We have previously seen stories of the banning or threatening dogs by Muslims who believe that all dogs are “unclean” and an afront to Islam. Now, Hasan Küçük, a Turkish-Dutch representative on The Hague city council for the Islam Democrats, has called for all dogs to be banned from The Hague, the third-largest city in the Netherlands.
It is the latest incident of an increasing number of confrontations between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities over dogs. In Catalonia, Spain, the large Muslim community is demanding the regulation of dogs to prevent them from “offending Muslims” in public areas. In England, Muslim taxi drivers have refused to take seeing eye dogs accompanying blind people. Blind citizens in England have been barred from restaurants and buses so their companion dogs would not offend Muslims. Even the use of a picture of a dog was opposed as offensive.
The Dutch confrontation was triggered by a measure by the Party for the Animals (Partij voor de Dieren) to make the city more dog friendly. Küçük responded by demanding that the keeping of a dog be made a crime.
Muslims make up more than 12% of the city’s population of 500,000.
The campaign against dogs pits principles of religious accommodation against principles of pluralism. In this case, the Islamic value would require the loss of freedom for non-Muslim citizens by restricting or banning their dogs in public. Bans should be an easy question in that there are many public displays that may offend religious sensibilities. Families may raise their children according to their faiths but must accept that they live within a pluralistic community. Just as many of us objected to be ban on Burqas in France (which were viewed as offensive to women), these bans are equally wrongheaded. The more difficult questions come in areas of contact. For example, in England, police have been told that bomb sniffing dogs can come into contact with luggage but not the persons of Muslim passengers.
I view these proposals as inimical to a pluralistic society and also contradict principles of separation of church (or Mosque) and state. It will be interesting, however, as the anti-dog views of some Muslims become more known, whether there is an increase in tort actions based on the negligence of businesses or agencies in allowing contact with dogs by Muslims.
Now what the hell is a dyslexic going to believe in….
Useful insight and practical wisdom in N. Abraham’s post at 9:02 am.
Striking the right balance is difficult.
I hope you continue to contribute your thoughts
Gives new meaning to doggone shame …
“If this dog wanted an adherent he would get a band aid.”
LOL! That was a great line. Smart dog you are.
These extremists always go too far, and end up rousing the ire of those who wouldn’t normally care what they do. This dog hating is likely to be just that trigger. Ignorant haters is what they are.
http://www.dogsagainstromney.com/2012/01/i-ride-inside.html It is “crate gate”. The dogs have a super pack.
I understand the dogs have proposed a resolution seeking to ban militant Muslims from blowing themselves up in defense of the faith. Both resolutions have about the same chance of passage.
http://www.politickerny.com/2012/01/31/did-mitt-romneys-dog-seek-asylum-in-canada/ More on “dog gate”.
Tent heads is also a name in Amsterdam for those that insist on living within their own tents, not buildings with roofs over the head, and are not accepting of other faiths, norms, notions, dogs, prostitution and all the things held dear to open minded people of Amsterdam. It originally applied to gypsies who lived in tents within certain places outside of town and had their own insular ways. Towel heads in Amsterdam are women who insist on washing their hair and then standing about in the street waiting for buses or riding about on their bicycles. Muslims in Amsterdam are known as Muslims. Dogs as dogs. Schmucks as schmucks. This dog lived in Amsterdam. When its open season on dogs the dogs bark back. If this dog wanted an adherent he would get a band aid.
I need to hear the Willard Romney dog story someone mentioned above. Willard was denominated Mitt by some of the boys in big business back in Michigan. In Swedish is means My. General Motors, American Motors, have My Romney. So what does thou Romney have got against dogs?
TalklingDog, you say “tent heads”.
If this is a variation of “towel heads”, it is in a class of slurs (offhand dismissals of segments of the population) that is not likely to win you many adherents here.
Perhaps the dispute noted above about dogs being unclean could be resolved by the request for a demonstration of what it is that is meant by that.
Dis dog isch taking dis issue to the Hague Court in Den Hague.
Citizens of Den Hague: Obtain a bright white tee shirt with a smiling Dog emblazoned on the front and back. Wear them in public. Put out bowls of water for wandering or leashed dogs. Open a kennel next to the Mosque. Tell the Muslims to quit selling pot to kids in Amsterdam– you know who you are. Tell the Muslim men in Den Hague to quit eyeing the women. Tell the Muslims world wide to quit selling dogs in their open air markets hanging upside down by their rear feet while still alive. Publish the movie in Den Hague movie houses named: They Eat Dogs Dont They?
Muslims in Den Hague: Learn to speak Dutch. Leave the crappy English at home.
Hookers in Amsterdam: beware the tent heads who ask for dogs.
DINAH IN HEAVEN
by Rudyard Kipling
She did not know that she was dead
But, when the pang was o’er,
Sat down to wait her Master’s tread
Upon the Golden Floor,
With ears full-cock and anxious eyes,
Impatiently resigned;
But ignorant that Paradise
Did not admit her kind.
There was one step along the Stair
That led to Heaven’s Gate;
And, till she heard it, her affair
Was — she explained — to wait.
And she explained with flattened ear,
Bared lip and milky tooth–
Storming against Ithuriel’s Spear
That only proved her truth!
Sudden — far down the Bridge of Ghosts
That anxious spirits clomb–
She caught that step in all the hosts,
And knew that he had come.
She left them wondering what to do,
But not a doubt had she.
Swifter than her own squeal she flew
Across the Glassy Sea;
Flushing the Cherubs everywhere,
And skidding as she ran,
She refuged under Peter’s Chair
And waited for her man.
* * * * * *
There spoke a Spirit out of the press,
‘Said: — “Have you any here
That saved a fool from drunkenness,
And a coward from his fear?
“That turned a soul from dark to day
When other help was vain;
That snatched it from wan hope and made
A cur a man again?”
“Enter and look,” said Peter then,
And set the Gate ajar.
“If I know aught of women and men
I trow she is not far.”
“Neither by virtue, speech nor art
Nor hope of grace to win;
But godless innocence of heart
That never heard of sin:
“Neither by beauty nor belief
Nor white example shown.
Something a wanton — more a thief —
But — most of all — mine own.”
“Enter and look,” said Peter then,
“And send you well to speed;
But, for all that I know of women and men
Your riddle is hard to read.”
Then flew Dinah from under the Chair,
Into his arms she flew —
And licked his face from chin to hair
And Peter passed them through!
Inscription on the Monument of a Newfoundland Dog
by
Lord Byron
Near this spot are deposited the remains of one who
possessed Beauty without Vanity,
Strength without Insolence,
Courage without Ferocity,
and all the Virtues of Man,
without his Vices.
This Praise, which would be unmeaning
Flattery if inscribed over human
ashes is but a just tribute to the Memory
of Boatswain, a Dog.
The Power of the Dog
by
Rudyard Kipling
There is sorrow enough in the natural way
From men and women to fill our day;
And when we are certain of sorrow in store,
Why do we always arrange for more?
Brothers and sisters, I bid you beware
Of giving your heart to a dog to tear.
Buy a pup and your money will buy
Love unflinching that cannot lie–
Perfect passsion and worship fed
By a kick in the ribs or a pat on the head.
Nevertheless it is hardly fair
To risk your heart to a dog to tear.
When the fourteen years which Nature permits
Are closing in asthma, or tumour, or fits,
And the vet’s unspoken prescription runs
To lethal chambers or loaded guns,
Then you will find–it’s your own affair–
But … you’ve given your heart to a dog to tear.
When the body that lived at your single will,
With its whimper of welcome, is stilled (how still!)
When the spirit that answered your every mood
Is gone–wherever it goes–for good,
You will discover how much you care,
And will give your heart to a dog to tear.
We’ve sorrow enough in the natural way,
When it comes to burying Christian clay.
Our loves are not given, but only lent,
At compound interest of cent per cent.
Though it is not always the case, I believe,
That the longer we’ve kept ’em, the more do we grieve:
For, when debts are payable, right or wrong,
A short-term loan is as bad as a long–
So why in–Heaven (before we are there)
Should we give our hearts to a dog to tear?
The Twa Dogs
by
Robert Burns
A Tale
‘Twas in that place o’ Scotland’s isle,
That bears the name o’ auld King Coil,
Upon a bonie day in June,
When wearin’ thro’ the afternoon,
Twa dogs, that were na thrang at hame,
Forgather’d ance upon a time.
The first I’ll name, they ca’d him Caesar,
Was keepit for His Honor’s pleasure:
His hair, his size, his mouth, his lugs,
Shew’d he was nane o’ Scotland’s dogs;
But whalpit some place far abroad,
Whare sailors gang to fish for cod.
His locked, letter’d, braw brass collar
Shew’d him the gentleman an’ scholar;
But though he was o’ high degree,
The fient a pride, nae pride had he;
But wad hae spent an hour caressin,
Ev’n wi’ al tinkler-gipsy’s messin:
At kirk or market, mill or smiddie,
Nae tawted tyke, tho’ e’er sae duddie,
But he wad stan’t, as glad to see him,
An’ stroan’t on stanes an’ hillocks wi’ him.
The tither was a ploughman’s collie-
A rhyming, ranting, raving billie,
Wha for his friend an’ comrade had him,
And in freak had Luath ca’d him,
After some dog in Highland Sang,^2
Was made lang syne,-Lord knows how lang.
He was a gash an’ faithfu’ tyke,
As ever lap a sheugh or dyke.
His honest, sonsie, baws’nt face
Aye gat him friends in ilka place;
His breast was white, his touzie back
Weel clad wi’ coat o’ glossy black;
His gawsie tail, wi’ upward curl,
Hung owre his hurdie’s wi’ a swirl.
Intolerant and rigid religionists make it harder for people who want to integrate into society. The kind of person who would propose such a law make it easier for the larger society to find a reason to distrust and shun moderates of the same religion. For those Muslims who want to live in a secular society in peace, guys like this create problems for them.
It is exactly this kind of behavior that makes some communities come together to oppose building mosques in their areas. Then the extremists get to play the victim card.
Mike, I don’t know if it has been mentioned here but are you familiar with Willard Romney’s dog story?
While I thought it was cruel and indicative of at least carelessness (if not outright sociopathy) it was odd he would offer it as a good thing. What really has surprised me is how people with no strong political feelings have reacted sharply when they hear the story. Don’t mess with dogs!
Frankly,
SwM answered your question above. I am someone who grew up with dogs, whose sister-in-law bred dogs and showed at Westminster, and I do love dogs but would’t own one today. Personally, having raised two children, in my dotage I don’t feel the need to raise more and thus be tied down by my responsibility. One cat, that I didn’t want in the first place is pain enough, not to mention the expense of its care when I want to travel. So in a sense I am bemused by the absolute affection and protectiveness that dog lovers/owners feel. Yet I am cheered by the thought of all the moral outrage that this will cause, mainly because I resent the encroachments that all fanatical religious idealists attempt to impose on those without their stultified belief system. This fanaticism is not limited to any one religion, but to authoritarian minds unable to accept and respect other points of view.
“Secularists and pluralists need to be on guard to defend public space and the equal application of law without falling into the trap of bigotry. In so doing they also preserve space for dissidents within tightly woven religious groups to operate freely or even to escape the confines of such communities.”
N.Abraham,
Good point. Today’s Fundamentalist Fanaticism is actually one that is far more restrictive than the same religions were in times past. It is the mark of cultism, within religions. My guess is it comes about when an increasingly evolving modern world makes certain people personally anxious and dislocated. Those people are then prey to those who would use them for selfish aims. Many of these cultic leaders bear resemblance to Charles Manson, with somewhat better education ad a little more social restraint.
This was a counter productive move stemming from religious fanaticism. The offending of dog-lovers will raise more moral outrage than much else. The thing about fanaticism is many times it does itself in in the pursuit of its beliefs.
The story is indicative a general drift by Muslims and other religious minded folk to demand greater zones of social and personal space for the application of their beliefs and precepts in the public domain. In my opinion it is a great infringement on society at large. One should note that this is a developing trend as not that long ago dogs were often found in upper middle class homes in Middle Eastern countries and have long been valued among Muslim nomadic peoples for obvious reasons.
The trend of which I speak is a tightening of concepts and claims by Muslims on virtually every aspect of life: the public comportment of women, especially in the redefinition of dress codes (which incidentally vary by region, class, and sect), the growing tendency of devout women and now men not shaking hands with members of the opposite sex, self-imposed restrictions on not sitting in places where music is played, alcohol is consumed, etc.), These tendencies are found among devout groups in of Israel’s haredi Jewish communities as well other religious groups around the world.
It would appear that much of this religious retrenchment is a reaction to a ubiquitous Hollywood driven culture, widespread pornography and related libertine tendencies. In the case of Muslims, curiously, and perhaps not coincidentally, all of this is taking place against the backdrop of the US global war on terror, which in the main is aimed at the Muslim world.
Secularists and pluralists need to be on guard to defend public space and the equal application of law without falling into the trap of bigotry. In so doing they also preserve space for dissidents within tightly woven religious groups to operate freely or even to escape the confines of such communities.
Dingbat politicians call for all kinds of crazy crap – alert me when this actually might happen.
OTOH – it was nice of the USSC to clear the way for Sharia here in the US the other day by ruling that religious doctrine trumps US law when a church wants it to.
It was a good 200 year run, shame to see it go but you can’t say we didn’t do it to ourselves.