h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

WA, when I suggested it would make for more meaningful debate for you to actually respond to other's viewpoints, rather than just re-iterating your view repeatedly, wasn't quite what I had in mind...

Never mind.

You know I thought WA had gone

Perhaps now that WA is back we can see some expansion on thier points insted of waffle and childish point scoring...like upi get from me

Hang on, hang on. Let's be fair and constructive here.

I don't agree with WA's last post for reasons that I've already stated, but these kind of views and concerns are not uncommon. I'm genuinely interested to know where these fears are coming from, what's prompting them, and whether there's anything that can be done about it.

I believe there are people out there who actively want to feel like they're victims, who actively want to feel angry and persecuted, who actively want to think that someone else is getting a better deal. Who seem to actively enjoy working themselves up into faux-outrage over the latest non-story from the Hate. Go to the comments section on any number of news websites and these people are there in force. Never mind the evidence or the real story, I WANT TO FROTH AT THE MOUTH!

Based on what little I know of WA inferred from reading various posts on a variety of topics as well as the h2g2 homepage, it seems clear to me that WA does not fall into this category. Given the constant drip of the kind of biased non-story that prompted this thread, I'm not at all surprised that reasonable people are starting to worry.

So my question to you, WA, is this... what is it exactly that's prompting these fears that you have? Invoking the spectre of the "thought police" is very strong, as are claims that the majority are constrained or might be constrained in thought and action. Your post seems to imply that there are fundamental threats to our basic liberties, and I was wondering if you could say bit more about what exactly your fears are and what's prompting them.

There are two points here:

1) Muslims think that dogs are unclean because of what ti says in the archaic religious book and even in the 21st Century they still believe this is the case.
2) We have public servants wasting time & cash trying not to offend the sensibilities of minorities rather than just getting on with the job. Quite a few things the police do offend me but its for the greater good so we have to put up with it.



How about a postcard explaining a few things to Muslims. Like:

1) Dogs aren’t unclean no matter what it says in your religious manual.
2) The UK is a country that is full of dog-lovers who will be offended to hear that there are people who say dogs are unclean…really…isn’t that offence in itself and hurting the sensibilities of dog-owners: ‘Dogs are unclean because our gods book says so?’
3) If you really want to live in a country where a large proportion of people own dogs then maybe you ought to review what it says in your religious books based on actually looking at whether dogs actually are unclean or not.
4) You are the minority in this situation – minorities do not dictate to the majority (and this goes out to all religious groups.)
5) Religious tolerance: this is assumed to mean everyone else needs to be tolerant of the obtuse views of religious types and allow them to affect the way in which the rest of society operates even in the small ways of photos of animals on postcards. How about the religious being tolerant for a change and realising that our culture is more important in this country than your religion so maybe you should be more tolerant of how we view things and operate in this country and when normal everyday, ‘not even worth a second thought things to the rest of us’ might offend you and your brothers…just let it pass and be tolerant.
6) Respect: we are always told to respect religious views…quite possibly a bit of respect for the culture of the country you live in.
7) And if you are offended by points 1-7 a) tough and b) if, you agree with all of the above then I suggest talking to your local police force and tell the Muslims there who are speaking for you to shut up and stop giving you a bad name. I would hope your answer would be (b).




Oh, and really, a Diversity Officer. Just get that person on the beat and start doing proper police work…oh…I forgot that Officer will be a civilian officer.

Have you read the posts in this thread at all?

I skimmed them. I wrote what I felt not specifically about this occurence but more general points can be read into what I wrote about the whole offense subject of religious groups/people second guessing when religious groups *might* be offended/the irrelevance of a lot of religious 'teachings' for the modern world.

I am not going to go through issue by issue explaining the underlying general reasons of why I wrote those points. I will allow you to work them out for yourself.

This is just it - I can't work it out for myself, hence post 23.

I am trying to work it out - I think one possible explanation is delusional paranoia combined with a strange love of being righteously angry. Another is exposure to a constant drip feed of lies and distortions like this story. Perhaps there's more reasons.

You admit that you've only skim read this thread, and I suspect you also skim-read the article that you linked to in ask. Because that article quotes two Islamic scholars who deny that pictures of dogs are "offensive" to Muslims. And if you read what Mohammed Asif actually said, it's a very simple point that Muslim shopkeepers are unlikely to put up the picture in their shops because they don't, personally, like dogs for cultural reasons. It's therefore a waste of money to issue pictures like that. SWL helpfully provided some figures and background which, I think, confirm the point.

If Muslims were campaigning to have dogs banned, or to have pictures of dogs banned, or were protesting in the streets and burning copies of "101 Dalmatians", or were launching suicide bombings at Crufts, I'd agree with your last post entirely.

But they're not. Not even a bit. Not even close.

This is a regular pattern. Every few months the Daily Hate produces some biased or twisted "why-oh-why" story, and people mount their high horses to bring down the straw targets. Yet each and every time, on closer inspection, the story isn't what they claim.

I'd love to know why people continue to believe it. In other fields, people think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yet not here, it seems.

But this is the problem Muslim scholars saying what is or isn't religious and what is cultural(i.e. don't blame the Koran). Cherry picking just like any other issue. If they really want a change they will say it's religious and if we say well no the basis of it is cultural it's hand over ears time.

The bigger point is 'culture/religion' is it any different and the fact that the 'culture' is wrong and moronic in this case: dog's aren't dirty!!!! Cultures change. This would be one could point at which to educate those people who think they are.

I am well travelled, have worked in many countries and with many nationalities. I am not xenophobic, nor do I rant or froth. I do do grumpy, exceedingly well but my friends and family haven't yet diagnosed delusional paranoia, some of whom are doctors. What I do not see in other countries is a bending over backwards to accommodate my mores or sensitivities. Just the opposite, when in Rome etc. and that is how it should be.

If the political and racial diversity campaigns of recent years had been effective we wouldn’t still have the racial tensions that are apparent in some cities. Why do we need diversity officers or equality commissions. Are we not educated enough to organise our own society. When you look at census statistics for Britain the percentage of non ethnic residents is quite low. But, fuelled by a London centric, politically correct, liberal, chattering class every programme, news cast, advertisement and management process has to be ethnically and sexually balanced.

Why should I carry an Identity card when I have driving license, passport, credit cards, membership cards and various security clearances I have been subjected to to prove who I am. I don’t happen to believe there are paedophiles and terrorists lurking around every corner or rather no more than can be coped with in a sophisticated country such as ours. I do believe it suits the Government to attempt to keep us scared to demonstrate how effective they are being in protecting us. Why should a police officer be allowed to detain me for 42 days because the Prime Minister wants to demonstrate how macho he is.

I hesitate to include elfin safety, risk analysis and environmental health but they add to the overbearing nanny state in which we now live. Napoleon said we were a nation of shopkeepers, in fact we are a nation of petty rule abiders. How many times have you been told ‘Sorry can’t tell you that because of Data Protection’. Have you tried to open a bank account recently?

The state attempts to control more and more the minutiae of our existence in the workplace, the home and at play. The more data the Government hold the more tempting it is to use it for purposes other than that which it was given. David Davis may be politically naïve but he gets my vote regarding an over intrusive state.

>But, fuelled by a London centric, politically correct, liberal, chattering class every programme, news cast, advertisement and management process has to be ethnically and sexually balanced.<

Where are you getting your info from WA? Just out of interest. And be honest please.

There maybe a degree of truth in what you say. Only a degree though. The BBC is hardly a hotbed of equality, hence the hardly liberal lefty, former DG of the BBC's comments in 2001. And yet we have this, from this site.

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=161284

(And I do hope this post isn't yikesed with such a reference, because of context, and the point I seek to make.)

****

The *real* London I know at street level culture of art, music,cultural events in cafes's, bars, open air park events is not in the least like this. There is a rich contribution to culture from the many races. And on the level that interests me, pc stuff hardly figures. Art and culture can't flourish in such a climate. People of all cultures and backgrounds know that. But we do need a degree of positive action to change things at the higher stuffier levels.

Before you start on with the London centric stuff, try thinking about what London really is, and what an example to the world it's becoming as so many people want to come and live in it, because of its dynamicism and forward lookingness.

As Otto has said, let's be fair and constructive.


So far we have:

- A piece of news that seems to be a piece of wood to feed the bonfire of anti-religious, classist or racist people.

- Some people who are offended because some others consider offensive the face of a dog.

- Some who are offended because the goverment seem to stoop to please the cultural difference of a minority.

- Some say that enough is enough with pleasing minorities. This leads to balance ethnic and women presence in companies, politics, etc. It seems those some doesn´t like the idea of balancing.

- Then, it's me who think, (not for the first time, it happened in the Dawkings thread) that some anti-religious people consider themselves free from manipulation, bigotry,classism, racism and intolerance just because they are rational enough to not believe in God.

Xenophobia is an all times desease. We refuse any change around us. It is hard for us to get used to seeing different faces,ways of thinking, etc.
We don´t need to applaud any thing new to feel cool; on the contrary, we must be critical.

Just calm down a bit when reading those kind of news and do not agree with no solid arguments because in some ways we agree with the obscure initial intention:
To throw crap to a community which has already a lot of negative labels on it, the Muslims.

Thanks for your response, WA.

I have to say that I think the "when in Rome" argument is in danger of missing the point. We're not talking about foreigners or visitors, but people who live here. In the case of the example, we're talking about small businesspeople who live and work here, pay taxes, and are permanent residents. I think we can legitimately ask immigrants (of whatever generation) to do a fair bit to adapt to our way of life - learn English, learn how our society works, abide by our laws, etc etc etc. The parts of a person's life and behaviour that are the proper business of the state need to be adapted to fit. But surely immigrants should have the same freedom in the parts of their life and behaviour that aren't the business of the state as everyone else?

And if that's true, and we really believe in liberty, it means that a certain amount of adaptation and understanding from everyone else is required. And it's not a one way street either - tolerating things that you don't like is required of absolutely everyone. I really don't think this is too much to ask, or in any way justifies the level of animosity that it seems to attract.

It's difficult to know the effect or otherwise of racial diversity campaigns. What seems obvious, though, is that racial tensions tend to exist in areas where there's segregation and poverty. It's also true, I think, that society is less racist - or at least less openly racist - than it was twenty years ago, and overt racism has become more and more unacceptable. That seems like a success to me. Not only don't we have "rivers of blood", we actually have improvements on most fronts and in most places.

I agree entirely on identity cards and the 42 day rule, but this doesn't seem to me to be a related issue.

"Health and Safety" is another area that attracts a lot of exaggeration, tabloid lies, and urban myths. Like the "Data Protection Act", it's often used as a fig leaf for stinginess or just for not doing something that they don't want to. And oddly, the more tabloid hysteria there is, the worse it gets. The more people are told that it's an issue, the more people act as if it is. For example, as a result of the latest non-story, I bet a lot of people now think that Muslims are offended by dogs.

<>

They might have reason to think so though Otto, as this isn't an isolated case:

Objection To Blind Woman’s “Dirty Dog” Lands Muslim Minicab Driver In Court
http://www.secularism.org.uk/objectiontoblindwomansdirtydogla.html

Muslim anger at sniffer dogs at station
http://www.theargus.co.uk/mostpopular.var.2366906.mostcommented.muslim_anger_at_sniffer_dogs_at_station.php

A blind person speaks of his experiences with his guide dog & Muslims
http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/living/features/religion-the-final-frontier

A Forum where an imam gives advice
http://www.yanabi.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=4&threadid=41521&highlight_key=y&keyword1=keeping%20a%20dog%20in%20the%20house

A guide for non-Muslims
http://www.muslimsinbritain.org/guide/guide.html

It's clear that Muslims have issues with dogs.

Evening All,

I think we have been here before, about two years back? None the less I would like to make a point or two.

The particular story in WA's initial post doesn't interest me , everything blown out of proportion by the media etcetera.

However there is a fundamental point here which perhaps the majority of posters can ignore. Without being racist I must admit to feeling a little 'uncomfortable' at the way some of the towns in the country have been fundamentally changed.

I would refer specifically to Bolton, a town I knew back in the 60's.
There are now significant areas almost entirely occupied by what posters refer to as a minority. They are not a minority there. I entirely acccept the reasons why, and the rights to live in communuties as various groups wish, but sometimes the changes brought about within the areas the minority consider as 'theirs' gives rise to a twinge of concern.

Such feelings are exacerbated by the drip drip of the persistent claims that we must respect their rights and their culture. Fine. But do we get the same consideration of the indigenous population's culture? No, we don't: it is always suggested that 'we' should be tolerant but I think it should work both ways.

Until all the cultures accept the basic values of the nation as a whole, there will be occasions where the sometimes great difference in views will offend one side or the other. We all need to accept change - that is how any society benefits from new cultures and new ideas - but it is not wrong to feel that some ideas are intolerable.

An example would be 'honour killings' which are unacceptable to us and which we call murder. These may be rare, but the treatment of some Islamic girls and women can only foster divisions, not heal them.

If you cannot grasp my point, I invite you to visit Bolton, or Bury or Bradford and compare these towns with say, Arundel or Axminster, or Wrexham and Whitstable

Novo

SWL, impressive your google list. But you should have checked the Islamic web page:

the Iman giving advice about dogs:

...Take good care of it, treat and feed it well. Humans can learn a thing or two from the loyal character of dogs.

Novo,

Laws of your country must protect those women. That is nothing to do with culture but with underdevelopment. Economical and hence educational.

Machism is not exclusive nor characteristic of Muslims.

Mar - I read the site, did you?

"No it is not halaal to keep dogs in the house. Sidi MMM i know you are immensely more knowledgable than me but please consult books of Fiqh and 'Ulama before answering a question. Let me show you why they are not halaal.

Firstly we find a Hadith in Saheeh Muslim Volume 3 Hadith Number Sayyidina Abu Hurayrah r.a. reports Rasulullah s.a.w. as saying, "He who keeps a dog which is neither meant for hunting, nor for watching animals, nor for watching fields, will lose two qiraat every day out of his reward." The exception the 'Ulama have deduced to this rule is for guide dogs based on some evidence.

There are other Hadith that also support this view:
It has reported in Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Ibn 'Umar (Allah is pleased with him) that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, "Whoever acquires a dog, except a hunting dog or for shepherding, his reward will decrease each day by large measures."

It has been reported in Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of Abu Talha (Allah is pleased with him) that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, "Angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or pictures."

I have lived with dogs since I was a child until 14 years old. My father used to hunt with dogs, not riffle. We kept the dogs, as the iman advices, not at home but in the patio. My father, as the iman, considers that saliva of dogs is dirty. He can't stand watching people being licked by a dog or a cat on the mouth or the face. I can't stand being licked like that neither.


People still will think that Muslims hate dogs

No, I haven´t. I just saw this piece of advice and jump to tell you that you have jumped.

Sorry, no offend intended.

We are missing the point. The problem is not wether they dislike or like dogs or if it is cultural or religious based.
It is about a non-piece of news intended to stir gut, low feelings of hate.

A "non-piece" of news? An initiative designed to encourage community interaction with the police is rejected by the "community leader" from one small minority. Did he weigh in the balance the possible positive impact of this initiative against the *possible* reaction of *some* Muslims?

In this thread, doubt has been cast upon the degree of offence that may or may not have been caused; whether it was cultural or religious. The sites we have found from Islamic sources are a little ambiguous. As with all religions, finding a definitive answer on trivial matters is difficult. It's down to interpretation; hard-line or liberal. And it comes down to the interpreter - traditionalist or forward-looking. Did this councillor consult his constituents? All of them or some of them?

I doubt there is a Muslim shopkeeper in Dundee that I don't know by sight or name. I know this councillor's son is terrified of dogs, as are quite a few others in Dundee. Where did they get this terror, this irrational fear? I reckon such an extreme reaction is instilled in childhood by parents - by parents who are so keen to keep their children from touching or coming into contact with things they consider unclean, that they instill a deep fear into them. It happened to me. My mum's a nurse and once caught me and my friends poking a dead cat with sticks. I got such a lecture about the diseases, maggots and suchlike that you can get from dead animals that to this day I can't touch dead animals.

My mum had good medical & health reasons for doing what she did. This Councillor did it because of his religion.

Is it wise to have someone with what some may consider extreme religious views as a councillor? As a Councillor, does he not have a responsibility to *all* his constituents? I have a file on my PC with the names & addresses of all 168 Muslim shopkeepers in Dundee. I know that many are Muslim in name only. If even half of them objected to this postcard-sized leaflet, we're talking about 80-odd people standing in the way of a publicity campaign aimed at 140,000.

I don't think it's a non-story. I think the Police should have told him to sling his hook. Somebody, somewhere judged that a puppy would help get a message across. How dare religious extremists use their irrational prejudices to stand in the way of that.

I wonder what the reaction in this forum would be if it had been a Christian minority view objecting to a Police initiative. Actually, I think I know.