Muslims against dogs

When the Congress voted in 1965 to open up U.S. immigration on an equal basis from every country in the world, did they ask whether the beliefs and customs of the people from those many and various nations were compatible with American beliefs and customs? No, they did not. This was because the purpose of the 1965 Immigration Act was not to extend the privilege of citizenship only to such persons as would, in James Madison’s words, be a “real addition to the wealth or strength of the United States.” No. The purpose of the Act was to show that America doesn’t discriminate. Therefore the notion of examining the beliefs and customs of the cultures of the prospective immigrants to see if they were compatible with ours did not even arise. As a result, we allowed into this country and gave the privilege of citizenship to millions of persons whose customs and beliefs are incompatible with ours, even radically alien and hostile to ours.

Robert B. from Minnesota tells us about one of the results of that momentous decision—or rather that momentous decision not to decide about the identity and destiny of our country, but leave the decision up to the foreigners who do not love us or care about us.

Robert B. writes:

I spent last week and the holiday in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Since my youngest had not seen the Mount Rushmore monument (was not alive ten years ago when I was last there), we took a ride up to see it. Much to my surprise, my dog was not allowed to accompany us. It is a public and open space and I have a picture of my wife, my two oldest my previous dog and myself all sitting on the wall in front of the Monument from ten years ago. I was put aback by this.

On leaving and getting back to our car in the underground lot, I let the dog out to run a bit and an off duty park ranger commented on what a nice dog it was. I asked when the rules regarding dogs had changed and she said “recently—some people don’t feel comfortable around dogs and we had complaints.” I asked if these people complaining happened to be foreigners and she hemmed and hawed and then admitted they were—so then I asked if they happened to be Muslims and she confirmed that they were indeed. So I explained to her why Muslims do not like dogs and that it should be resisted, after all, no one made them come here. At which point she got a big smile and agreed, but said it was not her place to decide.

So there you have it, one of the West’s great, time honored customs, the family dog, is now being hounded from the public space by people who are not only a pinpoint in our greater society, but the world’s most backward people when it comes to social customs. It seems our quisling government knows no bounds when it comes to those who want to oppress us.

My dog, coming from a rather “ancient” and select breed and champion stock (English Springer Spaniel with ten generations of English Field Champions in her lineage) had more right to be here than those usurpers have. Sorry about that, but you can’t get much more into “America’s heartland” than South Dakota. This is terrible. really terrible.

LA replies:

It’s really terrible, but it’s only the beginning. What you experienced was the result of a handful of Muslim visitors to Mount Rushmore complaining that they weren’t comfortable around dogs, and of the treasonously PC federal officials unnecessarily rushing to accede to the Muslims’ wishes. But the issue of Muslims and dogs goes much deeper than personal discomfort with dogs. Islamic law lists dogs among the “unclean” things that must be avoided. As Muslims continue to gain power in our society and begin to impose Islamic law more and more extensively, the movement to remove dogs from public spaces will become general and official. Of course dogs, man’s best friend, are central to American and Western culture. But Islam says that dogs are filth with which the pious Muslims must not come into contact, or become unclean himself. In 1965 we didn’t ask whether Islam had customs that might make a bad fit with ours, and 45 years later it is still forbidden and unimagined to ask that same question.

If anyone thinks that in my writings I have overstated the supreme power of the non-discriminatory principle in liberal society, think about the fact that the Western countries have imported tens of millions of Muslims who are commanded by their religion to be hostile to the West’s most cherished values, among them being the love of dogs, and that even after these people have begun manifesting that hostility in the grossest and most threatening ways, it is still forbidden and unimagined among us to discuss what their religion actually demands of them and whether it can co-exist with our values. It is forbidden and unimagined because, just as the Muslims have their sacred commands, we have ours, namely the sacred command never to discriminate against non-whites and non-Westerners. Our obedience to that command has led us into the abyss, and it is only by consciously rejecting that command that will we have any hope of extricating ourselves from it.

- end of initial entry -

Michael S. writes:

Well, that does it, then. I’m naming my next dog Mohammed.

LA replies:

I don’t want to insult and degrade Muslims, I just want them to leave.

June 5

Vivek G. writes:

It is understandable that you do not want to degrade or insult Muslims, but why does Michael S. want to degrade his dog?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 03, 2010 03:48 PM | Send