Somali Cabbies Again

As you may recall, the former Lutheran Mecca of Minneapolis is now a favorite destination of Somali immigrants, who now make up a majority of cab drivers in that northern burg. Some of the Somalis, with the enthusiasm characteristic of peripheral "Arabs," have rediscovered strict Islam, and are refusing to take on fares who are transporting alcohol, or even dogs, which the Somalis regard as unclean.

The Metropolitan Airport Commission is considering, and on Tuesday will hold a hearing on, proposed regulations increasing the penalties for improperly refusing a fare. Documents reproduced on Daniel Pipes's site. Warning: some regard Pipes as anti-Muslim.

My first reaction is surprise at the fact that Minneapolis, which we furriners think of as a Scandinavian icebox, has attracted enough Somali refugees for them to dominate taxi driving. Such are our times. How much exoticism, cultural, racial and religious, the heartland can stand is one question, which history will answer.

The issue of the demand for special rules for a minority religion is more interesting. I've commented on it before, and I won't belabor points already made. What's concerning is the tendency, in this country and abroad, to move toward special rules for the Muslim minority.

The Ottoman Empire developed the millet system, whereby each ethnic-religious group was governed, at least in matters such as marriage and inheritance, by its own traditional law. This system has survived in modern Israel, and is hardly conducive to national unity. It's "free exercise" taken to excess. The demands of Muslims in Europe often point in this direction. Although the U.S. has allowed free exercise of religious observance, it has only made minimal accommodations to religious differences in the secular marketplace, which is governed by uniform laws.

So, for instance, if you get a hack license, you're supposed to carry everyone, a sore point in New York City, where a combination of prejudice and the desire for self-preservation has led many cabbies to ignore black would-be passengers trying to hail them. It's also a sore point in Minneapolis, where people arriving at the airport carrying lawful substances or escorting lawful quadrupeds don't want to be subjected to a religious test.

A lawyer of a social observer can spin out complexities, exceptions and caveats here, but basically, it's simple. If you want a license to serve the public, you can't pick and choose what part of the public to serve.

Mt. Soledad Cross

The Ninth Circuit (the federal Court of Appeals that covers California) has told the District Court to vacate (withdraw) its order requiring removal of the large cross on Mt. Soledad in La Jolla.

On May 3, 2006, Judge Gordon Thompson, Jr., moved to enforce an order he initially made in 1991, telling the city that the cross violated the state constitution's ban on government aid and preference for religion, and to remove it or face a fine of $5,000 per day. In August, Congress passed a bill allowing the federal government to take control of the land. That rendered Judge Thompson's order moot, since the land no longer fell under the authority of the California constitution, triggering the 9th Circuit's decision.

Two more lawsuits, of course, are in the wings, challenging the federal government's allowing the cross to remain on federal land.

That we spend so much time on issues like this confirms my view that our freedom-of-religion jurisprudence is wacky. It's a majority (and historically) Christian country. You don't have to like it, but it is. Get over it.

The Somali Cabbies of MPLS

Somali cabbies in Minneapolis, who apparently make up a significant proportion of the cabbies who serve the airport, are demanding the right to refuse service to anyone transporting alcohol, or dogs. Alcohol is forbidden under Islamic law, and according to some interpretations, dog saliva is ritually unclean.

In fact, the unilateral refusal of service is inconveniencing others, including the "First Mate," the wife of Minneapolis blogger Captain Ed:

It also goes beyond the airport cabs, as the First Mate discovered on more than one occasion where she used taxis for normal travel when she still used Cory as her guide dog. She had to threaten one cabdriver with a complaint to get him to allow the dog, and on other occasions had to explain the open access laws for service dogs in America.

Now, compare and contrast the issues raised by Christian pharmacists who claim the right to refuse to sell the "morning after" pill on the ground that it's a forbidden abortifacient. Feminists and lefties are outraged, arguing that a pharmacy is a kind of public utility that should not be able to pick and choose what services within its authorized area of business it will provide.

The Muslim cabbies and the Christian pharmacists are claiming a religion-based exemption from a rule of general application.

There is a long history in this country of enacting generally applicable laws that have a religious basis, notably Sunday closing, or "blue" laws. These have been upheld in many cases, but on the somewhat strained basis that they have a secular purpose, such as limiting the hours of work or preventing traffic congestion.

The constitutional case law in this area is quite confused. But from a policy perspective, requiring a licensed public conveyance to carry anyone carrying a lawful substance or a licensed guide dog hardly seems like an imposition, and the demand for an exemption by a religion whose beliefs demand the enactment of its own system of law to govern society as a whole, seems ominous.

The Culture Wars Go to Court (Yet Again)--The University of California vs. Christian Schools

(Originally published February 15, 2006)

An important First Amendment dispute is winding its way through the courts in Riverside County. In California, the University of California (Berkeley, UCLA, etc.) sets admissions standards. If it refuses to approve certain courses, or requires others, there is a ripple effect throughout the high schools, public and private, whose more qualified graduates often apply to UC.

Although UC has approved high school courses on theme such as feminist approaches to literature, it has recently refused to approve courses offered by Christian schools, such as Christian approaches to literature. The dispute also extends to science classes--physics and biology. The Calvary Christian schools contend that UC is disapproving the courses because of the points of view they espouse, not because the courses are of inferior quality or don’t cover important and challenging literature. UC says it's enforcing scientific and intellectual standards, not discriminating against faith-based institutions.

The U.S. and California constitutions forbid such discrimination, but don't bar a state university from setting academic standards. Because UC is a state institution, the First Amendment would prevent it from discriminating against a course because its viewpoint is influenced by religion (or anti-religion, for that matter).

If the standards of the course are too lax, its a different story. There could be a different story in the case of science classes. A biology class that didn't cover evolution, or a physics course that didn't address the Big Bang would be in violation of generally accepted scientific standards. A biology class that presented the theory of evolution thoroughly, but criticized evolutionary theory on empirical or religious grounds would be a closer question. Is it enough to explain the theory and express skepticism about it, or must it be taught as truth? These questions aren't easy. The outcome may well turn on the specifics of the courses, and the University's record on similar courses whose orientation is less likely to offend the liberal mind. Judges hate to second guess academic decisions, if only because they want to discourage lawsuits on these matters, but when a constitutional issue is joined, the courts have no choice but to decide it. Watch this space.

Hat tip: Al Mohler, who cites an article by Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center