Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
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.
- Comment (278)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (12)
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Bryan G. Stephens
Of course, what has actually happened was the cab thing, not these hypotheticals.
True. But since more people still work in the private than public sector (for now), I was curious what people think about a similar scenario without the "public service" aspect.
To be more blunt, I sense a tension among many "cultural" conservatives when it comes to championing religious freedoms for Christian businesses while wanting to restrict similar freedoms for Muslims. In the war between religious freedom and cultural cohesion, I think religious freedom has to come first - at least in the case of our culture, which was predicated on such freedoms.
Edited on June 22, 2012 at 4:10amMay '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
It is one thing to say "I don't want to photograph your Gay Wedding" and another to say "You have a non-kosher bag of crackers that you cannot bring in your purse into my store".
There is room for reason, and not everything having to spelled out to the letter in a law.
Feb '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
I can't help but agree with Fred. I think the taxi drivers are wrong, but remember this case just the other day? In which the Christian photographers refused to sign on to photograph the gay commitment ceremony in New Mexico? Weren't they well within their rights to do so? If so, is there a difference here, other than the one raised by whether or not they own their cabs or are working for someone else?
May '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Anyway, bed time. Been fun.
May '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Jim Crow laws were blatant violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (among several other provisions of that document), and Congress was well within its authority to take necessary action to dismantle it immediately - not "over time." Do you wish to jettison the Fourteenth Amendment as well? Or just Section 5?
Dec '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
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. The couple is requesting service from a private individual and, presumably, has a market in which to shop around.
But the airport cab situation is unique in that the market for a public service is so limited, geographically isolating, and there are reasonable expectations about the timeliness of service. I've been at an airport where I've had to wait 30 minutes or more for the next cab to show up (at midnight with 2 overtired kids and a pile of luggage). It's not like I get to shop around if the guy who shows up decides to refuse me service (for whatever reason). I'm truly stuck.
It makes me realize that airport cab services are a public utility. What if the Muslim city bus driver refuses to carry a blind person with his service dog? Is that okay with you?
Feb '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Kevin Walker
Fred Cole
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.
Edited on June 22, 2012 at 4:34amMar '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
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 what is your opinion on a Muslim-owned private business such as a Halal grocery store? Is it acceptable for that owner to refuse service to someone carrying an unopened bottle of alcohol? I think it is, just as I think a Christian owner could refuse to let someone in carrying a pornographic magazine.
Edited on June 22, 2012 at 4:32amAug '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Dan
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Now, there shouldn't be taxi medallions, but there are, making those cabbies not independent agents, but employees for a company. As such, why shouldn't it be a matter of company policy to fire cabbies who won't pick up certain clients that the company says they should pick up? · 3 minutes ago
No disagreement from me here. If they do work for a company, it should crack down on them hard, if for no other reason than they are losing it a lot of business. If they work for a company, then the property rights and freedom of association are on the company's side, based on the fact that the cab is the company's and the company is free to associate with them if they want.
Exactly.
Dec '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
It is surprising to me that the "live and let live" ethic seems to be missing from the libertarian argument here. The Muslim cabbie is exercising force over trapped customers at the airport by refusing to provide services to people with severely limited options. The Christian mailman is imposing no demands in a similarly limited situation.
And yes, the pluralistic Judeo-Christian society makes a suicide pact by tolerating intolerant Muslims in such situations. Religious freedom is threatened with extinction when it applies to such an intolerant ideology having both theological and political ambitions. Is that what you were trying to get us to admit Fred?
Apr '12
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Fred Cole
You mean do I know anyone who lives a life consistent with their own values? I can't say for sure. It is an extremely personal question.
Do I? I'm trying. And I'll get there. · 35 minutes ago
It's been said that you'd have to be a hermit to live up to your standards. Daily life is filled with compromise.
And it's good that you're trying, do you think the mailman isn't?
Edited on June 22, 2012 at 5:47amAug '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
DocJay:
I have buddies that grew up under Jim Crow and the free markets sure didn't fix that disgusting crap.
According to Thomas Sowell, businesses in the South were much more integrated than we think before segregation laws were passed, and as segregation laws were passing, businesses were the ones who objected -- they knew the laws would be bad for business.
Free markets were well on the way to fixing that disgusting crap before state governments stepped in.
It's cute to say stuff like this. But considering that free markets rely on secure property rights for even the least among us to function at all, and depriving men of property rights over their own persons flies in the face of secure property rights for everyone, it is not accurate.
Dec '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Mendel
...
But what is your opinion on a Muslim-owned private business such as a Halal grocery store? Is it acceptable for that owner to refuse service to someone carrying an unopened bottle of alcohol? I think it is, just as I think a Christian owner could refuse to let someone in carrying a pornographic magazine.
Yes, I agree. Not only that, I think the offender is an obnoxious boor, particularly if he's got other choices. This is not the case with airport cabs.
Aug '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Suppose current city dispatch agencies allow their cabbies to get away with this sort of behavior. That creates a huge business opportunity for any dispatch company willing to discipline its cabbies into better behavior.
It sounds corny to say, "Let the market sort it out," but that doesn't negate that very often, the market can sort it out.
Aug '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Western Chauvinist
This is not the case with airport cabs.
Wait, you mean it's common for airports to only allow one dispatch service onto their property? Why?
Feb '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Thinking about this, imagining the hostility that I might encounter there at the airport at midnight with six exhausted tadpoles from surly Somali taxi drivers refusing to let me into their cabs, I waver. I am tempted to throw the book at the cabbies -- to call up the forces of good and have the cavalry ride in. 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.
Sep '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
A sort of "order of operations" is important here. If we wish to advance the cause of liberty in the matter of airport taxis, we should end the practice of limiting taxis to a finite number of medallions first and only then end common-carrier regulations.
Dec '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Western Chauvinist
This is not the case with airport cabs.
Wait, you mean it's common for airports to only allow one dispatch service onto their property? Why? · 8 minutes ago
My example comes from Colorado Springs airport in a mid-sized city of 300,000. At the time (don't know if it's still true), there was only one dispatch service in the city and all the cabs were occupied for over 30 minutes after we arrived at the taxi stand (it was New Year's Eve, as I recall). We could have been there for hours if the population of cabbies had some reason to deny us service. In fact, I think one of them did based on the amount of luggage we had. Airport cab services are special circumstances, like public utilities. If the drivers try to circumscribe the services they provide to people in possession of perfectly legal property like service dogs and alcohol, based on their religion convictions, they're disqualified from doing the job.
Edited on June 22, 2012 at 5:32amMar '11
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
I think this is the sticking point. Let's leave aside the complicated issue of taxis at the airport (since they are somewhere between free market and public utility).
Is it defensible to curtail our standard religious freedoms toward a religion 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.
Sep '10
Re: Dennis Prager's Taxi Drivers and Mailmen
It occurs to me that the difference between the cabbie and the mailman may be more a question of commitment than of principle. Both the cabbie and the mailman are paid by their respective employers to facilitate behaviors by third parties to which the cabbie and mailman are morally opposed for religious reasons. The cabbie is willing to risk his job to oppose the behavior, the mailman is not. The more relevant question to my mind is: Would the cabbie or the mailman favor a change in his employer's policy so that the employee wouldn't be required to facilitate the immorality? Specifically, would the mailman support a regulation to ban the distribution of porn through the U.S. Mail? I suspect he would.