The Twin Cities' Somalian Muslims
9 Apr 2007
In my last article, I talked about the British unintentionally making accommodations in Britain for Muslim mosques by intentionally vacating their Christian churches. In this article, I want to look at how our own country appears to be intentionally bending over backwards to accommodate Muslims.
In Minnesota’s Twin Cities, home of one of our nation’s largest Somalian immigrant communities, Somalian Muslims, who make up 70 percent of the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport taxi business, are refusing to transport passengers with alcohol on their breath or packaged alcohol under their arm. Furthermore, Somalian cashiers are refusing to handle pork products and insisting that customers scan their own bacon in grocery stores. According to the Twin Cities’ Somalian Muslims, if they were to knowingly transport alcohol or handle pork they would have to answer to Allah on Judgment Day.
While many may respect Minnesota’s Muslims for standing up for their beliefs, my problem is with their insistence that others be inconvenienced over their beliefs rather than themselves. If someone gets “hammered” in a bar and calls for a cab to drive him home, why should he end up driving home drunk because some Muslim cabby refused to transport an inebriated fare? Why should grocery shoppers have to go to the trouble of sorting out their groceries in a checkout line and scanning all pork products themselves because Muslim cashiers refuse to touch a can of pork and beans?
If it’s against a Muslim’s religion to do a certain kind of job, then Muslims ought to find another kind of work. They shouldn’t be allowed to redefine businesses, inconvenience customers, and then insist on everyone’s conformity so that they can practice their faith comfortably in the occupation of their choosing. I can only imagine the public outcry against Christians if we started insisting on society’s conformity to our convictions in order to make it easier on us to practice our faith.
I’ve been told that Hooters has the best chicken wings you’ve ever tasted. Needless to say, I, as a Baptist preacher, love chicken. Yet, I’ve never been to Hooters. I feel it is an inappropriate place for a Baptist preacher to patronize.
I’ll be the first to admit that being kept from eating at Hooters by my personal convictions is a very small price for me to pay in order to remain true to my Christian faith. There are plenty of times when my faith demands a far greater price and a far greater sacrifice than denying myself a chicken wing. Still, I’m using this example to show how unreasonable it would be for me to accuse Hooters of violating my religious freedom because of their refusal to conform their restaurants to my Christian faith. What right do I have as a Baptist preacher to demand that Hooters change their name to Scooters and dress waitresses in turtlenecks and sweat pants just so that I can start patronizing their restaurants and chowing down on some chicken wings? Obviously, I have no such right and would be a fool to assert that I do.
Hooters has ever right to run their business as they see fit. On the other hand, I have ever right to refuse to violate my Christian convictions by patronizing their restaurants. When it comes to my Christian beliefs, it is me that must make the sacrifices and suffer the inconveniences. Likewise, Muslims alone should pay the price for practicing their faith. Other folks should not have to do without cabs or scan their own groceries in order to make it easier for Muslims to practice their faith. If I can go to Kentucky Fried Chicken instead of Hooters, Muslims can do something else besides drive taxies and work in grocery stores.
Don Walton
| 
