Comments on: Dogma: Blind Man’s Dog Barred From Restaurant as Offensive to Muslims

By: harebell

harebell — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 23:59:54 +0000

Anon
we don’t need to steer away from one particular set of religious instructions with regard to the law, we need to steer away from all religious instruction when they run counter to common law.
Common law is a changeable unifying factor in society. Religion is divisive; even within the same faith folk can’t agree on points of faith let alone bridging the great chasms between faiths.
If their is a clash between faiths who’s faith is correct?
In the end a blind person needs that dog to operate properly, if it was a pig then it would be exactly the same argument. To me an animal is an animal and pigs when kept properly are much cleaner than cattle and goats and are certainly pickier in their diet. Pigs also are infinitely more intelligent than most animals.
As for the kosher bit, well that is different the restaurant has set itself up as a specialist restaurant. If the restaurant in the article had said that it was a halal moslem restaurant and listed at the door any restrictions then maybe you might have a point.
Also this was an Indian Restaurant what’s the hindu take on this? Do you reckon they served beef curry?

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:30:12 +0000

were pigs used as guides for disabilities, how would you handle a pig entering a Kosher restaurant?

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:27:02 +0000

this doesn’t mean that I object to the law that allows guide-dogs into public places but there should also be a law to protect those who would like to adhere to the rules of their relion.

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:24:56 +0000

the law was based on Christian standards. You cannot judge a Moslem belief with a Christian standard of “clean.” (in essence you are proving that Christians are dirtier than Moslems. which might be true in rhetorical standards…) Anyhow it’s totally subjective since religion is a completely subjective thing. There’s no right or wrong – it’s your level of respect for a person’s faith. The laws of the nation need to steer away from Eurocentric Christianity-based rules and need to respect the tenets of other religions too.

By: Jack B.

Jack B. — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:01:16 +0000

The thing is, even though dogs are unclean in Islam, some Muslims take things way too far. Dogs aren’t supposed to be kept as pets, but seeing eye dogs and guard dogs are permitted. Because dogs are unclean, it might be bad form to have one in a room where people are eating, but there’s really no problem with that as long as the dog isn’t eating from dishes used by people.

re the Muslim students threatening another students service dog: cruelty to animals is a big no-no in Islam.

By: Gyges

Gyges — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:36:07 +0000

Palindrome,

It’s not really the perfect question. There is a huge difference between a physical disability and a religious law. Would you let the restaurant ban Stephen Hawking from entering because his wheelchair might offend the Amish? A service dog is no different, it’s a tool that the blind man uses to help compensate for his lack of sight.

By: Palindrome

Palindrome — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:09:28 +0000

MASkeptic, thats the perfect question. People who object to bologna slapping can avoid this restaurant and people who disagree with the Indian restaurant owner’s attitude can refuse to eat there also. But what if the bologna slapping was required by law?

By: MASkeptic

MASkeptic — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:18:02 +0000

Consider: A family owned restaurant where, as you enter, an attendant slaps you across the face with a slice of bologna. If you refuse the slap you are refused service. It is a long standing tradition that has been going on for generations. A follower of Islam enters the establishment and declines to be touched with pork, yet demands service. Would that restaurant be discriminating against him if they stood by tradition and refused?

I am interested in your interpretation of this scenario. Both legal and philosophical opinions are welcome of course.

By: Jill

Jill — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:30:42 +0000

Mespo,

That’s exactly correct.

Every religion and many secular organizations have propositions that they take on faith and refuse to test. It is past time for human beings to keep on with this stupidity. In this case, one can start living with dogs and learn that while they are dirty, they are not “unclean”. One can learn that dogs help people every day, and that they will lay down their lives for their human friends. Dogma should not ever supersede the reality of dogs! WOOF!!!

By: mespo727272

mespo727272 — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:39:21 +0000

That’s what happens when we permit religious dogma to trump civil law. The ironically named “Pharmacists for Life” has policy of refusing to fill birth control Rx’s on purely religious grounds. You certainly can adhere to your religious views, but you have to answer in damages when you violate the law. Call it the cost of principle– or nonsense.