If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk. When you give him the milk, he’ll probably ask you for a straw. When he’s finished, he’ll ask for a napkin. Then…
- If you Give a Mouse a Cookie, by Laura Joffe Numeroff
To sum up the entire plot (yes, I’m using the word “plot” loosely) of the children’s book quoted above, a boy gives a mouse of cookie, who then demands milk, then a straw, then a napkin, then a mirror, then nail scissors…. etc, etc. etc, etc. etc. Our sweet hardworking protagonist is left exhausted and messy-housed as the mouse demands more and more. The moral of the story: woe to he who gives the mouse a cookie, for who knows what awful things the mouse might put you through as a result.
This is a classic slippery slope and a common fear; if we give in on one matter, are we setting off a long chain of doom and disaster. After all, we don’t want to give up our milk or nail scissors, but how do we stop once we’ve offered the cookie?
My answer is that we just do. Feet are remarkably good at planting themselves in one spot.
For a review of the slippery slope argument, visit here. Note that you’ll only fall down the slippery slope if there is actual independent justification that one event will necessarily lead to another. Giving away cookies doesn’t necessitate giving away milk.
Of Mice and Men (Marrying Other Men)
One of the most common arguments I hear against same-sex marriage is that, if we allow it, we’ll also have to accommodate those who wish to practice polygamy or marry their cat, Fluffy. However, it’s already been shown that it’s entirely possible to grant the first without either of the second two. Want examples? I have five of them: The Netherlands, Belgium, Massachusetts, Canada, and Spain. All of these countries granted same-sex couples the right to marry between the years of 2001 and 2005.
As another note, these were the some of the same arguments used against interracial marriage years ago. As of 1997, polls have found a majority of Americans have apparently conceded that interracial marriages are acceptable (yes, not until 1997- I was shocked as well). Even with this expansion of social tolerance, Fluffy the cat is still spouseless.
In the end, a cookie can just be a cookie.
Of Mice and Minneapolis
A minor issue at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has potentially major implications for the future of Islam in the United States.
Some Muslim taxi drivers serving the airport declared, starting about a decade ago, that they would not transport passengers visibly carrying alcohol, for example, in transparent duty-free shopping bags. This stance stemmed from their understanding of the Quran's ban on alcohol. A driver named Fuad Omar explained: "This is our religion. We could be punished in the afterlife if we agree to (transport alcohol.) This is a Quran issue. This came from heaven." Another driver, Muhamed Mursal, echoed his words: "It is forbidden in Islam to carry alcohol."
For the record, I think their refusal to carry alcohol is silly. However, also for the record, I see all religious superstition as silly. I don’t find it any more ridiculous that someone would fear god’s retribution for transporting alcohol than I do that someone else would fear the same for working on Sunday or using his name in vain or whatever other random religious law you want to invoke at that moment. Any Christians who find this particular interpretation of Islamic law particularly silly may want to consider that their own religious traditions were instrumental in creating blue laws, including those that still prohibit alcohol from being sold at certain times (or at all) on Sundays in some states.
The issue emerged publicly in 2000. On one occasion, 16 drivers in a row refused a passenger with bottles of alcohol. This left the passenger, who had done nothing legally and morally wrong, feeling like a criminal. For their part, the 16 cabbies lost income.
(skip a few paragraphs)
"Travelers often feel surprised and insulted," Hogan added.
Yes, this wouldn’t be particularly pleasant. However, the taxi drivers are discriminating against the alcohol rather than the person. At the Minneapolis airport at least, drivers have not refused to carry passengers who drink or even those who are currently drunk—just those who are currently carrying alcohol. Silly, yes. Hateful towards a particular group of individuals? No.
With this in mind, MAC proposed a pragmatic solution: drivers unwilling to carry alcohol could get a special color light on their car roofs, signaling their views to taxi starters and customers alike. From the airport's point of view, this scheme offers a sensible and efficient mechanism to resolve a minor irritant, leaving no passenger insulted and no driver losing business. "Airport authorities are not in the business of interpreting sacred texts or dictating anyone's religious choices," Hogan points out. "Our goal is simply to ensure travelers at (the airport) are well served." Awaiting approval only from the airport's taxi advisory committee, the two-light proposal will likely be in operation by the end of 2006.
(shrugs) This all seems quite reasonable to me. As asserted above, I think it’s somewhat ridiculous to believe that your status in the afterlife will be in jeopardy if a passenger is carrying a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon in your vehicle. However, I do think it’s even more ridiculous to mock someone else’s superstitious traditions when you hold on to superstitious traditions of your own, as most of those in this country do.
The bottom line: the taxi drivers are currently refusing to carry passengers with alcohol, resulting in some passengers having to tote their duty free bag from taxi to taxi. This is annoying and inefficient. MAC developed a solution to allow their staff to direct passengers with alcohol to taxis who will carry them with their alcohol. This seems as if it would save everyone time and effort, eh?
But on a societal level, the proposed solution has massive and worrisome implications. Among them: The two-light plan intrudes the Shariah, or Islamic law, with state sanction, into a mundane commercial transaction in Minnesota. A government authority sanctions a signal as to who does or does not follow Islamic law.
What of taxi drivers beyond those at MSP? Other Muslim hacks in Minneapolis-St. Paul and across the country could well demand the same privilege. Bus conductors might follow suit. The whole transport system could be divided between those Islamically observant and those not so.
(glances at feet to see if she’s being shoved down the slippery slope yet)
Why stop with alcohol? Muslim taxi drivers in several countries already balk at allowing seeing-eye dogs in their cars. Future demands could include not transporting women with exposed arms or hair, homosexuals and unmarried couples. For that matter, they could ban men wearing kippas, as well as Hindus, atheists, bartenders, croupiers, astrologers, bankers and quarterbacks.
(yes, definitely being shoved down the slope!)
MAC is trying to solve a specific, pre-existing problem with a specific solution. The above is a different issue. Independent taxi drivers already have the right to refuse passengers with alcohol; this isn’t some special privilege MAC is granting them. Taxi and bus companies who don’t wish to confront this problem can make transporting passengers with alcohol part of the job duty. Poof! No necessary slide down that slope.
(re-secures feet)
MAC has consulted on the taxi issue with the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society, an organization the Chicago Tribune has established is devoted to turning the United States into a country run by Islamic law. The wife of a former head of the organization, for example, has explained that its goal is "to educate everyone about Islam and to follow the teachings of Islam with the hope of establishing an Islamic state."
It is precisely the innocuous nature of the two-light taxi solution that makes it so insidious, and why the Metropolitan Airports Commission should reconsider its wrong-headed decision. Readers who wish to make their views known to the MAC can write it at publicaffairs@mspmac.org.
- All quotes are from Don't Bring That Booze Into My Taxi
Insidious? Goodness. (swoons) Why is it that whenever anyone starts talking about how the Muslim population is trying to take over this country that I feel like I’ve entered a broadcast of Fox News? Perhaps I just don’t scare easily enough to buy that refusing to transport my alcohol is the first step towards an Islamic state. Or perhaps that it just seems like I’m always fighting with the Christian right, rather than any Muslim group, for reasonable legislation in this country.
By the way, though I’ve included the email in the quote above, there is no need to add to the many letters MAC already received; they’ve announced that they will not be implementing the program due to upset letters from around the world. Back to the drawing board, I suppose. Just watch for those “bright” ideas… apparently, the public doesn’t approve.
In the end, a cookie can just be a cookie, even if it has a crescent on it instead of a cross.
