Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on November 21, 2006, 08:27:58 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed.ap/index.html
6 muslim imams were removed from a flight because they made their normal prayers. I'm not a fan of the religions, but this really seems overboard. The airline should not be interfering with people's religions. If it was a christian group, there would be public outrage. But it's become acceptable to discriminate against these guys, and that's unfortunate.
Just posting it as a reality check. If you read the story and say "What's the big deal?" then take a moment to consider this: Selective religious discrimination never stops at one target, it's just a matter of time before it gets to yours.
-
airplanes is for traveling, churches, mosques, synagogues is for praying.
exception:: if the airplane is falling out of the sky. "this is your captian speaking,the prayer light is on"
-
don't know if they were breaking any airline laws or not but it sure seems odd that you are the defender of religion... especialy one so barbaric and backward.
I would not want some fundamentalist christian to practice his daily handling of poisonous snakes on a flight either tho.
I am wondering if you would be outraged if a group of christians were thrown off the plane after they all stood and started chanting and rocking back and forth with glazed looks on their faces.
I am beggining to understand that you are not so much anti religion but anti christian...
did someone dressed like Jesus scare your mom when she was pregnant with you or something?
lazs
-
Unfortunately it seems that Islamic terrorists also like to pray before committing their terrorist acts, and have done so on aircraft before.
So I really don't see why it is so unbelieveable that 3 muslims standing in the middle of an aircraft that suddenly start to pray together might freak out non-muslims on the plane.
-
The solution is a simple one.
Ban all religions.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The solution is a simple one.
Ban all religions.
Are you gonna start with Atheism?
-
Lazs, are you getting enough oxygen? It would be outrageous if it were christians too. What part of "selective religious discrimination is bad" is unclear?
-
Originally posted by lukster
Are you gonna start with Atheism?
The absence of religion is not a religion. :p
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The absence of religion is not a religion. :p
The courts say you're wrong, Well, they say that Atheism is a religion so it isn't in absence of.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The courts say you're wrong, Well, they say that Atheism is a religion so it isn't in absence of.
Source?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Source?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
Of course the courts aren't always right but they do make the laws.
-
Originally posted by john9001
airplanes is for traveling, churches, mosques, synagogues is for praying.
pot, kettle, kettle pot...
A British Airways (BA) employee has lost her fight to openly wear a cross necklace at work at Heathrow. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6165368.stm)
I'm sure the local zealots will feel differently about this. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lukster
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874
Of course the courts aren't always right but they do make the laws.
I've read through the case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041914p.pdf) .
The court did not rule that atheism was a religion.
The court ruled that for the purposes of the 1st Amendment atheism is an equivalent to religion.
The court also mentions that the argument for or against a supreme being is a philosophical question and not a legal one.
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
A British Airways (BA) employee has lost her fight to openly wear a cross necklace at work at Heathrow. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/6165368.stm)
This is stupid, why would they prevent her from wearing it? If there's some sort of dress code that forbids jewelry, that's one thing I guess, but if it's specifically because it's a cross, that's just crap. She's a private citizen working for a corporation, what harm exactly do they think she would do?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
This is stupid, why would they prevent her from wearing it? If there's some sort of dress code that forbids jewelry, that's one thing I guess, but if it's specifically because it's a cross, that's just crap. She's a private citizen working for a corporation, what harm exactly do they think she would do?
zealot
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The absence of religion is not a religion. :p
It is a belief though.
So ban all beliefs! Whether is for or against religion! :)
-
Lefties believe:
You must remove the 10 commandments from the court house yard statue, yet also believe its an infringement on someones rights to pray on a privately-owned commercial plane?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lefties believe:
You must remove the 10 commandments from the court house yard statue, yet also believe its an infringement on someones rights to pray on a privately-owned commercial plane?
You bring up a good point. I think it's completely within the rights of a private company to ban prayer on one of their vehicles.
That said. It's not a Constitutional issue on private property. On public property it is.
-
They were not kicked off for praying, thats an assumption made by one of the "victims".
A concerned passenger... for whatever reason... passed a note to a flight attendant expressing concerns about the men, when confronted by the crew and asked to step aside...the men refused to exit the plane... thats where thier problems start.
Airlines cant ignore passenger concerns, and I wouldn't want them to take off with several suspicious refusing to cooperate dudes on my plane ride.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
zealot
Bronk
They think she'd be a zealot for wearing a cross?
Insanity.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
This is stupid, why would they prevent her from wearing it? If there's some sort of dress code that forbids jewelry, that's one thing I guess....
============
"The policy does not ban staff from wearing a cross. It lays down that personal items of jewellery, including crosses may be worn - but underneath the uniform. Other airlines have the same policy."
============
I have no problem with this. It is a policy that applies equally to all 34,000 uniformed employees. I do however have a problem with the statement below from the disgruntled employee. She is at work and I fully support an employer's decision to prevent its employees from promoting their religion to customers.
============
"It is important to wear it to express my faith so that other people will know that Jesus loves them."
============
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
A concerned passenger... for whatever reason... passed a note to a flight attendant expressing concerns about the men, when confronted by the crew and asked to step aside...the men refused to exit the plane... thats where thier problems start.
Airlines cant ignore passenger concerns, and I wouldn't want them to take off with several suspicious refusing to cooperate dudes on my plane ride.
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.
-
Their religion gives them the pleasure of certain benefits. It does, however, have its drawbacks. As with everything, if the drawbacks don't outweigh the benefits, it's all fair.
Getting tossed off a flight for offending people is a small price to pay for infinite faith and eternal paradise.
-
In the past, the majority of attacks have come from a very specific group of people doing very specific things before the attack. If I were on the place I would also have commented to the FA. When lives are at stake, I don't care about being politically correct. Maybe if a sliver of the muslim population actually condemned terror, more people would be sensitive too their culture and norms, but until then, they are going to have to deal with the prejudices and stereotypes that comes along with being part of a religion and a people, that unfortunately it seems like terrorist represent, because the majoritys inability to stand up and condemn
-
Its an interesting problem. Lets keep an eye on the story, see how it develops in the court system. It does sound like these guys might be older, not stereotypical islamo suiciders and maybe got the short end of the stick :rolleyes:
But if passeners are concerned, they should bring that up to the flight crew regardless of the perceived threat. THe last thing we need are passengers being reluctant to report suspicious persons for fear of being lbranded as religious bigots. If you are concerned, report it straight away.
-
Why did they have to do it on the plane?
Is there some kind of "I gotta pray at this exact time everyday" thing going on here?
It just looks too much like a "let's see how far we can push this" thingy to me.
Remember those road trips as a kid? Mom and dad telling you to go to the bathroom BEFORE you left...couldn't the same apply here?
-
It's pretty comical that you are defending this chairboy. Do a quick BBS search with your name and religion and you will see you are completely contradicting anything and everything you have ever said about religion in the past. by the way. Hows your airplane coming along?
-
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).
Believing in personal liberties does not stop with only supporting the liberties you agree with. If that were the case, then only the popular freedoms would ever apply. This was in Britland, so it's not a constitutional issue, but it is still a liberties issue in general.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
This was in Britland....
The passengers being removed from the plane was in Minnesota. The disgruntled airline employee was in Britland.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
it's become acceptable to discriminate against these guys
distinguish
• verb 1 recognize, show, or treat as different. 2 manage to discern (something barely perceptible). 3 be an identifying characteristic of. 4 (distinguish oneself) make oneself worthy of respect.
During these mad times, it's our failure to discriminite -- to note the difference between things -- that breeds so much ill.
prejudice
• noun 1 preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or experience. 2 unjust behaviour formed on such a basis. 3 chiefly Law harm that may result from some action or judgement.
"Prejudice" still troubles humanity. Lack of discrimination troubles us more it almost seems. We're not "all the same." Some people are evil. Some are good. Some swing back and forth. The acts we perform, the ideas and wants which give rise to our acts, and ultimately, the beliefs we hold which drive both have skewed our world. Aristotle was right: Quiditas?
Regards,
hap
-
There is a time and a place for everything. Some people can go through their entire lives and never learn when and where those are. Personally, if a group of practicing muslems got on a plane wanted to pray right there on the plane in public, that would make me very nervous.
Partly becuase of the reputation Islamic fundamentals (the type that would disrupt everything to pray on a plane) have and partly because I wouldn't be able to understand what they were praying about. An "Allah please protect this plane from danger and let us land again safety" is very different from "Allah let us act in a way to bring glory to your name against these infidels". People who do things such as unannounced public prayer in inappropriate places are commonly called "crazy". There's a good reason for that.
Regards,
Malta
-
Couple points. How is it that Usually, you don't see a group of muslims opting to pray in the aisle of a plane. Having said that, Why this group, Why now? Clearly to disrupt. If this was a normal occurance it wouldn't be an issue, it isn't normal or typical. Whether it was to proceed an attack or prove a point, it Was intended to disrupt. You can't do that in an enclosed space such as a plane without things going badly.
These people have also been placed on a no fly list. Again, not typical, or usual, there are many cases where people are questioned and things move on after that.
There is more to this.
-
Heh if some of you want to fly in a plane packed with praying religious nuts, I'll give you my seat anytime and you can try your chances.
Because, historically speaking, having a bunch of nuts openly expressing their religion 99% of the time ends up REAL bad. It's a hostile act to push your religion to a group of people which may think differently.
-
Originally posted by ROC
Couple points. How is it that Usually, you don't see a group of muslims opting to pray in the aisle of a plane. Having said that, Why this group, Why now? Clearly to disrupt. If this was a normal occurance it wouldn't be an issue, it isn't normal or typical. Whether it was to proceed an attack or prove a point, it Was intended to disrupt. You can't do that in an enclosed space such as a plane without things going badly.
These people have also been placed on a no fly list. Again, not typical, or usual, there are many cases where people are questioned and things move on after that.
There is more to this.
Yep, to suck in the bleeders like Chairboy, hook, line and sinker.
-
Originally posted by ROC
Couple points. How is it that Usually, you don't see a group of muslims opting to pray in the aisle of a plane. Having said that, Why this group, Why now? Clearly to disrupt. If this was a normal occurance it wouldn't be an issue, it isn't normal or typical. Whether it was to proceed an attack or prove a point, it Was intended to disrupt. You can't do that in an enclosed space such as a plane without things going badly.
These people have also been placed on a no fly list. Again, not typical, or usual, there are many cases where people are questioned and things move on after that.
There is more to this.
:aok
-
"Unfortunately it seems that Islamic terrorists also like to pray before committing their terrorist acts, and have done so on aircraft before" - Mickey 1992
I skipped most of the posts, and didn't check out the article either.. But i'm suprised they didn't get there heads pounded in as soon as they stood up in a group.
-
Originally posted by Speed55
"Unfortunately it seems that Islamic terrorists also like to pray before committing their terrorist acts, and have done so on aircraft before" - Mickey 1992
I skipped most of the posts, and didn't check out the article either.. But i'm suprised they didn't get there heads pounded in as soon as they stood up in a group.
Well, it WAS an outbound Minnesota flight, surrre, ya..you betcha!...
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I've read through the case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041914p.pdf) .
The court did not rule that atheism was a religion.
The court ruled that for the purposes of the 1st Amendment atheism is an equivalent to religion.
The court also mentions that the argument for or against a supreme being is a philosophical question and not a legal one.
Nice attempt at spin but this was a statement made by the court:
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
-
Also: Keep em praying fellas, makes em easy to spot.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Why did they have to do it on the plane?
Is there some kind of "I gotta pray at this exact time everyday" thing going on here?
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.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Nice attempt at spin but this was a statement made by the court:
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
Read the case. You're the one spinning it into more than it is.
-
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.
sure, just like they are serious about not drinking alcohol. :lol
-
I'd be offended if Penecostals started speaking in tongues and brought out a bag of sankes. Snakes on a plane!![insert Samuel L. Jackson here]
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Source?
Source = "They"
-
Please tell me it was airborn at the time of removal.
-
Speaking of Atheists, this is great:
Door To Door Atheists Bother Mormons (break.com) (http://www.break.com/index/door_to_door_atheists_bother_mormons.html)
-
Originally posted by john9001
airplanes is for traveling, churches, mosques, synagogues is for praying.
exception:: if the airplane is falling out of the sky. "this is your captian speaking,the prayer light is on"
Yep, and I am Catholic. I don't "feel the urge" to pray in airports before flights, etc.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Removed from plane for prayer
Not for prayer.
It seems that they were praying PRIOR to getting on the aircraft.
After bording they:
-Paired up and went to unassigned seats
-Asked for and received seatbelt extensions which they put under their seats
And get this. They went back to US Airways today to get tickets to fly home again. Thankfully US Airways said "Sorry".
Would you have wanted them to stay on the flight if you were on it?
-
I didn't see any of that in the news story I read, can you link me?
-
Well, think about it guys. These guys are praying out loud in Arabic in a group aboard plane, post 911. These pasengers don't know what they are saying......for all they know they could be saying their last praises to Alah before taking down the plane.
Don't most hijackers pray out loud in Arabic right before they are gonna do something bad to the plane/people?
The part that is messed up is not that they were removed from the plane for suspicious begavior, but rather that the airline refused to sell them tickets or put them on another flight after these guys were cleared by the FBI. They also placed them on a no-fly list.
These
-
Well, think about it guys. These guys are praying out loud in Arabic in a group aboard plane, post 911. These pasengers don't know what they are saying......for all they know they could be saying their last praises to Alah before taking down the plane.
Don't most hijackers pray out loud in Arabic right before they are gonna do something bad to the plane/people?
The part that is messed up is not that they were removed from the plane for suspicious behavior, but rather that the airline refused to sell them tickets or put them on another flight after these guys were cleared by the FBI. They also placed them on a no-fly list
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed.ap/index.html
6 muslim imams were removed from a flight because they made their normal prayers. I'm not a fan of the religions, but this really seems overboard. The airline should not be interfering with people's religions. If it was a christian group, there would be public outrage. But it's become acceptable to discriminate against these guys, and that's unfortunate.
Just posting it as a reality check. If you read the story and say "What's the big deal?" then take a moment to consider this: Selective religious discrimination never stops at one target, it's just a matter of time before it gets to yours.
Let see................trying to remember why I don't go to Muslim countries and practice Christianity................o h yeah, beheading, thats it. I guess they might consider the mass of people around them before prayer and be thankful that they were only inconvenienced.
BTW, my kids ALREADY cant celebrate Christmas, Easter, or Halloween at school for fear of offending someone. The attack on Christianity rolls on......
-
It wouldn't bother me if they were praying, but if the plane turned and they weren't facing east anymore would they have to start over?
shamus
-
FBbone, are you saying that Muslims are not welcome in the US the way christians are not welcome in Muslim countries? Do the extremist theologic governments of the middle east serve as your moral compass?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I didn't see any of that in the news story I read, can you link me?
here ya go
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=afMz0RSfxJ6Q&refer=us
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Read the case. You're the one spinning it into more than it is.
I quoted you the court's statement, "Atheism is religion". Care to post a quote from the court to the contrary?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
FBbone, are you saying that Muslims are not welcome in the US the way christians are not welcome in Muslim countries? Do the extremist theologic governments of the middle east serve as your moral compass?
Not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying that a little discretion may have proven useful in todays post 9-11 world.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lefties believe:
You must remove the 10 commandments from the court house yard statue,
:rolleyes:
The lefties shouldn't have put it there in the first place.
The Airlines are private companies again? Will they be giving our money back?
-
Originally posted by lukster
I quoted you the court's statement, "Atheism is religion". Care to post a quote from the court to the contrary?
You posted a statement completely devoid of context.
In fact, if you review the case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041914p.pdf), and use a search for the phrase, "Atheism is religion" your search will find nothing.
-
>>"We are concerned that crew members, passengers and security personnel may have succumbed to fear and prejudice based on stereotyping of Muslims and Islam,"<<
PC bs. Nothing more.
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You posted a statement completely devoid of context.
In fact, if you review the case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/7th/041914p.pdf), 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.”).
-
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? ;)
-
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.”
-
Originally posted by Sandman
You're still spinning it.
I quoted it verbatim and in context. You're just refusing to accept their words.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Did you ignore this part:
“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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." ;)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Sir, you've just described a privilege.
The privlege is being on private property, in this case on the plane. It is an inalienable right to practice one's religion and to have freedom of speech.
-
“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”
"If" being the operative word.
To an atheist nothing is divinity.
The statement then becomes: "If we think of religion as taking a position on nothing, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”
Logic is better than quoting other people. It's a universal constant, it's free and, unlike courts, it's never wrong. Embrace it, then you can start quoting yourself in the thrid person.
Despite what the TV tells us, I must heed the ultimate authority, logic.
If you can't understand why believing that nothing is god isn't a religion, well, I can't help you.
-
Originally posted by lukster
The privlege is being on private property, in this case on the plane. It is an inalienable right to practice one's religion and to have freedom of speech.
It's quite alienable on private property. This BBS is a perfect example of that. Freedom of expression is limited by the owners. They censor, edit and ban posters that violate the published policy.
-
I find your logic faulty. The statement presupposes that religion is taking a position on divinity and concludes that since atheism takes a position on divinity it is therefore religious in nature. You want to refute their conclusion take it up with the court.
Originally posted by Suave
“If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”
"If" being the operative word.
To an atheist nothing is divinity.
The statement then becomes: "If we think of religion as taking a position on nothing, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”
Logic is better than quoting other people. It's a universal constant, it's free and, unlike courts, it's never wrong. Embrace it, then you can start quoting yourself in the thrid person.
Despite what the TV tells us, I must heed the ultimate authority, logic.
If you can't understand why believing that nothing is god isn't a religion, well, I can't help you.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's quite alienable on private property. This BBS is a perfect example of that. Freedom of expression is limited by the owners. They censor, edit and ban posters that violate the published policy.
They can only deny me access to their property. They cannot punish or deny me in any other way. So long as I act in accordance with the law of the land.
-
Originally posted by lukster
They can only deny me access to their property. They cannot punish or deny me in any other way. So long as I act in accordance with the law of the land.
True enough, but even if you act within the bounds of the law, the owners of this BBS can edit or delete your posts.
Any speech here is not Constitutionally protected.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
True enough, but even if you act within the bounds of the law, the owners of this BBS can edit or delete your posts.
Any speech here is not Constitutionally protected.
I agree that private property owners should have the right to decide who uses their property. I'm not sure this right is being respected by our government. Certain cities are outlawing smoking in private establishments for example. That's been hashed and rehashed already though and I've hijacked this thread long enough.
I'm very curious about the seat belt extenders. Were these guys big enough to need them? If not, I think a certain amount of suspicion was warranted.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I agree that private property owners should have the right to decide who uses their property. I'm not sure this right is being respected by our government.
I absolutely certain that this right is not being respected by our government.
Free speech zones? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone) I thought our entire country (excepting private property) was a free speech zone.
-
I'd rather think that everywhere, including private property, is a "free speech zone". The only difference being that on private property you may be forced to leave if your speech offends the owner.
-
Originally posted by lukster
I find your logic faulty.
It's not my logic, logic isn't something that can be owned. But if you think what I said was wrong, could I trouble you to tell me what is wrong with it?
The statement presupposes that religion is taking a position on divinity and concludes that since atheism takes a position on divinity it is therefore religious in nature. You want to refute their conclusion take it up with the court.
LOL, oh my bad, I thought you were referencing these quotes as support for you opinion that atheism can be a religion.
BTW, should we consider US Air public owned? How much of our tax dollars do they get?
-
Isn't being an atheist, more of a title to describe not being religious?
Every religion that i know, has it's house of god, in which they worship that god.
If that's the case, how can atheism be considered a religion, if they don't believe in god, or have a house of god to worship. Like i said i think it's more of a title to describe a group of people with the same idea.
That is unless atheists congregate at a house of nothing, and all together profess their faith to the great and almighty nothing?:lol
-
Atheism is considered a semi-religion because they deny the existence of God. Agnostics like me simply admit they do not know but refuse also to worship something based on pure belief. I.e. do not care.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
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.
Yes really, despite your personal anecdote. These were imams so they probably take their religion a little more seriously than casual Muslims. And they weren't praying on the plane, they prayed in the terminal before the flight.
-
i would love to see what happens to 6 arse whipes armed with seat belt extensions that try to take over an air plane with 60 people on board
I know what i would do
-
Originally posted by icemaw
i would love to see what happens to 6 arse whipes armed with seat belt extensions that try to take over an air plane with 60 people on board
I know what i would do
And when they're armed with plastic handguns and CLAIM to have a bomb, you'll be as brave still?
-
I find that I agree with both of ripleys last two posts this time.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
And when they're armed with plastic handguns and CLAIM to have a bomb, you'll be as brave still?
hell you are already dead in that case you can go out like a man, or you can go like a sheep. If someone on a plane next to me stood up suddenly and said "allah ackbar" I for sure am gonna try out all that interesting stuff my karate teacher told me never to do to someone.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
And when they're armed with plastic handguns and CLAIM to have a bomb, you'll be as brave still?
What have you got to lose?
Think about it. If they don't have these items, what is their intent?
It's to take control of the plane.
Given what hijackers did the last time they took control of a plane, I'd say you've got nothing to lose in doing something.
In fact you have a lot more to gain than if you just sit there.
-
Hijackers are unlikey to ever again accomplish what they did on 9/11. I'd be willing to bet there aren't many US pilots who won't put anyone not belted in their seat on the ceiling, floor, and just about everywhere else should a hijack attempt be made.
-
Throw Imama from the plane!:rofl
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
And when they're armed with plastic handguns and CLAIM to have a bomb, you'll be as brave still?
hmm lets see 9/11 proved that i am dead anyways and these worthless fracks are going to use me as a bomb to kill a bunch of others so ya no matter what its BONZAI heck it would be worth it just for a chance to put my boots to some islamic fundamentalist worthless frackin arse
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Throw Imama from the plane!:rofl
[SIZE=8]HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!![/SIZE]
-
I KNEW Ann's column this week would be about this:
WHAT CAN I DO TO MAKE YOUR FLIGHT MORE UNCOMFORTABLE?
November 22, 2006
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.
Witnesses said the imams stood to do their evening prayers in the terminal before boarding, chanting "Allah, Allah, Allah" — coincidentally, the last words heard by hundreds of airline passengers on 9/11 before they died.
Witnesses also said that the imams were talking about Saddam Hussein, and denouncing America and the war in Iraq. About the only scary preflight ritual the imams didn't perform was the signing of last wills and testaments.
After boarding, the imams did not sit together and some asked for seat belt extensions, although none were morbidly obese. Three of the men had one-way tickets and no checked baggage.
Also they were Muslims.
The idea that a Muslim boycott against US Airways would hurt the airline proves that Arabs are utterly tone-deaf. This is roughly the equivalent of Cindy Sheehan taking a vow of silence. How can we hope to deal with people with no sense of irony? The next thing you know, New York City cab drivers will be threatening to bathe.
Come to think of it, the whole affair may have been a madcap advertising scheme cooked up by US Airways.
It worked with me. US Airways is my official airline now. Northwest, which eventually flew the Allah-spouting Muslims to their destinations, is off my list. You want to really hurt a U.S. air carrier's business? Have Muslims announce that it's their favorite airline.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi
-
<>
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Suave
It's not my logic, logic isn't something that can be owned. But if you think what I said was wrong, could I trouble you to tell me what is wrong with it?
Religious or not, it is faith based, and so irrational, and so.. less "devoid" of religion than agnosticism.
That it would be the polar opposite of belief in god would no less make it on the same axis as religion. They both base themselves on the axiom that you can, in fact, rationalize the veracity of anything related to god.
There is no evidence regarding the existence of god either way, so either, or any, statement as to its existence or inexistence is irrational.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Atheism is considered a semi-religion because they deny the existence of God. Agnostics like me simply admit they do not know but refuse also to worship something based on pure belief. I.e. do not care.
:aok same here
-
what are people who never think about cosmology & all that other stuff?
-
They get things done...
-
Originally posted by moot
Religious or not, it is faith based, and so irrational, and so.. less "devoid" of religion than agnosticism.
That it would be the polar opposite of belief in god would no less make it on the same axis as religion. They both base themselves on the axiom that you can, in fact, rationalize the veracity of anything related to god.
There is no evidence regarding the existence of god either way, so either, or any, statement as to its existence or inexistence is irrational.
There is no evidence that ghosts and magic do not exist, surely you would not think the opinion that there is no such thing as magic is irrational.
The problem is people get hung up on this "believing that there is nothing godlike is the same as believing that there is a god, since the existance of god cannot be disproven, both opinions are "faith based". And they don't think beyond this.
If an agnostic doesn't believe that the ancient gods of greece are real, by this line of flawed reasoning, he would be considered religious.
-
Science damn you all , Damn you All to.... Not being enlightened by Science!
Dawkins was Right!
-
It's in itself contradictory to argue something irrational. That's all I'm saying.
"God" is irrational, infinite. No human understanding can be had of such a thing. No name nor quality accurately given or estimated, no prediction can be made of something such as it, that's by principle, by definition, outside the effective boundary of reason.
There is no evidence that ghosts and magic do not exist, surely you would not think the opinion that there is no such thing as magic is irrational.
"Ghosts" and "magic" are human ideas, they're rational; however bastardized a form of reason they were made by.
The problem is people get hung up on this "believing that there is nothing godlike is the same as believing that there is a god, since the existance of god cannot be disproven, both opinions are "faith based". And they don't think beyond this.
If an agnostic doesn't believe that the ancient gods of greece are real, by this line of flawed reasoning, he would be considered religious.
Well I'm not saying what that "agnostic" would. I'm saying human understanding has limits (isn't there a division of philosophy specialized in this?), and this "territory" does not include irrationality.
Reason "works". Irrationality doesn't. The human mind can't "work" something that isn't rational.
It's not just any special case of inversion like "Up" and "Down" in a 2D system, it's the exception to the framework of thought itself. It doesn't just sit by neighborly or cohabit as a third dimension would, in that case.
It's anything belonging to that "territory", and having no map or tool with which to explore it or sense it, our understanding would not make sense of it, since "sense" is our human speak for "Human sense", and said territory would not be explorable.
Reason can't go there. There's nothing to reasonably say about it.
That said, all I think is worth our attention are practical matters:
Something said to be supernatural is either nonsense made up by the one saying so, or nothing worth considering, in practice, since if any effect it has on the matter at hand, said effect can neither be perceived, nor understood before, during or after the fact, and therefore not predicted either, and therefore has no practical value.
It's a fancy of the mind.
-
I'm sorry... If I am on the plane and Achmed and the boys are starting to unfurl the rugs and praying in a language that requires a couple of buckets of phlegm... given the history of this religion of the "Moon god of arabia" along with this worldwide radical muslim movement... I would not only voice my concerns to the flight crew but would start doing whatever i could to make them cease to breathe.
clearly this was done to upset others onboard the aircraft. To quote a Jackyl song about bin laden and his cohorts: "I'll Take that towel off your head, wrap it around your neck and pull it tight 'til you're dead"
-
They didn't pray on the plane, and you might want to check your zipper, your bigotry is showing.
-
hmm..this is interesting:
Then there’s the case of Muhammed al-Qudhaieen and Hamdan al-Shalawi, two Arizona college students removed from an America West flight after twice trying to open the cockpit. The FBI suspected it was a dry run for the 9/11 hijackings, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. One of the students had traveled to Afghanistan. Another became a material witness in the 9/11 investigation.
Even so, the pair filed racial-profiling suits against America West, now part of US Airways. Defending them was none other than the leader of the six imams kicked off the US Airways flight this week.
Turns out the students attended the Tucson, Ariz., mosque of Sheikh Omar Shahin, a Jordan native. Shahin has been the protesters’ public face, even returning to the US Airways ticket counter at the Minneapolis airport to scold agents before the cameras.
In an Arizona Republic interview after 9/11, he acknowledged once supporting Osama bin Laden through his mosque in Tucson. FBI investigators believe bin Laden set up a base in Tucson.
Hani Hanjour, who piloted the plane that hit the Pentagon, attended the Tucson mosque along with bin Laden’s onetime personal secretary, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Bin Laden’s ex-logistics chief was president of the mosque before Shahin took over.
“These people don’t continue to come back to Arizona because they like the sunshine or they like the state,” said FBI agent Kenneth Williams. “Something was established there, and it’s been there for a long time.” And Shahin appears to be in the middle of it..
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/
Another item: Detailed accounts of the incident varied. Witnesses, including a number of passengers and US Airways employees, said they heard some of the men making anti-American remarks and chanting “Allah,” first as they boarded the plane and then when led off, Mr. Hogan said.
Others said the men behaved strangely once on board, with some asking for seat belt extensions, the police report said. “I did not see they actually needed them,” one flight attendant wrote in a statement given to the police. “They were not overweight.”
(Seat belt extensions mak nice weapons)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/22/us/22muslim.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
-
Political correctness is making us weak. And they exploit it.
It's a no win situation - discriminate them and lose the PC battle. Not discriminate and lose the building / plane whatever.
I say return their Jihad with a good old fashion crusade and burn the PC people while we're at it.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
It is a belief though.
So ban all beliefs! Whether is for or against religion! :)
The term atheism is too vague for this matter. If you are talking about strong atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism) , then you are right, but you can't include weak atheism.
...
We had a similar case here in Spain, even more bizarre. For some germans spaniard + beard = muslim. (besides muslim + airplane = terrorism).
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/28/world/main2051235.shtml