[Apologies to all: I was so eager to get Steve’s Comment of the Day up that I forgot to add the headline!]
The historically literate, unrestrained Ethics Alarms veteran commenter Steve-O-in NJ returns to the familiar (to him) Comment of the Day podium making the case that Rep. Fine was not being one bit unreasonable and certainly not “Islamophobic” when he responded to a New York City Muslim activists assertion that dogs should not be kept as pets in the Big Apple with the quip, “If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”
In casual conversation about Fine’s line (not to be confused with “a fine line” ) I have yet to encounter anyone who doesn’t feel he got the better of the exchange. One lawyer friend, known for his combative courtroom style, opined that the woman’s ‘Islam is right that dogs are dirty’ remark was such a metaphorical hanging curve ball that it would have been unethical not to hit it out of the park.
Here is Steve-O-in-NJ’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Quiz: Rep. Fine’s ‘Islamaphobic’ Quote”:
***
Islamic attitudes toward dogs vary. Some think of them as okay to use as working animals (herding, hunting etc.), but not pets. Judaism also for a time was anti-dog, and I think that ported over to Islam, same as the rule against pork.
I for one have never owned a dog, but I have known many, and I think they are useful in a number of ways, including as companion animals. They assist the disabled, protect and direct livestock, find people (or bodies), save those stranded on mountains, assist the emergency services, and even tow carts with Christmas trees or other evergreen decorations (the Bernese Mountain Dog is the usual breed for this). I’ll take a large gentle dog or an affectionate energetic dog (little yappy dogs are not my thing) over a hyper-religious neighbor who wants to tell me what to do any day. I’ve said a few times that Islam is not compatible with Western values, and this is just one other reason why it isn’t.
Ethics Alarms 
Steve, bravo! You said what so many are thinking, accurately and succinctly. I’m with you especially on the simple truth that anyone who goes to live in any country must at least to attempt to assimilate, or leave. Thank you for this blunt and honest post.
Just swap “Muslim” with “Communist,” or “Nazi,” and the supposed offensive nature of the comment vanishes, which is how you can see that the outrage mob is being dishonest, as usual.
Islam isn’t a race, like Black people. It’s an ideology, like Communism. Leftists want us to feel the same way about Islam as we do about people’s immutable characteristics, like racial heritage. That’s twisted and wrong, but it works for them, which is why they’ll keep doing it.
Amen!
Always an education when Steve holds a History lesson
Peter Boghossian and Raymond Ibrahim had a conversation recently about Muslim immigration. It’s mostly about how it’s affecting Western Europe. I thought it was interesting, but their cameraman objected. (The meltdown isn’t until near the end.)
Apparently there were two camermen. Based on my own viewing of the video, one cameraman had a hissy fit and never came back. The other cameraman stayed and argued (not very effectively) but demonstrated the courage and curiousity to engage with Boghossian and Ibrahim. It seems the cameraman came back for more the next day.
charles w abbott
rochester NY
Right off the bat the cameraman shows that he’s just recyling talking points and fake data. That stat about crimes by illegals is false, and when anyone resorts to it means I don’t care to listen to them. The guy’s an idiot, essentially.
Even if the stats were true, it’s a red herring. EVERY crime committed by an “immigrant” is one that would not have occurred here at all if they had been back where they came from. The issue is that It’s additional and avoidable crime; the supposed rate is meaningless. A comparison of rates is only relevant if your aim is to replace one group with another.