Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Truth About Islam -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lorne who wrote (5447)	2/28/2007 2:17:07 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20106

"Does this imply that something may be wrong with a religion ...any religion.... that can de used to ..lets say murder someone.? If you are anti-religious, I can see how you could make that argument, and many people do. But then another person could make the same argument for any dogma or doctrine. So you would almost have to be an anarcist to authentically blame civil or religious doctrine for all evil. I wouldn't imply this but you may do as you wish. There is no doubt that claims on religious doctrine and authority have been used throughout history to justify the killing of an innocent. You don't have to go too far to find dogmatic non-religious justifications like Stallin used or Mao Tse-Tung; they didn't label their actions murderous either. No sane religious people, that I know of, claim their religious doctrine encourages or allows murder. We all know that murders have been committed in the name of religion and rational people see that as a corruption of the religion by the murderer(s). Is there something wrong with a tool... any tool ... that can be used to ... lets say murder someone?

To: lorne who wrote (5447)	2/28/2007 6:03:43 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 20106

Muslim cabbies tell airport they won't bend in alcohol dispute AP ^ \| 2/27/07 twincities.com PATRICK CONDON Associated Press BLOOMINGTON, Minn. - For Abdi Mohamed, it's not a question of whether he'll carry passengers with alcohol in his cab. The question is whether he'll get punished for refusing to do so. "I am Muslim. I'm not going to carry alcohol," Mohamed, a driver for Bloomington Cab, told a Metropolitan Airports Commission panel that gathered public opinion Tuesday regarding proposed penalties for cabbies who refuse service to passengers carrying alcohol. Dozens of cab drivers showed up for the hearing at a hotel near the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Commissioners are charged with setting a new policy by May, when airport licenses for cab drivers are set to expire. Under the proposal, drivers who refuse service for any reason would have their license suspended for 30 days. A second refusal would mean a two-year revocation of the license. According to airport officials, about 80 percent of their cabdrivers are Somali, who are commonly Muslim. Islam religious law strictly forbids the carrying of alcohol. Last year, airport officials said alcohol-bearing passengers were being refused service an average of 77 times a month, though that dropped drastically after new travel safety rules prohibited liquids in carry-on luggage. In September, the commission proposed a compromise that would have let Muslim cabbies purchase and mount a different-colored light on their cab if they didn't want to pick up passengers carrying alcohol. But that proposal triggered a huge backlash, from both passengers and other taxi drivers who feared it would make travelers avoid taxis altogether. Soon the airport commission went the other direction, proposing the stiff penalties for cabbies who refuse service to alcohol-toting passengers. Douglas Bass, of St. Paul, came to the hearing to argue for what he believes is an important principle. "I don't have a problem with people practicing their religion," Bass said, "I don't even have a problem with people who want everyone to believe what they believe. But I do have a problem when a majority is being forced to observe other religions and customs." Much of the hearing was dedicated to concerns over whether Muslim cabbies would also refuse service to blind passengers with trained guide dogs, because of Muslim prohibitions against interacting with dogs. Several blind people voiced their concerns, but cabbies at the hearing said such worries aren't warranted. Refusing service to blind passengers is against federal law. "I am a Muslim and I have taken many guide dogs," Abdi Mohamed said. But the cabbies and their supporters left no doubt that they aren't flexible on the alcohol issue. Hassan Mohamud, a Muslim imam and adjunct law professor at William Mitchell College of Law, said the Muslim cab drivers are only trying to support their families, both here and in their strife-torn home country, and are being placed in an impossible situation. "If we pass this (policy) it means cutting off the lifelines of thousands of people," Mohamud said. Airport director Steve Wareham said the policy should be viewed as a public safety issue. "Refusals of service can lead to customers wandering through lanes of traffic looking for another taxi," he said. Abdifatah Abdi, who said he is counseling cabdrivers on legal issues related to the controversy, warned commissioners that instituting the penalty would set off a long legal battle. "This is a religious freedom issue, and it will not end here," Abdi said. "It will go to the courts, even the Supreme Court. The drivers will not relinquish their rights to be protected under American law." Airport spokesman Pat Hogan said the full commission was expected to vote on the proposal at its April meeting.