Cleveland cabbies ticketed at prayer time

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/national/index.ssf?/base/national-45/1117140549105820.xml&storylist=national

5/26/2005, 5:17 p.m. ET
The Associated Press

CLEVELAND (AP) — Somali immigrants who work as cab drivers at the Cleveland airport say police are ticketing them when they step out of their cabs for traditional Islamic prayer.

Police say they are enforcing a requirement that all drivers remain in their vehicles outside the terminal and are trying to maintain order in an increasingly competitive airport cab scene.

A sign warns taxi drivers not to leave their vehicles within 300 feet of the terminal or their car will be towed. Police are not towing, but they are issuing tickets that carry a $150 fine, plus $69 in court costs.

Members of the Islamic religion are required to have five formal prayers daily, which must be done facing the direction of Mecca in Saudi Arabia, considered the most holy city in Islam...

(OK,now don't anybody tell Al Quaida that the cops are ticketing Muslims for praying at a major American airport,OK?)

Seems pretty straight-forward.

Or does saying "It's my religion" allow us to free-style on rules and regs that we find inconvenient? :shrug:

Such as Jehovah's Witnesses being exempted from reciting the pledge of allegiance.

Or such as atheists being successful in exempting everybody from state sponsored prayer.

By who, for what? Where is the pledge required to such a degree that an exemption is necessary? And the atheist remark is incomprehensible. To me, anyway.

was around the end of the Second World War. I forget the name. But it has been 30 years since I graduate law school. Typical case, though. School day started with the pledge of allegiance to the Flag. And witnesses said-"We shouldn't have to do that, nor should our kids." I think that a West Virginia statute required starting the school day with the pledge. Around the end of WWII would have made the pledge at issue pre-"under God" too.

It wasn't the Pledge, it was a flag salute case.MR. JUSTICE JACKSON delivered the opinion of the Court.

Following the decision by this Court on June 3, 1940, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, the West Virginia legislature amended its statutes to require all schools therein to conduct courses of instruction in history, civics, and in the Constitutions of the United States and of the State "for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government." Appellant Board of Education was directed, with advice of the State Superintendent of Schools, to "prescribe the courses of study covering these subjects" for public schools. The Act made it the duty of private, parochial and denominational schools to prescribe courses of study "similar to those required for the public schools."

The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution containing recitals taken largely from the Court's Gobitis opinion and ordering that the salute to the flag become "a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools," that all teachers and pupils "shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly."


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/barnette.html


This case raises different issues with airport security -it would be an interesting test case.

On the NYS thruway, at Sloatsburg which is near an Ultra Orthodox Jewish area, there was a designated "Minyan" area- a place where Jewish men could gather in the required Quorum for prayers. There was an objection to the designation for a religious purpose so now it's called a "Meeting Area" Everyone knows what they're meeting for.

Or such as atheists being successful in exempting everybody from state sponsored prayer.

Are you trying to say that all religious believers, without exception, want state-sponsored prayer, and that if not for atheists, we would have that?

It's actually the First Amendment that exempts everybody from state sponsored prayer.

but the case went to the Supreme Court thanks to Madeline Murray O'Hair, famous atheist. Not taking a position here, just pointing out facts.

You want another example? The Sevent Day Adventists were responsible for litigation requiring employers to make a "reasonable accomodation" for religious beliefs, so the cotton mills in SC couldn't fire the nice Adventist lady for refusing to work on Saturdays.

The guy who asked whether you can be exempted from rules because something burdens your right to freely exercise your own religion needs to read some cases. That's my point.

... you referred to court cases, where people with objections sought out justice under the law and followed constitutional procedures for doing so.

They didn't simply say, "Fuck it, I ain't doin' that, I'm doin' whatever I please."

There's a difference, as I'm sure you'll agree.

onenote

Let's be consistent in preventing religion from getting any more of a foothold than it already has. Besides, many religious Muslims say that work itself can be considered prayer.

But can they pray while inside their cabs? I don't know if this is allowed, but there's got to be some kind of middle ground here.

it in da ride. Not enough room.

you gotta get on your knees and prostrate yourself toward mecca. You can't do that in a sedan, and it would be tough in a van, but might be doable if you were small and the van was postioned correctly. More than likely the answer is no.

I was a practicing Muslim for a year and a half. Someone told me that I could do my prayers in my head even if I was working or something.

Dee

You'd think that allowing some variation to accommodate job requirements would be made so they can recite their prayers while sitting in their cabs, wouldn't you?

These guys must belong to a very strict sect. I somehow find it doubtful that all Muslims feel it necessary to prostrate themselves towards Mecca at the prescribed times no matter where they are or what they are doing.

We have millions of Muslims living in the U.S. and I have yet to hear or read about a case previously where there is a conflict between prayer requirements and the work environment. That indicates there is some kind of flexibility.

in which case you'd think there must be somewhere outside the 300 foot zone where any cabbie can leave the cab. So why aren't the Muslim cabbies driving their cabs there first?

In the full article it said they were leaving their cars to go into the airport building to "wash up" before praying.

I would have problems if all they did was get out of their cars and prayed next to them.

this isn't about targeting islam imho. cabbies should know that they need to pray and avoid getting inside that 300 ft barrier.

poor planning the way i see it. on the cabbies part.

inshah allah.

who were doing this, so to be fair I have no problem with it.

Park where they can pray in the manner they are required too...They dont have to be parked there. It is that simple. Ticket them.