Need to read - 10-17-06

Rosie O'Donnell's inane equating of "fundamentalist Christians" and "radical Islamists" notwithstanding, Dennis Prager, as usual, is the reasonable voice of moral clarity surrounding this issue. In case you haven't heard (because you only pay attention to mainstream media), right here in Minneapolis there is a big problem with Muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport people who are carrying alcohol (such as a bottle of duty-free Scotch, or a case of wine brought home from Napa). And in Europe, there is a big problem with Muslim taxi drivers refusing to transport blind people who are accompanied by seeing-eye dogs.

As Prager writes: "The appropriate analogy to Muslim taxi drivers refusing to take passengers accompanied by a dog or carrying a bottle of wine would be religious Jewish taxi drivers refusing to take passengers eating a ham sandwich...".

Read the article. Pragers distinction between ritual prohibition and moral prohibition is cogent and sound. And most importantly, it's correct.

This is not just a case of inconvenience to air travelers and left-in-the-cold blind people, it's a glimpse into what a world under sharia would be like (but of course, you'd need to add in all the "honor killings" for rape victims and public stoning, too). Think about that the next time you hear someone equate Christian fundamentalists with Muslim ones, and let me know if you have any examples of Christian fundamentalists imposing their views in this fashion.