simply clean up the mess and dispose of the Pig's head?   Of course they could just employ a non-believer I suppose to do it for them.    ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

So, are the Islamophobes acting out of ignorance ...

Yes.  Always.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 6:42pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2014 at 6:35pm: So, are the Islamophobes acting out of ignorance ... Yes.  Always.

Thanks, Greg, I know I can rely on you to state the bleedin' obvious.   ;D

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 6:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 15th, 2014 at 6:42pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2014 at 6:35pm: So, are the Islamophobes acting out of ignorance ... Yes.  Always. Thanks, Greg, I know I can rely on you to state the bleedin' obvious.   ;D

                                    ;)

I don't think they're trying to render the site unclean. They are simply making sure that their message is understood by using something Muslims specifically find offensive.

I also think you underestimate the psychological effect of pigs and pig products for a lot of Muslims as a result of centuries of indoctrination.

While I certainly don't think this is the case for everyone, when I was a Muslim I had nightmares about accidentally eating pork. I very rarely eat pig products even now because of some mild residual revulsion. My atheist husband rarely eats it since we met because of how I feel about it. I handle bacon a lot at work and found it quite confronting in the beginning. I did, however, make bacon and eggs for my husband and I on the weekend.

Annie,

Quote:

when I was a Muslim

Shock  horror.   :o :o :o :o :o :o

Bobby. wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

Annie, Quote: when I was a Muslim Shock  horror.   :o :o :o :o :o :o

Shock horror what?

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

I note in the other thread about attacks on Mosques in Australia and sometimes Islamophobes defile Mosques or land intended for a Mosque with a pig's head. Now, I'm aware of the Islamic injunction against eating Pork and I'm also aware that Muslims regard pigs in general as "unclean", however it appears it is quite easy to purify oneself and objects/places from contact with Pigs/Pork.   All you need do is wash your hands or in the case of your mouth if having eaten it, with water (and according to some pundits, Earth). So, are the Islamophobes acting out of ignorance, in the belief that by placing the Pig's head where they do, they are going to render the site unclean for ever?   It appears so to me. I am sure the usual crowd will respond in the usual way.  However, I'm genuinely interested to understand this phenomena.  Anti-Semites appear to believe the same thing and occasionally defile Synagogues in a similar manner. Do both groups believe it is impossible for Muslims or Jews to simply clean up the mess and dispose of the Pig's head?   Of course they could just employ a non-believer I suppose to do it for them.    ::)

There are a few good youtube clips by various christian pastors who talk about the filth of swine and that christians shouldnt eat pork.

Although muslims dont eat pork its doesnt make a place of worship impure.

wally1 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:

Although muslims dont eat pork its doesnt make a place of worship impure.

So I understood, so I was trying to fathom the point of using a Pig's head.

Annie, thanks, I thought it was some sort of attempt at emphasis by the Islamophobes.

However, as I noted, it appears quite easy to purify oneself after eating/coming into contact with pork.  Indeed, the verse on being forgiven for inadvertently eating pork appears pretty mild really.   If you purify yourself, it seems all is forgiven so I'm not sure why you'd be having nightmares, Annie.

There's a silly myth going around that islamophobes love - that jihadists allegedly believe that if they are shot and killed with a bullet laced in pig fat, they will go to hell. I believe it was actually done, or at least threatened by British colonialists trying to quash a muslim revolt in India in the 19th century.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 9:45pm:

There's a silly myth going around that islamophobes love - that jihadists allegedly believe that if they are shot and killed with a bullet laced in pig fat, they will go to hell. I believe it was actually done, or at least threatened by British colonialists trying to quash a muslim revolt in India in the 19th century.

Considering all the other primitive ideas Islam inflicts on its devotees, this rouse makes perfect sense.
I bet it worked.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 9:45pm:

There's a silly myth going around that islamophobes love - that jihadists allegedly believe that if they are shot and killed with a bullet laced in pig fat, they will go to hell. I believe it was actually done, or at least threatened by British colonialists trying to quash a muslim revolt in India in the 19th century.

I think you will find the genesis of that story is muslim militants telling other Muslims not to use the British bullets because the casings were waterproofed in pig fat.  It genuinely horrified loyal but devout soldiers, when the NCOs attempted to get the officers to explain it was not pig fat they were rebuffed which added to the simmering resentment. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 9:45pm:

There's a silly myth going around that islamophobes love - that jihadists allegedly believe that if they are shot and killed with a bullet laced in pig fat, they will go to hell. I believe it was actually done, or at least threatened by British colonialists trying to quash a muslim revolt in India in the 19th century.

Close but not quite as to one of the causes of the Indian Mutiny of 1857:

Quote:

Tallow and lard-greased cartridges The final spark was provided by the ammunition for the new Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle.[20] These rifles, which fired Minié balls, had a tighter fit than the earlier muskets, and used paper cartridges that came pre-greased. To load the rifle, sepoys had to bite the cartridge open to release the powder.[21] The grease used on these cartridges included tallow derived from beef; which would be offensive to Hindus,[22] or lard derived from pork; which would be offensive to Muslims. At least one Company official pointed out the difficulties this may cause: "unless it be proven that the grease employed in these cartridges is not of a nature to offend or interfere with the prejudices of caste, it will be expedient not to issue them for test to Native corps".[23] However, in August 1856, greased cartridge production was initiated at Fort William, Calcutta, following a British design. The grease used included tallow supplied by the Indian firm of Gangadarh Banerji & Co.[24] By January, the rumours were abroad that the Enfield cartridges were greased with animal fat. Company officers became aware of the rumours through reports of an altercation between a high-caste sepoy and a low-caste labourer at Dum Dum.[25] The labourer had taunted the sepoy that by biting the cartridge, he had himself lost caste, although at this time such cartridges had been issued only at Meerut and not at Dum Dum.[26] There had been rumours that the British sought to destroy the religions of the Indian people, and forcing the native soldiers to break their sacred code would have certainly added to this rumour, as it apparently did. The Company was quick to reverse the effects of this policy in hopes that the Indians would be quelled.[27][28] On 27 January, Colonel Richard Birch, the Military Secretary, ordered that all cartridges issued from depots were to be free from grease, and that sepoys could grease them themselves using whatever mixture "they may prefer".[29] A modification was also made to the drill for loading so that the cartridge was torn with the hands and not bitten. This however, merely caused many sepoys to be convinced that the rumours were true and that their fears were justified. Additional rumours started that the paper in the new cartridges, which was glazed and stiffer than the previously used paper, was impregnated with grease.[30] In February, a court of inquiry was held at Barrackpore to get to the bottom of these rumours: native soldiers called as witnesses complained of the paper "being stiff and like cloth in the mode of tearing", said that when the paper was burned it smelled of grease, and announced that the suspicion that the paper itself contained grease could not be removed from their minds.[31]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857#Tallow_and_lard-greased_cartridges]Source[/url]

There is also another myth about burying Muslims sewn into the skins of Pigs during the Philippine–American War (1899–1902).  However, this was later proved to be a myth by Snopes.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

wally1 wrote on Sep 15th, 2014 at 8:02pm: Although muslims dont eat pork its doesnt make a place of worship impure.  If you purify yourself, it seems all is forgiven so I'm not sure why you'd be having nightmares, Annie.

Me either. I also had nightmares about going out without my scarf on when I wore it, which makes even less sense because I used to take it off at the beach as I kept losing it in the surf. So it's not like I never appeared in public without it.

That's the power of religion - there's a shitload of guilt involved.

oink

Annie Anthrax wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 6:27am:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2014 at 8:35pm: wally1 wrote on Sep 15th, 2014 at 8:02pm: Although muslims dont eat pork its doesnt make a place of worship impure.  If you purify yourself, it seems all is forgiven so I'm not sure why you'd be having nightmares, Annie. Me either. I also had nightmares about going out without my scarf on when I wore it, which makes even less sense because I used to take it off at the beach as I kept losing it in the surf. So it's not like I never appeared in public without it. That's the power of religion - there's a shitload of guilt involved.

You swam without your headscarf on? Did it feel liberating?

Not particularly. I wore it because I wanted to at the time. I stopped when I didn't.

I'm like that with pants.

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 7:22pm:

I'm like that with pants.

Freeedom, innit.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Sep 16^th, 2014 at 6:27am:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15th, 2014 at 8:35pm: wally1 wrote on Sep 15th, 2014 at 8:02pm: Although muslims dont eat pork its doesnt make a place of worship impure.  If you purify yourself, it seems all is forgiven so I'm not sure why you'd be having nightmares, Annie. Me either. I also had nightmares about going out without my scarf on when I wore it, which makes even less sense because I used to take it off at the beach as I kept losing it in the surf. So it's not like I never appeared in public without it. That's the power of religion - there's a shitload of guilt involved.

Yes, nearly all of them have it.  Christians - original sin - is a good example.  Then you have all the bullshit the Church(es) have heaped on top of that.   St.Paul has, in particular an awful lot to answer for IMHO.   ::)

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 7:22pm:

I'm like that with pants.

Really?  The mind boggles.   :o

Annie Anthrax wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 7:20pm:

Not particularly. I wore it because I wanted to at the time. I stopped when I didn't.

Why did you want to wear it?

Because I felt like I was fulfilling a religious obligation and that was satisfying. I guess something similar to when a Christian observes Lent.

What makes the observant Christian different is that you cannot tell by looking at her that she is. Christianity is really in the heart, not on the sleeve and people find public demonstration of piety ostentatious. 
That revulsion and perception of showing off also applies to other religions public preening.

What did you think about demonstrating your Muslima credentials in public in a society where this is not the nor? Was there a dose of youthful rebellion in there?

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

What makes the observant Christian different is that you cannot tell by looking at her that she is. Christianity is really in the heart, not on the sleeve and people find public demonstration of piety ostentatious.  That revulsion and perception of showing off also applies to other religions public preening. What did you think about demonstrating your Muslima credentials in public in a society where this is not the nor? Was there a dose of youthful rebellion in there?

The old boy's a Freudian, Annie. He's only trying to help.

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 15^th, 2014 at 6:35pm:

Now, I'm aware of the Islamic injunction against eating Pork and I'm also aware that Muslims regard pigs in general as "unclean", however it appears it is quite easy to purify oneself and objects/places from contact with Pigs/Pork.   All you need do is wash your hands or in the case of your mouth if having eaten it, with water (and according to some pundits, Earth).

What did $Profit Mo say to do when a dog licks a utensil-

Quote:

When a dog licks the utensil,wash it 7 times, and rub it with earth the eighth time sunnah.com/muslim/2/119

So why do they have to wash it 7 times then rub it with dirt, does rubbing it with dirt defeat the purpose of washing it?

I would have thought washing it once would be sufficient.

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

What makes the observant Christian different is that you cannot tell by looking at her that she is. Christianity is really in the heart, not on the sleeve and people find public demonstration of piety ostentatious.  That revulsion and perception of showing off also applies to other religions public preening.

Yes, this is why the Pope wears a crown, the Cardinals those crimson robes and the bishops and priests their rich vestments, right?

Christians wear crucifixes, Christian women traditionally cover their heads in Church with a Mantilla.

Which weird denomination do you belong to?  Calvinists?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

|dev|null wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 2:52pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 9:52am: What makes the observant Christian different is that you cannot tell by looking at her that she is. Christianity is really in the heart, not on the sleeve and people find public demonstration of piety ostentatious.  That revulsion and perception of showing off also applies to other religions public preening. Yes, this is why the Pope wears a crown, the Cardinals those crimson robes and the bishops and priests their rich vestments, right? Christians wear crucifixes, Christian women traditionally cover their heads in Church with a Mantilla. Which weird denomination do you belong to?  Calvinists?   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D :D :D

1. On the job,  not when they are going to the movies.
2. A pendant on your necklace is neither here nor there.  If that's all you have to equate with the hijab or niqab then you know you are losing the plot.
3. Mantilla - IN CHURCH,  50 years ago.


Australiand do not like overt religious display outside places of worship.  It doesn't belong to the shared,  public space.

Mantillas are still worn traditionally in Spain and other largely Catholic nations.


Quote:

Based on an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, it has been traditional in many countries for women to wear some form of Christian headcovering in church. The light mantilla was often preferred to the more cumbersome hat. The custom was rarely observed in recent decades but is making something of a comeback in recent years.[citation needed] Papal protocol calls for mantillas to be worn by women, especially Catholics, when received in formal audience by the Pope. On such occasions, black mantillas were worn by Laura Bush in 2006, members of Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg at the papal inauguration of 2005, and Michelle Obama in 2009.[3] By contrast, Irish President Mary Robinson,[4][5] Soviet Union First Lady Raisa Gorbachev, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and German Chancellor Angela Merkel all met popes without wearing mantillas. Others who have worn black mantillas include Yulia Tymoshenko, Costa Rican President Laura Chinchilla, first ladies from Malaysia, Jordan, Iran, and Lebanon and ambassadors accredited to the Holy See. Laura Bush wearing a silk lace mantilla at a meeting between her husband George W. Bush and Pope John Paul II at Castel Gandolfo In accordance with what is known as the privilège du blanc, whereby Catholic female monarchs and the consorts of Catholic monarchs wear white when meeting the Pope, while black is traditionally, though now only optionally, worn by others, Queen Sofia of Spain wore a white mantilla at the requiem mass for John Paul II and at the inauguration of Pope Benedict XVI in 2005.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantilla#In_Roman_Catholicism]

A lot more recent than "50 years ago".   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

|dev|null wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 3:31pm:

Mantillas are still worn traditionally in Spain and other largely Catholic nations.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Not in Australia,  then,  you grinning fool.

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

|dev|null wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 3:31pm: Mantillas are still worn traditionally in Spain and other largely Catholic nations.    ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D Not in Australia,  then,  you grinning fool.

Moving the goalposts again?   ;D ;D ;D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 9:52am:

What makes the observant Christian different is that you cannot tell by looking at her that she is. Christianity is really in the heart, not on the sleeve and people find public demonstration of piety ostentatious.  That revulsion and perception of showing off also applies to other religions public preening. What did you think about demonstrating your Muslima credentials in public in a society where this is not the nor? Was there a dose of youthful rebellion in there?

Do you dress to please other people? If we didn't challenge norms, it would still be risqué to show a bit of ankle.

When I was a Muslim, I didn't wear the scarf as an emblem to say "Hey - look at me, everyone. I practice Islam." The hijab is functional - a tool for covering the hair.



freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 7:22pm:

I'm like that with pants.

Yes, I've heard that happens sometimes when we get old.

I'm looking forward to it.

Annie Anthrax wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:

Yes, I've heard that happens sometimes when we get old. I'm looking forward to it.

If only we could do that with the old boy. With him, we need to get it out, not keep it in.

FD wrote on Sep 17^th, 2014 at 9:47pm:

freediver wrote on Sep 17th, 2014 at 7:22pm: I'm like that with pants. Freeedom, innit.

I suggest a new poll: Q: should Free Diver change his screen name to Free Willy?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 4:52pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 9:52am: What makes the observant Christian different is that you cannot tell by looking at her that she is. Christianity is really in the heart, not on the sleeve and people find public demonstration of piety ostentatious.  That revulsion and perception of showing off also applies to other religions public preening. What did you think about demonstrating your Muslima credentials in public in a society where this is not the nor? Was there a dose of youthful rebellion in there? Do you dress to please other people? If we didn't challenge norms, it would still be risqué to show a bit of ankle. When I was a Muslim, I didn't wear the scarf as an emblem to say "Hey - look at me, everyone. I practice Islam." The hijab is functional - a tool for covering the hair.

The hijab and niqab are religious and social challenges to the norm, otherwise a hat or a cap would do. Public demonstration of the challenge is the main thing, I think, and challenging the non-muslim public sphere is crucial.

If Muslis were to dress in a certain way in private, Muslim spaces, it would be an obviously purely religious attitude. But bringing it to the neutral, nonreligious public space is a challenge to that very norm: neutral, nonreligious, public space.

It is as anachronistic in the west as the hashids' fur hats and frock costs or wearing a kimono to your office job in the city or Sikhs driving cabs with a turban or a PNG highlander applying for a job at Macca's  dressed in nothing but a penis sheath and a bone in his nose to accessorise.

Annie, I'm sure you didn't know why you wore the head scarf but Soren has I'm sure enlightened you and made you understand what it's personal significance was to you!   :o

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 7:14pm:

Annie, I'm sure you didn't know why you wore the head scarf but Soren has I'm sure enlightened you and made you understand what it's personal significance was to you!   :o

Exactly. I am a psychiatrist.

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:16pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Annie, I'm sure you didn't know why you wore the head scarf but Soren has I'm sure enlightened you and made you understand what it's personal significance was to you!   :o Exactly. I am a psychiatrist.

Ah, Freudian, right?  No wonder you're riding roughshod over Annie's views.  Sigmund was as sexist as you've just demonstrated yourself to be. ::)

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

Soren wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Annie, I'm sure you didn't know why you wore the head scarf but Soren has I'm sure enlightened you and made you understand what it's personal significance was to you!   :o Exactly. I am a psychiatrist. you're riding roughshod over Annie's views.  Sigmund was as sexist as you've just demonstrated yourself to be. ::)

You are throwing stupid accusations around like a madwoman her underwear.

I asked some questions about the motivation to bring religion into the non-religious, neutral public space. Annie can tell me her views on that.
You can too.

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 9:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 8:19pm: Soren wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Annie, I'm sure you didn't know why you wore the head scarf but Soren has I'm sure enlightened you and made you understand what it's personal significance was to you!   :o Exactly. I am a psychiatrist. you're riding roughshod over Annie's views.  Sigmund was as sexist as you've just demonstrated yourself to be. ::) You are throwing stupid accusations around like a madwoman her underwear.

The old boy, you see, is a psychiatrist.

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 9:27pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 8:19pm: Soren wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 8:16pm: Brian Ross wrote on Sep 18th, 2014 at 7:14pm: Annie, I'm sure you didn't know why you wore the head scarf but Soren has I'm sure enlightened you and made you understand what it's personal significance was to you!   :o Exactly. I am a psychiatrist. you're riding roughshod over Annie's views.  Sigmund was as sexist as you've just demonstrated yourself to be. ::) You are throwing stupid accusations around like a madwoman her underwear.

Rather proves Brian's point, I think!  Sexist!   ;D ;D :D :D ;D ;D

Soren wrote on Sep 18^th, 2014 at 6:51pm:

The hijab and niqab are religious and social challenges to the norm, otherwise a hat or a cap would do. Public demonstration of the challenge is the main thing, I think, and challenging the non-muslim public sphere is crucial.

You're imagining opposition. There was no thought as to what other people might think - I made a decision to take a more modest attitude toward my own dress.


Quote:

If Muslis were to dress in a certain way in private, Muslim spaces, it would be an obviously purely religious attitude. But bringing it to the neutral, nonreligious public space is a challenge to that very norm: neutral, nonreligious, public space.

It isn't a challenge. It's a personal dress choice - that's all it boils down to.

The objection to a woman choosing to cover her hair is strange. Do you have such strong opinions on bikinis and mini skirts? People should be free to dress how they choose as long as they aren't breaking any laws. You don't get to decide.

you guys are still going on about this? how long has it been now? 6 years?

Annie Anthrax wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:10am:

. Do you have such strong opinions on bikinis

Away from the beach, yes.


Quote:

and mini skirts? People should be free to dress how they choose as long as they aren't breaking any laws. You don't get to decide.

Mini skirts are not expressions of religious devotion (it's more a matter of taste and quite often it is in bad taste, like so many other expressions of 'individualty').

My main point is that the public space is neutral, non-religious, non-ideological and SO it can be shared by all.
In this neutral space there is toleration only where that which is disapproved is also allowed.

JC Denton wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

you guys are still going on about this? how long has it been now? 6 years?

Where have you been? What have you done?
Not in Dubbo still, I hope.

Soren wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:35am:

JC Denton wrote on Sep 19th, 2014 at 9:15am: you guys are still going on about this? how long has it been now? 6 years? Where have you been? What have you done? Not in Dubbo still, I hope.

i wish i could discuss my personal finances/situation here but this is not a safe conduit for the sharing of this information :o 8-)

lets just say its
ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

for me

8-)

Perhaps it isn't a religious type thing.

Perhaps they are just saying muslims are pigs?

You know, like "you're a filthy smacking pig" or "you're a head hacking pig"

JC Denton wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 9:15am:

you guys are still going on about this? how long has it been now? 6 years?

Yes, Imperium, but the conversation’s moved on.

We’ve gone from burqas to miniskirts.

Always, absolutely, never ever, eh?

King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 1:17pm:

Perhaps it isn't a religious type thing. Perhaps they are just saying muslims are pigs? You know, like "you're a filthy smacking pig" or "you're a head hacking pig"

How about pigs in blankets? Perfect finger food fot those unexpected guests.

Saos are versatile, FriYay, but some like to see a bit of meat on the plate.

You?

FD wrote on Sep 19^th, 2014 at 1:40pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Sep 19th, 2014 at 1:17pm: Perhaps it isn't a religious type thing. Perhaps they are just saying muslims are pigs? You know, like "you're a filthy smacking pig" or "you're a head hacking pig" How about pigs in blankets? Perfect finger food fot those unexpected guests. Saos are versatile, FriYay, but some like to see a bit of meat on the plate. You?

Me? I think you're dreaming about being back in Nam and chewing the cheese off scared young grunts, plastic Rambo.