Keeping dogs may be banned in Iran

[n2doc]

by Enjoli Liston

Pampered pooches may not be everyone's idea of "man's best friend", but a bill proposed by politicians in Iran could take this sentiment to a new extreme – by criminalising dog ownership.

According to Time magazine, the draft legislation is the first time MPs in Tehran have outlined specific punishments for "the walking and keeping" of "impure and dangerous animals", which many believe directly targets Iran's canine population. If the bill were passed, the illegal animal would be confiscated and the owner fined up to £300, but the bill does not clarify what fate would await the seized animals.

Islamic tradition considers dogs, like pigs, to be "unclean" animals. Despite this, keeping dogs as pets has become an increasingly popular pastime among the Iranian middle class in recent years – a trend which the new bill describes as "a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West".

There is no official estimate of Iran's canine population, but Iranian vets estimate that thousands of dogs are kept as pets in Tehran alone. The proposed bill builds on another motion tabled last week, which plans to ban dogs from public places and private flats, according to news reports.

Current laws already forbid dog owners from allowing their pets to ride with them in their cars, and from walking their dogs in public places, but these are rarely enforced.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/keeping-impure-dogs-may-be-banned-in-iran-2270123.html

[SoCalDem]

1. What a bunch of killjoys..

:( poor pooches.. I know what will happen to them:(

[dawg]

2. Now they've gone too far.

[msongs]

3. at least they don't spend billions on dog food while their children go hungry*

*although they may spend billions on something else while their children go hungry I suppose

[Zorro]

4. Many years ago I heard that Mohammed died from a rabid dog bite

and that's why dogs aren't welcome in Moslem households.

[get the red out]

5. Our innocent companions

For thousands of years will have to suffer for human created religion. Great! Dogs really are capable of unconditional love, religion seeks to root out and destroy unconditional love, or really love of any sort except love for the religion itself.

I will go home and look in my dog's eyes and somehow despise religion even more now than I already did.

[AlecBGreen]

6. ???

...religion seeks to root out and destroy unconditional love...

Is this what you really believe?

[get the red out]

9. In most cases

Certainly.

No pity on me needed, in case that was to be the follow-up, just saving time. We are all entitled to look at the world and come to conclusions others might not like.

[AlecBGreen]

12. In most cases?

I disagree. The central tenet of Christianity is unconditional love. Is this always practiced by its followers? No. But the fact remains, that is what we as Christians are called to do.

"We are all entitled to look at the world and come to conclusions others might not like."

I agree :hi: Dont let the world get you down.

[get the red out]

15. Unfortunately people interpret tenets

And it seems most religious bodies have been skewing conservative in recent years which places demands to tow the letter of the more extreme interpretations of "law" on followers and on how those followers perceive others. This seems to result in a huge amount of condemnation of others and all love and loyalty being reserved for the religious body itself.

The world only gets me down because humanity simply cannot seem to get out of fear and ritual long enough to advance in any way. If most religious bodies were "liberal" I would have no trouble with them. Here in the south people use religion to screw up their kids for a past time, because the law of religion is more important than loving a gay son or unmarried pregnant daughter etc....

Good discussion though.

[WatsonT]

13. Most religions don't ban dogs

[get the red out]

16. Most religions condemn and control

And want the loyalty and love for the religious body or its leaders. Banning dogs per se is but one symptom appearing in Iran at the moment. I usually despise religion for such institutions' general mistreatment and disregard for women, perhaps that would work better here. Or maybe condemnation of gay people, often the murder of gay people. How about Catholic Priests molesting children, better reason?

[WatsonT]

20. Individuals of any religion

can be evil. And even the bureaucracy can be problematic.

That is not necessarily a condemnation of all religion though.

[get the red out]

24. But the people are the religion

Religion is only a concept, it is carried out by people, religion is the people that follow it.

[WatsonT]

31. Ghandi, MLK, Mother Theresa

they all had something in common other than insane amounts of groupies.

If people are the problem then you cannot condemn the entire organization as people are so tremendously variable.

[get the red out]

32. I don't claim absolutes ever exist

Under Hitler the trains ran on time in Germany too. So bad about that little concentration camp problem.

[Paradoxical]

25. Why must love be unconditional?

Doesn't make sense to me. Love is a relationship, not an expense.

[get the red out]

26. Greedy Religion mongers don't make sense

They want all focus on the religion, they demand people care more for the religion that living beings like their pets or even their own children. How many headlines do we read about religious people in this country putting their own kids out on the street because they are gay? How many headlines do we read about religious people killing their own children for "honor" in other countries to uphold religious law? Guess that's ok, since unconditional love "makes no sense". Those were just expenses anyway, gotta buy that path to heaven after all.

[Paradoxical]

27. Unconditional love would require a gay child to still love their asshole parents.

I don't preach such a belief. Love goes both ways. You cannot have a loving relationship with someone who is not willing to love you back.

[get the red out]

28. I am hardly preaching a belief

I am talking about religion and it's greed. I don't know what responses you've been reading but it certainly isn't mine. You simply latched onto one single term "unconditional love" that you feel you can knock down because you cannot refute the overall concept that religion is harmful to people's relationships and their wellbeing.

Religion would say that the gay kids MUST love and respect those parents that hate them and should only hate themselves. How's that for a relationship?

[Paradoxical]

34. I'm agnostic and a philosopher. I do not believe that religion is healthy.

So you're thinking that I have different intentions.

I'm merely stating that unconditional love is not a good thing.

[get the red out]

37. And I'm only stating

That my one use of that term was not intended to make my whole perspective about that. One can debate even what that means. I use it more loosely than it is often taken. I think of it more as normal love, that which parents have for their children, pets have for those who care for them. I will take care in future never to use the term here since it's use overshadows the main points of what is being said.

[Jim Lane]

7. What do blind people in Iran do? Are they prohibited from having seeing-eye dogs? (n/t)

[WatsonT]

14. Maybe they can get seeing eye pigs!

Pigs are intelligent and can be trained.

[Canuckistanian]

21. Pigs are also unclean

They'd have to use seeing-eye chickens.

[Cairycat]

23. Actually, miniature horses can be used as guide animals

I would think they would be ok for muslims.

[Jim Lane]

33. Aha! The whole thing is a plot by the greedy breeders of miniature horses! (n/t)

[snooper2]

8. I think somebody in Iran is trying to do a deal with China

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Freddie Stubbs]

10. Personality goes a long way

[Terra Alta]

17. What a sad story.

What's going to happen to all these dogs? It breaks my heart to think of how they might be treated. :(

[riderinthestorm]

18. If there are no dogs in heaven, I want to go where the dogs are when I die.

(disclaimer: I'm an atheist but I've always wanted to use that quote somewhere...) :P

[chaska]

19. Well, at least they won't be contributing to global warming....

Methane, you know.

Now if we could only ban people too ... or even instead of.

[Old Troop]

22. It's actually pretty complicated. I doubt the Iranian lawmakers plan

to ban dogs. Dogs have been bred throughout Islamic lands to do specific tasks. Dogs are considered unclean in Islamic thought because of their personal habits and propensity to eat unclean things, but are considered useful tools in many circumstances. I think what they're trying to do is ban "pet" dog ownership -- dogs that are kept as a source of emotional pleasure by their owners.

[get the red out]

29. Oh well

That's ok then, pet owners shouldn't have the right to love a pet anyway if despots say so. Glad to see that cleared up. Yea despotic rulers!!!!

[JCMach1]

36. This type of nonsense has a knockon affect in the rest of the Muslim world

When Imams start spouting this idiocy, they will throw their pets on the streets in other parts of the Muslim world. Even where there are shelters, such as the UAE, they are constantly full.

The Iranians seriously need to STFU.

[get the red out]

30. If we were talking about Christians

Very few on DU would be apologizing for them rather than calling the leadership of Iran what they are, idiotic pieces of shit. I think religious rules simply suck for all living things on Earth, at least I am consistent.

[JCMach1]

35. This will come back to bite them in the ass!