Freedom of religion? Not for innocent Muslims

[scouterjim]

The queen is your head of state.

With no power.

[Guest American Woman]

With no power.

That's a matter of opinion, but regardless, she is your head of state, not your PM.

[scouterjim]

That's a matter of opinion, but regardless, she is your head of state, not your PM.

Tell me what power she holds in Canada. She cannot dissolve Parliuament without the consent of Parliament. She rubber stamps laws which would pass with or without her consent anyway. She cannot declare Canada at war without the consent of Parliament. She holds NO real power. The real power is held by Parliament.

[Guest American Woman]

Tell me what power she holds in Canada. She cannot dissolve Parliuament without the consent of Parliament. She rubber stamps laws which would pass with or without her consent anyway. She cannot declare Canada at war without the consent of Parliament. She holds NO real power. The real power is held by Parliament.

I let you argue that with your fellow Canadians. I made a reference to your head of state excluding catholics, you made a reply about the PM, I pointed out that the queen is your head of state, not your PM. I suggested that you concern yourself with that discrimination at least as much as you concern yourself with the actions of one American pilot, affecting two Muslims, having nothing to do with the government/United States. The suggestion stands.

[scouterjim]

I let you argue that with your fellow Canadians. I made a reference to your head of state excluding catholics, you made a reply about the PM, I pointed out that the queen is your head of state, not your PM. I suggested that you concern yourself with that discrimination at least as much as you concern yourself with the actions of one American pilot, affecting two Muslims, having nothing to do with the government/United States. The suggestion stands.

I never said it the incident with the two Muslim gents had anything to do with the US government. It has to do with bold, outright bigotry on the part of some Americans. Personally, I don't give a shit about who can or cannot be a memnber of the royal family. I am all for Canada divesting itself of the monarchy. The bigotry there is just as bad as what happened on that airplane. However, the monarchy is not what this discussion is about. It is about bigotry, and religious bigotry at that.

[Guest American Woman]

I never said it the incident with the two Muslim gents had anything to do with the US government.

Let me remind you what you said: I guess freedom of religion in the US.... and Freedom of religion in the US is a joke as you also said 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.

You have an agenda, and it's to present "the US" as bigoted against Muslims. You do this even as you recognize other Americans tried to get the Muslims on the plane. So why didn't you use their actions as an example of how tolerant America is? Here were all of these people, the TSA included, trying to talk the ONE pilot into letting the Muslims on - yet you don't judge "the US" on that. Oh no. You judgee only on the one pilot's actions, all the while declaring WHY he did what he did, as if you know, attributing it to "the US," while not using the actions of many more Americans to show how tolerant "the US" is.

You care about religious bigotry so much? I once again hold you to my suggestion. Worry about your own country, especially in light of how you feel:

It has to do with bold, outright bigotry on the part of some Americans. Personally, I don't give a shit about who can or cannot be a memnber of the royal family. I am all for Canada divesting itself of the monarchy. The bigotry there is just as bad as what happened on that airplane. However, the monarchy is not what this discussion is about. It is about bigotry, and religious bigotry at that.

Quit worrying so much about "Americans" and start "giving a shit" about who cannot become your head of state. You claim the bigotry is "just as bad" yet you "don't give a shit." I find it rather intriguing that you apparently do care so very much about what happens in America - with one pilot regarding one incident - that you start a thread about it, going on and on about it, putting your speculations on those involved - as you "don't give a shit" about who can or cannot be your head of state or be a member of the family of your head of state.

Again, feeling as you do about the monarchy, I suggest you get busy trying to change things in your own country. Because that too is about "bigotry; religious bigotry at that." Every bit as much as this incident is.

I find it a real joke when some of you get all hyped up about discrimination towards Muslims as it's apparently not worth getting upset about when it's anyone else. Same goes for what happens in America. So much worse than the same thing that happens elsewhere.

And trust me. That IS what this thread is about.

It was one pilot who one time refused to fly two Muslims. Over his entire career. And we don't know why. Yet this is made out to be some horrific proof of how Muslims don't have freedom of religion in America. So terrible as to get people all riled up. About how bigoted Americans are. It's ludicrous.

[Smallc]

Tell me what power she holds in Canada.

Well, technically, she holds all the power, but as you say, she only uses that power (well the GG uses it for her) at the advice of her government or parliament, depending on the situation. That said, the GG, on behalf of the Queen, holds substantial power when it comes to constitutional or parliamentary crises.

[Smallc]

Your Prime Minister isn't your head of state.

They are the head of government though, which is the other half of what your president is.

[jbg]

Because if I was a bigoted prejudiced asshole that didn't want to fly with muslims because they were muslims, I certainly wouldn't wait for the door to close.

Every single one of them took a minimum of a 1 hour delay in their travels, being a feeder airline how many missed their connections? They did this willingly? Just to get them?

If their employees are such bigoted assholes, why wouldn't they discipline them? Such discipline would certainly be justified, and look good in the public's eye. But they publicly state the opposite, why?

Why would they bring any more press to such a non-story at all?

Even I would like to know why more isn't publicly known by now. Did the pilot make a mistake inflamed by bigotry? Or does political correctness prevent an airing of what these two passengers may have been up to?

Inquiring minds do wonder.

[scouterjim]

Even I would like to know why more isn't publicly known by now. Did the pilot make a mistake inflamed by bigotry? Or does political correctness prevent an airing of what these two passengers may have been up to?

Inquiring minds do wonder.

Perhaps they spoke to each other in Arabic. Can't have that, ya know. Spanish? Okay. French? Sure. German? Why not? Chinese? Of course. Japanese? Without question. Arabic? EVIL!!!

[jbg]

Perhaps they spoke to each other in Arabic. Can't have that, ya know. Spanish? Okay. French? Sure. German? Why not? Chinese? Of course. Japanese? Without question. Arabic? EVIL!!!

Maybe they were talking in Canadian?

My question was atually a neutral one. I think both sides of this have been shouting and not saying much of anything.

[scouterjim]

Maybe they were talking in Canadian?

My question was atually a neutral one. I think both sides of this have been shouting and not saying much of anything.

I was attempting to put a touch of humour into this. i guess I failed.

[Guest American Woman]

Even I would like to know why more isn't publicly known by now. Did the pilot make a mistake inflamed by bigotry? Or does political correctness prevent an airing of what these two passengers may have been up to?

Inquiring minds do wonder.

I've been on planes where passengers who made it through security were deplaned by the pilot - or more to the point, asked step off while he questioned them/went through their things himself to assure himself that it was safe to let them back on. I've also flown on planes where a good percentage of the passengers were Muslims, dressed in full Muslim garb. They were not removed by the pilot, they were not questioned by the pilot, just as is the case with by far the vast majority of Muslims who fly in the U.S. That two Muslims being removed would make such headlines confirms that fact. How many flights are there a day in the US? How many Muslims are flying on a daily basis in the US? How many flights has this pilot flown and how many Muslims have been on those flights?

These are the only two Muslims he ever refused to fly. Why? I would have to say he has his reasons other than "their beliefs" as is being presented as fact, other than their garb, which is being presented as fact, other than no freedom of religion for Muslims in America, which is the way this incident is being presented.

If the reason for the pilot's actions wasn't reasonable, he would have been reprimanded and likely let go. And that would be made public. If the reasons had merit, then he wouldn't be reprimanded and/or let go, which he apparently wasn't. In that case, I'm not surprised the reasons aren't being made public.

We clearly have two sets of standards that "allow" the people on this board, the world at large, in their mind, to prejudge the pilot and to make up his behavior/reasons for his behavior, or at least speculate in a very definite manner about him. Can't do the same with the Muslims, though, whose behavior may have been questionable. That's not tolerance to suggest that, though; while it is very tolerant to throw all kinds of accusations at the pilot. A pilot who has never made Muslims deplane in the past. A pilot who apparently was not reprimanded for his actions after an investigation. Apparently, Muslims can never do any wrong, so all of the suspicion, all of the blame, all of the judging must be directed at the pilot and "the US," and it's not intolerant to do so.

Edited May 21, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

They are the head of government though, which is the other half of what your president is.

Totally irrelevant. My comment was in regards to your head of state.

[Guest American Woman]

We have had several Catholic Prime Ministers, and NOBODY called that into question...unlike a certain president constantly being called "a Muslim".

Who cares? My comment wasn't about your Prime minister. I'll repeat yet again that it was about your head of state, who cannot be Catholic or even married to a Catholic. And the "certain president" IS the president, was elected president, in spite of "constantly being called 'a Muslim,'" so I have you idea what your point it. We have a head of state who is the head of state regardless of whether he's a Muslim or not - while you have a head of state that cannot be a Catholic or even married to a Catholic.

Keep accepting that, though, as you jump all over "the US" because of the incident of one pilot, who is hardly comparable to your head of state.

[Smallc]

Totally irrelevant. My comment was in regards to your head of state.

Yes, that's true, but in terms of the day to day workings of our system, that's the person who's most important.

[Guest American Woman]

Yes, that's true, but in terms of the day to day workings of our system, that's the person who's most important.

One. More. Time.

[Smallc]

One. More. Time.

Saying it one more time doesn't make it any more relevant. In a Westminster system, most things happen because of decisions that the head of government makes. That makes them (even if not technically) the most powerful person in day to day operations. The head of government and the Governor General (often considered the acting head of state who exercises all but three of the Queens powers) can be anyone from anywhere.

[Guest American Woman]

Saying it one more time doesn't make it any more relevant. In a Westminster system, most things happen because of decisions that the head of government makes. That makes them (even if not technically) the most powerful person in day to day operations. The head of government and the Governor General (often considered the acting head of state who exercises all but three of the Queens powers) can be anyone from anywhere.

Good Lord.

More like repeating yourself doesn't make it any more relevant to what I said. My comment was not in regards to "the system," who has what power, or anything else beyond what I was referring to. My question was clear. The implication was clear. So try addressing that. I'll help you out by repeating my original post for your benefit one more time. And if you still insist on going off on a totally irrelevant tangent, be my guest. Just don't expect me to do anything but roll my eyes in response - while knowing exactly why you are dancing around it, trying to make it about everything other than what it is.

Here goes:

And when was the last time your head of state/spouse of your head of state was a Catholic?

The comment is in regards to your head of state and has nothing to do with anything other than the question/fact as applied to your head of state. All of your irrelevant comments don't change anything regarding what I said. They have nothing to do with the issue I raised. It doesn't matter what anyone else can be or where they can be from or what their religion is or how much power they have or what brand of toothpaste they use. My reference is to your head of state.

All the dancing around it and trying to make it about everything else is telling - and amusing, at first. Now it's past amusing and well into tedious - but still very telling.

[Smallc]

My question was clear. The implication was clear.

Maybe it was (I don't agree), but the question and the implication is next to meaningless. I've already said that I think that religious and gender aspects of the selection of the monarch should be changed. That doesn't make your points all that important.

[Guest American Woman]

Maybe it was (I don't agree), but the question and the implication is next to meaningless. I've already said that I think that religious and gender aspects of the selection of the monarch should be changed. That doesn't make your points all that important.

Believe it or not, the criteria for whether my points are "all that important" or not isn't --- you -- what you have or haven't already said or think.

:rolleyes:

[scouterjim]

Who cares? My comment wasn't about your Prime minister. I'll repeat yet again that it was about your head of state, who cannot be Catholic or even married to a Catholic. And the "certain president" IS the president, was elected president, in spite of "constantly being called 'a Muslim,'" so I have you idea what your point it. We have a head of state who is the head of state regardless of whether he's a Muslim or not - while you have a head of state that cannot be a Catholic or even married to a Catholic.

Keep accepting that, though, as you jump all over "the US" because of the incident of one pilot, who is hardly comparable to your head of state.

Do you honestly think Obama would have been elected had he been a Muslim? In your dreams.

[Guest American Woman]

Do you honestly think Obama would have been elected had he been a Muslim? In your dreams.

You're the one who said he's constantly referred to as a Muslim, and he did get elected, so I'd have to say yes.

I'd also have to point out to you one... more... time.... that it doesn't matter whether he would have been elected or not. Not being elected to the position and not being allowed to hold the position are two different things. You can try really hard to comprehend that or you can remain ignorant.

[Smallc]

Not being elected to the position and not being allowed to hold the position are two different things.

Yes, it would be like if for some silly reason, he weren't allowed to hold the position because he wasn't born in the USA.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, it would be like if for some silly reason, he weren't allowed to hold the position because he wasn't born in the USA.

The US president does have to be born in the USA, he/she must be a natural citizen at birth.