Accommodating "arbitrary, idiosyncratic interpretation[s] ... with ... many internal inconsistencies"

[Steven Jamar]

Nor do I and nor did I so claim.

On 9/30/06, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> wrote:
>         I had thought that, where constitutional accommodations are
> involved, Thomas v. Review Bd. had settled the matter:  It's not up to
> the government to decide whether beliefs are internally consistent, or
> whether they are shared by all of the claimant's ostensible
> coreligionists.  Nor is it up to the government to question the line the
> claimants draw.  ("We see, therefore, that Thomas drew a line, and it is
> not for us to say that the line he drew was an unreasonable one.")
>
>         Now it doesn't follow that the cab drivers ought to have a
> constitutional entitlement to the accommodation; since I agree with
> Smith, I think that they shouldn't, and even under the Minnesota
> Constitution's provision, which Minnesota courts have interpreted as
> following Sherbert and Yoder, it's possible that one might reject the
> accommodation claim (though it's interesting to see just how this could
> be done).  I just think that their claim cant be rejected on the grounds
> that their interpretation of Islamic law is arbitrary, idiosyncratic, or
> inconsistent.
>
>         Eugene
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> > [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Steven Jamar
> > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 6:42 AM
> > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> > Subject: Re: 75% of Minneapolis airport taxis refuse
> > customerswithalco hol
> >
> >   The state may well choose to accommodate things for which
> > the constitution does not compel accommodation.
> >
> > Is it the religious motive of the driver that matters?  Or
> > the conduct of the passenger?  Can these taxi drivers
> > discriminate against all those who drink alcohol?  For that
> > matter, why don't they, if that is the basis for the action.
> >
> > This is an arbitrary, idiosyncratic interpretation of the
> > dictates of Islam with so many internal inconsistencies as to
> > not be the sort of thing that needs be granted the hammer of
> > constitutionalizing the accommodation.  Of course the fact
> > that it is so idiosyncratic doesn't really matter (much)
> > except insofar as it can be shown to really be non-genuine --
> > because how do they (logically) distinguish between those who
> > had wine on the plane, those carrying bottles in luggage,
> > those carrying bottles in bags, those carrying bottles in the "open"?
> >
> > As to color coding by this or that passenger -- is that not a
> > form of discrimination against passengers too?  You can only
> > take green cabs, but others can take either green or purple?
> >
> > Curious to me how this little aberrant understanding of Islam
> > in practice would get started and then grow as it did.
> > Interesting demonstration of group-think.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017
> > Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567
> > 2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
> > Washington, DC  20008                           http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
> >
> > "In these words I can sum up everything I've learned about
> > life:  It goes on."
> >
> > Robert Frost
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu To
> > subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> > and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
> > messages to others.
> >
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>


-- 
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law