Freedom of religion? Not for innocent Muslims

[Black Dog]

Yet you don't know the basis for his actions, so speculating about his character falls into the same category, especially since he's never refused to fly Muslims in the past; so your claim that he's speculating on the entire subset of humanity rather than just these two is just that - speculation of the same order that you are accusing him of/criticizing him for.

Again: I need a facepalm icon.

I never claimed he was speculating about Muslims in general. Rather I was countering that your claim that people who make generalizations about this guy are doing the same thing as people (any people) who do the same to Muslims.

We don't know what set this pilot off. They didn't have to end up being accused of anything in order for them to have acted in such a was as to make him uneasy.

You are accusing them of something: that is, acting in such a way to arouse suspicion. Can you provide some evidence of that?

As already stated, he hasn't refused to allow Muslims to board his plane in the past, so seems to me fair-minded people would at least question why he did this time rather than jumping to all kinds of conclusions about how he feels about all Muslims.

Well, we don't actually know that he hasn't refused to allow Muslims on board. It is possible he has never been in this situation before.

Hardly the same thing, not even "basically," since this pilot hasn't prevented Muslims from boarding in the past.

Again: we don't know that. Or, it could also be that his bigotry is context dependent, given the current climate.

The scenario would be more like I don't cross the street when I see a black person coming, yet on one occasion there's something about the person who gives me an uneasy feeling, so I do cross the street that one time. It has nothing to do with black people because I would do the if the person were white. Or Hispanic. Or Hebrew. Or Muslim. Or whatever.

In this case, it seems that "something" was their dress and religion.

Again, I repeat, I'm not saying refusing to let them board was the right thing to do, but it's not enough evidence to have accused, found guilty, and hanged him for being a bigot, for being anti-Islamic, for accusing him of refusing to let them board just because of their faith. To do all that is to judge him same as you are accusing him of judging all Muslims. If you can't see that, I'm not surprised.

In the absence of any evidence supporting a different conclusion, its a reasonable one to draw.

Furthermore, you didn't criticize scouterjim for putting his speculations regarding this one pilot on the US, while criticizing those who do the same regarding Muslims. And again, I'm not surprised.

I don't generally respond to self-evidently ridiculous posts/posters.

[Guest American Woman]

It IS representative of many Americans, though. Many Canadians as well.

So what?? Terrorism is representative of many Muslims, yet you still feel the need to distinguish that all Muslims aren't terrorists, as you speculate about the reasons for this pilot's actions and attribute it to "the US." You honestly are unable to see that what you are doing is no different??

[GostHacked]

So what?? Terrorism is representative of many Muslims, yet you still feel the need to distinguish that all Muslims aren't terrorists, as you speculate about the reasons for this pilot's actions and attribute it to "the US." You honestly are unable to see that what you are doing is no different??

Are all Muslims terrorists? If not , why not? And not all terrorists are Mulsim. Hopefully we can put this kind of retarded talk behind us and get to the real issue, if anyone knows what the real issues are anymore.

[scouterjim]

So what?? Terrorism is representative of many Muslims, yet you still feel the need to distinguish that all Muslims aren't terrorists, as you speculate about the reasons for this pilot's actions and attribute it to "the US." You honestly are unable to see that what you are doing is no different??

I don't discriminate against a whole faith (or nation) due to the actions of some of them. I don't hate all Americans because a previous president invaded Iraq in order to get himself bigger page in the history books.

[Shady]

Did I ever say I supported Muslim terrorists? I decry their actions as I do those of Christian terrorists (note how little is ever said about them, even though they DO exist). However, I am also wise enough to know that not all Christians are terrorists, just as all Muslims are not terrorists. Unfortunately, too many people do think all Muslims ARE terrorists.

Little is ever said about them because theyre not very common. Unlike the Muslim kind.

[Guest American Woman]

Are all Muslims terrorists? If not , why not? And not all terrorists are Mulsim. Hopefully we can put this kind of retarded talk behind us and get to the real issue, if anyone knows what the real issues are anymore.

Duh. No. They are not. Just as this incident is not about "the US." The hypocritical notion that it's ok to refer to a whole group/nation when in regards to "the US" but not ok when it's in regards to Muslims IS part of the real issue, so hopefully people will begin to see that it's not any more or less intolerant/biased/whatever when the behavior is directed at one group than when it's directed at the other. Then and only then can we put this kind of talk behind us. Speaking of which, your reference to "'retarded' talk" is really mature and classy.

[scouterjim]

Little is ever said about them because theyre not very common. Unlike the Muslim kind.

Really? The Provisional IRA exploded a bomb not long ago. Coverage was short. Why? I guess they aren't Muslims, so they can't be terrorists.

[DogOnPorch]

Many, not ALL. There are MANY Christian fundamentalists who want to install Christian "Taliban" style governments on western nations, but NOT ALL Christians want to do that.

I agree. Let's let Islam do whatever it likes due to Christian and Jewish stupidity. It's the right...and I might add fair thing to do. And I'm an atheist!

Ahhhh. I missed you libtards.

[bloodyminded]

I agree. Let's let Islam do whatever it likes due to Christian and Jewish stupidity. It's the right...and I might add fair thing to do. And I'm an atheist!

Ahhhh. I missed you libtards.

Scouterjim is a Conservative.

Or would that be "Conservatard"?

[Shady]

Really? The Provisional IRA exploded a bomb not long ago. Coverage was short. Why? I guess they aren't Muslims, so they can't be terrorists.

Nah. It's cause it doesn't happen all that often. I know facts can be tough to accept sometime.

[DogOnPorch]

Scouterjim is a Conservative.

Or would that be "Conservatard"?

If you think it is right...and fair.

[bloodyminded]

If you think it is right...and fair.

No, I think it's unnecessary.

Edited May 11, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

Duh. No. They are not. Just as this incident is not about "the US." The hypocritical notion that it's ok to refer to a whole group/nation when in regards to "the US" but not ok when it's in regards to Muslims IS part of the real issue, so hopefully people will begin to see that it's not any more or less intolerant/biased/whatever when the behavior is directed at one group than when it's directed at the other.

Well, when we talk about our nations doing things, usually we mean the governments. Because what is going on around the world is what many of us do not want. We do not need endless wars around the globe, and most of us have little to NO control as to what our governments do. So when we talk about the US, we really are talking about the government and their actions and reprocussions from those actions. I guess I should not be surprised that people take it personally rather than thinking rationally about it and say .. yes my government does some pretty shitty things.

When we get on these kinds of things about the USA, BC2004 is always shouting back at us Canucks and saying Canada did this and Canada did that. Most of us do not disagree with him at all. Yes indeed the Canadian government has done some really horrible shit, and yes I would say that war crimes have been commited by my government, or certain elements have commited these crimes. I don't make excuses for it because these people are on 'my side'. A crime is a crime, and should be addressed as such.

Then and only then can we put this kind of talk behind us. Speaking of which, your reference to "'retarded' talk" is really mature and classy.

About as mature and classy as calling all Muslims terrorists??

[Guest American Woman]

Well, when we talk about our nations doing things, usually we mean the governments. Because what is going on around the world is what many of us do not want. We do not need endless wars around the globe, and most of us have little to NO control as to what our governments do. So when we talk about the US, we really are talking about the government and their actions and reprocussions from those actions. I guess I should not be surprised that people take it personally rather than thinking rationally about it and say .. yes my government does some pretty shitty things.

So when one is talking about this pilot, it's reflective of the government?? You agree with that??

When we get on these kinds of things about the USA, BC2004 is always shouting back at us Canucks and saying Canada did this and Canada did that. Most of us do not disagree with him at all. Yes indeed the Canadian government has done some really horrible shit, and yes I would say that war crimes have been commited by my government, or certain elements have commited these crimes. I don't make excuses for it because these people are on 'my side'. A crime is a crime, and should be addressed as such.

So if one Canadian did something acting on his own, you would see that as reflecting on "Canada," the government. If there is an instance of one perceived bigoted act by one individual Canadian, it's synonymous with "Canada," and to present it as such would be totally correct and waaaaaay different than attributing acts of some Muslims to "Islam."

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

About as mature and classy as calling all Muslims terrorists??

What do you think, since you are the one who said it?

[scouterjim]

Scouterjim is a Conservative.

Or would that be "Conservatard"?

It would be "none of the above". I have found that I agree with parts of different political spectrums, not just one.

[jbg]

Many, not ALL. There are MANY Christian fundamentalists who want to install Christian "Taliban" style governments on western nations, but NOT ALL Christians want to do that.

I don't know of many Christian fundamentalists, at least in the U.S., that want to impose bloodthirsty, murderous dictatorial governments.

[GostHacked]

So when one is talking about this pilot, it's reflective of the government?? You agree with that??

No, in this case it is one pilot, who is not a government official. Notice I am making a distinction here. The pilot is not part of the government and does not represent what the US is. This pilot is on his own. I am always amazed at how many here have to clear up things for you, because you seem to be very emotional instead of rational when you reply to what people post. You'd be best directing your replies at others who are not making the distiction between an individual not in government, and the government which is supposed to represent what the US is about.

But in part, it is government at fault for carrying on the rhetoric of all muslims are terrorists. The talking heads on TV are also to blame for the way people think and how they act towards muslims.

But I've seen it with you many time, where you do sometimes equate all Muslims as terrorists, at least that is my impression. What you have said in past threads (one particular about the Mosque in NYC) shows that. And because many have hounded you for it (which you got UBER defensive on it) and you have had to change your outlook on it. And that is fine.

But what I think is the major difference here is that government does represent us and what we think. Or at least that is how it should work. It's now a stereotype in which all Muslims are terrorists, which is obviously not the case. But in many threads this has been said, but still we end up with these threads that go on for pages that are just a continuation of the past threads on these topics.

So if one Canadian did something acting on his own, you would see that as reflecting on "Canada," the government. If there is an instance of one perceived bigoted act by one individual Canadian, it's synonymous with "Canada," and to present it as such would be totally correct and waaaaaay different than attributing acts of some Muslims to "Islam."

If that person is a government official and says he represents Canadians on the whole with his actions/rhetoric, then yes you can look at it that way. Our government represets us, so what they do DOES reflect on the country as a whole. No matter individually or part of a group, we elect these people into office to represent us. And we need to deal with those people if they fail to represent what the country is about. But do we?

What do you think, since you are the one who said it?

I think this whole thread is retarded.

[scouterjim]

I don't know of many Christian fundamentalists, at least in the U.S., that want to impose bloodthirsty, murderous dictatorial governments.

There are groups who want to install a theocratic government in the US. Pat Robertson has advocated this for years. He has said he would force all non-Christians to convert or be expelled from the US. He wants to make church attendance mandatory, and would imprison those who do not attend. He and his ilk would limit women's rights, and force a "Christian dress code" on all Americans. Stoning for adultery would be implemented, and a harsher category for the death sentence would also appear (including blasphemy). Homosexuals would be put to death. Those are all things the Taliban did in Afghanistan using Islam as a reason. Little difference except the name of the faith. Thank goodness the greater majority of Americans are too smart to buy into those kinds of ideas.

[Handsome Rob]

https://news.change.org/stories/delta-pilot-refuses-to-fly-with-imams-wearing-islamic-garb

When a few passengers on an Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight, a carrier run by Delta, noticed two imams dressed in Islamic garb on their flight on Friday, they asked that the passengers be removed.

So what did the pilot do? He went right ahead and kicked the Muslim passengers off the flight!

....

The air travel industry also has a lot of work to do when it comes to training employees on incidents like this, says Chihabi. According to Delta, "pilots industry-wide do have authority over their aircraft within the parameters set by their individual carrier."

Delta claimed they "review[ed] the matter with the pilots and talk[ed] with them about their decision." But the pilots were in no way reprimanded for their behavior.

Speaks volumes about what we don't know about the story. The carrier more than likely holds far and away more liability than the pilots ever will, from public perception if nothing else.

But of course we know everything because it doesn't matter, it's bigotry no matter what, there are other possible scenarios but we they don't matter, we all know what happened.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Little difference except the name of the faith. Thank goodness the greater majority of Americans are too smart to buy into those kinds of ideas.

Indeed...contrast the things that Pat Robertson wants but can't get in the United States with actual preferences established by constitution (in designated provinces) for Catholics and Protestants in Canada:

Only Protestants or Roman Catholics, whichever is the minority faith population compared to the other in a community, can consider the establishment of separate school education. The separate school establishment right is not available to citizens of any other faith (such as Jews, or Mormons, or Hindus, or Muslims). In addition, the minority faith must establish that they wish to leave the public school system and create a separate school system.

Edited May 17, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Black Dog]

Speaks volumes about what we don't know about the story. The carrier more than likely holds far and away more liability than the pilots ever will, from public perception if nothing else.

Again: if there was more to this story to indicate that there were reasons beyond the garb of these two passengers as you suggest, why wouldn't the airline talk about it? What possible reason would they have to keep information back that would make their employees appear less bigoted to the public?

But of course we know everything because it doesn't matter, it's bigotry no matter what, there are other possible scenarios but we they don't matter, we all know what happened

But or course, even there's no evidence whatsoever there's anything to indicate there is more to the story, we'll just pretend there is.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Black Dog

[scouterjim]

Indeed...contrast the things that Pat Robertson wants but can't get in the United States with actual preferences established by constitution (in designated provinces) for Catholics and Protestants in Canada:

Only Protestants or Roman Catholics, whichever is the minority faith population compared to the other in a community, can consider the establishment of separate school education. The separate school establishment right is not available to citizens of any other faith (such as Jews, or Mormons, or Hindus, or Muslims). In addition, the minority faith must establish that they wish to leave the public school system and create a separate school system.

Given there are Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish only schools in Canada, that clause is meaningless. There are numerous "traditional Christian schools" as well.

[bush_cheney2004]

Given there are Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish only schools in Canada, that clause is meaningless. There are numerous "traditional Christian schools" as well.

Yet such Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish schools did not receive direct funding in Ontario. The clause and preference for Catholics and Protestants remains enshrined in constitution acts....how backward...like...ummm...Pat Robertson!

[scouterjim]

Yet such Sikh, Muslim, and Jewish schools did not receive direct funding in Ontario. The clause and preference for Catholics and Protestants remains enshrined in constitution acts....how backward...like...ummm...Pat Robertson!

But those schools are NOT advocating putting a theocratic dictatorship in power. I have yet to hear about ANY religious school in Canada advocating forced conversions, forcible expulsions, and jail time for not attending church. However, your pal Pat DOES.

Edited May 17, 2011 by scouterjim

[bush_cheney2004]

But those schools are NOT advocating putting a theocratic dictatorship in power. I have yet to hear about ANY religious school in Canada advocating forced conversions, forcible expulsions, and jaili time for not attending church. However, your pal Pat DOES.

Doesn't matter...their mere existence with provincial funding as instantiated by constitution acts speaks volumes. Pat Robertson isn't spending Canadian taxpayer money. Seems that some concessions were made to Catholics and Protestants in some provinces to continue their religious indoctrination whenever the minority population. As for forcible expulsions...ever heard of Acadians?