Surprising. I would have thought Muhummad would have supported CNR. 
Perhaps Iâm beating the topic a little to much, but I really donât care for the implication that one shouldnât be able to bring religious beliefs into the supposedly secular public forum. The way I see it, religious beliefs are out there all the time, and for the most part thereâs nothing wrong with that. I see nothing here that canât be handled between the parties. If they lose business because of it, then theyâll either come up with a compromise, or if it comes to it, get rid of her. If they donât lose business because of it, then it probably isnât really that big a deal to customers so they let her do it. Whatâs the big deal?
Oh yes, it must be Islamophobia. It doesnât matter at all, of course, that Americans are completely unaccustomed to cashiers refusing to scan items. Itâs that darned Islamophobia again!
By the wayâŚwhatâs Islamophobia?
Surprising. I would have thought Muhummad would have supported CNR. [/quote]
Arenât you proud that you can join arm in arm with a murderous, torturing, pedophiliac religious fanatic in your mutual support of culling?
It seems like you are making two points here:
- People have the right to express their religious beliefs in the public forum.
- In the case of the Somali cashiers, no state action is required because the problem can be handled through private means.
I agree on both accounts.
When I said that the issue here is âpurityâ, I meant from the perspective of the Muslim cashiers. I obviously did not mean from our perspective. From our perspective, the issue is the inconvenience caused by this particular expression of religious belief. Nobody complained about the Muslim cashiers wearing the hijab, as that particular expression of religious belief did not inconvenience them. But refusing to touch the pork products is a problem âfrom the perspective of the customer. Again, I agree it should be handled through private means. They will either be transferred to a different job or dismissedâŚor the customers will get used to it. But how about Muslim taxi drivers refusing to give rides to blind people with seeing-eye dogs? I think someone already mentioned there are laws against refusing customers simply because they are disabled, but what if the taxi driversâ religious belief is the issue? Should it be illegal to refuse on religious grounds because doing so harms the disabled individuals just trying to get around town?
I notice the cashiers in question are Somali. Keep in mind that with the exception of a few isolated animist tribes, Somalia is 100% Muslim. The Somali cashiers are used to their community aiding them in the constant struggle to maintain purity. They probably had never even seen pork before, much less been asked to touch it. In more religiously diverse nations like Malaysia, as in Rascalâs example, Muslims are more accustomed to encountering these problems: hence the use of plastic bags. Whatâs strange is that the pork is probably already wrapped in either plastic, paper, or some other material. I guess the Malays want to be extra careful they donât defile themselves. :loco:
Yes, that basically sums up what I was trying to say.
Yes, the case of the seeing eye dog and the taxicab is a little different, because in that case we have said through various laws that common carriers, including taxicabs, canât refuse service to blind people. In that case, I think he has to find a way to follow the law because I donât believe the law goes so far as to âprohibit the free practiceâ of his religion. If the cab driver objects to contact with dogs or dog hair, he either needs to find another profession, or find some means of ensuring that his cab can be kept pure despite the dog.
[quote]1. People have the right to express their religious beliefs in the public forum.
2. In the case of the Somali cashiers, no state action is required because the problem can be handled through private means. [/quote]
Express, yes. Impose upon and thereby harm or inconvenience others, no. If giving rides to blind people with seeing eye dogs is required by law of taxi drivers, as it should be, then anyone who would object to that on religious grounds should be looking for a different job.
We all do it. Just donât let it happen again.[/quote]
This could be a good start for the All New New Testament. 
Surprising. I would have thought Muhummad would have supported CNR. [/quote]
Arenât you proud that you can join arm in arm with a murderous, torturing, pedophiliac religious fanatic in your mutual support of culling?[/quote]
No, but Iâm impressed that my words elsewhere can get twisted as much as those of the Bible in the course of a thread on religion. 
I think you make some good points especially in view of the fact that Somalia is nearly 100% Muslim. There would be strong community support, as you point out.
ButâŚand this will obviously sound unfriendly â the US is a secular nation (based on Judeo-Christian values, pretty much, but secular in that we have or should have separation of Church and state.) If anyone wants to live in a society that puts religious laws over secular ones, the US is not the place for it. Some Christians or Orthodox Jews or whomever might believe that it is wrong for any store to be open doing business on their Sabbath, but there will never be a law against that in the US. It is the prerogative of the store owner to not open those days if he wishes to remain pure in the context of whatever religion weâre talking about. (Yes, ritual purity is different from obedience to religious laws, but itâs all aimed in the same direction.)
The point of the US, I think, is that you are free to exercise your religion, which means you are free to choose not to handle pork products or refuse to work on Saturdays if you like. But that might require your choosing a different job. If you are determined to live in a place where the community will support this 100%, one has been mentioned. I donât see many people making a beeline to go back.
Iâm not saying that religious rules should be more important or less important, hold more sway or less sway, than secular laws. THe point is, in the US the system is set up so that secular laws prevail. Thatâs the situation, and itâs no secret, so anyone coming to this country should be aware of it. If not, time to put up some big notices at the airports, kinda like the whole âDrug trafficking is punishable by deathâ painted on the wall at CKS awhile back.
I donât think that sounds unfriendly at all, Ironlady. When I saw â(i.e., believing that religion has little place in legislation or the judiciary)â in your previous post, it seemed to reflect the too often heard sentiment that people ought to leave the values, views or convictions that stem from religious belief at home when they participate in public life - as if thatâs even possible, whatever oneâs beliefs. I certainly donât think you meant to say that.
However, there have been (and are) so-called âblue lawsâ and âSunday closing lawsâ on the books in the US. Just try buying alcohol in PA on a Sunday⌠Some Sunday closing laws have even been found constitutional by the Supreme Court. As long as no specific religion is established, and none are interefered with, and there is a secular purpose (giving workers a day off per week, in this case), the law is good to go - even if those who passed the law had religious motives. Heck, when I drove through Salt Lake City last summer, I was wondering if Iâd be able to get a cup of coffee. Yes I was, by the way - itâs still America after all 
[quote=âDragonbonesâ]
Express, yes. Impose upon and thereby harm or inconvenience others, no. If giving rides to blind people with seeing eye dogs is required by law of taxi drivers, as it should be, then anyone who would object to that on religious grounds should be looking for a different job.[/quote]
I agree with both of you, but many Muslims do not. They come to our countries for economic opportunities and the higher standard of living, but they will respect the secular division of religion and governance only insofar as they have to. Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman of CAIR, has stated that he wants the US government to become Islamic, but that he will not commit violence to this end. Omar Ahmad, co-founder of CAIR said:
americansagainsthate.org/cw/profiles_cw.php
European nations who allow in massive numbers of Muslim immigrants are basing their security on the following beliefs:
- Muslim immigrants will obey national law above Islamic law.
- Even if Muslims were to become the majority (which they will in several countries over the next 25-50 years), they will continue to observe the national laws, including the separation of church/mosque and state, in whatever degree in exists in the particular country.
I think everyone here can agree with the above statements, even if they believe Islam is peaceful or at least no less violent than other religions. After all, if the Europeans believed their Muslim immigrants were not going to observe the (national) law, they wouldnât let them in, right? And if they thought the Muslims would alter the politico-legal structure of the nation if they become the majority, then it would be suicidal to keep drawing in Muslim immigrants, right?
Taxi drivers refusing to give rides to blind people with seeing eye dogs is the tip of the iceberg. Even that goes beyond a mere expression of religion, as Dragonbones noted; itâs against the law. But stamping our feet and saying, âWell donât come here if you would rather obey your religion than our lawsâ or âif you canât perform the job because of your religion then do something elseâ is just not going to cut it. While Muslims are still a minority in the US (3% of the population), we still have the leverage to force the issue. What about in France, where Muslims will constitute 51% of the population by 2031? Think theyâll pay attention to our harumphing then?
The most comical example of feet stamping comes in the form of the Dutch Immigration Minister Rita Verdonkâs revised immigration tests, which now involve the prospective immigrants viewing pictures of women bathing topless and gay men kissing. Of the tests she said,
dw-world.de/dw/article/0,214 ⌠00,00.html
According to the article above it seems that Germany and Britain may be following suit. So my question is: If these countries fear that either,
- Muslims immigrants hold Islamic law higher than national law, and will start to assert this position more forcibly as their numbers increase.
Or
- If Muslims become the majority, the politico-legal structure of the nation will be altered dramatically.
then how exactly are these potential issues going to be alleviated by forcing immigrants to look at gay men kissing? Do they really believe these people are going to be dissuaded from emigrating to Western nations if it involves looking at gay men kissing for a few seconds or at most minutes? This goes beyond wishful thinking.
Just to keep things in balance, how many people here would really follow all laws if they are contradictory to our religious or even just our ethical code? hmm?
If the contention is just that with many Muslims this happens to a much higher degree, then I agree with you, it does â just recognize it is a matter of degree.
Also, please donât take this as being supportive of what the cabbie was doing, a page or two back I said I thought in this case the law should triumph.
Thereâs been a lot of social good done by people inspired by religious conviction to disobey secular lawâMLKâs Letter from Birmingham Jail captures the sentiments wellâbut I think those convictions should (must?) be supported by secular reasoningâjust as King grounded his arguments in secular American political ideals.
Excellent example. Although, Iâm not sure I agree with you about whether there should (must) be a secular rationale. Secular rationales may of course be completely valid and helpful, but I donât think I would go so far as to say they are necessary. Suppose, for instance, that MLKâs pursuit of social justice was purely because he believed his religion demanded it, would his actions have been wrong then?
Note: donât interpret this to mean society shouldnât still carry out the appropriate punishments, rather , Iâd say that one can still act morally by breaking the law and accepting the punishment â for example see the Biblical story of Shadrack, Meshack (sp?), and Abednego.
Iâm not sure myself, but if youâre going to propose a course of action for others, it is a must. Otherwise youâre proposing theocratic rule.
If youâre asking that they respect your own course of action, thereâs a lower standard to be met, perhaps depending on how much of a public issue your private convictions necessarily are.
Thatâs true. But by the same token if you say they should violate a religious belief, then you run the risk of implicitly invalidating it, which in itself is rather problematic.
On the immigration question:
How much choice do any of us get about doing things the Taiwanese way while in Taiwan? None. Register your address. Get an ARC. Apply for a visa. Get the health check. Etc. etc. etc. We saw a reason why being in Taiwan was desirable, so we complied (most of us) with the law to be able to be there. Some foreigners do not comply with all the laws, but they do so (for whatever reason) in a low-key manner for the most part. Those who are caught violating laws in a more spectacular way are hauled out within 7 days. End of story. When I became unwilling to comply with the Taiwanese way of regulating work rights, I left. Very simple.
IMHO itâs time to apply the same standard of strictness to voluntary immigration to the US. Of course weâd have to start off by having some clue where the non-citizen, non-green card holders WERE in the first place, and how long theyâd been there. But itâs no surprise that the US is a secular nation. Has been for years. People coming in should be required to comply with the system in the US and to be held accountable for respecting the law of the land. Iâm not talking about religious expression or the right to go to a mosque or synagogue or church or tent in the woods; Iâm talking about things like the quotes about France above.
Register your address. Register your employment. If youâre not a citizen, youâre a guest. Behave like one. If you are a citizen, you can be expected to uphold the laws of the nation youâre living in, or start shopping around for another country.
[quote=âironladyâ]On the immigration question:
But itâs no surprise that the US is a secular nation. Has been for years. People coming in should be required to comply with the system in the US and to be held accountable for respecting the law of the land. Iâm not talking about religious expression or the right to go to a mosque or synagogue or church or tent in the woods; Iâm talking about things like the quotes about France above.
[/quote]
How about government-licensed professionals refusing to serve people based on their religious beliefs?- it appears that a lot of states donât agree with you about the secular nature of America.
The issue of pharmacists is far worse than that of taxi-drivers. Pharmacists insist that they are a profession which must be licensed by the government; then they use that state-enforced monopoly to impose their religious beliefs.
If anyone was allowed to sell the morning-after pill, no problem- but of course, the right-wing Fundies in the Bush Administration vehemently oppose that, too.
I think the U.S. already have most of what youâre talking about, though I wouldnât know about Canada or Europe. For example, the U.S has removability for Crimes involving moral turpitude and for most felony offenses, with oodles and oodles of case law determining what precisely counts. Anyone going through the immigration process has to maintain a current address, both by requirement and as a practical matter to receive notifications, etc. Then, if you want to remove the condition on your green card you have to go back after a couple years where they check you out and see if whatever reason you said you were coming here turned out to be legit, then finally if you want to become a citizen you go back and jump through the hoops again, but with a civics test and a language test on top (though Iâm told they arenât too hard to pass).
Maybe I just hang out with the nice law abiding crowd, but if anything most of the adult immigrants Iâve met are actually more law abiding than the average citizen, because they know that thereâs always the potential consequence of losing their status.