You make a great point, @Missy Lee , and I think that the churches should just hand out whatever food they usually do, and people can either take it or leave it. To go to a religion that believes different than they do and ask for a handout, instead of asking their own church for help is not how it should be, in any case. The Muslims follow the Old Testament, at least part of it, and it definitely says we are to take care of our families that are poor; so this should be a part of their church teaching also. It would seem to me more likely that they are doing this specifically to make an issue of it, than because they are truly in need of the food help.
Yvonne, I agree, they do it to make an issue. Part of the problem arises with what I call the "Enablers" those who encourage Muslim thoughts of separatism rather then trying to make them understand the need to fit in. Our pastor was an enabler. He would bring baskets of food to some of the women who used the excuse of not wanting to visit a food bank in person because they did not have a male to accompany them as he was at work. But yet when I pointed out these same women could go shopping in the company of other women he had no answer other than to tell me that I lacked compassion and understanding. I left the church, but took my faith.
I would like to say that my question has nothing to do with immigration, which I consider a separate issue. The recent problems with immigration worldwide may have fueled bigotry in some quarters but immigration alone does not inspire bigotry, nor is it the root of bigotry. I think here we have to determine the difference between discrimination and prejudice. Discrimination is an essential tool of analysis. Prejudice, whether the product of racial,class or social prejudice fuels bigotry. The Jets vs the Sharks is bigotry. Being patriotic is not, but patriotism is not a product of religion, colour , gender or whatever. True patriotism is about standards and values. The illustration I used has been misunderstood. Here we have a group of bigots who have defined themselves as the English Defence League attempting to abuse English nationals. That these nationals are Muslim, Hindu, Scottish Presbyterian ,, jewish, etc , is the point.They are all British Nationals - not immigrants. if it was about immigration , the English would be getting all the stick, the Scots, Irish and Welsh inhabited Britain long before the English moved here. Much like the Red Indian or Australian Aborigine. My question had nothing to do with turf-war and wasn't intended to be seen that way. Of course , Immigration needs to be sensibly controlled, but it is not the immigrants fault that it isn't controlled . Politicians are responsible for that particular chaos by not thinking of the consequences of their own policies and the lack of common-sense contingency plans to deal with the situations that may arise when their policies go wrong.That today's western Leaders have never considered the necessity for greater living-space is the root of turf-war.Short-term policies can't produce long term solutions. That depends upon forward planning and an eye to the big picture. However, none of that was intended to be directly related to the question. Perhaps, I didn't word it very well? If so, I apologize for the misunderstanding. I have friends of many varying Nationalites and racial origins , but that does not prevent me or them from supporting strong immigration controls. Many of the people I work with are British Asians and THEY voted Brexit. Politicians and the press use these labels to divide us, but we don't need to. To clarify that, to be anti-Immigration is not being anti-immigrant.
It is true that anti-immigration does not mean anti-immigrant @Billie Lane but the more than obvious feeling of superiority still exists among the home countrymen. They are welcome to come in legally and jump through all of the hoops to obtain citizenry, but "leave your customs, ethics, morals, language, laws, clothing and religion behind.". Even if and when they have accomplished all of the above, the immigrant is still looked upon as being inferior than the general population. In my most humble somewhat objective opinion, full acceptance and equality happens with the advent of a second or even third generation but even then, there is still the problem of racial bias from all sides. Now, as of late, there is one prevalent attitude that exists which endangers all races, creeds, sexes and those of faith (or lack thereof) which is the "forceful" approach. It's the act that some individuals or even groups have taken on in order to achieve a larger recognition which is to figuratively snatch people by the nape of the neck demanding that they be not only accepted but liked. In my small personal realm, if Anyone demands that I accept everything about a person including their entire culture and baggage, that person will only garner a vehemently terse response. If I am given some time to get to know someone, I will inevitably make a much calmer evaluation leaning more positive than negative.
When large groups of people from any one part of the world move to another part of the world, there are going to be problems. I don't know that this is significantly different that some who have come before, except that we're perhaps less able to absorb them today and, more significantly, we have a political environment that does not allow them to become integrated into the society naturally but, instead, seeks to force society to accommodate them. The Irish had terrible problems when they immigrated to the United States. They were beaten and even killed, and businesses would put signs out saying that the Irish were not welcome, or that the Irish need not apply. Eventually, they began to integrate into society, a task that began with learning to speak English, and I think it's fair to say today that most Americans couldn't tell an Irish person from anyone else. Anti-Semitism has been an American tradition. In fact, much of what Germany did in the 1930s and 1940s was based on things that that were being done in the United States first, only they took it a few steps further. There are still anti-Semites in the United States, I am sure, but those who have wanted to integrate into the society have pretty much managed to to so, while those who have the religious conviction to stand out are able to stand out. Much like the Orthodox Jews, the Old Order Amish have made a decision not to integrate with the rest of society and, while they have gone through periods of heavy discrimination, they are pretty much being used as tourist attractions today. Again though, the only reason they are not fully integrated into society is that they have chosen not to. The Chinese went through a lot of discrimination when they came here and, although it was surely before my time, they were treated as if they were not fully human. Now, Chinese is being taught in the public schools as the most important second language to learn. Where they may have had the biggest problems, as far as becoming integrated into American society have been where they have chosen to live amongst amongst themselves rather than to integrate. Again, where they have chosen not to integrate, they have not. We have a couple of Chinese families living in Millinocket and while things might look different from their perspective, I don't know that they're treated any differently than anyone else. People have been coming here from Mexico forever, and the problems seem only to take place where they choose to live amongst themselves, to fly the Mexican flag, to speak Spanish rather than English, and to treat our country as if we owed them something. Very few people have problems with Mexicans immigrating to the United States but there are limits as to how many people we can absorb, and those limits are much stricter when they want to absorb us instead. Yes, there are enclaves of expatriated Americans living in Mexico, and speaking English, but once their money runs out, they're gone. The Mexican government is not going to accommodate them, and the only reason anyone speaks English to them is that they want their money. They are not part of Mexico, and they certainly haven't been absorbed into Mexican society. Setting the increased threat of terrorism aside, the main reason why people have trouble with thousands of people coming here from the Islamic nations is not that they want to remain Muslim; we could accept that. The reason that this is unsustainable is that they are unwilling to be absorbed into American society. Unwilling to accommodate themselves to living in a country whose customs are different, they want us to change to accommodate them, and to do it at our expense.
If you are Canadian you need to pay your taxes or we will throw you in jail. You better not speed or you might get arrested. You better have all your vaccines or you cannot go to school. All this changes when you are a refugee you do not need a medical check before you enter the country or proof of any kind just your word. Who has more rights in Canada? This is happening in the US as well but not documented. You are a bigot or phobic if you say anything. BOMBSHELL: Inside Canada-USA "Refugee" Trafficking Ring
I think our current governor changed that, but our last governor - who is now our US Senator (Angus King) instructed the DMV not to require documentation for immigrants seeking a driver's license. Meanwhile, the rules for US citizens were strengthened, requiring two forms of identification.
Hmmm...When I lived in Mexico, it was a laughable common piece of knowledge that there was no such thing as a car without a dent in it.
Oh you people do go on. There seems to be much debate of late re Islamophobia, what defines ‘it’. Not to Kalvin of course Kalvin knows it if Kalvin sees or hears it and Kalvin would like to clear up any confusion. ( Those not confused can stop reading here and just look up xenophobia.) Since ‘it’ ,(naturally one must minimize the use of 'the term' as a first requirement not to offend), has been defined as unreasonable fear of uh...dare I say, Islam?) We have fortunately and vehemently been informed by pundits of every station and expertise as to those that are not real followers of Islam, not 'real' Muslims. On Kalvin's accepting that, then it's clear that Daesh,( known for killing dozens of people at a time and carrying out public executions, crucifixions and other acts.)Nigerian Boko Haram (bombings, assassinations and abductions), or the Assad regime,(dropping barrel bombs and poison gas on civilians.Are faux Muslims and not followers of Islam and the Qur'an. Nor can the Taliban, that blind school girls for seeking an education. Obviously those that murder civilians at churches or differing sectarian Islamic mosques are clearly not following Islam or Mohamed's written view on other religions. Nor are those that bomb civilians in subways or that murder journalist, correspondent, or newspaperman. Nor can those that would fly planes into buildings or persecute those as the Yazidi sect, for differing beliefs. So Kalvin say's that if you do indeed fear such as 'those' it's not Islamophobia at all since we've been repeatedly told by those that know such things, that these violent murderers are simply not followers of Islam at all. So if you have an unreasonable fear of their atrocities it can't be Islamophobia can it? It's more of xenophobia Kalvin says. If those perps aren't followers of Islam then, it' can't be Islamophobia. BTW if they aren't followers of Islam then they aren't Muslims. No wonder so many 'real' Muslims are Islamophobic...oops, sorry xenophobic. Kalvin has approved this message
Think of it like this Missy and maybe it will make you feel easier about the situation you see in your church's food bank. 'Goodness only shows up as goodness, if there is something to contrast with. By coming to you instead of being able to go to their own mosque, your goodness becomes more welcoming, more visible. Therefore rejoice in the opportunity to show what your faith has accomplished for good'. And hunger is hunger and you go wherever you must to ease the cries of your children. You've been given a blessed opportunity to reach beyond your own faith to help those who hunger. As far as them not wanting to eat pork and refusing foods that have it, well that's not unreasonable is it? If you had food allergies, would you refuse anything that had nuts or wheat or....? They have 'faith based food allergies'. I was under the impression though that all the refugees who came into Canada had already lived in camps for a couple years and from the time they arrived and made application, they were interviewed and assessed repeatedly by experts. I thought I heard somewhere that they are vetted for a couple years during the process. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, but that's what I've heard.
i don't know how Moslems worship in Canada, but in Great Britain at least the Mosque is open to people of all faiths to just walk in and enjoy a hot meal. Mosques are not just places of worship - they are open to the wider community also, if they are in need or if they just want to partake of a Biryani. it is an aspect of Moslem culture that does not get much publicity. Moslems at work often invite non-moslem friends to come to the mosque to share a meal. As long as you are prepared to take your shoes off there is no problem. On the other hand, Pakistani as people I have found to be more discriminatory and self-serving, but I think that has more to do with Pakistani culture than Moslem. By the way, i am a Jew and don't eat Pork either . P.S. I suspect that the family in question may be getting free meals from both the Mosque and the Church and cunningly saving money on home-cooked meals. This guy sounds like a bit of a user but you can't judge a group or it's faith by the behaviour of a minority. Even if it were true of all, should you let that awareness make you bitter?
Bigotry and hatred is at times in the eye of the beholder. Is one a bigot if their beliefs deny a legal marriage of two of the same sex? Is hatred against the law if the 'hater' believes in their reason? All too often today anyone expressing an opinion differing to that of their audience is automatically branded with a derogatory label, as an Islamophobic, or (if you're a Trump, a 'looser'. (a really really big looser.) A differing opinion should be given due consideration-- not a name calling epithet denigrating the person.