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

[Volokh, Eugene]

	Hmm -- then why bring up the supposed arbitrariness,
idiosyncracy, or inconsistency of the taxi drivers' beliefs?  

	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 1:25 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> Subject: Re: Accommodating "arbitrary,idiosyncratic 
> interpretation[s] ... with ... many internalinconsistencies"
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>