Removed from plane for prayer

[Tumor]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Cav58d,

Nope, I'm consistent.  The issue here is that you're operating under false assumptions.  I invite you to find me one contradiction.  I've long stated that I think religion is silly, and I've also said that it's silly that each group of silly people thinks that the other silly people are somehow more silly than they are.  It's a pot calling the kettle black (and silly).
 

I'd like to say something to ALL the sillies.  KEEP YOUR SILLYarnoldED CRAP AT HOME AND YOU WON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

[x0847Marine]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Answer honestly, would you deboard a plane without protest if someone was offended by you praying?  Seriously?

Calling them suspicious _because_ they don't want to be discriminated against for religious reasons sounds kinda like arresting someone for resisting arrest.  Kinda backwards.

"Obvious prayer" to who? I'm in no way religious, I'm really the wrong person to ask... I wouldn't know a prayer from jihad death chant.

I'm not they type who would care enough to pass a note to the flight attendant unless I was hitting in her. If a passenger is concerned, even if its just some nosy old blue hair bitty with her panties in a wad, the airlines cant ignore it. Its not the flight attendants call to decide if its racist or whatnot, first and foremost is the safety of all aboard..

I am the guy who would protest though, just these dudes, I'd refuse to cooperate, tell the airline to pissoff... and in doing so cause my own problems knowing full well the .gov & airlines would hassle me over it. But thats me.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Sandman
You posted a statement completely devoid of context.

In fact, if you review the case, and use a search for the phrase, "Atheism is religion" your search will find nothing.

I found this:

"Atheism is Kaufman's religion"

and this

"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934
(7th Cir. 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).

[lukster]

Having now established that Atheism is indeed a religion according to this federal court how will you go about banning it? Will you insist that no one believe there is no God or just that they don't insist on not praying on planes?

[Sandman]

You're still spinning it.

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent
to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on
numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky.
v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722
(2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to
religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In
McCreary County, it described the touchstone of
Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the
First Amendment mandates government neutrality between
religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

[lukster]

Originally posted by Sandman
You're still spinning it.

I quoted it verbatim and in context. You're just refusing to accept their words.

[lukster]

You don't have to believe Atheism is a religion just because the US Federal court says that it is. I certainly don't let the government dictate my beliefs.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lukster
I quoted it verbatim and in context. You're just refusing to accept their words.

Really now... you've made a gigantic leap from, "atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion" to, "Atheism is indeed a religion according to this federal court."

I'm fairly certain that "specialized sense" doesn't fit the broad application that you're attempting.

Read the case.

[lukster]

Did you ignore this part:

“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”

[Sandman]

I read it. It's establishing context just as this is:

...the Court has unambiguously concluded
that the individual freedom of conscience protected by
the First Amendment embraces the right to select any
religious faith or none at all.

[lukster]

Believe what you want. As an American (and a Christian) I will fight for your right to do so. While I think these Muslims were looking to cause trouble I very much support their right to practice their religion freely in our country. Freely in so far as it doesn't conflict with my rights to practice or not practice mine or you yours.

[StarOfAfrica2]

Originally posted by myelo
Yes, they pray 5 times a day at specific times. It is the most compulsory act in Islam and Muslims are pretty serious about it.

Not really.  Fundies might be, but then thats what they do.  I work with about half a dozen Muslims, and none of them take time out from work or stop in the middle of traffic or whatever to pray.  I'm sure if they can arrange it, they pray at the proper times like good believers, but they make no special effort to be accomodated for their beliefs at odd times (times that would inconvenience others).

If these guys were so serious about prayer, then they should have gotten a flight that didnt coincide with a prayer time.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lukster
Believe what you want. As an American (and a Christian) I will fight for your right to do so. While I think these Muslims were looking to cause trouble I very much support their right to practice their religion freely in our country. Freely in so far as it doesn't conflict with my rights to practice or not practice mine or you yours.

Ah... now we have something to agree on.


Just keep in mind that a privately owned aircraft doesn't qualify as "our country."

[lukster]

Originally posted by Sandman
Ah... now we have something to agree on.


Just keep in mind that a privately owned aircraft doesn't qualify as "our country."

I agree and disagree with that. I am still protected by law when on private property. I still have the right of free speech. I may not be denied that right but I may be asked to leave that property if the owner does not like my excercise of that right.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lukster
I may not be denied that right but I may be asked to leave that property if the owner does not like my excercise of that right.

Sir, you've just described a privilege.