Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« This Is Not An Elephant! | Main | Happy Thanksgiving! »

November 22, 2006

Comments

Curious

According to the sources I read, these Imams could have done their evening prayers seated and silently according to Islamic law. It was just a bunch of chutzpah on their part. Excellent point on the intolerance regarding Christian observance in Saudi Arabia.

Andy

Wow! As a nearly everyday partaker of commercial flight, I would have freaked out myself.

Mia Storm

"According to the sources I read, these Imams could have done their evening prayers seated and silently according to Islamic law."

And, if they couldn't fulfill their religious obligation by silent, seated prayer, then they should have scheduled their flight for a time when they would not have to pray on the plane. Religiously-observant people have to make accommodations in their daily lives for their religious observances all the time. In a pluralistic society like the United States, a religiously-observant person has to make those accommodations in a manner that respects the needs of people who do not share their religion.

The problem here in the U.S. though is that unjust cries of "victimization" all too often work, so I won't be surprised if this airline's employees are sent off to Sensitivity Training for daring to insist that the imams follow security regulations.

Whit

This is a put up job. It is being done to allow further nonsense to be allowed on air flights by Islamists/Muslims by making their misbehavior politically correct and unchallenged. I would venture it is to allow future bombers to do as they please on aircraft while they make rehearsal runs and then the real thing. Did you notice how quickly CAIR got involved and making demands? I think I even heard that the NAACP is involved on their side. Thus trying to make this a civil rights issue and thereby shutting up the airlines and other passengers from stopping any type of misbehavior on flights.

I say this because this has come about so suddenly. Are we to think that absolutely no Imam or any other Muslim has ever flown at a time when he/she is to do their scheduled prayer? No, Muslims/Islamists have been in the US for decades and have flown on all kinds of airplanes w/o having to stand and make spectacles or themselves and disrupbint the flights. They have done as Jimmy said, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Pray in your seat and do it in a way so as to not disturb others.

If this is not put down and done so firmly, more and more of this garbage will be done and in the end it's not going to make a difference whether the pilot's door is impervious or not. I'm really surprised that we haven't had more planes blown up already since it is so politically incorrect to specifially check those who look like they might actually want to do us harm. Instead, the TSA looks at blonde haired, blue eyed 12 year olds and 96 year old grannies, thinking they are the dangerous ones.

There is a good side to this. The Imams are calling for an Islamic boycott of US Air making it probably the safest airline in the country to fly on until they see how stuopid their boycott is. What can you expect from people whose culture isn't even out of the 7th Cehtury yet?

Esau

Man, if they're allowed to say prayers out loud in the airplane and claim that not to be able to do so is a violation of their civil rights; then, I should be allowed to pray be it matins, lauds, prime, terce, sext, none, vespers and/or compline in the plane and IN LATIN and folks better not complain!

They'd better pray that I'm not in their plane during an international flight, because there'll be a lot of Deus in adiutorium meum intende!

In fact, I'll say it first in Classical Latin and in Ecclesiastical Latin; and if that isn't enough, I'll say it in Restored Latin to make my case!

joe

I agree with everyone so far.

But did they refuse to leave the plan and be re-screened for sure? I'm interested in nailing down that portion of the equation.

As for the other, suspicious behaviors: praying "loudly." Mumbling swear words, making anti-american remarks, asking for seat-belt extensions when one is not overtly over-weight.

I am quite certain that I would have written the note myself had the Imams even looked more like my present day neighbor. If my wife and two kids are on the plane and I'm hearing loud "Allah" chants and an assortment of other weird requests and behaviors, I will guarantee you I will be acting primal not PC


Esau

PLEASE ALL PRAY FOR THE POPE FOR HIS TURKEY VISIT!

God forbid that anything should happen to him!

TURKS INVADE EX-CHURCH TO PROTEST POPE VISIT

Nationalist Turks protest ahead of pope’s visit
Benedict XVI to make his first trip to the Muslim nation next week

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15851070/

Br. Francis

Yes, I will definately be praying for Pope Benedict as he travels to Turkey. I hope I'm not alone!!!

Deacon John M. Bresnahan

The fact these imams think that "when in Rome they can damned well do as they please" is caused by all the liberal diversity propaganda that says basically noone nowadays has to adapt to America as did millions of earlier immigrants. Thus in some cities it is a babel of foreign languages with no pressure to function in English as was the case in the past.

Trubador

You're not alone!

link

SPIRITUAL PILGRIMAGE WITH HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI ON HIS PASTORAL VISIT TO TURKEY
NOV. 28–DEC. 1, 2006

Heavenly Father, from whom every family in heaven and on earth takes its name, we humbly ask that you sustain, inspire, and protect your servant, Pope Benedict XVI, as he goes on pilgrimage to Turkey – a land to which St. Paul brought the Gospel of your Son; a land where once the Mother of your Son, the Seat of Wisdom, dwelt; a land where faith in your Son’s true divinity was definitively professed. Bless our Holy Father, who comes as a messenger of truth and love to all people of faith and good will dwelling in this land so rich in history. In the power of the Holy Spirit, may this visit of the Holy Father bring about deeper ties of understanding, cooperation, and peace among Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and those who profess Islam. May the prayers and events of these historic days greatly contribute both to greater accord among those who worship you, the living and true God, and also to peace in our world so often torn apart by war and sectarian violence.

We also ask, O Heavenly Father, that you watch over and protect Pope Benedict and entrust him to the loving care of Mary, under the title of Our Lady of Fatima, a title cherished both by Catholics and Muslims. Through her prayers and maternal love, may Pope Benedict be kept safe from all harm as he prays, bears witness to the Gospel, and invites all peoples to a dialogue of faith, reason, and love. We make our prayer through Christ, our Lord.

Prayer composed by Bishop William E. Lori, Supreme Chaplain

Kasia

Every account I've read so far has asserted that the imams refused to deplane. Whether they were setting the stage (as someone pointed out), had actual plans themselves, or were just doing it to make some sort of civil rights stink...well, I was going to say I don't care, but that's not accurate. Let's say that it's immaterial to the more basic question: was US Airways right? I say ABSOLUTELY, and I hope they have the courage and sense not to back down on this.

My metaphorical hat is off to Jimmy for saying EXACTLY what I think about this, far better than I could have.

Esau

Yes, I will definately be praying for Pope Benedict as he travels to Turkey. I hope I'm not alone!!!

Thanks, Br. Francis!

B16's work has only just begun! I don't want to see some schmuck ruin what could be another great papacy!

Esau

You know, sometimes, I wished that the Catholic Powers still existed even unto this day. But, given our world today, it looks like, certainly, there are the Muslim nations out there and, perhaps, Protestant ones, too.

All things considered, though, is there actually a Catholic nation out there? Even Italy isn't necessarily "Catholic" itself!

Mark Johnson

Classic quote, from Ann Coulter's column of today: "Six imams removed from a US Airways flight from Minneapolis to Phoenix are calling on Muslims to boycott the airline. If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether."

DWB

Our county has bent over backward to accommodate Muslims.
Those in military service are given concessions. One large company for which I once worked, founded by a man of Jewish faith, sets aside prayer rooms for Muslims to pray on company time, but won't adjust work schedules to allow Catholics or Mormons time to attend religious services on Sunday.
From all available accounts, it appears that the imams were going out of their way to create an incident, and in doing so caused a lot of inconvenience for a lot of other people.

John

I think the interesting question is still, why?

Is it as Jimmy suggests, "the imams...deliberately provoke[d] the situation so that they could play the victim card afterwards...", or is there some larger purpose in provoking a security response?

One would hope these guys are bright enough to realize that airlines are not going to disrupt existing security protocols out of deference to a silly ploy by a group of radical clerics. The minute it becomes public that U.S. Air, or any airline has caved to these men's demands, their passenger base drops substantially, and the airline loses money.

I also don't see how this sort of activity could be considered prepatory for a new wave of attacks. It seems like it could only be meant to drum up support among more moderate muslims, whose tolerance threshold for American treatment of Muslims may be somewhat on the fence.

What's interesting to me is these men's lack of concern for how this sort of ploy will effect muslic/non-muslim relations. There is no tolerance or acceptance or love here at all...just divisive polarization...this to me is the really scary side of Islam...and how sad for the poor followers who call these men their clerics!

John

Tim J.

"I think the interesting question is still, why?"

Because they think they can do in the U.S. what they have been doing in Europe; intimidate, protest and riot until they get their way.

We need to cut it off at the root... don't even let them get a toe in the door. In fact, we need to SLAM the door on their toes. These loons should do jail time or pay fines for delaying the flight, interfering with the flight crew, etc...

We should also aggressively develop alternative energy sources... in a few decades we could leave them sitting on a lake of black sludge that nobody wants.

Tim J.

And in case I sound bigoted, by "them" I mean radical wahhabists / jihadis... not all Muslims.

Emanymton

Hrmm, new bumper sticker? I SLAM the door on ISLAM!

Ruthie

"I also don't see how this sort of activity could be considered prepatory for a new wave of attacks."

I do. If the worshipers of the idol Political Correctness get their way, then persons of Muslim appearance will have the freedom to stand up on an airplane in flight and speak loudly in a language the flight crew and other passengers don't understand.

This picture gives me the creeps...

These "prayers" just might consist of, "Hey, Akbar, time for us to kill some Infidels!"

Or they could be used as a ruse to get the pilot's door opened, and/or get the pilots out and vulnerable.

NOT a good idea!

Christine

It is very clear the members of the 'religion of peace' intentionally started the situation.

Christine
TheWorld...IMHO

Marcel

Man, if they're allowed to say prayers out loud in the airplane and claim that not to be able to do so is a violation of their civil rights; then, I should be allowed to pray be it matins, lauds, prime, terce, sext, none, vespers and/or compline in the plane and IN LATIN and folks better not complain!

"They'd better pray that I'm not in their plane during an international flight, because there'll be a lot of Deus in adiutorium meum intende!

In fact, I'll say it first in Classical Latin and in Ecclesiastical Latin; and if that isn't enough, I'll say it in Restored Latin to make my case!"
ESAU

Only the Halloween Mass priest or Jesuits High Schools will stop you

Mary

Prayer rooms?

I heard of a school -- I think a medical school -- that declared they would be happy to prayer rooms, but they would be open to everyone. The Moslems dropped the demand.

Perhaps if people demanded access to the room on a non-discriminatory basis, that problem would diminish.

Anonymous for my own safety

My practising Muslim friends and neighbours boast that Islam is practical and flexible and if one cannot say the mandatory prayers at the set time eg due to travelling then the number can be made up later.

I suspect political power games by these imams who pressed the fear buttons of non-Muslims to provoke a reaction, thereby hoping to create a sense of victimhood and unity amongst Muslims.

This is what two British Anglican bishops have perceptively said on power and victimhood amongst Muslims

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2438570,00.html
(dual desire for victimhood and domination)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/14/nmuslim14.xml
(BBC frightened of criticizing Islam)

Realist

from beliefnet.com


"Salat in Islam was taught by our prophit Mohammad(S.A.A.W.S.),He said:Fellow Muslims watch me, and do whatever I do. He ( Peace upon Him) performed the obligated Salat( Fardh) always standing kneeling and going down, and some other Salah( nafilah)in any position. There is one thing to point out, it is allowed for people with some difficulties to perform Salat in posture they can afford, Standing during all the prayer, sitting, riding animal, car or airplane, or on their back and make sign by eyes,it is accepted, the most important issue is how one's can afford to perform, and this accompanies with good intention. "

Apparently, as noted above, these "imams" either don't know much about Islamic customs or they were out to make trouble.

Esau

"Man, if they're allowed to say prayers out loud in the airplane and claim that not to be able to do so is a violation of their civil rights; then, I should be allowed to pray be it matins, lauds, prime, terce, sext, none, vespers and/or compline in the plane and IN LATIN and folks better not complain!

"They'd better pray that I'm not in their plane during an international flight, because there'll be a lot of Deus in adiutorium meum intende!

In fact, I'll say it first in Classical Latin and, then, in Ecclesiastical Latin; and if that isn't enough, I'll say it in Restored Latin to make my case!" ESAU

Only the Halloween Mass priest or Jesuits High Schools will stop you

MARCEL:
Either that or certain forces in the plane might accuse me a "Crusader" and then where would I be??? ;^)

kaneohe

RE: "In fact, I'll say it first in Classical Latin and in Ecclesiastical Latin; and if that isn't enough, I'll say it in Restored Latin to make my case!"

Esau, glad to see you are skipping the
"Pig-Latin" - no need to offend the imams in the next aisle! :)

You go guy!! Have a great Thanksgiving!

Francis DS

I think those imams were simply praying that no Islamic hijackers happened to be on board their flight.

Some Day

Mr. Jimmy Akin,
I have to disagree with the sympathy.
The reason being is that only Truth has the right to full liberty. If you look into doctrine, you will see that it is true. That is a main defense for the Inquisition. Mind you, saying everything goes right, the Church has the right to make sure that souls are not perverted. To have free will does allow for belief in whatever, but not to make propaganda or knowledge of it. Now if you look at wordly and from an atheistic point of view, yes they do have the right, because the US allows for those things. But man's law is certainly very conflicting with God's law these days.

John

Since approximately 711 A.D., Islam has been engaged in an unremitting struggle having as its object the destruction of Western civilization. They exhibit no tolerance, understanding, or forgiveness. Indeed, it is a criminal offense to display any Christian symbol in an Islamic country, yet they expect kid glove treatment when they come here, and the wacky liberals (including some brain-dead "Catholic academics") think that our concepts of charity require us to accommodate this threat to our very existence.

JGC

:Restored Latin"--- Is that anything like "Restored Egyptian"?

JGC

OOPS!!! I meant to say, "'Restored Latin' -- Is that anything like 'Reformed Egyptian'"

ruth

Wow, I am really quite shocked by some of the posts in here. It seems to show an uninformed phobia of all things Islam. If they did do this on purpose it was perfectly in their rights under our constitution to do so. Maybe it was unadvisable considering the current fear of attack by the flying population, but it was in their right. It is a right that we would bane to see restricted especially for it's implications on Christians. Do not be so short sighted.
Not long ago (in historical perspective) Catholics suffered much the same. And even in this modern day Christians have organized prayer services in places where we believe we have the right to pray, and have been arrested for it. There is a great benefit to this country and its tolerance of all peoples, and all faiths, as long as we can take safeguards to protect ourselves against murder bent extremists. This is not France and it is a good thing.

bill912

Attempting to cause a panic is not a right; it is a crime.

They asked for seatbelt extensions that they appparently did not need. Why? Perhaps to use them as weapons. A piece of metal at the end of a leather strap can be swung with a good deal of force and can cause damage to the human body, particularly if it strikes the head.

ruth

And Jimmy it is circular logic to compare the reaction in the USA to what the reaction would have been in Saudi Arabia which is a Monarchy/theocracy. It is a moot point, a non-comparison.
Also, about comforming to American identity and the statement that this not a muslim-majority country; again a moot point. We do not force any immigrant body to conform to our 'identity' because we are a homogenious nation. We simply ask that they obey the laws of our country and learn our language. Yet for purposes of worship and home-life language and custom are retained. A good example of this are the vast polish, Eastern European, Italian, and Hispanic neighborhoods throughout our large cities.
Something being in bad taste and unadvisable is vastly different than being punishable by law.

bill912

"It is a moot point, a non-comparison." Why?

ruth

Bill, since the story was framed in such a way that brought constitutional law into view...one must look at it in a legal way, not in a visceral way. We may have certain reactions to people based on prior experience....but that does not mean that our feeling threatened by someone based on past experience itself convicts them of breaking the law.
Let me give you an example. Not long after 9/11
in New York a group of Franciscan Friars (men in long beards and robes that could to the untrained eye resemble muslim's and often they are mistaken for muslims) crossed a major bridge on foot into New Jersey. People became frightened they called the police, police called swat, homeland security. There were helicopters out looking for them....people were frightened, the bridge was shut down almost completely. When the police finally located these errant friars and realized that they posed no threat they were not arrested, or charged with inciting fear. It was people's inate fear that escalated the situation...not that we shouldn't be vigilant.
You might argue that this is different...because they weren't muslim. And that is an ascertation/differentiation that would not stand up in a court of law. It doesn't matter what their religious affiliation is...simply what matters is the law and if it was broken, or if there was intent to break the law.

bill912

Huh?

bill912

Ruth, I don't get the connection between my question and your answer.

Tim J.

"Something being in bad taste and unadvisable is vastly different than being punishable by law. "

Refusing to deplane when asked is way beyond bad taste... it is legitimately viewed as suspicious behavior.

The passengers and the crew did the right thing.

ruth

I was answering your other post Bill. The parallel between what would happen if jimmy prayed on a plane in Saudi Arabia as compared to what happened here is moot and a non-comparision for a few reasons:

1) The laws of Saudi Arabia have no bearing here so it plays no part in the discussion

2) Saudi Arabia's form of government is vastly different in nature (monarchy/semi-theocracy) and is no comparison to the rights and protections granted by our government for public displays of religion and belief.

It is simply playing to emotional outrage to bring that into the discussion, where emotion has no bearing and shouldn't on legal discussions.

Francis DS

If they did do this on purpose it was perfectly in their rights under our constitution to do so

ruth, isn't it also within the rights of the airline to do what they did? And within the rights of the passengers to be concerned and voice their concern?

bill912

Okay, what did your post have to do with "Attempting to cause a panic is not a right; it is a crime"?

ruth

Absolutely, Francis. Though, if the imans can prove that there was no foundation for the removal the airline can be sued.
Although a mitigating circumstance could be argued in the airlines defense; that is the federal allowances they have to detain and question.
All I am saying is be very careful what rights you are willing to revoke for others lest they come back to bite you.
Example:
A law is passed that because of the fearful nature of the threat of islamic terrorists attacking muslims are not allowed to pray aloud on planes.

A group of Lebanese Marionite priests are praying on a flight and are mistaken for muslim imans and arrested/detained.

Is that acceptable? Absolutely not.

ruth

Bill, Can you prove the intent to provoke panic?
Argue like you are in a court.

ruth

Left out a coma in the example above. It should read: A law is passed, that because of the threat of Islamic terrorists attacking, muslims are not allowed to pray on planes.
Sorry about that.

bill912

Ruth, I am a sergeant in one of the largest police departments in the country. I am looking at the situation legally and evaluating the facts that have been related.

They deliberately did things they knew would make people nervous. (Unless you want to argue that all 6 of the imams are complete idiots). They then refused to cooperate with legitimate authority. Their behavior caused a reasonable suspicion in the minds of other passengers and the authorities. They deliberately inconvenienced scores of other passengers by theri cry-baby reactions to the logical response of the authorities in wanting to check themn out further.

bill912

"A law is passed, that because of the threat of Islamic terrorists attacking, muslims are not allowed to pray on planes." There is no such law.

Francis DS

Is that acceptable? Absolutely not.

Ruth, I don't think we can say this is acceptable or not without applying the prevailing social context to it.

I think that what people are saying is, if you're in Rome, do as the Romans do, or suffer the consequences.

If you are Greek, and Rome is awash with Greek terrorists, then be doubly respectful of Roman culture, or suffer double the consequences.

If you're a visitor, be mindful of your hosts' sensibilities (even if you just happened to view your hosts as infidels who must be forced to submit), or, again, suffer the consequences.

Also, I must mention that as passengers in a plane, we are indeed expected to acquire the 'identity' of an airline passenger, 'adopt' the culture and norms of such, and become part of a homogeneous body.

bill912

Once they refused to deplane, they were committing a crime, Criminal Trespass (and probably Federal laws, too).

SDG

And Jimmy it is circular logic to compare the reaction in the USA to what the reaction would have been in Saudi Arabia which is a Monarchy/theocracy. It is a moot point, a non-comparison.

Which of the three do you mean? Circular logic, moot point, or non-comparison? You aren't using words very precisely, which makes it hard to address your point, whatever it is.

Also, about comforming to American identity and the statement that this not a muslim-majority country; again a moot point. We do not force any immigrant body to conform to our 'identity' because we are a homogenious nation. We simply ask that they obey the laws of our country and learn our language.

"Conforming" is one thing; exhibiting a level of sensitivity to cultural differences when traveling abroad, and avoiding where possible behavior likely to cause alarm, is something else. No one has the right to say "I'm going to behave exactly as I wish regardless how it is likely to be perceived, and everybody else darn well better just deal with it."

Oh, and the laws of our country require both citizens and non-citizens to obey authorities such as airline pilots who tell you to disembark and be rescreened. No matter what the reason for the pilot's order, the imams clearly crossed the line by refusing the pilot's order.

the story was framed in such a way that brought constitutional law into view...one must look at it in a legal way, not in a visceral way.

False. You're begging the question, assuming that the passengers on the plane were not reasonably spooked by the imams' behavior, thereby justifying the pilot's order that they disembark -- which, again, they had no right to refuse.

When the police finally located these errant friars and realized that they posed no threat they were not arrested, or charged with inciting fear.

Talk about non-comparison!

The friars were merely walking in a non-secure public space. They were not praying, chanting, allegedly uttering suspicious slogans, or asking for potential weapons in a security-sensitive context. They were crossing a bridge, not on a plane. Also, they did not resist authority in any way (refusing the pilot's order to disembark and be rescreened).

A group of Lebanese Marionite priests are praying on a flight and are mistaken for muslim imans and arrested/detained. Is that acceptable? Absolutely not.

Again, AFAIK, no one was arrested/detained for praying. At most, they were asked to disembark and be rescreened for praying... They were arrested/detained for refusing to comply.

Likewise, if for whatever reason the Maronite priests are asked by the pilot to disembark, they must do so, or they can legitimately be arrested/detained.

Also, I bet you a million dollars the Maronite priests are not praying standing up out loud, asking for seat belt extensions, making anti-American remarks, etc.

Tim J.

"Example:
A law is passed that because of the fearful nature of the threat of islamic terrorists attacking muslims are not allowed to pray aloud on planes.

A group of Lebanese Marionite priests are praying on a flight and are mistaken for muslim imans and arrested/detained.

Is that acceptable? Absolutely not."

Sure it is! Why not? The idea is to respond to suspicious behavior. If the Maronites exhibited this behavior (or you, or me) they should expect the same response as anyone else. If I were to read loudly from the book of Revelation (let's say something about the stars falling from the sky) and then prayed - again, with unnecessary loudness - that God's judgement would strike America because of abortion, and then refused to deplane when asked, I would EXPECT to be escorted off.

People of all stripes need to KNOW that if they cannot sit and be quiet on an airplane, they will get the bum's rush. A jumbo jet is not a multicultural prayer center.

bill912

A couple of old sayings come to mind:

"Freedom of speech does not mean you have the right to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater."

"The constitution is not a suicide pact."

ruth

SDG,
If you don't see the comparison between the friars walking on a major (yes secure area the bridge was closed to foot traffic after 9/11) bridge in NYC and public perception of danger, to this situation then you aren't looking very far.
Also, the assertations that they asked for seat belt extensions, as well as assertations that they were uttering anti-american phrases (perhaps uttering the name of Allah, or Allah Acbar is now considered anti-american) is yet to be proved.
My point is that you are standing on very shaky ground.
We are asked to obey authorities but we also have the right to recourse to asertain if that authority was acting outside the frame of the law. I never maintained that they shouldn't have obeyed the order to be re-screened. I was simply addressing the legal ramifications of the action of prayer itself.

Bill: you are correct, no such law exists. It seems to be that is what some people in this room purpose. It is dangerous.
And 'circular-logic' in reference to the two countries possible legal reactions (saudi Arabia/Usa) as having an impact on this precise instance is Very Clear.
In the same ilke: The laws of Saudi Arabia are a moot point, and a non-comparison. It has no bearing in other words.
About you ascertation that one (marionite priests,imans...breastfeeding women for that matter) Can be asked without due cause to leave a flight. That is simply untrue. Most people comply when asked; for example the woman who was asked to leave a flight in Vermont for breastfeeding and refusing a blanket. But, that does not mean that the airline is justified in doing so or hasn't acted outside the law. That is why airlines are sued, and lose lawsuites in many instances over the expulsion of a passenger.
It is a hard area to regulate. On one hand we want the heightened security. On the other hand we have stewardess' (who in my mind are simply glorified waitresses) determining who is to be removed from a plane.

bill912

Well, SDG, I see I'm in good company, atleast; I don't get the comparison, either. Guess I'm myopic, too.

ruth

"If you're a visitor, be mindful of your hosts' sensibilities (even if you just happened to view your hosts as infidels who must be forced to submit), or, again, suffer the consequences."

Francis, these people were not visitors, they are American citizens from Phoenix, Tempe and Bakersfield California. And You are making quite a few assumptions about their theology.

ruth

Then Bill, I am happy you are a police officer and not a lawyer. I think you are letting your visceral reactions get the best of you, and that is why lawyers litigate, not law enforcement.
Checks and balances, my friend.

bill912

Speaking of making assumptions about others...

Francis DS

If you're a visitor, be mindful of your hosts' sensibilities

My bad. But I'll squirm out of it and say that they are visitors of the airline.

And You are making quite a few assumptions about their theology.

It's given that those imams were Muslims and not Mormons. My assumption is consistent with Islam as we know it. Regardless, my point is general and was meant to apply to all, not just to these imams.


ruth

Francis,
As with the Vastly differing theologies of protestant sects.... Islam has the same variety.
Imans are in charge of interpreting the Koran there is no personal interpretation. So, the individual take on the edicts of Mohammed vary widely.
I have studied parts of the Koran and have good friends who are muslim, as well as friends who are Palestinian Christians from Bethlehem. Each Iman is semi-autonomous and has the right to teach his version of the Koran.

ruth

Bill, I believe you stated
"I am a sergeant in one of the largest police departments in the country"
So it wasn't an assumption.

SDG

If you don't see the comparison between the friars walking on a major (yes secure area the bridge was closed to foot traffic after 9/11) bridge in NYC and public perception of danger, to this situation then you aren't looking very far.

Was the bridge open to foot traffic at the time the friars were crossing it, or were they trespassing?

Did they have to pass through security checkpoints and show ID in order to get onto the bridge, or was the bridge open to all pedestrians at the time?

And, again, were the friars doing anything other than walking, anything that could remotely reasonably be construed as potentially alarming to anyone? Or did they resist authority in any way?

Any way you slice it, it looks like a non-comparison to me.

Also, the assertations that they asked for seat belt extensions, as well as assertations that they were uttering anti-american phrases (perhaps uttering the name of Allah, or Allah Acbar is now considered anti-american) is yet to be proved.

My point is that you are standing on very shaky ground.

Everything remains to be proved. I don't even know that they were standing up and praying out loud. I'm simply assessing the situation as it's been reported and commenting on that -- as are you. Given that, I don't see how I'm on "shaky ground."

We are asked to obey authorities but we also have the right to recourse to asertain if that authority was acting outside the frame of the law. I never maintained that they shouldn't have obeyed the order to be re-screened. I was simply addressing the legal ramifications of the action of prayer itself.

But the refusal to disembark itself lends credence to the picture of individuals who were not necessarily concerned to make a good faith effort to defuse the situation and who in fact may have been attempting to create an incident, or at least who may have had a chip on their shoulder.

Put the other way around, had they peacefully disembarked and submitted willingly to authority, it would be easier to imagine them going about their business on the plane in an unobtrusive way, and getting a raw deal from jittery passengers.

As it is, we have at least somewhat defiant and uncooperative perps who must now bear a greater burden of suspicion regarding the initial escalation of the incident.

And 'circular-logic' in reference to the two countries possible legal reactions (saudi Arabia/Usa) as having an impact on this precise instance is Very Clear.

I'm not convinced that you really understand the term "circular logic." If you do, please indicate the point at which the conclusion is assumed in the premises of the argument..

About you ascertation that one (marionite priests,imans...breastfeeding women for that matter) Can be asked without due cause to leave a flight. That is simply untrue.

Who said that?

It is a hard area to regulate. On one hand we want the heightened security. On the other hand we have stewardess' (who in my mind are simply glorified waitresses) determining who is to be removed from a plane

Boy, did you just step into a can of worms. :-)

Francis, these people were not visitors, they are American citizens from Phoenix, Tempe and Bakersfield California.

All the more reason they should be sensitive to the cultural situation and be aware of and willing to follow the rules!

And You are making quite a few assumptions about their theology.

It was a supposition of something that could be true, not an assumption necessary to the argument.

bill912

Ruth, "I think you are letting your visceral reactions get the best of you..." was your assumption, and a highly insulting one.

Good-bye.

"But the refusal to disembark itself lends credence to the picture of individuals who were not necessarily concerned to make a good faith effort to defuse the situation and who in fact may have been attempting to create an incident, or at least who may have had a chip on their shoulder"

SdG I will grant you that point. But it still doesn't prove that by praying any law was broken.

I will grant you also that 'circular logic' was a flawed statement...Moot, non-bearing would be a better way to put it.
"Oh, and the laws of our country require both citizens and non-citizens to obey authorities such as airline pilots who tell you to disembark and be rescreened. No matter what the reason for the pilot's order..."
That was stated by you. The reason for the pilots order is open to review...and even to litigation if it was found to be unjust....such as I am sure they will find the expulsion of the nursing mother from the 'freedom' flight in Vermont.

And boy the can of worms needs to be opened, because there are serious consequences when civil rights are involved.

Sdg....I am sorry I believe that I stated that yes the bridge was still closed to foot traffic.

Tim J.

Ruth -

You seem to be assuming that the request to deplane was unjust. On what grounds? When those who actually witnessed the event claim these men were acting suspiciously, I have no reason to disbelieve them beased on what sketchy evidence one can glean from news reports.

People pray on planes all the time (including Muslims), especially before takeoff. There was apparently soemthing different about this group of men that led to the request to deplane. On what basis do you assume that the passengers were merely being paranoid and the crew unreasonable?

SDG

SdG I will grant you that point. But it still doesn't prove that by praying any law was broken.

Which, again, is why no one was arrested or detained for praying.

Being asked to disembark and be rescreened is not the same as being charged with a crime, and does not imply that you have broken any law. All it implies is that in the pilot's judgment there is reason for concern about your presence on the plane.

Whether the pilot actually has grounds for such concern is of course a legitimate question, and in the case of breastfeeding mothers or Maronite priests (or imams) who are in no way behaving suspiciously, I think we would all agree that, all things being equal, there are no such grounds, and a pilot asks a passenger to disembark for no good reason may be leaving his airline open to a lawsuit. However, as I believe we are also agreed, that doesn't excuse the passenger from the obligation to obey the pilot even under such circumstances. The passenger must comply, whether the pilot's request is based on legitimate reasons or not.

Thus, you are correct that I said that "the laws of our country require both citizens and non-citizens to obey authorities such as airline pilots who tell you to disembark and be rescreened. No matter what the reason for the pilot's order." However, this does not exactly equate to your paraphrase that "one (marionite priests,imans...breastfeeding women for that matter) Can be asked without due cause to leave a flight," if by this it is understood that the pilot can do whatever he wants for any reason without fear of consequences to himself or the airline. All it implies is that even if the pilot is wrong, the passenger must do what he says. It doesn't imply that the pilot is right no matter what.

Having said all that, from all accounts it seems entirely plausible that the imams may have given the pilot legitimate reason for concern, and their subsequent bad behavior merely escalated a situation that they may well have caused in the first place, in the process seriously inconveniencing and unnecessarily alarming a whole lot of people.

I think there are a lot of flight attendants who will take issue with your rather dismissive view of their training and job requirements.

And Tim that 'something different' remains to be proven.
But it is in our best interest to pay attention to events as they unfold and ask ourselves the questions of 'why' their behaviour was suspicious.
Was it for other reasons? Was it because they stood and faced east and prayed out loud in arabic? (the prayers themselves could produce fear in our current client since they begin with the name 'Allah' and the praise to him 'Alla Acbar') I think it is imperative that one doesn't simply dismiss this because those praying were Muslim Imans.

SDg
It is that 'Due Cause' that is in debate.

SDG

Sdg....I am sorry I believe that I stated that yes the bridge was still closed to foot traffic.

Oh, well then, it makes all the sense in the world that authorities were scrambled to respond to the situation. Like the imams, their behavior (even if inadvertent) definitely warranted a cautionary response.

The next question is, how did the friars respond when confronted with authority? Were they cooperative or uncooperative? Was it quickly apparent that they had made an innocent mistake, or did they, e.g., refuse orders to leave the bridge?

I don't think the imams' civil rights were violated by their being asked to disembark. And once they refused to comply, I don't think their rights were violated by their being detained.

If anything, they interfered with the rights of a lot of other passengers by causing unnecessary delays to the flight.

As you can imagine....the friars were very frightened... it has become a bit of lore in these parts.
Sdg I agree with you more than you think. I was very disturbed by the immediate dismissal of the situations simply because these blokes are muslim.
I think that it is simply a reasonable request that these things be looked into fully.
About the Stewardess'. I have been on enough flights were I have witness people being threatened to be kicked off for no good reason that I question their training. Indeed I have seen a stewardess allow me to stand in the back of the plane on a five hour flight with my screaming baby....but when my husband did she demanded that he sit down for security reasons...when he tried to reason with her that the baby was disturbing other people and he was trying to get him to sleep she threatened to have him arrested at our destination. That is just insane.

David B.

, stop posting without a name. Thank you!

ruth

Sorry David, somehow my personal info keeps getting zapped.

SDG

As you can imagine....the friars were very frightened... it has become a bit of lore in these parts.

Heh, I can imagine. (Where is "in these parts"? I'm NYC area myself, but I'm not sure I remember this story.)

I agree with you more than you think.

Yeah, I figured.

FWIW, I agree with you that the case bears looking into more fully, and a finding arrived at based on the facts.

All I'm saying is, given the facts as they've been reported -- and it might turn out that things were different -- it looks to me like Jimmy's assessment is basically on the money.

I also think we need to be equally on guard against any assumption based on the imams' religion -- either that they must be guilty, or that they must be victims.

Here is a scary thought. Suppose the investigation fails to vindicate the imams... will this incident become one more case in point of the evils of America in the Muslim world? Are we moving toward a world in which Muslims crying foul against America will whip up anti-American sentiment around the world, possibly even protests or acts of violence?

I won't quarrel with you about the excesses or questionable judgment of flight attendants in your experience. :) Certainly, men are subjected to higher scrutiny than women in all sorts of security situations. Even a father at a playground can expect to be regarded differently from a mother. But to threaten a father on an airplane holding a baby with being arrested does seem ridiculously extreme.

Tim J.

"I was very disturbed by the immediate dismissal of the situation simply because these blokes are muslim."

That is hardly the case. Loads of Muslims fly every day... and that has not been a basis for deplaning them. It was because they were behaving in a suspicious manner (praying loudly, etc...) and then refusing to cooperate with legitimate authority.

I don't see why one would assume that this is simply a case of "flying while Muslim". I also think my hypothetical pro-life, bible-thumping prophet of doom (above) would have received the same treatment these men got, and deservedly so.

Eric

The news report you referred to was erroneous in statng that the imams prayed salat standing in the plane. Anyone who is familair with Islamic prayer knows that it requires kneeling and prostration, which is what the seven men did at the airport, NOT in the plane, as other news reports accurately stated.

I have travelled multiple times with Muslim friends. Because Islamic law allows for leeway in time of prayer when travelling, before a long flight they have always prayed at the airport before boarding the plane. If the plane was departing at 6:30, any Muslim would have prayed beforehand, as that was about dusk and it is not possible to pray properly on a plane. I have been with Muslim friends as they prayed at airports in Los Angles, New York, Toronto, Tel Aviv, Frankfurt and Istanbul prior to boarding without incident.

It is clear to me that the other passengers saw the men praying at the airport and because of that watched them carefully, imagining anything they did to be suspicious simply because they had seen them praying as Muslims. And for the poster who sarcastically says he should then be allowed to pray the Liturgy of the Hours on the plane, I have done that on a plane and in the airport before. Before one pilgrimage we even had a prayer service at the gate at the Los Angeles airport.

Praying publicly -- in any faith tradition -- should not cause anyone to be deemed suspicious.

Tim J.

"It is clear to me that the other passengers saw the men praying at the airport and because of that watched them carefully, imagining anything they did to be suspicious simply because they had seen them praying as Muslims."

And you know this how?

Some Day

Believe it or not, Catholicism is the only religion that has the right to pray publicly, at least in the eyes of God and Church doctrine.
Why? Because it is the only true one.
The truth is the only thing that has liberty.
Free will can be exercised in private.
Just like you can be a nudist in your home, but not on the street is the same thing.
You can't pervert other souls, just your own.
Now no priest will ever tell that in a pulpit.
But freedom of religion and the freedom of speech as concieved by the egalitarian mentality of the US, France and those that followed is not compatable with authentic and complete Church doctrine.

ruth

Um. Interesting..... some day.

bill912

"Believe it or not, Catholocism is the only religion that has the right to pray publicly, at least in the eyes of God and Church doctrine."

Can you document that, Some Day?

vitae

" "It is clear to me that the other passengers saw the men praying at the airport and because of that watched them carefully, imagining anything they did to be suspicious simply because they had seen them praying as Muslims."

And you know this how?"

Eric, I'm with Tim J. on this -- how exactly is the situation so clear to you, when other details are (granted by both sides in this thread) still awaiting confirmation?


SDG

Believe it or not, Catholicism is the only religion that has the right to pray publicly, at least in the eyes of God and Church doctrine.

Persons have rights. Religions do not have rights. It's been said that "error has no rights," and that's true, but it is not true that persons holding erroneous views have no rights.

Free will can be exercised in private.
Just like you can be a nudist in your home, but not on the street is the same thing.
You can't pervert other souls, just your own.

Uh huh. So people should be rounded up for sins like flattery and calumny, which pervert other souls?

Or is it only some sins that pervert other souls that people should be prevented from committing in public?

If so, which sins? Who decides? Why?

Listen. It is literally true that you can't pervert other souls -- just your own. In other words, your soul cannot be perverted by a Muslim praying in front of you, or even by a Satanist. If a Muslim or a Satanist prays in front of you, that does not pervert your soul one whit.

Only you can pervert your soul, by the abuse of your own free will -- whether by following his example, or by despising and contemning him for not being as right as you are.

Final Day

Some Day, tolerance of religious non Catholic worship has been allowed in Rome, by Charlemange, by the Roman Empire (even among Christian times), the Holy Roman Empire etc.
I know you probably don't think Vatican II documents are valid and the teachings of Pope John Paul the II on this matter but tolerance of others including in the public sphere does not mean that you are agreeing what they are saying is true nor does it mean that Jesus and the Church are not the means to salvation but that others have rights including communal and public rights.

joe

some reactions to previous points:

-learned what circular reasoning is and isn't....

-Poor friars......

-Liked the bumper sticker idea......

-Felt like I read the term 'moot point' too much....

-Today, I learned that lawyers are objective and police officers are "visceral". I'll file this information away for when needed....yeah, right.

-I'd be up for reciting the Psalter on my next flight; minus, the seat extensions request---although, after this Thanksgiving I may need them.

-Feel sorry for the gentleman holding baby who was treated rudely by airline staff.

Mary

If so, which sins? Who decides? Why?

This is a prudential judgment made by those in political authority.

Some Day

First response:
Grave sin, occasion of sin,
AND I DEFINETLY ACCEPT VATICAN II!
I am a Catholic.
But on tolerance, there is some descrepancies in the way things are understood and the power behind such comentaries.
First being the force of a simple opinion, even by the Pope. Ex Catedra or nothing.

Some Day

Is it worst to loose your soul or your body?
If a man brings anthrax on the plane you certainly will be alarmed.
What if he worships a demon?
What if that attracts demons?
What if some one finds that noble and decides to leave the Church for a pagan religion?
That is pretty bad right if you think about it in a higher sense, and not petty constitutionalities and atheistic ideals.

Sunny in Cali

Just browsing around the web.
Hiya!


SDG,
only you can put out forest fires.


And put your self in occasion for mortal sins,
therefore in sin. That arguement lacks some doctrine.
Ya and I believe religions do have rights. And anyhow the Catholic Church is the mystical body of Christ, and He has rights, right. (even though SF and LA might not agree.)

And geeze, flattery is at most a venial sin.
Unless you got some other motives.

Yours truly,

Toby

And someday, calm down, you might be right but don't go crazy. This ain't a debate for the presidency.


I'll be visiting this blog more often. Good job blogmaster. ;)

Jimmy Akin

Thanks! And welcome Sunny in Cali. Hope to see you around in the combox!

Ellen

I've had several muslim students and I asked one how she said her prayers when she was taking classes from 8 am to 4 pm. She said she waited till she finished and then said all the prayers together. I think these guys were trying to start something myself and I pray that the airline will stick to its guns and not apologize.

SDG

"If so, which sins? Who decides? Why?"
This is a prudential judgment made by those in political authority.

You know, Mary, I don't think I agree. If the political authority makes a "prudential decision" to crack down on public displays of flattery and calumny, I'd say they're overstepping their authority and working against the common good. Thus, this does not legitimately fall in the area of prudential judgment.

SDG,
Only you can put out forest fires.
And put your self in occasion for mortal sins, therefore in sin. That arguement lacks some doctrine.

Occasion for mortal sin is not the same thing as sin. There's nowhere on earth you can go and be free of all occasion of sin, not even the monastery (see Imitation of Christ).

That's not to say that we don't have a duty to avoid near occasions of sin where possible. But OTOH we also can't just crack down in civil law on everything that offers an occasion of sin (see my comments to Mary above). The ultimate responsibility for avoiding sin is that of the individual soul, not society as a whole.

And geeze, flattery is at most a venial sin.
Unless you got some other motives.

FWIW, I listed flattery because it is one of the sins against the Eighth Commandment called out by the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, thus potentially something to take quite seriously.

A Simple Sinner

I am not a Muslim and my apperance is that of a non-descript Middle American who could stand to lay off the french fries a bit.. Midwestern bred, clean shaven, registered voter, Buckeye fan, dog lover, home improvement enthusiast.

Now imagine me and 5 other midwestern guys uniformly doing the same thing - not being in any way connected to religion, stereotypes of Islam or those percieved as "foreigners."

If we were to:

1) get up and start speaking ritualisticly and loudly in English (the Rosary, the Angelus, the OSU fight song, or a favorite monologue from a movie!),

2) refuse to take our seats when directed to do so, and

3) refuse to comply with orders of the pilot, and airport security...

We would be in JAIL before the cushions of our plane seats cooled off. And I know damn well no airline would let us make that flight up for free. More restraint has been shown these jokers, than I would receive.

For crying out loud, I was on a flight where an inebriated passenger started singing loudly while listening to his iPod. (Don't Stop Believin by Journey!) He was directed NOT to do so, got mouthy (but not violent) and was arrested upon landing. As well he should have been!

Frankly, I would not have it any other way.

If you want to disrupt a plane, refuse to comply with security, and cause distress, be prepared to finish your prayers - in whatever language to whichever god(s)- in a jail cell. Religion is incidental.

Mary

You know, Mary, I don't think I agree. If the political authority makes a "prudential decision" to crack down on public displays of flattery and calumny, I'd say they're overstepping their authority and working against the common good.

Only if the harms caused by cracking down on them are greater than the harms caused by the acts themselves. Which is a prudential judgment.

Thus, this does not legitimately fall in the area of prudential judgment.

On what grounds do you claim the opposite?

Esau

RE: "In fact, I'll say it first in Classical Latin and in Ecclesiastical Latin; and if that isn't enough, I'll say it in Restored Latin to make my case!"

Esau, glad to see you are skipping the
"Pig-Latin" - no need to offend the imams in the next aisle! :)

You go guy!! Have a great Thanksgiving!

Posted by: kaneohe | Nov 22, 2006 11:34:07 PM

HEY KANEOHE!
I don't know if you'll even see this post -- as this is an old thread by now -- but thanks for the great Thanksgiving holiday wish and hope you had a great Thanksgiving yourself!!!

Esau

PASSENGERS SUED OVER 'IMAMS' REMOVAL

Report suspicious behavior BUT beware if you do that, YOU MIGHT GET SUED

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31