And just in case my point was missed, I agree with Woodstock’s second post too. A man’s conscience is sacred and no one should be forced to act against their conscience. That sounds fine as a moral principle to which I adhere personally, but I see the inherent dangers.
The logical conclusion then should be that Muslim cab drivers should not be forced to carry passengers who are transporting alcohol if they believe it to violate their religious convictions (an aside here: despite the fatwas mentioned in one of the articles, there is not universal agreement among Islamic scholars as to whether or not transporting a passenger who is carrying a sealed bottle of alcohol in their bags is in fact a sin).
But now move the example to the Muslim cab drivers who refuse to transport dogs in their cabs.
news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070117/us_nm/muslims_taxis_dc If we’re talking about the 65 year old society granny with her poodle, we might simply shrug our shoulders and say “the cabbie thinks dogs are impure. It’s a religious conviction. He doesn’t have to agree to transport a dog in his cab.” And it might end there.
But what about the blind passenger with a seeing eye dog? U.S. fair access laws normally make the refusal to admit a seeing eye dog to your establishment or taxi a civil or criminal offense. Should Muslim cab drivers be obliged to obey the law here? Why should a Muslim be permitted to refuse a dog and another person, say someone who just doesn’t like dogs or is allergic to animal hair or indeed has a phobia about them, not be allowed to refuse?
As far as I know, cabs fall into the category of “Public Services” and anti-discrimination laws in the U.S. generally follow the line that if you are in the business of offering public services then you are not free to pick and choose which members of the public are permitted to enter your establishment or avail themselves of your service. No more than a restaurant owner is free to bar couples with small children from his establishment or a bar owner to refuse to serve black clients in his bar.
It’s a more difficult question than it seems at first. Catholic pharmacists should not be obliged by law to sell condoms and contraceptives, including abortifacients. If the law determines that they may be legally sold, fine (though I do not like it) … but must the law therefore be interpreted to mean that because the
may be legally sold by pharmacists, then
all pharmacists must sell them? Most of us would insist on the freedom of conscience here … why should a person be forced to choose between exercising his livelihood or sacrificing his conscience, right?
Ahh, but now what to do if you are a non-Catholic living in a small town and your only pharmacist is a Catholic pharmacist who believes that it would be a sin for her to sell those items? Do we oblige him to do it? Or do we maintain that he must be free to follow the dictates of his conscience?
History demonstrates that we Christian have had a difficult time striking a balance in this area. The problem is that while we Christians have the words of Christ ***Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s (Mt 22:21) *** as well as St. Paul’s admonishment to **
Render to all men whatever is their due; tribute to whom tribute is due; taxes to whom taxes are due; fear to whom fear is due; honour to whom honour is due (Rom 13:7), ** to guide us, the Muslims do not. The Koran makes no distinction between “the things that are God’s and the things that are Caesar’s”; between divine and human law, between religious and civil authority. And this is a problem which is going to be thrust upon us more and more as the Islamic presence in Western countries continues to grow.
