March 1, 2007
-
When an unstoppable force hits an immovable object
This is an extremely fascinating situation. One group believes strongly that it is wrong to tell other people that they're believing false religious truths. The other group believes that it is wrong to provide cab service to homosexuals, people carrying liquor, or blind people with guide dogs. The clash is inevitable. (And btw it has happened before, and it will happen again and again with increasing frequency until one side wins globally... any guesses as to which will win?)
Notice that the airport is NOT a government entity (rather a private corporation) and is therefore NOT required to provide "freedom of religion" or anything else. If you don't like their policies, theoretically you can go work or fly somewhere else.
As Johnson so clearly puts it: "In other words, we have to let them be intolerant, or we’re intolerant."
Comments (4)
Fascinating indeed.
I must admit to being hesitant about wanting the government make decisions about anything that could be identified as even remotely "religious" causes or ideals. Although there are some things that I think would be right (anti-abortion legislation, for example), I fear the time when legislation forces something that I know to be contrary to God's word! I think that this all gets very tricky.
I'm pretty torn on this one. I like the Wiccan philosophy myself - if it harms no one, do as you will. In this instance, if I were the company employing the cab drivers, I would tell them that they have to drive everyone or I can hire someone who will - their refusal to give rides to people they don't like is bad for business. Besides, I find it hard to want to grant tolerance to someone who wants to be intolerant. If I employ them, I'm alienating a lot of kinds of people; if I don't, I'm alienating one.
~Sol
Great Quote!!! It's amazing how intolerate people who preach tolerance are to Christians. Christians are the only "organize group" that it's okay to hate.
I don't know -- this is a pretty absurd situation, in my mind. I'm glad the muslims themselves spoke against the guide-dog issue. Transporting alcohol I can understand the aversion to -- the cabdriver is assisting what he sees as a sin. However, transporting someone who is gay, but is not necessarily using the cab to facilitate homosexuality, seems to lead to absurdities. By extension, they couldn't transport anyone who drank, ate pork, or ever did anything against shari'a.
So what if some taxidriver (muslim, christian, whoever) didn't want to transport someone to/with a prostitute, or some other sexually immoral situation?
I look at Christ's actions: he turned water into wine, helping his host. Unfortunately, he knew that many people might already have been drinking, and many would probably contintue to, even to or past the point of drunkenness. He certainly made it at least possible, if not probable. I think God is like that: he helps us sometimes, even giving us enough rope to hang ourselves, so that we have the choice of what to do. Romans 1, right? It's punishment and grace at the same time, in that he gives us the means to evil and doesn't immediately destroy us.
In view of this, I don't think there is much merit in these largely symbolic acts of refusing service. If you refuse service for some reason that isn't a legal issue, or another issue with broad social agreement, you won't prevent the immoral act, and your act will be seen as petty, not principled. If by refusing service for a clear reason you can prevent the act, it may be more useful.
I think that if you don't want to basically provide good service regardless of what kind of despicable person comes along, maybe you just shouldn't be a cabdriver.
Comments are closed.