A sufficient reason not to have admitted a single Muslim into our country

Paul K. writes:

As you know, Minnesota has seen fit to take in tens of thousands of Somali immigrants, nearly all of whom are Muslim. Among the enriching cultural gifts of Islam they have brought with them is the belief that dogs are filthy animals that must not be touched.

This article in the Minnesota news, forwarded to me by a friend who lives there, describes the plight of 23-year-old Tyler Hurd, who suffers seizures as a result of a childhood accident, and has a service dog to assist him. Hurd is in a teacher-training program at t. Cloud State University.

The article says, “Hurd trained at Talahi Community School and Tech. He said his experience at Talahi was good. The Somali students there warmed to the dog and eventually petted him using paper to keep their hands off his fur, Hurd said.

“Things didn’t go as well at Tech, Hurd said. Students there taunted his dog, and he finally felt he had to leave after he was told a student made a threat. “

Hurd felt he had to discontinue the program out of concern for his dog’s safety.

Kate Steffens, dean of the college of education at St. Cloud State, attributes the problem to miscommunication, saying, “I think this is part of the growth process when we become more diverse.”

Couldn’t you describe cancer as a growth process as well?

The idea that Muslims feel they have to pet a dog with a towel over their hands is enough to make me want to give them the boot.

LA writes:

The next time someone tells you that it would be immoral or racist to keep Muslims out of America, ask him this:

“Do you think America should admit millions of immigrants who are commanded by their religion to regard dogs as untouchable filth? Do you think that people whose religion tells them to hate dogs, and who will react strongly against the presence of dogs, even threatening their lives, are “assimilable” in America and belong in America?”

These were the sorts of questions that it never occurred to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson to ask when they proposed a law that would give to the people of every nation on earth the equal ability to immigrate to America. Nor did it occur to the Congress to ask such questions when they debated (hah!) and passed that law. Nor has it occurred to any person in a responsible position in America to ask such questions for the last 43 years. While the Muslims’ religion commands them to despise dogs, our liberal ideology commands us to look upon mankind as a collection of equal “individuals,” abstract men without qualities, and tells us that it would be morally wicked to keep people from coming to America based on their nationality, race, culture, or religion. But the reality is that in many instances people’s nationality, race, culture, and religion do provide very good reasons for us to exclude them from our country.This was the commonsensical element that was disastrously missing from the meaningless and delusive immigration “debate” of the last 43 years. We must introduce that element now, and turn the fake debate into a real debate

- end of initial entry -

Mark E. comments:

On its facts, this story sounds a bit speculative and equivocal as to what happened. But two aspects, not dependent on the specific facts of this incident, are nonetheless important to note:

First, Muslim hostility towards dogs.

Consider what this means about Muslims’ attitudes towards and experience of affection and kindness. In the West, the dog is esteemed for its virtues of loyalty, companionship, affection, etc. Islam values none of these things—indeed forbids them—and Muslims, in their lives, experience none of them, ever.

There can be no possible reconciliation of Muslim dog-hatred and American/Western dog-love. One of them has to give.

Second, the thoughtless “diversity” zombie talk from the officials in charge, and from public officials everywhere in America today.

Steffens said it is important to respect different cultures and the rights of disabled students.

“I think this is part of the growth process when we become more diverse,” Steffens said.

We are in for one Hell (on earth) of a “growth process.”

Adela G. writes:

Paul K. writes: “The idea that Muslims feel they have to pet a dog with a towel over their hands is enough to make me want to give them the boot.”

While I agree with both the title and contents of this blog entry, I don’t feel as Paul does. The fact that some Muslims were willing to act contrary to the strong ideological and cultural bias against dogs inculcated in them to the extent of petting the dogs at all speaks well for them. This, of course, does not mean that the good-hearted, if squeamish, accommodations of a few Muslims justifies admitting the many—or any.

I’ve met several mainlander Chinese who admitted they’d never touched a dog till they touched mine. Evidently, in China, dogs are considered more food than company. (Yes, one Chinese did admit to me that he’d eaten dog.) It must require quite a shift in thinking to interact with an animal one has been taught from birth to consider filthy—or edible. Imagine if we were transported to a culture in which, say, tarantulas were routinely kept as pets. So Muslims who cover their hands before petting a dog earn my respect.

Nevertheless I wish they’d return to their native countries and pet the dogs there instead.

By the way, I’m an absolute dog fanatic; nobody in the world loves dogs more than I do, which is why even a small sign of friendliness toward them causes me to return the feeling.

Jack S. writes:

You should see the photo that accompanies that story: In a Colorado classroom, a group of Somalis in traditional garb are being shown how to operate a stove! Interestingly the paper took down that photo and put up a slideshow of Somalis in more sympathetic poses.

This reminds me of Sen. Byrd’s long ago sentiments: “Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

The influx of these third world peoples is proof that the left and the right-liberals (as you so aptly label them) are bent, knowingly or not, on destroying this nation and our very way of life. This highlights the difference between our age and the political values half a century ago. In the past both left and right wanted the best for this country but differed on how to achieve that end. Today we have both parties competing one with the other to dismantle what once made this country great.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 14, 2008 12:06 PM | Send