Islam and Cardiovascular Science

[Michael]

I can imagine this southern bell, poor little white girl, lived her whole live on dad's estate, probably those people who barked loudest that slavery and the idea of white's being superior was wrong and bigoted, all must have seemed rather mean and targeted to the southern white peasantry. What's wrong with teaching your children to be proud of their heritage, must have been what they thought.

I've heard modern day WASPs talk about how they are unfairly targeted for their beliefs.

Poor them.
/sarcasm

 

[Asguard]

michael did you ever think that it could be as simple as the goverment wanted to make savings in the uni so they cut the number of ECG's provided to simple pysiology classes?

After all they are expensive so they probably kept them for the nursing, med and paramedics classes to use and gave the shitty old ones to pysiology

 

[Michael]

michael did you ever think that it could be as simple as the goverment wanted to make savings in the uni so they cut the number of ECG's provided to simple pysiology classes?

After all they are expensive so they probably kept them for the nursing, med and paramedics classes to use and gave the shitty old ones to pysiology

You know what, I'll simply ask the next time I have a chance.

 

[Michael]

I bet those of the white southern peasantry must have felt mighty upset being called bigots. It took killing about half a million people before the question was settled. Lets hope we're not so ignorant that it comes to that again. I think we can see that monotheistic intolerance is not acceptable behavior in a successful modern multicultural (including alienologists, polytheists, etc...) world.

So, I think we just need to better educate people starting with the children.

Coddling supersitions, is exactly the OPPOSITE of what we should do. It won't lead to any good anyway. Just a repeat of violent histories - IMO.

Like I said, IF this were a WASP not wanting to be touched by a non-white we'd all have no problem in understanding that this is dead-wrong behavior not to be tolerated. Just because it's a person of a particular religion doesn't mean it now OK.

There's no difference b/w a white not wanting to be touched by a non-white and a Muslim not wanting to be touched by someone non-Muslim.

the behaviors are the same. Bigoted prejudices that should be reformed for the betterment of society.

 

[Repo Man]

This isn't made up-

Ali Reza Roshanmoniri was working for Cable Cars when he was called to a school where Mr Christopher Odell, who is blind and has an “assistance dog” had been working. But when he arrived at the school, Mr Roshanmoniri refused to take Mr Odell and his dog. This broke the conditions of the licence he was granted by Broxtowe Borough Council, who this week prosecuted Roshanmoniri for failing to carry a disabled person with a dog, an offence under the Disability Discrimination Act.

John Cunliffe, representing the council, told Nottingham Magistrates Court: "Most of the operators are aware that Mr Odell is blind and accompanied by his guide dog. On seeing Mr Odell’s guide dog he said it was against his religion to carry dogs in his vehicle. It was explained to him that the dog was a working dog and could not be refused carriage.”
http://www.secularism.org.uk/103543.html

I have no more sympathy for this idiot than I do for Christian pharmacy workers who balk at filling prescriptions for Plan B or other forms of birth control. If your nonsensical dogma prohibits you from performing your job, get a different job. Don't expect the rest of us to accommodate you.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Dogs are disgusting animals. They have a habit of ruining taxi cabs, that's why most people don't take them. Muslims view dogs as a dirty animal, which when one touches it, they have to ritually purify themselves.

The above story was made up, the one by Michael. Your story is real, and not confined to Muslims, many Spanish and Sikh drivers, and some white drivers too, don't take dogs either.

In the event of an accident and the shedding of hair and the dog smell, and what of using restroom in the car, what recourse does a cab driver actually have? To pay for this cleaning from his wallet. There needs to be extra frees for people with dogs, and cab driver should have the right to refuse on that basis. It should be mentioned in advance whether a dog is being brought in this car or not.

There are numerous issues.

 

[DiamondHearts]

My posts keep getting deleted, are you moderators trying to silence criticism? Also, I want to know who complained about my post, was it Michael. He regularly calls Muslims Nazis and KKK, doesn't that get him a warning?

 

[Repo Man]

Dogs are disgusting animals. They have a habit of ruining taxi cabs, that's why most people don't take them. Muslims view dogs as a dirty animal, which when one touches it, they have to ritually purify themselves.

Then get a different job. Dogs are disgusting animals? I'll take most dogs over most people. And I've met humans that smelled far worse than the worst smelling dog I've ever encountered.

You can always be counted on to say things that will make moderates like myself lose sympathy for you and others who also profess to believe your faith.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Then get a different job. Dogs are disgusting animals? I'll take most dogs over most people. And I've met humans that smelled far worse than the worst smelling dog I've ever encountered.

We should treat people better than we do animals. That's the problem. Animals are dirty naturally, and should be kept in open spaces and free, we shouldn't keep them in closed spaces. I am very opposed to the notion of keeping free animals as pets, it denies their freedom. People's troubles should be respected too.

You can always be counted on to say things that will make moderates like myself lose sympathy for you and others who also profess to believe your faith.

Like I stated earlier, this isn't just a Muslim problem. When we make it like this, we are signaling out a particular group of people to vilify. I'm starting to think this may be fairly more common in the West than I initially thought. Unfortunately there is a real lack of respect for other people in the West, only now is it coming more openly.

Accept the fact that to Muslims a few things are dirty, the pig, the dog, alcohol. If you realize this and don't put Muslims into a position to test their faith, then we can get along fine.

 

[Repo Man]

Accept the fact that to Muslims a few things are dirty, the pig, the dog, alcohol. If you realize this and don't put Muslims into a position to test their faith, then we can get along fine.

I didn't put them there; this man, and others like him, put themselves there. People are free to believe superstitious nonsense, and I am free to ridicule them for it. I do not respect religious dogma of any sort. I've put up this quote before, but you cannot or will not understand it. It goes to the heart of the issue.

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.
-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

This is the prevailing belief in the secular west. If you do not like it, tough.

If American Muslims want to avoid alcohol, dogs, pork, that is certainly their right, and no worse than the Amish and their ridiculous arbitrary ban on technology past a certain stage of the nineteenth century. But I've never heard of the Amish going about trying to force others to allow them to do modern jobs in a manner that doesn't violate their beliefs. I have heard of Muslim attacks on liquor stores, the article I linked to above, and many other forms of radical nonsense.

I said it before, and I'll say it again - Sikhs are the religious group you ought to emulate. They have their beliefs, they mind their own business, and they cause no trouble that I'm aware of.

 

[Bells]

We should treat people better than we do animals. That's the problem. Animals are dirty naturally, and should be kept in open spaces and free, we shouldn't keep them in closed spaces. I am very opposed to the notion of keeping free animals as pets, it denies their freedom. People's troubles should be respected too.

So refusing to allow a blind person and their seeing eye dog into a cab is treating that blind person better?

A guide dog is not a pet and is not viewed or treated as a pet.

People are just as dirty and carry just as much germs as animals do. If you do not bathe, then you smell. The same applies with a dog. If they are not bathed, then they smell. A clean dog and well cared for dog is less dirty than someone who hasn't had a wash in a long time.

And frankly, like Repo, I would take a dog over certain individuals any day.

Accept the fact that to Muslims a few things are dirty, the pig, the dog, alcohol. If you realize this and don't put Muslims into a position to test their faith, then we can get along fine.

Then Muslims who view dogs as being disgusting and dirty should not be placing themselves in a position where they discriminate against blind people in such a horrible fashion. It is not the blind person's fault that they are blind, nor is it their fault that guide dogs are their seeing eye dogs. The same applies to people who have compassion dogs who are trained to alert them to an oncoming seizure (people who suffer from bad and constant seizures), diabetic episodes, asthma attacks, etc.. Those dogs aren't pets and are essential and life savers for the people they work with. Yes that's right, they work with the people they are looking out for. So it is hardly the blind or sick person's fault that Muslims are placing themselves in a position that can test their faith. Such Muslims who refuse or throw out people out of their cabs because they have guide dogs or companion dogs are not exactly very "faithful" in that they have such little respect for people who need help.. So much for giving charity, eh?

Now if you are a Muslim and view dogs in such a derogatory fashion, don't work in an industry that will result in your having to come into contact with people who are blind or who need companion dogs or guide dogs.

 

[Asguard]

as bells says, dont do the job if you wont do it properly. Companion animals are certifided to hygine standeds before they are alowed to be used, they are safe to be around food and a taxi is ALOT less clean than a hospital or a kitchen. The law is there for a reason and i for one am glad its inforced

 

[Tyler]

Animals are dirty naturally, and should be kept in open spaces and free, we shouldn't keep them in closed spaces. I am very opposed to the notion of keeping free animals as pets, it denies their freedom. People's troubles should be respected too.

Actually, a number of studies have shown that - quite in contradiction with what nearly everyone assumes - animals are often cleaner than people. It's hard to believe, but that dirty dog kiss you wash your face after... well, it has less bacteria on it than the mouth of a person. So, no, you're wrong on this one. Dogs in particular are surprisingly clean most of the time.

Though I can't say I disagree with you that many animals should be let to run free, the dog is a domesticated animal and would fare poorly in the wild. They are happiest in a home.

Oh, and a dog may be clean, but it may also piss in the bus. Of course, if someone takes even the mildest care of their animal, this probably isn't a threat. My dog would never do that. And seeing eye dogs are extremely well trained. So, really it's not much of an issue in this case.

Moreover, as everyone else said, you shouldn't take a job that you're unwilling to follow through on. That's childish and irresponsible. He probably signed a contract agreeing to do all of these things, and if he denied someone entry then he reneged on his contract.

I'm not sure why you're even trying to defend this. The guy was a jerk or an idiot. They exist in all religions. One muslim being a jerk or an idiot does not prove anything about muslims as a whole.

 

[S.A.M.]

I agree that you should not take on a job you cannot follow through on. But cab drivers often refuse fare for several reasons, if a woman with a chimpanzee hailed one and the cabbie refused, or a man with a snake hailed one and the cabbie refused, it would not be an issue. Many cab drivers refuse short low paying fares. Individual cab drivers who refuse fare should ALL be held liable for public service.

e.g.

Toronto cabbies are being chastised for refusing to take clubgoers home on the weekend.

A group of undercover female police officers posing as clubgoers found that a number of taxi drivers refused to provide them with service when they asked to be taken just a few blocks from the city's Entertainment district.

"The officers had not consumed alcohol and were not acting drunk," said Det. Const. Mark Tracey with 52 Division.

"They asked to be taken about seven blocks away and they were refused service," he said in an interview with CTV.ca.

Police laid 21 charges against taxi drivers on the weekend for refusing the first fare. The crackdown was part of a two-day blitz dubbed "Project Take Me Home" aimed at identifying and charging cab drivers who violate municipal bylaws.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080415/taxi_charged_080415?hub=TorontoNewHome

I said it before, and I'll say it again - Sikhs are the religious group you ought to emulate. They have their beliefs, they mind their own business, and they cause no trouble that I'm aware of.

Sikhs are also people just like Muslims. We've had airplanes hijacked and blown up by them too when they had their secessionist movement for a separate state called Khalistan.

In the 1980s, some of Khalistan proponents turned to militancy, resulting in Indian Army's counter-militancy operations. In one such operation, the Operation Blue Star, the Sikh holy shrine was desecrated by the Indian Army, resulting in widespread criticism of the Indian Government. The Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her two Sikh bodyguards, and tens of thousands of Sikhs were massacred in the following riots. In January 1986, the Golden Temple was occupied by militants belonging to All India Sikh Students Federation and Damdami Taksal.[5] On January 26, 1986, the gathering passed a resolution (gurmattā) favouring the creation of Khalistan. Khalistan was envisaged by its proponents as a Sikh-majority state, which opponents argued would become a theocracy.

Under the Constitution of India, secessionism is forbidden, and various rebel groups in favour of Khalistan fought an insurgency against the government of India. Indian security forces suppressed the secessionist insurgency in Punjab in the early 1990s,[6] and since then there has been little further pro-Khalistan agitation within Punjab, although international pro-Khalistan organizations such as Dal Khalsa are still active outside India.[7]

I'm surprised you don't know about this. Indira Gandhi was quite the international figure.

The guy was a jerk or an idiot. They exist in all religions. One muslim being a jerk or an idiot does not prove anything about muslims as a whole.

The issue was brought up as such issues usually are, when discussing Muslims.

 

[Bells]

I agree that you should not take on a job you cannot follow through on. But cab drivers often refuse fare for several reasons, if a woman with a chimpanzee hailed one and the cabbie refused, or a man with a snake hailed one and the cabbie refused, it would not be an issue. Many cab drivers refuse short low paying fares. Individual cab drivers who refuse fare should ALL be held liable for public service.

Indeed.

I have seen Pakistani cab drivers who have taken the utmost care with their blind passengers who have guide dogs. Opening the door for them, helping them with their seatbelts, making sure the dog was secure in the car next to them, etc. So it is obviously not something that all Muslim cab drivers are guilty of. In Australia at least, there have been a few who sited religious reasons for refusing to take passengers who were blind or carrying shopping that contained alcohol.

At the end of the day, any individual who sites religious grounds for leaving a blind or paralysed individual on the side of the road because they use a companion animal is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

It is just as wrong to refuse to take passengers because they are not traveling far enough or any other reason and I agree, they should be held liable and dismissed for failing to do what they are being paid to do.

 

[S.A.M.]

At the end of the day, any individual who sites religious grounds for leaving a blind or paralysed individual on the side of the road because they use a companion animal is wrong, no matter how you look at it.

Why religious grounds? Is it okay to leave them standing on non-religious grounds?

 

[Tyler]

I agree that you should not take on a job you cannot follow through on. But cab drivers often refuse fare for several reasons, if a woman with a chimpanzee hailed one and the cabbie refused, or a man with a snake hailed one and the cabbie refused, it would not be an issue. Many cab drivers refuse short low paying fares. Individual cab drivers who refuse fare should ALL be held liable for public service.

I'm not sure what the law says on all of those cases. For example, a snake or chimpanzee may be considered a dangerous animal. I honestly can't say what the law is on these cases, though I would imagine it differs from place to place. If it's illegal, say, to transport a chimp, then it obviously wouldn't be mandated by their contract.

However in examples such as the Toronto case you cited, I agree fully with you that the people should be prosecuted. Likewise, I don't think 'religious grounds' are enough reason to be able to sign a contract that you willingly signed.

The issue was brought up as such issues usually are, when discussing Muslims.

Then why fall to the opposite stupidity in response? It's not necessary to defend the dude if we all agree that breaking a contract is wrong. Just call the obvious refrain; what one, or two, or even a hundred muslims do is not a fair representation of Islam.

 

[S.A.M.]

But is he wrong? To a Somalian there may not be much difference between a chimpanzee and a dog. Just because Americans see dogs as anthropomorphised, its not necessary that everyone will. A Somalian may see a dog as a dangerous animal and may not see a chimpanzee as one.

Should a cab driver be forced to take in an animal he considers as dangerous?

I have friends with dogs who accept the fact that dogs are not welcome in all places.

 

[Tyler]

Why religious grounds? Is it okay to leave them standing on non-religious grounds?

Nope. I think you kind of misunderstand the religion-bashers in one way, though. No one is suggesting that religion is the sole source of misdeed. Just that it is one source. And that removing it would therefore be removing one less source of misdeed.

I don't really agree with this line of reasoning, but you often mischaracterize it and create the strawman of "some other evil X can exist without religion, therefore religion is not the source of evil."

 

[Tyler]

But is he wrong? To a Somalian there may not be much difference between a chimpanzee and a dog. Just because Americans see dogs as anthropomorphised, its not necessary that everyone will. A Somalian may see a dog as a dangerous animal and may not see a chimpanzee as one.

Should a cab driver be forced to take in an animal he considers as dangerous?

You have a very good point, but it's not particularly relevant to the debate between you and I. My suggestion was that he was wrong for breaking a contract.

What you're arguing is that the law or contract maybe ought to be changed. I think that's a separate, more difficult and also interesting question.