Am I about to over-react?

schemingbohemia

Well until the OP clearly states when and where these muslim players actively refused to eat "our ethnic food" then I stand by my statement that he is lying. When I say "actively" I mean that they clearly stated they would not eat food that was not halal not that they just didn't eat it.

The cricket community in Ireland is very small, I'd have heard of this if it had happened, that's why I have my doubts.

I note that you haven't warned the OP regarding his statement to the contrary.

robindch

I presume legspin is referring to islamic players not wanting to eat the sausages he referred to in the first post?

Shenshen

robindch wrote: »

I presume legspin is referring to islamic players not wanting to eat the sausages he referred to in the first post?

Much as I'm opposed to people allowing religion to dictate their lives, at the end of the day it's their choice what they put in their mouths and what they don't.

Some people choose to be vegetarian, some people have serious dislikes of certain foods, some people will not ever try anything they've not had before, and some people will only eat certain animals killed in a certain way.

I think to make a big issue out of this and to blame either side for not wanting to eat the "ethnic food" is getting fairly close to over-reacting.

robindch

schemingbohemia wrote: »

You are missing something - as a cricketer in most clubs the players themselves prepare sandwiches or cakes for themselves and the opposition, there's usually no "meal" per se.

Fair enough. So perhaps the islamic players could drop by a local Spar and grab a few ham sandwiches, bangers or whatever?

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I'm sure from the OPs subsequent comments that this is about other issues he has with muslims and nothing to do with dietary issues.

I don't quite see why. I could describe catholicism in pretty much identical terms as legspin described islam, but it's not going to stop me going (as I will be) to a friend's funeral next Monday in a catholic church.

Shenshen wrote: »

Much as I'm opposed to people allowing religion to dictate their lives, at the end of the day it's their choice what they put in their mouths and what they don't. [...]

I don't think anybody is trying to force islamic believers to eat sausages?

Shenshen wrote: »

I think to make a big issue out of this and to blame either side for not wanting to eat the "ethnic food" is getting fairly close to over-reacting.

I'm not making a big issue out of this and I don't think legspin is either. For me, and I believe for legspin, this is about reciprocation between hosts and visitors and it's about reciprocation only. Albeit in a case where the lack of reciprocation appears to derive, at least in part, from religion.

Nobody really seems to get the point about reciprocation, or to accept it if they do get it, and, well, I suppose in that case, there's not a whole lot of point in continuing to talk past each other.

/shrugs

schemingbohemia

robindch wrote: »

I presume legspin is referring to islamic players not wanting to eat the sausages he referred to in the first post?

I wouldn't eat the sausages he refers to either, being a vegetarian. Does that mean I'm disrespecting his club? Of course not. If I were coeliac would that be the same? Of course not.

This has nothing to do with dietary requirements it's to do with racism.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

[...] this is about reciprocation between hosts and visitors and it's about reciprocation only

schemingbohemia wrote: »

[...] it's to do with racism.

I give up.

schemingbohemia

robindch wrote: »

I give up.

You're not the OP, it's nothing to do with reciprocation - if you read his other posts and mine stating what actually happens at cricket teas you will understand.

You're putting a spin on what the OP stated.

wonderfulname

It's nothing to do with reciprocation, that is covered by serving you up grub you can eat. I don't understand how you guys can keep going on about manners with regards that and ignore that it's very basic manners to ignore your hosts/guests oddities when they have absolutely no effect on you.

doctoremma

wonderfulname wrote: »

It's nothing to do with reciprocation, that is covered by serving you up grub you can eat. I don't understand how you guys can keep going on about manners with regards that and ignore that it's very basic manners to ignore your hosts/guests oddities when they have absolutely no effect on you.

Woah.

doctoremma wrote: »

It is incumbent on a host to provide for guest's needs. However, it is also incumbent on a guest to be as gracious as possible when receiving hospitality.

wonderfulname

doctoremma wrote: »

Woah.

How could anyone ignore it if you hadn't said it?

Shenshen

robindch wrote: »

Nobody really seems to get the point about reciprocation, or to accept it if they do get it, and, well, I suppose in that case, there's not a whole lot of point in continuing to talk past each other.

/shrugs

I think I do get the point about reciprocation, well at least I think I do.
But I think that in some cases, there are limits. I would not eat meat even if my host served it to me, I would politely decline and eat whatever else there might be (non-meats, in other words). And I would not be prepared to cook a steak for someone who comes to me as a guest, while I would of course respect their own dietary requirements and preferences.

The point I'm trying to make is that some people impose dietary restrictions upon themselves, for religious reasons, for moral reasons, sometimes for no reasons at all. And asking them to disregard these for reasons of reciprocation is a little too idealistic, it would be better to find the common denominator (as in, food everybody can and wants to eat), rather than focus on the things that some can't or won't eat.

Mark Hamill

robindch wrote: »

Nobody really seems to get the point about reciprocation, or to accept it if they do get it, and, well, I suppose in that case, there's not a whole lot of point in continuing to talk past each other.

But how is the muslim team not reciprocating by offering food the OP has no dietary or ethical reasons not to eat?
From what I can see, the muslim team makes a spread that the OP can eat in its entirety, while the OPs team makes a spread that the muslims can only eat partially (they can't eat the non halal meat). Who is really reciprocating more?

Galvasean

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But how is the muslim team not reciprocating by offering food the OP has no dietary or ethical reasons not to eat?
From what I can see, the muslim team makes a spread that the OP can eat in its entirety, while the OPs team makes a spread that the muslims can only eat partially (they can't eat the non halal meat). Who is really reciprocating more?

Apparently to 'reciprocate' they have to go out of their way for the sake of going out of their way. Truly an exercise in pointless tit-for-tat if there ever was one.
It would be like if every time the Dubs played a game in Croker they had to 'reciprocate' the bother it took the opposition to get to Dublin by driving half way down to the country and then head back to Dublin again just because one player on the opposition team felt they weren't putting enough effort into turning up to their own stadium. Utterly pointless.