In the latest Uncommon Knowledge, Dennis Prager (at around the 17 minute mark) begins telling a story to emphasize a point he was making about how Islam does not value liberty.  He mentioned the Somali cab drivers at the airport in Minnesota  refuse to allow passengers who carry alcohol or have dogs into their cabs.

By contrast, Mr. Prager got a call from a mailman in Colorado who is a fundamentalist Christian who said he, as a mailman, has to deliver pornography, and he is at least opposed, as a Christian, to pornography as Muslim is to alcohol or dogs.  But, he delivers the pornography because he believes in freedom.

Forgive me, but am I the only one who noticed problems with this?

First of all, that man delivers pornography because he is paid to do so.  It is his job.  He is paid a generous salary, very generous benefits and will collect a very generous pension on my dime.  So, while he may believe in freedom, he delivers it because he is paid.

Second, as far as I am able to tell (with limited research), those Minnesota Somali cab drivers, unlike the sanctimonious mailman, are not federal employees suckling on the public teat.  More likely they are independent operators or they work for a cab company.  If they are independent operators, who own or lease their cabs, its their business if they refuse, because of their belief system, to serve some customers.  

This is a measure of values.  Those cab drivers believe enough in Islam to stand on their principles, refuse money and risk the economic consequences.  This mailman may claim to have an objection to pornography, but obviously not enough to stand on principle and refuse that government pay check, those generous government benefits, or that pension.

That is what freedom is.  The freedom to associate or not associate with whom you choose based on your own personal values system.  Those taxi drivers value Islam, the mailman values his government pension.  To each his own, but it doesn't prove Islam is anti-freedom.

Addendum: If I've misunderstood, Dennis is invited to clarify things.

Comments:


Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Mama Toad: Someone should do something! There oughta be a law...

But realizing that those obnoxious misogynists who couch their hateful prejudices in the guise of religion have a right to be misogynists and think hateful thoughts about me, my booze, my BLT, and my pooch, I step back. Is there an unintended consequence to me telling some people which parts of their religion are acceptable and which are not? Yes -- I lose invaluable freedoms by denying them theirs.

But you can bet your bottom dollar that I would take medallion numbers and possibly video, and call the cab company, and the airport as well, and possibly the municipality responsible for cab driver licensing and raise holy hell about the crappy way I was treated. 

Pity you can only like a comment once.

Western Chauvinist
Joined
Dec '10
Western Chauvinist

Mendel

Is it defensible to curtail our standard religious freedoms toward areligion which is openly hostile toward our laws? (let me add that this is only true for a minority of American Muslims, but they are certainly there).   Should we accept laws that restrict a Muslim group which agitates against the US in their quest to build a mosque?

I think not.  We allow flag burning, we allow the Revolutionary Communist Party to assemble, and we need to allow fundamental Muslims to practice their beliefs to the same extent as members of other faiths - but no further. 

Is there someone arguing, "there oughta be a law?" Is government's purpose to secure our freedoms, including free-travel, or not? That's the only law I'd like enforced.

Your last line just stunned me Mendel. The mailman is practicing his beliefs, which happen to ground the very freedom of conscience the Somali Muslim cabbies would deny us!! And he's doing it by providing services despite his moral abhorrence to the property he's delivering! Allowing Muslim cabbies to obstruct our freedom of travel is just the kind of short-sighted relativism which leads eventually to Sharia courts and polygamy.

Mothership_Greg
Joined
Nov '11
Mothership_Greg
DocJay: That's it, tomorrow I'm blacklisting all the Irish!  Thanks for inspiring me to show those Micks.   · 2 hours ago

Blacklist the mailmen!  They're all Moochers! Unclean! Unclean!

CuriousJohn
Joined
Feb '12
CuriousJohn

Fred Cole

Bryan G. Stephens: 

I still want an answer, directly from our freedom loving libertarian minded folks:

Should it be legal to refuse to give a cab ride to someone based on race?  · 1 minute ago

Absolutely.  If you have a problem with that, the free market would most likely quickly correct it.   · 5 hours ago

Fred, you are now over your skis and I'm waiting for the wipe out at the bottom of the hill.

CuriousJohn
Joined
Feb '12
CuriousJohn

Duane Oyen: Not a valid point.

2) The Target cashiers in Minnesota have also refused to ring up purchases of bacon, hot dogs, and other pork products, thus cheatingtheiremployers.

And Target doesn't get rid of them?  if they were stock boys, Are they allowed to not stock those items?

Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

Mendel: A Bangladeshi Muslim runs and works nights at the downtown convenience store.  He sells no alcohol, and refuses to let either drunk people or people with alcohol in their possession into their store.  Is this within his rights?

Now flip it around: the store owner is a Baptist, and doesn't let a customer with a Hustler visibly under his arm into his store.  Is this within his rights? 

I think both are within their rights, supposing neither is part of a larger franchise that requires them to adhere to another policy that contradicts these rules.

During one summer working in a different city, I frequented a small, non-chain convenience store owned by a Muslim. I would have been neither surprised nor offended if I walked in there carrying beer and he asked me to leave.

Maybe we tend to conflate convenience stores with the chain stores that they often are. Customers  ought  to complain vehemently to the chain when the owner of one store in the chain imposes rules that make his store unpleasantly unlike other stores in the chain. Branding should mean something, after all. But with unique stores, you expect unique rules.

Edited on June 22, 2012 at 4:46pm
Western Chauvinist
Joined
Dec '10
Western Chauvinist

Fred Cole

...

Also, this is nice.  I feel like we haven't had a member post go to 100 comments in a little while.  And this one did it in like 5 hours.   · 3 hours ago

This is the one thing on which we agree. It's the kind of bracing and refreshing (politely combative) conversation we've come to expect on Ricochet. Any thoughts on why it's been scarcer lately? It's not just because you've been posting less often, is it Fred? ;-)

Yudansha
Joined
Apr '11
Yudansha

Mothership_Greg

DocJay: That's it, tomorrow I'm blacklisting all the Irish!  Thanks for inspiring me to show those Micks.   · 2 hours ago

Blacklist the mailmen!  They're all Moochers! Unclean! Unclean! · 56 minutes ago

Ha! I love ricochet...

CuriousJohn
Joined
Feb '12
CuriousJohn

Mama Toad

Kevin Walker

Fred Cole

Kevin Walker: Wow, Fred, this is an implosion of John Derbyshire proportions! · 1 minute ago

Pardon? · 1 hour ago

Fred, call your office.  Kenneth would like to speak to you. · 2 hours ago

Oh please. Having sparred with Kenneth/Tom Paine/Elena/Nobody's Perfect (Kenneth and his various aliases here at Ricochet), I can say with utter calm and certainty that Fred Cole and Kenneth have nothing in common. I have never read a comment of Fred's that is not without thought behind it, even when I think he is completely wrong, and never has he engaged in gratuitous insults. Which you have done here, Kevin Walker. · 3 hours ago

Edited 2 hours ago

Thanks Mama  and Thank you Fred for standing your ground.  Not that I agree will ya Fred.   But love having you in Ricochet.

Mama Toad
Joined
Feb '11
Mama Toad

CuriousJohn

Mama Toad

Kevin Walker

Fred Cole

Kevin Walker: Wow, Fred, this is an implosion of John Derbyshire proportions! · 1 minute ago

Pardon? · 1 hour ago

Fred, call your office.  Kenneth would like to speak to you. · 2 hours ago

Oh please. Having sparred with Kenneth/Tom Paine/Elena/Nobody's Perfect (Kenneth and his various aliases here at Ricochet), I can say with utter calm and certainty that Fred Cole and Kenneth have nothing in common. I have never read a comment of Fred's that is not without thought behind it, even when I think he is completely wrong, and never has he engaged in gratuitous insults. Which you have done here, Kevin Walker. · 3 hours ago

Edited 2 hours ago

Thanks Mama  and Thank you Fred for standing your ground.  Not that I agree will ya Fred.   But love having you in Ricochet. · 3 minutes ago

Prego!

kylez
Joined
Sep '10
kylez

I looked at the number of pages of responses to this a couple of hours ago and said to myself I could be up til 1:30 looking at them. I am. 

I thought Mr. Prager's example was flawed for most of the basic reasons Fred gives, though I agree with the larger point he was trying to make. Another thing that struck me about it, which I haven't seen mentioned yet, is the nature of the delivery of pornography. The mailman doesn't see much of it, especially hard-core stuff, and can't really say he is choosing to deliver it. 

It would be perfectly reasonable for a private carrier -- Christian owned or not -- to refuse to deliver pornography.

EThompson
Joined
Dec '11
EThompson

CuriousJohn

Mama Toad

Kevin Walker

Fred Cole

Kevin Walker: Wow, Fred, this is an implosion of John Derbyshire proportions! 

Pardon?

Fred, call your office.  Kenneth would like to speak to you.

Oh please. Having sparred with Kenneth/Tom Paine/Elena/Nobody's Perfect (Kenneth and his various aliases here at Ricochet), I can say with utter calm and certainty that Fred Cole and Kenneth have nothing in common. I have never read a comment of Fred's that is not without thought behind it, even when I think he is completely wrong, and never has he engaged in gratuitous insults. Which you have done here, Kevin Walker.

Thanks Mama  and Thank you Fred for standing your ground.  Not that I agree will ya Fred.   But love having you in Ricochet.

Say what you will, but this site isn't nearly as interesting as it once was when Kenneth and Lady K were participating. At least we weren't suffering- then- from the tyranny of nice and overtly aggressive religious views.

Johnny Dubya
Joined
Aug '10
Kevin Walker

Mama Toad

Kevin Walker

Fred Cole

Kevin Walker: Wow, Fred, this is an implosion of John Derbyshire proportions! · 1 minute ago

Pardon? · 1 hour ago

Fred, call your office.  Kenneth would like to speak to you. · 2 hours ago

Oh please. Having sparred with Kenneth/Tom Paine/Elena/Nobody's Perfect (Kenneth and his various aliases here at Ricochet), I can say with utter calm and certainty that Fred Cole and Kenneth have nothing in common. I have never read a comment of Fred's that is not without thought behind it, even when I think he is completely wrong, and never has he engaged in gratuitous insults. Which you have done here, Kevin Walker. · 9 hours ago

Edited 9 hours ago

That's a low threshold for what constitutes a "gratuitous insult".  I don't insult members.  I was simply warning Fred, with humor, that he was flying too close to the sun.  To say it's OK for a cabbie to refuse a passenger based on the latter's race or religion is outrageous and does not reflect well on the Ricochet community.  I'm sure the editors would agree.  That's closer to "fact" than "gratuitous insult".

Edited on June 22, 2012 at 1:25pm
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Joined
Aug '10
Midget Faded Rattlesnake

EThompson

Say what you will, but this site isn't nearly as interesting as it once was when Kenneth and Lady K were participating. At least we weren't suffering- then- from the tyranny of nice and overtly aggressive religious views. 

Look, I miss them, too. But they did it to themselves. And Lady K was hardly irreligious.

If you really like people speaking their mind, that includes frank discussion of their religious views, or lack of them. If Frank Cole (atheist) and Mama Toad (Catholic) can get along -- which they evidently can -- what's the problem? 

Mama Toad
Joined
Feb '11
Mama Toad

Kevin Walker -- I would say that calling anyone a "Kenneth" is an insult.

EThompson -- I never advocated for Kenneth/Tom Paine/Elena/Nobody's Kenneth's removal -- I enjoyed sparring with him too much. I joined after Lady Kurobara's dismissal. I try to play nice on this site, but I don't think I, or the site, suffers because of it. 

Edited on June 22, 2012 at 2:47pm
Mothership_Greg
Joined
Nov '11
Mothership_Greg

EThompson

CuriousJohn

Mama Toad

Kevin Walker

Fred Cole

Kevin Walker: Wow, Fred, this is an implosion of John Derbyshire proportions! 

Pardon?

Fred, call your office.  Kenneth would like to speak to you.

Oh please. Having sparred with Kenneth/Tom Paine/Elena/Nobody's Perfect (Kenneth and his various aliases here at Ricochet), I can say with utter calm and certainty that Fred Cole and Kenneth have nothing in common. I have never read a comment of Fred's that is not without thought behind it, even when I think he is completely wrong, and never has he engaged in gratuitous insults. Which you have done here, Kevin Walker.

Thanks Mama  and Thank you Fred for standing your ground.  Not that I agree will ya Fred.   But love having you in Ricochet.

Say what you will, but this site isn't nearly as interesting as it once was when Kenneth and Lady K were participating. At least we weren't suffering- then- from the tyranny of nice and overtly aggressive religious views. · 3 hours ago

Tyranny!  I love it.  This whole conversation is hilarious.

Western Chauvinist
Joined
Dec '10
Western Chauvinist

Mendel

Western Chauvinist: Mendel,

I think a better parallel case to discuss would be the wedding photographer who refuses to serve gay couples because their "marriage" offends the photographer's Christian sensibilities. I would agree with you (I think) that the photographer has the right to deny his service in this case.

I agree. I conceded somewhere around comment #50 that taxi cabs at the airport work under a government monopoly, and thus other rules apply.

And obviously a bus driver (of a city bus) cannot refuse anyone service based on his own whims.

...

But it's not his whim! It's his religion.

Also, not every limit in the marketplace is imposed by government. I'm pretty sure the fact that Colorado Springs has/had only one taxi service was because of the smallish size of the city, which discouraged another service from attempting to compete. There just isn't enough market share available to make it worthwhile to start up another service.

KarlUB
Joined
Dec '10
KarlUB

Kevin Walker

To say it's OK for a cabbie to refuse a passenger based on the latter's race or religion is outrageous and does not reflect well on the Ricochet community.  I'm sure the editors would agree.  That's closer to "fact" than "gratuitous insult". · 1 hour ago

I will allow as it is a controversial statement. But when talking about private property it is not an uncommon position amongst those who take state's rights and freedom of association seriously.

After all, the Black Student Union can be all African-American, can it not? Do we not defend Augusta National's all-male membership policy?

Mama Toad
Joined
Feb '11
Mama Toad

KarlUB

Kevin Walker

To say it's OK for a cabbie to refuse a passenger based on the latter's race or religion is outrageous and does not reflect well on the Ricochet community.  I'm sure the editors would agree.  That's closer to "fact" than "gratuitous insult". · 1 hour ago

I will allow as it is a controversial statement. But when talking about private property it is not an uncommon position amongst those who take state's rights and freedom of association seriously.

After all, the Black Student Union can be all African-American, can it not? Do we not defend Augusta National's all-male membership policy? · 

I might go farther. Is it illegal to be racist? Ought it to be? To be perfectly clear, I do not advocate racism -- I believe in viewing all people as equal in dignity, which admittedly can be a struggle when dealing with jerks but one worth engaging in -- but while we should have laws that are race-blind, must we have laws that order us to be so? Can we, as a nation of laws, forbid prejudice? Doesn't that start getting into thought control and mind police?

Edited on June 22, 2012 at 3:13pm
KarlUB
Joined
Dec '10
KarlUB

Mama Toad

...[B]ut while we should have laws that are race-blind, must we have laws that order us to be so?...Doesn't that start getting into thought control and mind police? · 12 minutes ago

Edited 8 minutes ago

It absolutely does. Which is why left-wingers, fascists, and super-nannies all think that sort of thing is a great idea.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Start your shopping here!

Help support Ricochet by making your purchases through our Amazon links.

Welcome Visitor!
Join  or  Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place.  Join today!

Already a Member? Sign In