Hmm -- then why bring up the supposed arbitrariness,
idiosyncracy, or inconsistency of the taxi drivers' beliefs?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
> Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 1:25 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Accommodating "arbitrary,idiosyncratic
> interpretation[s] ... with ... many internalinconsistencies"
>
> Nor do I and nor did I so claim.
>
> On 9/30/06, Volokh, Eugene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I had thought that, where constitutional accommodations are
> > involved, Thomas v. Review Bd. had settled the matter:
> It's not up to
> > the government to decide whether beliefs are internally
> consistent, or
> > whether they are shared by all of the claimant's ostensible
> > coreligionists. Nor is it up to the government to question
> the line
> > the claimants draw. ("We see, therefore, that Thomas drew
> a line, and
> > it is not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable
> > one.")
> >
> > Now it doesn't follow that the cab drivers ought to have a
> > constitutional entitlement to the accommodation; since I agree with
> > Smith, I think that they shouldn't, and even under the Minnesota
> > Constitution's provision, which Minnesota courts have
> interpreted as
> > following Sherbert and Yoder, it's possible that one might
> reject the
> > accommodation claim (though it's interesting to see just how this
> > could be done). I just think that their claim cant be
> rejected on the
> > grounds that their interpretation of Islamic law is arbitrary,
> > idiosyncratic, or inconsistent.
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steven
> > > Jamar
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 6:42 AM
> > > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > > Subject: Re: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse
> > > customerswithalco hol
> > >
> > > The state may well choose to accommodate things for which the
> > > constitution does not compel accommodation.
> > >
> > > Is it the religious motive of the driver that matters? Or the
> > > conduct of the passenger? Can these taxi drivers discriminate
> > > against all those who drink alcohol? For that matter, why don't
> > > they, if that is the basis for the action.
> > >
> > > This is an arbitrary, idiosyncratic interpretation of the
> dictates
> > > of Islam with so many internal inconsistencies as to not
> be the sort
> > > of thing that needs be granted the hammer of
> constitutionalizing the
> > > accommodation. Of course the fact that it is so idiosyncratic
> > > doesn't really matter (much) except insofar as it can be shown to
> > > really be non-genuine -- because how do they (logically)
> distinguish
> > > between those who had wine on the plane, those carrying
> bottles in
> > > luggage, those carrying bottles in bags, those carrying
> bottles in
> > > the "open"?
> > >
> > > As to color coding by this or that passenger -- is that
> not a form
> > > of discrimination against passengers too? You can only
> take green
> > > cabs, but others can take either green or purple?
> > >
> > > Curious to me how this little aberrant understanding of Islam in
> > > practice would get started and then grow as it did.
> > > Interesting demonstration of group-think.
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox:
> 202-806-8017
> > > Howard University School of Law fax:
> 202-806-8567
> > > 2900 Van Ness Street NW
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Washington, DC 20008
> http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
> > >
> > > "In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about
> > > life: It goes on."
> > >
> > > Robert Frost
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> > > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> > >
> > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot
> be viewed
> > > as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that
> > > are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
> members can
> > > (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe,
> > unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
> >
>
>
> --
> Prof. Steven Jamar
> Howard University School of Law
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> messages to others.
>
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
