Although I don’t agree that legalisms and “market principles” are a satisfactory way to resolve this kind of problem, kudos to you for rejecting the Islamophobia vs. multiculturalism extremes. When new cultures and faiths arrive in numbers, rules of respect change (I doubt anybody decent today would be comfortable with the hilarious 1960’s comedian Jose Jimenez). The problem, as David has put eloquently, is we seem to have lost any way to push back at the newcomers and make them compromise too, hence we fall back on general contempt and spew nonsense about our “fundamental right” to carry booze openly. I see nothing wrong with telling taxi passengers alcohol must be carried in closed suitcases or not at all and taxidrivers that what is in the suitcases is not their business or get another job. How do you welcome the hijab, but not the burqa and veil? Or agree to calls to prayer, but limit the decibel level?

There is far too much talk on both sides about rights and not enough about decency and respect among communities.

I could write multiple posts on the subject, but that’s precisely why I am a libertarian rather than a conservative, or at least a Juddian conservative. In my view, you can have an expectation of decency, respect, and compromise among communities, or you can have government control. Once you invoke “rights” and identify good society with good government, you’ve thrown out compromise by creating the prospect of one community getting its way completely by making its views law. This is where I think OJ in particular and you somewhat go off the rails by talking of such things yet supporting the kind of heavy government intervention that erodes such things away.

With respect to Mr. Cohen, I would say that we have lost the ability to push back precisely because we have resorted to legalisms of the sort you support. If it’s a matter of law, then there is no compromise, no expectation of maturity on the part of the communities. After all, Father Government has decided and the subjects must follow along. It’s psychological welfare and destroys self-reliance just as much as the monetary kind.

Once I write up my Grand Unified Theory and re-program you to believe, this will all be obvious. Heh.

Peter:

… we seem to have lost any way to push back at the newcomers and make them compromise too …

I think you are losing the distinction between a community and the meta-community.

The community, in this case, are observant Muslims; the meta-community is the US. Until recently, the meta-community never compromised with any specific community, it was up to that community to get with the program.

It should be no different here. Hack licenses bring along with them the requirements of the meta-community; where a specific community’s requirements differ, too darn bad.

This is where I part ways with AOG, whose intellectual acumen, judgment, and chili is otherwise unexcelled. Because hack licenses are required to carry passengers, and they are artificially limited, their possession represents a zero-sum game. That makes the reward of penury far less likely, or even impossible. Back in a recent life, I hauled people around, and required the rough equivalent of a hack license to do so.

It so happens I find a great deal of the Islamic portfolio at least as morally offensive as the legal carriage of alcohol. Should I — as pilot in command, with absolute authority — be permitted to use that authority to Muslim passengers because I find their religion offensive?

No. The meta-community requires that I ignore matters of individual conscience, no matter how offensive I might find them. This does not invoke government control beyond that already in place for the awarding of hack licenses. Rather, it imposes the societal requirement one individual may not impose upon another matters of individual conscience.

This also addresses the burqa and the veil. Where the meta-community insists that people be visually identifiable (e.g., drivers licenses), members of a specific community must either submit to that requirement, or not drive. Upon binary decisions such as this, no compromise is possible.

There is far too much talk on both sides about rights and not enough about decency and respect among communities.

True Muslims don’t respect other communities. Why should they get any respect in return?

Looked at in another way, the US has fared far better with immigrant communities precisely because government could scarcely have cared less how those communities fared.

The difference between countries relying on YOYO, and those with MPs for Multicultural Affairs, is plain to see.

the key point in this story is they are already refusing servie to blind people with seeing-eye dogs, and will certainly be refusing service to homosexuals, jews, unescorted women, etc. the solution is to set up a hotline were they can be reported, and if found to be violating the terms of their license — having it revoked and the considerable money it costs forfeited. just like they do with liquor stores that sell to minors.

cjm:

Gee, we haven’t even really begun to discuss how to handle the booze issue and you are already drawing a straight line to gays and Jews. Why don’t you just come right out and say Muslims shouldn’t be cab drivers? And before we get all indignant about their ignorant savagery over guide dogs, I remind you it is no more than twenty years since we did exactly the same.

Jeff:

Until recently, the meta-community never compromised with any specific community, it was up to that community to get with the program.

Nice fairy tale. If that were true, the U.S. today would have the feel of an early 19th century Anglo-Puritan country. No sushi or bagels.

Peter:

Gee, we haven’t even really begun to discuss how to handle the booze issue and you are already drawing a straight line to gays and Jews.

Perhaps you should compare what the Hadith says about Jews, and compare it to the attitude towards alcohol.

And before we get all indignant about their ignorant savagery over guide dogs, I remind you it is no more than twenty years since we did exactly the same.

Thanks for making my point. The meta-community now has a different attitude towards guide dogs (and probably never had one against them in cabs in the first place). No specific community gets to trump the meta-community.

Nice fairy tale. If that were true, the U.S. today would have the feel of an early 19th century Anglo-Puritan country. No sushi or bagels.

That is an astonishingly inapt comparison, particularly coming from a lawyer. Here is the apt comparison: a Jew walks into an Arabic restaurant, and is refused service.

What is the meta-community’s attitude towards that?

The Somali cab drivers need to understand that the meta-community does not allow their imposing matters of personal morality upon others, no matter how vociferously worded the Q’uran may be on the issue.

Alternatively, they may use that return ticket.

AOG: Or, to put it another way, we can have a strong culture, or a strong state, but those are the only two choices.

Perhaps you should compare what the Hadith says about Jews, and compare it to the attitude towards alcohol.

OK, Jeff, you win. I’ll start my study of the Koran and the Hadith soon. But can you give me a couple of weeks? I’d like to finish off the study of the Torah and Talmud I began last month to see if I can trust and accept the Jews.

i guess you missed the part where i posted that they are already barring blind people. that makes two groups that they are openly discriminating against. wouldn’t it be better just to ignore a post completely, than to just cherry pick the parts you want to take issue with ?

recently it has emerged that the alcohol ban was intiated by a radical muslim group (is there any other kind) as a first move towards sharia. powerline has details.

While it is true that alcohol is one of the ten universally acceptted Najis or Unclean things in Islam, so are Kafirs?

So my question is: If transporting alcohol is offensive to their religous sensitivities, should not they also refuse to transport Infidels?

I have sources and further exposition here.

Najis Unclean Things

They probably should and I support their property rights to do so. However, I also support the property rights of the airport management to refuse access to cabdrivers who do.

I really don’t see how it matters why the cabdrivers feel this way. Function trumps intention in my view.

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments: (format with HTML or Textile)


Remember info?