Thursday, October 05, 2006

And now the cops

Religious scruple at the forefront again. First it was Christian pharmacists in Washington refusing to dispense the morning after pill, then it was Muslim taxi drivers in Minneapolis refusing to take passengers who were carrying alcohol, and now a Muslim police officer in London refuses to guard the Israeli embassy on moral grounds.

I'd be interested to see Orrin's and Publius' defense of this latest efflorescence of piety :-)


PubliusRex said...

The cop situation is different. He's refusing to do his job.

I wouldn't put it that way for the pharmacist or the taxi driver.

I think your analogy would work better if the pharmacist worked for Walgreens and he refused to follow Walgreen's order to dispense certain pills. In that case, I certainly have no problem with his dismissal. Likewise for the taxi driver and his employer.

Orrin Johnson said...

Agreed - this is an employee/employer relationship. He has the right not to guard the embassy, and his employer has the right to terminate his employment for refusing to follow orders.

I would argue, for example, that a private security firm in a city with dozens of private security firms would have every right to turn down a contract with the Israeli Embassy because they hated Jews.

The outrage here is that the cop was allowed to keep his job. Excusing him is inexcusable. His freedom not to guard the embassy as a matter of religion is not in dispute, but by agreeing to be a cop, he's agreeing to set those personal qualms aside and serve the public at large - a public which includes Jews.

You know that if a Christian or Jewish officer refused to guard the Iranian embassy - an ACTUAL terrorist nation - the British Muslims would once again be rioting in the streets. (Rioting carefully coordinated by the local Imams, without a doubt.) But let's not judge relative cultures, here...

The Police Force were shameful in letting their stiff upper lip quiver to the demands of the budding Islamofascists in their midst. But this cop did everyone a favor. Think how much damage he could have done by being an "inside man" for a group who wanted to attack the embassy. It's a scary thought in Londonistan where multiculturalism and "tolerance" has reached absurd levels that threaten to destroy the freest nation in Europe.

Once again - this is a smaller legal issue that points to a larger, more pervasive, and chilling danger ahead. Militant Islam is invading our culture and our societies, and are working - overtly, in my opinion - to use our openness and tolerance to tear that open and tolerant society asunder.

PubliusRex said...

Is your point that in this case the employer happens to be the government?

Orrin Johnson said...


Cato said...

British multiculturalism seems to be working a lot better than the French system of militant assimilationism.

Orrin Johnson said...

THe French aren't assimilating anyone, militantly or otherwise - that's the problem. Third generation residents aren't allowed to become citizens, don't learn French, and are segregated from the white population.

Cato said...


at the same time, they aren't allowed to continue cultural traditions such as wearing headscarves (or conspicuous crosses) in schools.

Sometimes accomodations have to be made to allow for pluralism--as long as it isn't forbidden by the constitution, of course.