The Soup That Eats Like Jihad

All summer, demagogues have been stoking the fires of religious bigotry against Muslims. Sometimes it's rank politicking, like when Republicans couldn't wait to get in on Pamela Geller's jihad against the Muslim community center in downtown Manhattan. Sometimes it's downright scary, as in the arson attack against an under-construction Islamic center in Tennessee.

And sometimes it's just plain dumb.

Campbell's Soup has been around forever, inspiring everything from classic TV commercials to Andy Warhol's iconic artwork. But did you know that when you open up a can of tomato soup, you're actually supporting jihad? That's the latest conspiracy theory from professional Muslim-haters.

You see, the Canadian branch of the Campbell Soup Company recently decided to expand their customer base by certifying some of their products as halal, or compliant with Muslim dietary laws. The halal laws are generally very similar to the kashrut dietary laws for Jews: no pork or blood, animals must be slaughtered in a specific way, etc. In fact, the Koran says quite clearly, "The food of the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] is lawful unto you and yours is lawful unto them."

But since Muslims are involved, the usual suspects are screaming that Campbell's creation of a new market for their products is actually a surrender to the Global Islamofascist Boogeyman Conspiracy™:

• Justin Phillips of Tea Party Nation: "Campbell's now making Muslim approved soups. Mmmmm Mmmmm not good. No more campbells for me."
• Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch: "ISNA has admitted ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. So why is Campbell's Soup rushing to do its bidding? 'M-M-Muslim Brotherhood Good?'"
• Pamela Geller: "Boycott Campbells, I say. Good in the Muslim Brotherhood. Warhol is spinning in his grave."
  

And so on. You get the picture. The official reason for the outrage is that the certification is being done by the Islamic Society of North America, a group which has been accused of being connected with terrorist groups in the Middle East and elsewhere. Never mind the fact that no actual evidence has ever been presented beyond nebulous claims of unspecified "ties."

Of course, the real reason for the outrage is Campbell's acknowledgment that Muslims with purchasing power exist. In the alternate universe inhabited by those who are freaking out over this quite ordinary business decision, all Muslims are terrorists who must be force-fed pulled pork sandwiches to exorcise the Islamic demons.

Now, if all this sounds oddly familiar, that's because it is. Decades ago, food companies decided to get new customers by selling their products to observant Jews. So they hired rabbis to come in, look at their operations, and certify that the products were kosher. Jew-haters went berserk, shouting that the Jews were imposing a secret "kosher tax" on food to fleece honest Christians. (While it is true that companies pay a fee to have their products certified as kosher, the fee is far more than offset by increased sales.) The rumor eventually died down and was mostly forgotten, although some anti-Semitic groups still claim the so-called "tax" exists.

The hullabaloo over Campbell's is exactly the same thing as the "kosher tax" canard. Just replace "Muslim" with "Jew" and "halal" with "kosher."

Someday, people will go shopping, see a little "H" or "ISNA" logo on the packaging, and think nothing of it, just like people today think nothing of kosher foods marked with a "K" or a U in a circle. And they will look back on this freakout and wonder how anyone could be so paranoid and gullible.

Not Their Brother's Keeper

Gene Cranick lives, or rather lived, in a house in Obion County, Tennessee. Last week, his house caught fire and he called 911. The fire department arrived, sirens blaring - and did nothing. They watched as his house burned to the ground.

You see, Obion County requires all residents to pay an annual $75 surcharge above and beyond their existing local taxes for fire protection. And Cranick hadn't paid. When the fire engines arrived, the firefighters told him he was out of luck because he hadn't paid up. Cranick, who freely admits he forgot to pay the bill, offered to pay on the spot, but the firefighters refused. Instead, they simply stood around as Cranick frantically tried to get someone - anyone - to listen. His house went up in flames, killing his pets (three dogs and a cat) and literally reducing his life to ashes.

It was only when the fire started spreading to his neighbor's property that the fire department went to work. The neighbor had paid the bill, you see. So the firefighters saved the neighbor's house while ignoring Cranick's.

When the story hit the wires earlier this week, the general reaction was stunned incredulity. Commentators generally couldn't believe that professional firefighters, who devote their lives to protecting people's lives and property, would just stand around and watch a house burn because the homeowner hadn't paid a bill. Even Daniel Foster of the conservative National Review was horrified:

I have no problem with this kind of opt-in government in principle - especially in rural areas where individual need for government services and available infrastructure vary so widely. But forget the politics: what moral theory allows these firefighters (admittedly acting under orders) to watch this house burn to the ground when 1) they have already responded to the scene; 2) they have the means to stop it ready at hand; 3) they have a reasonable expectation to be compensated for their trouble?

Proving that some people will never let anything as bleeding-heart as doing what's right get in the way of ideological purity, Cranick was promptly attacked by the usual "I've got mine so screw you" crowd as a freeloader. And Glenn Beck (big surprise) put his vaunted compassion on display front and center:

And it goes nowhere if you go on to well, compassion, compassion, compassion, compassion or, well, they should have put it out. What is the fire department for? No. What is the $75 for? To keep the firemen available, to keep the fire trucks running, to pay for the fire department to have people employed to put the fire out. If you don't pay your $75, then that hurts the fire department. They can't use those resources and you would be sponging off of your neighbor's $75 if you they put out your neighbor's house and you didn't pay for it - I mean if your neighbor didn't pay for it, you did, and they put out their house, your neighbor is sponging off of your $75 and as soon as they put out the fire of somebody who didn't pay the 75 bucks, no one will pay $75.

Even putting aside the obvious failure here of government services by subscription, the callous selfishness is just staggering. What kind of people would not only stand around and watch as a man's house burns to the ground, but actually applaud the firefighters who allow it to happen? Would they also congratulate cops who let a woman who hadn't paid a police surcharge be raped and murdered? Or maybe they'd cheer on doctors who let someone bleed to death in the ER because he doesn't have health insurance.

In Genesis 4:9, Cain asks God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" The answer to that, as given by those who said that Cranick was rightfully SOL, is not just "no," but "hell no."

This, in a nutshell, illustrates so much of what is wrong in America today. In so many instances, we have forgotten what it means to be a society and to take care of each other. We need to rediscover that.