Muslim taxi drivers in USA refuse to take passengers carrying wine bottle

[Larry_Borgia]

Alan Smithee,

Once you admit that the pharmacy case is problematic, and that there are times when the government does have to step in and regulate against private wishes in favor of public interest, the issue becomes one of degree.

As far as the Minneapolis cabbies go, as I said in an earlier post replying to Sarahfeena, I’m not personally sure how much the law should get involved. If the citizens and legislature of Minnesota are fine with the colored lights system, that’s their business. If it’s only a small minority of cabs doing this, it might not be worth getting the law involved. But if a large enough number of cabbies are behaving like this, enough that a passenger bringing a case of wine home is seriously inconvenienced, if I were a Minnesotan I’d be annoyed.

I’d apply the same principle to the Jewish clinic. A doctor’s going to take a day off anyway, and it may as well be Saturday as Wednesday. If the patients have access to some care in case of emergency, like a hospital ER, a clinic closing one day a week isn’t that much of a problem. However, if the situation was similar to Cheesesteak’s scenario, than I can see the government stepping in. If the government had to choose licensing two clinics, one of which had a rotating staff on duty seven days a week while the other was only open six days a week, the government should license the seven day clinic, all other things being equal.

I guess what cheeses me off is the sillyness of the whole thing. A vast impersonal being, standing outside space and time, creator of the universe, writer of the laws that underly reality, is not going to send someone to eternal torment for transporting someone else who is carrying booze. Such notions should not be encouraged in a civilized industrial society. I do realize that my view is a minority opinion in this country.

And frankly while I think taking a day or two off a week is healthy and necessary, taking a day off because the deity commands it for some reason is also silly. Again IMO.

[LonesomePolecat]

I suppose what bugs me here is that many of the folks defending the Muslim taxi drivers seem to think I should defer to Muslims in a way that I would never defer to another religion.

Suppose I’m just getting back from visiting mom and pop down on the old family farm, and mom, being the sweet soul she is, has thoughtfully given me a package of homemake pork sausage links to take home. So I plunk myself down in the backseat of a cab clutching my prize, and the Jewish driver says, “That’s against my religion. You can’t have that in here.”

I’m not supposed to be offended?

Or maybe mom gave some nice, juicy steaks to take home with me. I walk out of the airport with the package under my arm, plunk myself down in the backseat of the cab, and the Hindu driver says, “Do not pollute the back seat of my cab with cow carcass as it is against my religion, sir.”

This isn’t supposed to bug me? I’m just supposed to give him a cheery smile, say, “Oh, I’m so sorry I offended you with my filthy Western ways,” and get out of the cab?

Or put the shoe on the other foot. I’m driving a cab and a Muslim woman wearing a burka gets in my cab. I think you all know how much I hate the burka. I turn around and tell her, “The wearing of the burka is profoundly offensive to me for many philosophical and political reasons. You’ll have to get out of my cab.”

No one here would think me wrong? Would anyone here defend my action or insist that no pressure should be brought upon me not to behave that way? I wouldn’t be violating a vital social norm in showing open contempt for someone who is not behaving in an abusive or threatening manner, isn’t breaking any law, and is perfectly willing to pay the required fare? I’m not being inexcusably rude by refusing to treat her as I would any other customer?

You see, it isn’t simply a question of what’s legal or not, it’s a question of what’s civil or not. It doesn’t matter if I’m legally entitled to tell a woman wearing a burka to get out of my cab; whatever the legal status of such an action would be, it would still be an intolerably incivil thing to do.

But apparently, because in this case the ones who are violating an important principle of simple, basic civility are Muslim, a lot of folks around here think we should give in to them and accept such an act of petty contempt and incivility as ordinary, normal behavior for Muslims–but not for anyone else.

You can only make so many concessions to another culture before you begin to lose your own. We should not make this concession to them.

[tagos]

@LonesomePolecat

I suppose what bugs me here is that many of the folks defending the Muslim taxi drivers seem to think I should defer to Muslims in a way that I would never defer to another religion.

You’ve probably been following the fuss over Jack Straw (Leader of the House of Commons in the UK) requesting (but not requiring) women wearing the full veil to remove it when they come see him because he thinks being able to see faces helps communication. No problem if they don’t.

A community ‘spokesman’ in his constituency was on the TV this morning saying (by which I mean vehemently insisting) that is an irrelevant argument because Islam requires men to lower their eyes when speaking to women.

Not Muslim men. Men.

If grown women choose to wear the gear from their own free will then I guess that is their business but it’s this creeping ‘everyone else should conform to our rules’ attitude that creeps me out.

Fine - you don’t draw pictures of Mohammed, you don’t wear string bikinis on the Seine summer beaches.

Straw should keep a full face black balaclava in his office.

[Gorsnak]

@LonesomePolecat

I suppose what bugs me here is that many of the folks defending the Muslim taxi drivers seem to think I should defer to Muslims in a way that I would never defer to another religion.

I think you’re missing an important distinction here. The cabbies in question aren’t refusing to take fares because the fares are breaking a Muslim moral rule. They’re refusing the fares because they believe that taking them would be breaking their own moral code. That is, it’s not because the fares are sinning by having alcohol, but because the cabbies would be sinning by transporting alcohol. So far as I know, it’s not against Jewish law to transport pork products owned by someone else. These guys aren’t trying to force other people to follow their code, they’re just trying to follow their own code.

Now, I expect this line gets blurred in the real world, just as it does in the pharmacy example, but it does change the fundamentals of the situation. Ordinarily we think that the state shouldn’t get involved in regulating religious practices. It shouldn’t require citizens to follow the rules of one religion. It shouldn’t prevent citizens from following the rules of another. Requiring the cabbies to transport alcohol would be preventing them from adhering to their religion, and if a reasonable accomodation can be made without imposing a burden on other people then the state should not impose on them.

I’m not very sympathetic to the cabbies at all, but it clouds the issue to frame it the way you have.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Gorsnak

I think you’re missing an important distinction here. The cabbies in question aren’t refusing to take fares because the fares are breaking a Muslim moral rule. They’re refusing the fares because they believe that taking them would be breaking their own moral code. That is, it’s not because the fares are sinning by having alcohol, but because the cabbies would be sinning by transporting alcohol. So far as I know, it’s not against Jewish law to transport pork products owned by someone else. These guys aren’t trying to force other people to follow their code, they’re just trying to follow their own code.

Now, I expect this line gets blurred in the real world, just as it does in the pharmacy example, but it does change the fundamentals of the situation. Ordinarily we think that the state shouldn’t get involved in regulating religious practices. It shouldn’t require citizens to follow the rules of one religion. It shouldn’t prevent citizens from following the rules of another. Requiring the cabbies to transport alcohol would be preventing them from adhering to their religion, and if a reasonable accomodation can be made without imposing a burden on other people then the state should not impose on them.

I’m not very sympathetic to the cabbies at all, but it clouds the issue to frame it the way you have.

Gorsnak, I’m sorry, but you’re being much, much too accommodating. What happens if he decides that it is sinful for him to transport a woman with an uncovered face? We use alcohol in our culture. If they can’t deal with that, that’s too bad for them. They chose to come live here. We didn’t ask them to come. They should be willing to make the concessions here, not us. It doesn’t matter whether or not they believe it to be sinful. That’s entirely beside the point. The point is they’re guests here and don’t have any business imposing their culture on their hosts.

There is a difference between being respectful of another culture, and allowing another culture to shove yours out of the way.

[tomndebb]

@LonesomePolecat

I’m not supposed to be offended?

I think you have the right to be every bit as offended as you wish.

The question on the floor is not how insulted you feel, but where to draw the line for religious accommodation in the public sphere in the U.S.

On the one side is the case for religious accommodation: should the Minneapolis airport authority order the cabbies to violate the beliefs of those cabbies (or tell them to work elsewhere) because of a common practice in the U.S.?

On the other side is the case for not imposing religious values on a public that does not share them.

Regardless the outcome, I would suggest that your personal choice to be offended should not be the basis on which we determine law.

---

One aspect of this situation that has received almost no consideration in this discussion has been the fact that this is NOT a Muslim issue. There are no reports of Muslim cabbies in New York (where there are hundreds or thousands such) or Detroit (where there are, at the least dozens or a few hundred), refusing fares. This is a special case for a particular ethnic group.

I am wondering whether the whole thing could have been resolved with such simple efforts as getting a local, American imam to speak to the cabbies regarding it not being a violation or the cabbies chipping in to buy bags to hand to prospective fares so that the bottles are not carried openly in the cab?

[tagos]

@tomndebb

One aspect of this situation that has received almost no consideration in this discussion has been the fact that this is NOT a Muslim issue. There are no reports of Muslim cabbies in New York (where there are hundreds or thousands such) or Detroit (where there are, at the least dozens or a few hundred), refusing fares. This is a special case for a particular ethnic group.

I am wondering whether the whole thing could have been resolved with such simple efforts as getting a local, American imam to speak to the cabbies regarding it not being a violation or the cabbies chipping in to buy bags to hand to prospective fares so that the bottles are not carried openly in the cab?

Which is a very good point. I’ve been trying, within the limits of my own google-fu, to answer that for awhile.

The best I can find is this

Truly, Allah has cursed khamr (alcoholic beverages) and has cursed the one who produces it, the one for whom it is produced, the one who drinks it, the one who serves it, the one who carries it, the one for whom it is carried, the one who sells it, the one who earns from the sale of it, the one who buys it, and the one for whom it is bought.

Hadith found in al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah, compilers of the 6 canonical Hadith for Sunni.

Quoted here.

Islam and Alcohol in america

So the taxi driver’s position isn’t too much of a stretch - they are sort of carrying it and I guess if you take religion seriously then they are resonably enough, erring on the side of caution.

[tagos]

And according to Wiki Sunni is the preponderant flavour in Somalia and thanks to our old friends the Saudi’s - Wahhabist fundamentalism has gained a foothold.

[LonesomePolecat]

@tomndebb

Regardless the outcome, I would suggest that your personal choice to be offended should not be the basis on which we determine law.

But I’m not concerned simply about the law. I’m concerned about the culture as a whole, and when it is and isn’t proper for a minority to expect the majority to make a concession to them. In this case, I don’t think it is proper for them to demand this concession of the majority. They shouldn’t be allowed to choose their passengers on the basis of their religious principles. Let them adapt to our culture.

@tomndebb

… This is a special case for a particular ethnic group.

I am wondering whether the whole thing could have been resolved with such simple efforts as getting a local, American imam to speak to the cabbies regarding it not being a violation or the cabbies chipping in to buy bags to hand to prospective fares so that the bottles are not carried openly in the cab?

I would much prefer a solution such as this. But I can’t help feeling exasperated that the problem ever existed in the first place.

[Cheesesteak]

@tagos

So the taxi driver’s position isn’t too much of a stretch - they are sort of carrying it and I guess if you take religion seriously then they are resonably enough, erring on the side of caution.

Erring on the side of caution is changing jobs, to ensure you don’t ferry around alcohol that you know for certain is carried in a percentage of the baggage you transport. Refusing passengers that openly carry alcohol, but accepting passengers who hide it better just says you’re OK with carrying alcohol, as long as you can pretend you’re alcohol free.

[tagos]

@Cheesesteak

Erring on the side of caution is changing jobs, to ensure you don’t ferry around alcohol that you know for certain is carried in a percentage of the baggage you transport. Refusing passengers that openly carry alcohol, but accepting passengers who hide it better just says you’re OK with carrying alcohol, as long as you can pretend you’re alcohol free.

Erring on the side of caution is in the eye of the cautioner. I’d also guess jobs aren’t all that obtainable for Somali immigrants.

Don’t get me wrong - I think immigrants have no business imposing their beliefs on the host culture. It’s up to them to fit in or go somewhere else. all I’m doing is answering Tom’s question as to whether there is a religious reason for not carrying alcohol. And for Sunni Muslims there is an argument to be made so calling in an Iman may not help.

[Alan_Smithee]

@Larry Borgia

Alan Smithee,

Once you admit that the pharmacy case is problematic, and that there are times when the government does have to step in and regulate against private wishes in favor of public interest, the issue becomes one of degree.

Actually, I agree. In fact, I agree with almost everything you wrote. As I said, I don’t think it’s outlandish or unreasonable for the law to require cabbies to accept every fare (though I think it’s unwise). Accomodations should be reasonable and avoid undue hardship. If the situation really were making it difficult for people to find a cab that would carry them, and no other solution presented itself, it might very well warrant government intervention.

What I’m absolutely baffled by, however, are those who think no accomodation should be made, that even the tiniest (or no) incovenience on the part of the public is too much, and that cabbies should be punished or even forced out of business, not for inconveniencing people, but simply for trying to follow their religion.

That’s an incredibly illiberal and intollerant position, and I just don’t get it.

[Gorsnak]

@LonesomePolecat

Gorsnak, I’m sorry, but you’re being much, much too accommodating. What happens if he decides that it is sinful for him to transport a woman with an uncovered face? We use alcohol in our culture. If they can’t deal with that, that’s too bad for them. They chose to come live here. We didn’t ask them to come. They should be willing to make the concessions here, not us. It doesn’t matter whether or not they believe it to be sinful. That’s entirely beside the point. The point is they’re guests here and don’t have any business imposing their culture on their hosts.

There is a difference between being respectful of another culture, and allowing another culture to shove yours out of the way.

@Gorsnak

and if a reasonable accomodation can be made without imposing a burden on other people then the state should not impose on them.

If their beliefs can be accomodated with little or no inconvenience (which seems to be the case with the light system), then the state has no business interfering in their religious practice. And you respond how? “But what if he decides it’s sinful for him to transport a woman?” Well, then accomodating him would place an undue burden on women, and he won’t be accomodated. Are you seriously saying I’m being too accomodating if I’m only accomodating to the extent that I’m not substantively inconvenienced?

[LonesomePolecat]

@Gorsnak

If their beliefs can be accomodated with little or no inconvenience (which seems to be the case with the light system), then the state has no business interfering in their religious practice. And you respond how? “But what if he decides it’s sinful for him to transport a woman?” Well, then accomodating him would place an undue burden on women, and he won’t be accomodated. Are you seriously saying I’m being too accomodating if I’m only accomodating to the extent that I’m not substantively inconvenienced?

If he were Catholic, and he insisted that everyone who entered his cab make the sign of the Cross, it would not be a terrible inconvenience to either make the sign of the Cross or wait for another cab. It isn’t a question of whether or not it’s a terrible inconvenience. It’s a question of whether or not, in a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society, he is morally–not legally, but morally-- entitled to require others to make obeisance to his religion before he will consent to conduct ordinary, daily business with them. It has nothing to do with legality. It has nothing to do with the state. It has to do with civility. It has to do with being a good neighbor. It has to do with respecting those who do not share their religious convictions. It has to do with accepting the fact that the vast majority of people around them do not regard the possession or consumption of alcohol as inherently sinful. It has to do with respecting the majority, however much they may disagree with the majority. It has to do with accepting the fact that they are the minority and are not entitled to demand that the rest of us abide by their religious principles. It has to do with the fact that what they are demanding of their passengers is incivil, irrational, disrespectful, and in no way justified. What they are demanding is every bit as outrageous as if they had demanded that their passengers burn a pinch of incense to the glory of Mithra, Odin, or Jupiter. It is every bit as ridiculous as a Hindu demanding that they carry no meat products; as a Jew demanding that they carry no pork products; as a Baptist demanding that they carry no pornography; as an atheist demanding that they not carry a copy of the Bible, the Koran or the Bhagavad-Ghita. What they are demanding is simply not reasonable within the context of our society, our culture, and our civilization. I’m sorry, but I really just don’t know how to make it any clearer to you. Their demand is unreasonable, even though the immediate inconvenience it presents to me is trivial, and they are being bad citizens and neighbors in making this demand.

[Gorsnak]

Except that no one is being forced to do anything. People with alcohol merely take the next cab in line. The only people who are losing anything whatsoever are the cabbies, who will end up with fewer fares on average. So we have a situation here where a minor accomodation is made for airport cabbies, where no one suffers any inconvenience whatsoever, the only downside is the economic downside for those cabbies who’ll end up with fewer fares, and still you think they shouldn’t be accomodated. Why not? Who exactly is getting hurt here?

And yet you go one about how these guys are being disrespectful and uncivil. I don’t know I’d go that far, but I would agree that they’ve got a wacky belief and they’re being unreasonable. So? Pretty much all religious people have wacky beliefs and are unreasonable. Often enough those wacky beliefs and irrationalities have some tangential impact on me. I don’t particularly like it when that happens. But I don’t go crying to the government to make the bad god people stop bothering me. Seriously. If we’re going to start legislating against acting on religious beliefs, I say we leave these cabbies alone and go after those damned Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons who come knocking on my door, cuz they’re frankly a much more serious public nuisance.

[Monty]

@Gorsnak

Except that no one is being forced to do anything. People with alcohol merely take the next cab in line.

Agreed. There are different interpretations of Hadith, but apparently these particular drivers are going with the “It’s forbidden to even transport the stuff” version. My guess is that they’re also going with the “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” method, unless of course their decision to not serve those persons is based on an illegal discriminatory practice.

[qoute]The only people who are losing anything whatsoever are the cabbies, who will end up with fewer fares on average. So we have a situation here where a minor accomodation is made for airport cabbies, where no one suffers any inconvenience whatsoever, the only downside is the economic downside for those cabbies who’ll end up with fewer fares, and still you think they shouldn’t be accomodated. Why not? Who exactly is getting hurt here?
[/quote]

Seems to me you’ve nailed it. The only people being truly hurt are those who refuse the fare. But they’ve decided that an economic hurt compared to a spirtual benefit isn’t a hurt.

And yet you go one about how these guys are being disrespectful and uncivil. I

don’t know I’d go that far, but I would agree that they’ve got a wacky belief and they’re being unreasonable. So? Pretty much all religious people have wacky beliefs and are unreasonable.

I’d dearly love to see you support the latter part of that. Some, if not many, of us religious types are quite reasonable.

Often enough those wacky beliefs and irrationalities have some tangential impact on me. I don’t particularly like it when that happens. But I don’t go crying to the government to make the bad god people stop bothering me. Seriously. If we’re going to start legislating against acting on religious beliefs, I say we leave these cabbies alone and go after those damned Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons who come knocking on my door, cuz they’re frankly a much more serious public nuisance.

I hope you’re kidding here.

[Monty]

See what happens when you hit the wrong button?! Arghh!

Corrected version follows.

@Gorsnak

Except that no one is being forced to do anything. People with alcohol merely take the next cab in line.

Agreed. There are different interpretations of Hadith, but apparently these particular drivers are going with the “It’s forbidden to even transport the stuff” version. My guess is that they’re also going with the “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” method, unless of course their decision to not serve those persons is based on an illegal discriminatory practice.

The only people who are losing anything whatsoever are the cabbies, who will end up with fewer fares on average. So we have a situation here where a minor accomodation is made for airport cabbies, where no one suffers any inconvenience whatsoever, the only downside is the economic downside for those cabbies who’ll end up with fewer fares, and still you think they shouldn’t be accomodated. Why not? Who exactly is getting hurt here?

Seems to me you’ve nailed it. The only people being truly hurt are those who refuse the fare. But they’ve decided that an economic hurt compared to a spirtual benefit isn’t a hurt.

And yet you go one about how these guys are being disrespectful and uncivil. I don’t know I’d go that far, but I would agree that they’ve got a wacky belief and they’re being unreasonable. So? Pretty much all religious people have wacky beliefs and are unreasonable.

I’d dearly love to see you support the latter part of that. Some, if not many, of us religious types are quite reasonable.

Often enough those wacky beliefs and irrationalities have some tangential impact on me. I don’t particularly like it when that happens. But I don’t go crying to the government to make the bad god people stop bothering me. Seriously. If we’re going to start legislating against acting on religious beliefs, I say we leave these cabbies alone and go after those damned Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons who come knocking on my door, cuz they’re frankly a much more serious public nuisance.

I hope you’re kidding here.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Eve

All of this raises the question, why should we accede to the superstitions of people, just because they’re shared by a large number of others? What if a cab driver refused to carry blonde people, because “blonde people are actually space aliens bent on taking over the earth?” As soon as you mix “religion” into the equation, we are expected to fold and say apologetically, “Oh, well, if it’s religious, that’s alright, then.”

Personally I think a better question is why should someone runs/operates a private cab should have to accede to our wishes just because they get a government license in order to do their job.

You have to have a license to practice law, and while I know judges have, can, and even used to with great regularity force you to represent a given client, lawyers still have an incredible amount of leeway in deciding who they wish to represent (especially, I think, outside of criminal cases.)

It’s completely off-topic but I’m not really sure why you should have to have a hack license to run a cab service at all, and I know a lot of cabbies operate without hack licenses, which is obviously illegal, but I don’t actually see why it’s a problem.

[LonesomePolecat]

@Gorsnak

Except that no one is being forced to do anything …

Well, Gorsnak, you’re not really replying to anything I wrote, and I see no indication that you’re making any serious effort to understand me. You’re just repeating over and over what you’ve already said. I feel like I’m talking to a tape recording, and I see no further point to the conversation.

[enipla]

Still, I don’t like it.

If we have to make small accommodations for every fundamentalist that comes down the pike, pretty soon, you won’t be able to wear a hat on Tuesday.

It’s YOUR religion if it does not fit into the normal every day legal activities of the majority of society, that’s your problem, not mine.

I also don’t like it because as an atheist/agnostic, I don’t believe I should have to acquiesce or adhere to, another’s beliefs. In many ways, that’s religious persecution and intolerance against me.

As a side note, I am a little leery of people that need to use religion as the load stone for their moral compass. It seems to create more kooks than saints. Now, I fully understand the want to believe (in whatever) to calm your soul in times of distress, that’s terrific. But some of these folks need to take it with a great big grain of salt.