Freedom of religion? Not for innocent Muslims

[Scotty]

Why? The pilot does not work for the TSA. The deplaned passengers can seek a civil suit if they wish, not a federal crime for "civil rights" violations. Flying on commercial aircraft is not a right.

So if the pilot decided not to let any black people fly on his plane, that wouldn't be a violation of civil rights either, right?

Black people can be dangerous you know, and he'd just be looking out for safety.

[Scotty]

How one dresses at a mosque is not how one dresses on an airplane.

Don't a lot of Jews dress pretty strangely too?

[bush_cheney2004]

So if the pilot decided not to let any black people fly on his plane, that wouldn't be a violation of civil rights either, right?

Not if all the "black people" had been re-screened by the TSA. Context matters.

Black people can be dangerous you know, and he'd just be looking out for safety.

He does the same thing when deplaning "white people" too. "White people" are very dangerous!

[jbg]

Like the pilot's stereotyping of Muslims?

This is an integrated society. When a group decides to set themselves apart from it, particularly when the group, as a whole, is at war with the rest of the West, the West can and should do what it needs to do. There is no question that at least certain segments of Islam are at war with the West. The clothes one wears do send a message.

Neither the Constitution nor civil rights laws are designed to be a suicide pact, letting some combat us while we stand by helplessly.

Don't a lot of Jews dress pretty strangely too?

The strange dress of Chasidic Jews, in public settings, frankly makes my skin crawl. It is another example of a group setting themselves apart from what is, in practice, an integrated, "melting pot" society. People may well have every right to set themselves apart. There are consequences to exercises of rights.

[bloodyminded]

This is an integrated society. When a group decides to set themselves apart from it, particularly when the group, as a whole, is at war with the rest of the West, the West can and should do what it needs to do. There is no question that at least certain segments of Islam are at war with the West. The clothes one wears do send a message.

Which is it?

[Guest American Woman]

Does that include those Christian sects who dress like it is the 1880's? I am no fan of Muslim fundamentalists, but then, I am no fan of Christian fundamentalists either. I am against anybody who tries to push their faith on anybody else, but apparently the two men in question did nothing like this. They dresssed as they were comfortable dressing, but to the bigots on that plane, that was wrong.

What "bigots?" From what I've read, it was the pilot and only the pilot who made the decision and couldn't be talked out of it.

So one person only. In of a nation of 300+ million people. Again. This singular act, involving one individual, does not represent "freedom of religion in America." You, with this thread, are doing the very thing you are criticizing the pilot for -- making the actions of one person representative of a whole lot of other people, representative of a whole nation. Ironic, eh?

[Scotty]

Not if all the "black people" had been re-screened by the TSA. Context matters.

Well, yes, but the context, as I understand it from news reports, is the pilot made them get off the plane and wouldn't give a reason. They were re-secreened, at his insistence, found to be fine, but the pilot still wouldn't let them back on the plane. The guy from the airline tried to argue with him but couldn't get him to change his mind or even give a reason, so the plane left without the two muslims. Isn't that basically the story here?

Edited May 9, 2011 by Scotty

[Guest American Woman]

deleted

Edited May 9, 2011 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

...The guy from the airline tried to argue with him but couldn't get him to change his mind or even give a reason, so the plane left without the two muslims. Isn't that basically the story here?

We don't know the full story. It will come out in the civil suit, should the passengers pursue it. The lawyers are already lining up. Discrimination in public accommodations is illegal, but a pilot can remove anyone from a flight, and face the consequences later. He/she has to have that authority for obvious reasons.

Here is the Delta policy statement:

Refusal to Transport

Delta's conditions of carriage permit Delta to refuse to transport passengers when:

* Compliance with government regulations or directives is required.

* Advisable due to weather or other conditions beyond Delta's control.

* Passenger refuses to submit to a search or produce proper identification.

* Passenger lacks necessary documentation for international travel.

* Passenger fails to comply with any of Delta's rules or regulations or any term of the Contract of Carriage.

* Reasonably necessary for the passenger's comfort or safety, for the comfort or safety of other passengers or Delta employees, or for the prevention of damage to the property of Delta or its passengers or employees. For specific examples, see our Contract of Carriage.

Delta will not refuse transport based on a passenger's:

* Disability, except on the basis of safety or where transporting the passenger would violate the Federal Aviation Regulations.

* Race, color, national origin, religion, sex, or ancestry.

Edited May 10, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[bloodyminded]

Well, yes, but the context, as I understand it from news reports, is the pilot made them get off the plane and wouldn't give a reason. They were re-secreened, at his insistence, found to be fine, but the pilot still wouldn't let them back on the plane. The guy from the airline tried to argue with him but couldn't get him to change his mind or even give a reason, so the plane left without the two muslims. Isn't that basically the story here?

I agree with you that it's ugly--and I'm a little surprised that some people are defending it. But you're being engaged by two different arguments here.

One argument is that it's awesome, because Muslims are scary and sucky and we shouldn't like them. (But only one or two people are really making this argument.)

But the other argument is that this has nothing really to do with freedom of religion in America; that it's an isolated case, and that freedom of religion remains actually healthy. And I do think that's the case.

[Handsome Rob]

I guess freedom of religion in the US is only for right wing, Bible thumping, biggoted, hypocritical Christians. The two men in this article were discriminated against only because of their faith. If they had been Christian white supremacists espousing racial hate on a plane, they would have been left alone. The pilot should be charged with "violation of civil rights".

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/two-muslims-bounced-memphis-flight-despite-extra-screening-211817125.html

Wow. You know far less about the complete truth to this story than the pilot did about his passengers, yet express far greater prejudice than he is alleged to have committed.

You have no idea what sort of disturbance in the cabin instigated his actions, but if one thing is certain, it's that the probability that this pilot was standing at the gate looking for passengers to deplane, is pretty much zero. Such incidents do not occur without reason, reasons that will come out in time.

In the mean time, when you look at it in context, everybody from Richard Reed, to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to the 9/11 perpetrators were cleared by airport security theatre as well. The cockpit door and the PIC's discretion remain the only aspects proven effective, in aviation security's history.

This fellow may turn out to be a racist arsehole, he may turn out to be doing his job well, but those who live in glass houses do not throw stones.

[jbg]

You have no idea what sort of disturbance in the cabin instigated his actions, but if one thing is certain, it's that the probability that this pilot was standing at the gate looking for passengers to deplane, is pretty much zero. Such incidents do not occur without reason, reasons that will come out in time.

I tend to agree. But it would be far better if these stories emerged immediately, not over time.

[KeyStone]

You will have a point whenever Christians start blowing up planes. Until then Muslims will be subject to scutiny that no other group experiences.

So, because some members of a minority have committed a crime, you feel that should give us the right to strip rights from, and discriminate against, all members of that minority?

That's kind of the definition of bigotry.

[TimG]

So, because some members of a minority have committed a crime, you feel that should give us the right to strip rights from, and discriminate against, all members of that minority?

That is not what I said. If someone belongs to a minority group that happens to be the only group that commits certain crimes then they should expect to be subject to scrutiny that no other group experiences.

This is common sense. It is not bigotry nor a violation of anyone's rights.

Let's put this a differently. I look like a member of a group that US customs officials keep a watch for. To protect myself I carry additional paperwork that normal travellers do not carry. It is annoying but that is life since I wish to travel to the US.

Edited May 10, 2011 by TimG

[scouterjim]

That is not what I said. If someone belongs to a minority group that happens to be the only group that commits certain crimes then they should expect to be subject to scrutiny that no other group experiences.

This is common sense. It is not bigotry nor a violation of anyone's rights.

Let's put this a differently. I look like a member of a group that US customs officials keep a watch for. To protect myself I carry additional paperwork that normal travellers do not carry. It is annoying but that is life since I wish to travel to the US.

The two men through security TWICE, but the pilot still refused to allow them to fly. He used their faith as a reason. That is bigotry.

[TimG]

The two men through security TWICE, but the pilot still refused to allow them to fly. He used their faith as a reason. That is bigotry.

I would agree if those are the facts. However, I am not convinced it is that simple. These are pilots who have likely had muslims fly many times. Why would they decide to block these two at this time? It is easy to claim bigotry. More likely a misunderstanding. Edited May 10, 2011 by TimG

[kimmy]

I would anticipate that the pilot would face disciplinary action.

Delta can't be happy with the negative publicity, or with the potential for a civil suit resulting from this pilot's actions.

I think it's unfair to assume this pilot is a Christian. He could just as easily be an atheist or some other faith. I doubt he chucked them off the plane because he thought Jesus wanted him to. I suspect he probably chucked them off the plain because he thought Muslims blow stuff up.

Not sure why the fear of guys dressed in pajamas and fezzes. If I was a Muslim intent on blowing stuff up, I wouldn't go out there wearing a fez and pajamas or a burqa. I'd go out there dressed like a frat boy or a business man or a suburban soccer mom.

-k

[Handsome Rob]

You don't have to blow stuff up to cause a disturbance, and you don't have to be a terrorist to have ill intentions, or be percieved as such. Some times people have irrational reactions to events such as last weekend, that doesn't make it a percieved al q plot by default

[bloodyminded]

I think it's unfair to assume this pilot is a Christian. He could just as easily be an atheist or some other faith.

It's statistically unlikely, but yes, possible. At any rate, I agree that Christianity was almost definitely not in play, at least not in any overt sense.

Not sure why the fear of guys dressed in pajamas and fezzes. If I was a Muslim intent on blowing stuff up, I wouldn't go out there wearing a fez and pajamas or a burqa. I'd go out there dressed like a frat boy or a business man or a suburban soccer mom.

Yes, and most terrorist attacks in the West are not committed by men wearing "suspicious" garb.

[GostHacked]

That is not what I said. If someone belongs to a minority group that happens to be the only group that commits certain crimes then they should expect to be subject to scrutiny that no other group experiences.

This is common sense. It is not bigotry nor a violation of anyone's rights.

Let's put this a differently. I look like a member of a group that US customs officials keep a watch for. To protect myself I carry additional paperwork that normal travellers do not carry. It is annoying but that is life since I wish to travel to the US.

So eventhough you are not part of that group, but look like one of them you get scrutinized more at the airport? And you don't see anything wrong with that?

[Black Dog]

This is an integrated society. When a group decides to set themselves apart from it, particularly when the group, as a whole, is at war with the rest of the West, the West can and should do what it needs to do. There is no question that at least certain segments of Islam are at war with the West.

Here's a guy who claims to be a liberal, who repeatedly calls out his own president for not sufficiently sticking up for "western values", calling for restrictions of civil liberties based on attire. What a country!

The clothes one wears do send a message.

As does how one perceives what other people wear.

Neither the Constitution nor civil rights laws are designed to be a suicide pact, letting some combat us while we stand by helplessly.

This is probably the 8 billionth time you've trotted this line out here, but what does it even mean? Basically, my read is they you view these thing not as the pillars of a free society, but amenities that can be discarded whenever you get scared by some dude with a beard.

Wow. You know far less about the complete truth to this story than the pilot did about his passengers, yet express far greater prejudice than he is alleged to have committed.

So what's the real story? Do tell.

You have no idea what sort of disturbance in the cabin instigated his actions, but if one thing is certain, it's that the probability that this pilot was standing at the gate looking for passengers to deplane, is pretty much zero. Such incidents do not occur without reason, reasons that will come out in time.

Your damn right these things can occur without reason. The assumption that there must have been some disturbance is not based on any of the facts available. Given that would be a rather significant detail to omit, I'm curious why you think such a thing occurred.

In the mean time, when you look at it in context, everybody from Richard Reed, to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, to the 9/11 perpetrators were cleared by airport security theatre as well. The cockpit door and the PIC's discretion remain the only aspects proven effective, in aviation security's history.

Just out of curiosity: what were those guys wearing?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Black Dog

[Handsome Rob]

So what's the real story? Do tell.

Nobody knows. Yet.

Your damn right these things can occur without reason. The assumption that there must have been some disturbance is not based on any of the facts available. Given that would be a rather significant detail to omit, I'm curious why you think such a thing occurred.

Do you charge a rate for your psychic services? I know these things do not occur because I work at one of Canada's busiest airports, worked in this industry for years. Seen everything from people uttering bomb threats to hog tied with cuffs and carried out by the chains.

I repeat, aircrew do not stand at the gate looking for passengers to deplane. For the captain to intervene in the happenings of the cabin, something had to happen. Whatever the gate controller says is meaningless, they have no idea, the head purser may. It does not mean the Imam's did something wrong, it doesn't mean somebody else did something wrong, we have no idea.

But somebody flying commercial on a 705 carrier has been hauling pax for years. Your suggesting such a person has made it through dozens of jobs/interviews/evaluations without incurring a similar incident? The idea is ludicrous.

[Black Dog]

Do you charge a rate for your psychic services? I know these things do not occur because I work at one of Canada's busiest airports, worked in this industry for years. Seen everything from people uttering bomb threats to hog tied with cuffs and carried out by the chains.

Great. What's the relevance here? I'm sure there's plenty of stuff you haven't seen that can occur.

I repeat, aircrew do not stand at the gate looking for passengers to deplane. For the captain to intervene in the happenings of the cabin, something had to happen. Whatever the gate controller says is meaningless, they have no idea, the head purser may. It does not mean the Imam's did something wrong, it doesn't mean somebody else did something wrong, we have no idea.

Again: no "incident" is being reported. If there had been, it's safe to assume someone - say, the airline - would have mentioned it. Not only that, if there was an incident, it's likely the TSA or law enforcement would have gotten involved, given the sensitivities. Yet they are conspicuous in their absence.

But somebody flying commercial on a 705 carrier has been hauling pax for years. Your suggesting such a person has made it through dozens of jobs/interviews/evaluations without incurring a similar incident? The idea is ludicrous.

I'm sure if this guy was going around kicking people off planes on a regular basis, he probably would have been out of a job by now. It only has to happen once.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

I'm sure if this guy was going around kicking people off planes on a regular basis, he probably would have been out of a job by now. It only has to happen once.

Exactly. Which means he's never kicked Muslims off before. You don't honestly believe he's never had a Muslim on his plane before, do you?

Edited May 10, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

The two men through security TWICE, but the pilot still refused to allow them to fly. He used their faith as a reason. That is bigotry.

One person refused to let him fly, as others tried to get him onboard. Yet you attribute his actions to "the US." You put one man's actions on an entire nations. That is bigotry.

Edited to add: I doubt it was their faith that concerned the pilot; I'm sure it's what's been done on planes in the name of their faith that was the concern.

Edited May 10, 2011 by American Woman