If one looks at the tenor of the comments made to the airport commission after a simple and invisible accommodation had been adopted, the conclusion of anti-Muslim animus is difficult to escape. And given that this episode occurred at the same time that Muslim cashiers at Target asked not to be required to handle pork, it was fell into a context in which simple accommodations offered to others – such as allowing a cashier allergic to peanuts not to handle peanuts or peanut butter – became the subject of vehement public objection when Muslims were asking for the same kind of thing. During these controversies in the Twin Cities, the repeated messages that Muslims were not genuine Americans and should learn to be “Americans” (that is, think and behave the same as the majority) spoke plainly.
To say that some imams said the cabbies were misreading the Koran is hardly an answer. In contrast with, say, Catholicism, in which there is a clear hierarchy that leads to a definite answer on at least some questions, Islam is not organized in that manner. Surely we ought not be imposing a Catholic structure of decision-making as the measure of what counts as a legitimate religious claim. What is important is that the religious leaders of the Islamic community to which these cab drivers belonged had issued an Islamic law decision that was the continuing basis for the objection. The sincerity of the religious belief was never in question. And how exactly does an easily-accommodated objection to visibly and knowingly transporting alcohol become transmogrified into American Somali cab drivers as “reject[ing] those with religious beliefs different than their own” or not “want[ing] to be in the company of nonbelievers”? Come on! Let’s remember the nature of the accommodation requested. The cab drivers did not ask the culture to mirror their values. They did not seek to avoid transporting anyone whose views differed from their own. Despite the rumors generated by the anti-Muslim backlash, they not only did not refuse to transport blind people with seeing-eye dogs but offered to provide such transportation at no charge during a convention of the blind in Minneapolis. Nor did they ask anyone whether they had alcohol in their baggage. The religious stricture applied only when the liquor was visible and thus they were being asked knowingly to transport alcohol beverages. There was no showing that the accommodation by a light on the cab would not work well or would inconvenience passengers. There simply was an unwillingness to accommodate these Muslims at all because it was unpopular with a vocal group. Far from any legitimate concern here about balkanization, the real concern is about petty tyranny to override the conscience of a small minority without any concrete reason other than majority antipathy and governmental licensing power. We are talking about the least powerful group in society: Somali immigrants who are trying to improve their lives by taking a low-paying job as cab drivers, earning very little each day, but committed to becoming contributing members of society. (Incidentally, they are also among the most respectful and law-abiding citizens you’ll ever meet. The Twin Cities has to be the only city in the world in which the slowest moving vehicles on the road are cabs – because these Muslim cab drivers take the speed limit seriously as a legal rule they should obey.) To turn them away, refuse to make a sensible accommodation, and then accuse them of demanding that culture be changed to mirror their views is not worthy of a free society. Greg Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545 From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Marci Hamilton Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2012 4:59 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Requirement that cabbies transport alcohol = "tiny burden"? Why is anger at a publicly licensed cab picking and choosing passengers according to religious belief anything like anti-Muslim animus? Cabbies can't reject passengers on race. Why should they be able to reject those with religious beliefs different from their own? If they don't want to be in the company of nonbelievers, they should find another line of work. Also-- a number of imams announced the cabbies were misreading the Koran. There was no requirement they not transport others' cases of wine. No one was asking them to drink the wine We have crossed the line from legitimate claims to accommodation into the territory where religious believers demand a "right" to exist in a culture that mirrors their views. That is called Balkanization Marci On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:48 PM, "Sisk, Gregory C." <gcs...@stthomas.edu<mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu>> wrote: As Eugene suggestions, the accommodation by use of lights for Muslim cabbies who objected to transporting visible liquor had every prospect of success. Even airport officials agreed that it was an ingenious solution. It would have been seamless and invisible, as the dispatcher would flag over a taxi without the light for those transporting liquor, so that the passenger would not be inconvenienced or even realize what had happened. And this accommodation was abandoned, not because of any concrete showing that it caused any problems for passenger, but by the confession the airport commission’s spokesman, because of a “public backlash” of emails and telephone calls. The spokesman said that “the feedback we got, not only locally but really from around the country and around the world, was almost entirely negative. People saw that as condoning discrimination against people who had alcohol.” And not only did the airport commission then revoke the accommodation, it began to treat the Muslim cabbies even more harshly. Where previously the punishment for refusing a fare was to be sent to the end of the line (which was a financial hardship because the wait might be for additional hours), now the commission would suspend or revoke the cab license. It is impossible, in my view, to understand the chain of circumstances as anything other than antipathy toward Muslims – and the tenor of the “public backlash” makes that even more obvious. The Somali cab driver episode is described in the introduction to an empirical study that Michael Heise and I have currently submitted to law reviews, finding that, holding all other variables constant, Muslims seeking religious accommodation in the federal courts are only about half as successful as non-Muslims. A draft of the piece is on SSRN at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1917057 Greg Gregory Sisk Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law University of St. Thomas School of Law (Minnesota) MSL 400, 1000 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403-2005 651-962-4923 gcs...@stthomas.edu<mailto:gcs...@stthomas.edu> http://personal.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html<http://personal2.stthomas.edu/GCSISK/sisk.html> Publications: http://ssrn.com/author=44545
_______________________________________________ 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.
