The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
While I would like to take credit for the large number of comments in this discussion, it is really all due to Fred Cole. I don’t think that what I wrote about the Christian mailman in my book, Still the Best Hope -- and then mentioned in my dialogue with Peter Robinson -- is particularly controversial. Having said that, it is a credit to Ricochet that such an elevated dialogue took place.
The reason I cited the Denver mailman who called my radio show was first and foremost to give credit to America’s Christians for having done something unique in the history of societies: made individual liberty a religious value, indeed a divine command.
The Christian mailman believes that it is other Americans’ right to commit what he regards as a sin – in this case, subscribing to magazines such as Playboy or Penthouse. I do not believe, as Mr. Cole does, that the mailman was “sanctimonious,” nor that he delivers such journals solely in order to protect his job. But even if both were true, it would be irrelevant to the point that I was making about the difference between the lack of individual liberty in Islam and the emphasis on individual liberty in the American Judeo-Christian values system.
For the record, Mr. Cole is mistaken when he disparages the mailman and his fellow post office employees for “sucking on the public teat.” The mailman’s salary, benefits, and retirement pension are not “on my [Mr. Cole’s] dime.” The Postal Service isn’t funded with taxpayer dollars. Its operating costs are collected from us citizens when we buy stamps and other postal services, and the Postal Service pays the U.S. Treasury for the costs of postal workers’ federal pension benefits.
But, again, whatever one’s opinion of this mailman or of federal employees generally, it has nothing to do with the issue at hand – the difference between Christians and Muslims as regards imposing one’s religion on others.
Unlike Mr. Cole, I believe that the mailman delivers what he considers sinful mail because he believes in the American religious value of individual liberty: granting freedom to those who do not share one’s religious views. Unlike the Muslim cab drivers, he does not believe he has the right to impose his view of sin on others. That’s the whole point as far as I am concerned.
Furthermore, if, as Mr. Cole contends, the mailman has sold his Christian soul for a job and pension by delivering Playboy or Penthouse, why stop there? How can a Christian mailman in good conscience deliver a Victoria’s Secret catalogue or the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue? Shouldn’t he stand up for his Christian principals and refuse to deliver those sex-drenched magazines, too? And shouldn’t a Christian FedEx driver first ascertain that any sex toys he delivers are going only to a married couple? If not, why not?
Another problem with Mr. Cole’s equating the Muslim taxi driver and the Christian mailman is that he is equating sins specific to one’s religion with universal sins. A religious ban on alcohol is an example of the first. It is specific to Islam (and Mormonism), just as the ban on eating shellfish is specific to Judaism, and self-deprivation during Lent is specific to Catholicism. Yet all religions forbid anyone, not only members of their religion, from stealing, murder, adultery, etc.
The mailman and I believe that the attempt to impose on others behavior or beliefs demanded specifically by one’s religion – as Muslim taxi drivers do when they refuse service to passengers carrying an alcoholic drink -- is the opposite of American Christians’ and Jews’ belief that God demands liberty. That was the point I was making in contrasting the Christian mailman and the Muslim taxi drivers.
In the contemporary world, imposition of religion is more or less unique to Islam. Not even the most pious Mormon taxi driver would refuse to accept passengers who brought a bottle of wine or a Starbuck’s coffee into his cab. And no Orthodox Jewish taxi driver would refuse to take a passenger who was eating a ham and cheese sandwich or a shrimp roll. As a Jew who refrains from eating pork or shellfish, I would consider a Jew who refused service to a passenger eating these foods a fool – one who, moreover, made God and Judaism look foolish (a greater sin in Judaism than eating non-kosher food, let alone sitting in a taxi with a someone eating non-kosher food).
Jews believe in the liberty of others not to observe Jewish religious laws and modern Christians believe that others should be free not to live according to Christian doctrine. Large numbers of Muslims do not view non-Muslims similarly. That was my point. The mailman was right.
- Comment (73)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Dec '11
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
I always find it strange how normally smart people do not get the difference between the various religions. I have always appreciate how Dennis Prager understands the Christian faith. (How he puts up with Hugh Hewitt is another matter?)
I want to propose another way to tell religions apart. This is the comedy test. How much laughter is in the various religions? I know some may say that in Islam people are laughing their heads off, but I am thinking more figuratively than literally.
As "the happiness guy", is there a happiness/laughter index to the great religions of the world?
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 10:37amNov '11
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
10 cents:
As "the happiness guy", is there a happiness/laughter index to the great religions of the world?· 3 minutes ago
Edited 0 minutes ago
The only case of laughter in the Bible of which I am aware is that of Sarah's laughter at the idea that she, in her old age, would bear a child. However, this has not stopped at least the appearance of Christians and Jews being the most humorous people on the planet (perhaps there is somewhere some very obscure and funny tribe). And since a sense of humor, I would argue, is essential to a balanced perspective, to say nothing of one's survival, perhaps laughter does have something to do with the Judeo-Christian understanding of the importance of liberty.
Dec '11
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Sandy, " A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones." Proverbs 17:22 ( The old translation was "laughter" instead of "cheerful heart".) I am glad that Ricochet has Dr. EJHill giving us our daily dose of this good medicine.
Dec '11
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
I disagree. Neither the mailman or the taxidriver were imposing their viewpoint on others. Both made a concious decision about their own behavior. Choosing not take a fare, is not an imposition on their fare. Its the most common rhetorical problem on the left and logical breaks down as such:
You made the assertion that 0 = -1. That not benefiting someone is the same as an imposition.
Logically we know that -1 < 0 < 1, and are all different things.
Not benefiting is not the same as as imposing or harming. Not harming is also not the same as benefiting. This is why we go bonkers with the left when discussing subjects such as equity in tax policy or federal benefit programs.
The left has spent the last 10 years insisting that harming less is the same as benefiting, and the past 80 years asserting that benefiting less is the same as harming.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 12:54pmRe: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
God bless the mailman, Dennis, but what of the Christian congressmen? Do they not attempt to impose religion specific matters on the public, for instance fighting against the purchase of contraception with private insurance dollars?
May '11
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Guruforhire: I disagree. Neither the mailman or the taxidriver were imposing their viewpoint on others. Both made a concious decision about their own behavior. Choosing not take a fare, is not an imposition on their fare. Its the most common rhetorical problem on the left and logical breaks down as such:
You made the assertion that 0 = -1. That not benefiting someone is the same as an imposition.
Logically we know that -1 < 0 < 1, and are all different things.
Edited 36 minutes ago
At minimum, refusing to allow the person into the cab caused inconvenience. Maybe the equivalent would be if the mail carrier placed all the letters and bills in the mailbox, but left Playboy leaning against the post in the rain.
May '11
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
I think you have missed Mr. Prager's point, it is not about the actions of either the mailman or the taxi driver, it is about the thinking behind it. The mailman does not object to someone else not following his religious precepts, the taxi driver is objecting to non-muslims who breach muslim precepts.
Aug '10
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Guruforhire: Choosing not take a fare, is not an imposition on their fare.
Edited 36 minutes ago
Yes it is, particularly in the specific example cited - the Minneapolis airport.
Granted the fares should be thankful that they weren't required to pay the jizya (which is among the other beliefs that the cab drivers hold) but being denied a ride in a tightly regulated market is an imposition.
From the CNN article.
Aug '10
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Tommy, is this a new thing or are you referring to the contraception mandate in a different way?
May '10
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Well put. It is about forcing my beliefs on others. I have a right to what I think is a sin, but I do not have the right to force that on others.
Put in that framework, frankly, the Libertarian argument ought to be against those trying to enforce their beliefs on others, not siding with them.
Oct '10
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
"Unlike the Muslim cab drivers, he does not believe he has the right to impose his view of sin on others. That’s the whole point as far as I am concerned."
And therein lies the problem with the comparison between the cabbie and the mailman - in his role as mailman, the mailman doesn't have the right to have a right to impose his view of sin on others. He is bound by the terms of his job to deliver the smut, regardless of his views. The cabbie is not bound by the terms of his job to deliver infidels or the unclean (or whatever the hell his objections are).
I think the better comparison is the Muslim cabbie and the Christian wedding photographer, both of whom (should) have the right and the freedom to deny business on religious grounds (to "impose" their religious views on others, though I think in reality neither one is imposing anything on anyone).
And both of whom exercised that right (though only one of whom suffered legally for that right, which is a whole 'nother issue).
Oct '10
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Stu In Tokyo
I think you have missed Mr. Prager's point, it is not about the actions of either the mailman or the taxi driver, it is about the thinking behind it. The mailman does not object to someone else not following his religious precepts
But who's to know? The mailman doesn't have a choice whether to deliver the smut, so it's easy for him to say he does so out of a conviction of religious tolerance. So we have to take him at his word. If the USPS gave him the choice to opt-out of delivering to smut-subscribing households, does anyone here really think he wouldn't?
Then again, it doesn't matter what we here think. We can only know the mailman's words, not his actions if given the choice. Which, again, is why the wedding photog is the better comparison. Because we do know her actions. And they were on a par with the cabbie.
And we Ricoteers mostly applauded her (if I remember correctly).
Oct '10
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Instugator
Guruforhire: Choosing not take a fare, is not an imposition on their fare.
Edited 36 minutes ago
Yes it is, particularly in the specific example cited - the Minneapolis airport.
Granted the fares should be thankful that they weren't required to pay the jizya (which is among the other beliefs that the cab drivers hold) but being denied a ride in a tightly regulated market is an imposition.
From the CNN article.
14 minutes ago
That is an issue very different from the one Dennis raised. Because the cab business at that airport is "tightly regulated," those Muslim cabbie cretins ought to be banned from the airport until and unless they comply with the "take all fares" principle.
May '10
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
They are not on par. If I refuse to photograph and offer several other options for an event that is planned in the future, how, other than an extra talk to another photographer, are you harmed?
Getting a cab is different than hiring someone for a personalized service. The difference is clear, and I wonder they people cannot, or will not acknowledge it.
Dec '11
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Instugator
Guruforhire: Choosing not take a fare, is not an imposition on their fare.
Edited 36 minutes ago
Yes it is, particularly in the specific example cited - the Minneapolis airport.
Granted the fares should be thankful that they weren't required to pay the jizya (which is among the other beliefs that the cab drivers hold) but being denied a ride in a tightly regulated market is an imposition.
From the CNN article.
20 minutes ago
Um. No.
Nobody has to do business with you, and not doing business with you is not an imposition on you. Demanding that someone do business with you when they would rather not IS an imposition, an inducement of harm, and immoral. This is foundational to liberty as a concept, such an impostion on the cabby denies liberty in its entirity.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 2:22pmDec '11
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
This is vague. Are we talking about allowing people not to, or not allowing anybody? Nobody I am aware of has seriously proposed the later.
Then let us get into what we mean by religion specific matters. This is also prone to rhetorical overreach. For instance, nearly the entirely abolitionist movement to include our domestic terrorists, were men with bibles arguing a religiously derived value. So, its fairly safe to say that being religiously derived, does not make it improper in the broader national sphere.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 2:29pmApr '12
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Guru,
The issue here is when you are at an airport and trying to get to your hotel, but none of the cabbies will take you because the preponderance are Muslim and all of the non-Muslims took the last three guys with alcohol and may not be back for hours. This is similar to the mailman. You only have one mailman. It's not like tomorrow's mailman can deliver the smut. Similarly, taking all fares should be a requirement for licensing or at least permission to be at the airport. If they don't want to take all fares, let them wait for a call to their offices. They don't have to do business with everyone, but they also don't have to be granted a public concession.
Apr '12
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
As for religions that laugh, Taoism may be the best for that in theory. In practice may be another issue.
Jun '10
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Guruforhire
Instugator
Yes it is, particularly in the specific example cited - the Minneapolis airport.
Granted the fares should be thankful that they weren't required to pay the jizya (which is among the other beliefs that the cab drivers hold) but being denied a ride in a tightly regulated market is an imposition.
From the CNN article.
Um. No.
Nobody has to do business with you, and not doing business with you is not an imposition on you. Demanding that someone do business with you when they would rather not IS an imposition, an inducement of harm, and immoral. This is foundational to liberty as a concept, such an impostion on the cabby denies liberty in its entirity.
Did you just arrive in a time machine from 1950's Alabama?
Re: The Christian Mailman's Dilemma: A Response
Wait, so fighting against having the government force religious institutions from purchasing insurance that provides to employees (free of charge) abortion drugs, contraception and sterilization is a form of *imposing religion* on others?
No, that can't be it. Tommy must be referring to something else.