I never said there were no Muslim American citizens. I am stressing the fact of the airport being physically situated in the jurisdiction of a country that is supposed to separate church and state. Otherwise I find your comment confusing 
Cause hostilities or not the ruling needed to be made and IMO was correct.
What happens when the cabbie refuses a fare elsewhere?
If your religion/beliefs prevent you from carrying out your job then do not do that job. To allow it to be otherwise opens a huge can of worms.
The American state telling me and other atheists on every dollar bill that God exists. Not much I can do, not being an American, other than write about it in Message Boards.
The Canadian state (I live in Canada but travel in the US) adding the words “under God” in the preamble of the 1982 constitution and refusing to remove it when requested by humanist groups.)
The Canadian state adding the words “God keep our land” to the national anthem.
Publicly-supported Roman Catholic Separate Schools in Ontario, using my taxes to teach a religion that calls me morally disordered for being gay. (I lived and paid taxes in Ontario for 40 years. I now live in Quebec where religious school boards have been abolished).
Freezing my ass in Lansing, Michigan because the local Christian-owned cab company refuses service to gay bars (see above for more information).
Roman Catholics and Muslims appearing before Parliamentary Committees in Canada to oppose CIVIL marriage for same-sex couples even though neither recognize civil marriage as valid. Even though the law specifically says that no religion is obliged to perform any marriage they do not want to. So they don’t want gays to have access to a form of marriage that they do not recognize?
Attempts by Muslims last year to have Sharia law incorporated in the law systems of various Canadian Provinces. Muslim women in Canada would be “completely free” to choose Sharia or western law. :dubious: Yeah, right. Luckily, they have been rebuffed by outpourings of opposition from people right acrosss Canada, including me and brave ex-Muslim women who have been victims of Sharis law in their countries of origin.
Do you want me to go on?
I have fought back with participation in anti-Sharia demos, letters to the editor, money to humanist and other organizations fighting for separation of church and state, etc.
There are already plenty of places in the US where I can’t bing alcohol, sealed or not, into. If I walked down to my local bar carrying a six-pack of beer, they wouldn’t let me in. There are actually whole counties in the US where I can’t buy alcohol at all. I agree with MAC’s policy, but it’s not exactly the height of outlandishness for a private property owner to demand people coming onto his property not have alcohol.
My god. Someone might demand a dress code? The nerve! I better run down to the local dance club which won’t let me in if I’m wearing shorts and a t-shirt and tell them that they’re enabling fundamentalist Muslims.
I wouldn’t approve of a cab driver preventing someone in tank top and shorts from getting in their cab (and it generally wouldn’t be legal in California anyway), but come on. These examples are trivial.
Carrying Koran or Bible verses (and I’m neither a Christian or a Muslim) ranks higher than carrying alcohol. That’s because we believe in freedom of religion and freedom of thought. Alcohol is a drug which is highly regulated to begin with. The world isn’t going to end because a couple of cabbies don’t want it in their cab. Mind you, though, that I agree that in a case where competition is limited (as in the airport), a cabbie should be required to transport a person with sealed alcohol.
I wasn’t aware that the the cab drivers allowed Muslim passengers to carry alcohol in their cab, I thought their prohibition applied to all Americans and visitors to America.
Notice that it was a group of Muslims. It does not even pertain to the thousands of Muslim cabbies in New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, or any other city with a large Muslim population. If some group of animists in Nairobi beat up a couple of Muslims, does that make it an"animist" problem?
The "torches and pitchforks comment, that was readiliy apparent as sacrcasm to every thinking poster who read that thread was already exlpained (and ignored). (I admit that the explanation appeared in a Pit thread, not in the original thread as I had incorrectly remembered, but, then, it was actually 213 posts into that thread before you got around to making a coherent point, not merely 113 as I had incorrectly remembered.).
You do (collectively, though, not individually), not in any individual post where you could have your xenophobia pointed out more clearly, but in the collected body of your anti-Islam screeds with which you have been bombarding us for the last fw months.
As to the “religion of peace” schtick, I do not give it any more credence than I give the constant clamoring of uninformed individuals who do post on this board that Islam is a religion of conquest and forced conversion. Throughout its rather lengthy history, different societies who have been Muslim have engaged in violent and peaceful conversion, have been defenders of the downtrodden and oppressive, and have engaged in nearly all the good and bad things that societies do. Recognizing that religion is only part of a society and that participation in the religion does not directly guide every decision or action is one of the things that separates discerning people from those who would prefer to deal in unconsidered generalities.
Your eyes truly do seem to be troubling you. No where did I make the claim that you made such an assertion in your OP.
Valteron certainly thinks that the Somali cabbies were behaving badly and he has a habit in recent months of rushing to the SDMB to post his alarm at the fact that we are not resisting “their” advance (since “they” are Muslim and are engaged in particularly dangerous behaviour) with sufficient firmness.
That was the entire context of my statement.
What is outlandish is the extent that some people will go to to pretend that Islam is not being pushed on us by some members of a culture that neither knows nor accepts separation of church and state.
Do you suspect that just maybe, just maybe, your local bar owner has a sound, economic reason for not wanting you to bring a case of beer into his bar? A reason that has nothing at all to do with imposing his religion on you?
No, what is outlandish is that even though you’re apparently in Canada, and that Canada has a very similar conception of private property rights to the US, you are unable to see the distinction between private property owners, private property owners engaged in public commerce, and the state.
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t. Did you do an empirical economic study on bar operations? We can sit here and argue motivations all day. The question is: do people have a right to ban alcohol from their private property? Yes, of course they do. Do people give up some of their property rights when they engage in public commerce? Yes, of course they do. Did they give up their right to ban alcohol–let’s look at it on a case-by-case basis, while trying to preserve as much of their property rights as possible.
Day before yesterday, when I was shown a Revelation is coming NOW video and yelled at repeatedly when I tried to leave. I gave up, and started critiquing the artistic quality and asking what exactly parts meant. It pissed the charismatic evangelical off enough to turn it off and throw me out of her office.
Same woman who calls me the antichrist, yes. No, I can’t really complain to HR about it, she’s the president’s old secretary and has a medical condition. Can’t be fired, can’t be rebuked, runs wild.
Eh. It’s interesting except when it interferes with work.
Huh?
Anyway, my interpretation of Valteron’s emphasis on the word “American” appears to have been incorrect. I therefore withdraw my concern.
Are you sure? I have gone into bars carrying sealed containers of alcohol after visiting the grocery store. Certainly at Airport bars they don’t bar you after going to duty free.
Yes. Several of the bars in my area won’t allow you to carry in a bottle of outside alcohol. There’s a couple of restaurants that I know allow you to bring wine on premises, but not anything else.
There is a state rule governing outside alcohol on the premises of places that serve alcohol, but I don’t know the specifics of it.
On the web it’s hard to sound like you are asking and not “questioning”, so insert the appropriate polite tone here. Do the bars prohibit you bringing in a bottle (e.g., in a shopping bag) or just bringing it in to drink?
It’s an Islamic issue to them. Your refusal to grasp that this is, indeed, an issue of religious freedom is dishonest.
Okay, so let’s let 'em cut down this one tree, 'cuz we’ve got this whole forest and it’s the easiest way to avoid an unpleasant confrontation in which we might look racist. They want to cut down another tree? Okay, let 'em. It’s a trivial unimportant issue, and the most important thing here is not to seem racist or xenophobic or uncool. Well, they want a few more trees, now. Well, give it to 'em. If we try to draw a line here, things could get ugly. Uh … they want more trees … guess we’d better. Remember the Crusades? Don’t want to be a bunch of bullies oppressing a minority, you know. Gee, they want still more trees. Well, we’ve got plenty, so I guess in a spirit of brotherhood and tolerance we should … I mean, Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance and all that …
Hey, where did our forest go? How did those Muslims get all that lumber?
Tomndebb and others seem to think the argument that not all Muslims are the same or have the same agenda means we cannot raise a general alarm about what Islam is doing in the world and the threat that ISLAM (NOT all one billion Muslims down to the last man, woman and baby) poses to the world.
That would be like saying that since there were millions of good, decent Germans in 1938-39, including NO DOUBT MILLIONS OF CARD-CARRYING NAZIS WHO WERE REALLY NICE PEOPLE, then NAZIISM itself could not be regarded as dangerous.
So, since I am apparently nothing but a bigot, here is a video of an ex-Muslim lady, an Arab-American named Wafa Sultan, speaking Arabic on Al-Jazeera TV last year (you can follow on English subtitles. at this site.
What is especially entertaining is that the Muslim man arguing with her does not seem to know what to do about her. No doubt in his society, no man, and no woman certainly, could speak out like this. It is especially funny to see him asking if she is a heretic, because he will take his marbles and refuse to play if she is.
His total inability to engage in what we in the west would consider a rational argument with an opposing point of view is typical of what one finds in the Koran. Believe what Mohamed says or Allah will fry your ass. Repeated over and over ad nauseam.
But i have not claimed that it is not a Muslim issue to them. I simply note that Valteron’s attempt to gather every disparate issue involving any Muslim and trying to force that into his pre-conceived notion that “Islam” is out to “get” the West is lacking in facts or logic. If Somali immigrants, clusterd in a particular region are making a claim that “Islam” dictates certain behavior and Syrian, Jordanian, Iranian, Turkish, Egyptian, Nigerian, and Saudi immigrants are making no such claim, then this issue is pretty clearly a Somali cultural expression of their local version of their religion, not an issue for world wide Islam.
In case you missed the actual report linked in the OP, the Somali cabbies were ordered to treat all fares equally or surrender their licenses. I have not even seen anyone in this thread complain that the ruling was unjust. My only complaint has been the linkage of one cultural group to a world-wide religion when no other group within that religion supports them. Your argument is akin to claiming Christianity is attempting to destroy the power companies because the Amish refuse to buy power from them.
I dunno. His approach to that discussion was not measurably different than comments I have seen made by Falwell, Robertson, Wildmon, Paisley, or even Dobson (although Dobson can occasionally seem more nearly lucid). (For that matter, he did not seem much different than Limbaugh, O’Reilly, or Coulter–encounter an opposiong viewpoint that seems “inconceivable” and resort to bluster.)
ETA:
Alberto Rivera
Willim Hogan
Charles Chiniquy
John Culleton
The bar I usually hang out at will most definitely not let you bring in outside alcohol, sealed or not, whether you plan to consume it or not. They apparently have had problems with this in the past and don’t want to deal with it.