(CNN) — An airline is investigating the removal of two imams from a flight headed to North Carolina, ostensibly because passengers felt uncomfortable with their presence of the pair — both clad in Islamic attire. The incident occurred Friday on an Atlantic Southeast Airlines flight from Tennessee to North Carolina and it involved Masudur Rahman and Mohamed Zaghloul were wearing traditional Muslim dress, CNN affiliate WCNC reported.
The two — who hold high religious positions in the Muslim community — were headed to North Carolina for a conference on prejudice against Muslims, or Islamaphobia. The meeting is sponsored by the North American Imams Federation. Rahman, who is a professor at the University of Memphis, told the affiliate that the incident reminded him of the prejudice Rosa Parks faced during the civil rights movement.
“That history I found today in that plane, and it shouldn’t happen with any other person,” he said. “They went through security, even went through secondary security, and got on the plane, were taxiing out,” he said. But then, they were taxied back, Hooper said. “TSA came on and pulled them off and said the pilot was refusing to fly with them because passengers were uncomfortable with them,” Hooper said, referring to the Transportation Security Administration.
Hooper said officials re-screened them and found they were no threat.
While officials tried to get the men back on the plane, “the pilot absolutely refused and ultimately took off,” Hooper said.
Oh well, guess we’ll just have to get used to this.
I’m scared of nuns. Why can’t they dress like other women? I won’t fly with them. Turn the plane around!
I have not heard enough WASPs denounce the KKK. How can I believe most WASPs are peaceful, non-bigoted people when I do not hear or read about them denouncing the radicalized hate-mongers among them. If they would only be more vociferous in their condemnation, we would live in a country free from Nazis, White Supremacists, and the KKK. Only by WASPs taking more positive action will blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Catholics be able to live without the constant fear of lynchings, shootings, and brutal assaults.
(full disclosure, I am a white Methodist born in MN now living in NC)
#41–Cap’n==nice twist===but, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Klan or Neo Nazi Party rally without a counter rally such that the police had to provide protection for the hate groups.
Show me that coming anywhere in the ME.
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
Yea Verily. The majority no matter what they believe are most often led by a hard core of zealots.
Lather, rinse. Repeat.
In #31 So what said: something about a midwest walmart.
I wouldn’t worry about some rubes from a midwestern Wal*Mart flying any time soon. (They’re fat, stupid, ugly and broke.)
Its the soccer moms I’d be concerned with.
Suburban bitches driving their gas guzzlers to the airports wearing something that makes them look upholstered instead of dressed, with their paranoia and their diet pills making them grind their teeth.
These people aren’t comfortable at the best of times.
An El-Al flight was raided by Isreali security who shot several passengers who were found wearing a little model of a jew being tortured.
#45 Tea
“$41 Methodist my ass, you’re a progressive, a liberal Methodist, probably don’t even believe the Bible.”
If you mean the Bible that teaches hate, fear-mongering, bigotry then yes, I don’t believe in that Bible. And from most of your posts’, I am led to believe that the aforementioned Bible is the one that you hold so close to your heart.
If you speak of the Bible that teaches love of your fellow man, the Bible that asks me to have faith in my neighbor and to work towards peace and justice for all, then yes, I believe in this Bible.
As far as trying to insult me by calling me progressive, I would have to hold your opinion in some regard to be insulted. Any attempt by me to correct your mistaken impression of my political leanings is useless since I have witnessed on this blog your total refusal to recognize any facts that challenge your views.
#42 Bobbo
I have seen demonstrations with and without counter-demonstrators. In my memories of the counter-demonstrations, most of the participants were those being targeted by the hate groups. Even though WASPs outnumber those targeted, they certainly did not represent in the counter-marchers.
The true aim of my argument was to show what I felt were outlandish demands by certain groups for Muslims to demonstrate how they reject terrorists. To me, the notion that by not continuously denouncing the actions of 0.001% of their diverse population, they are somehow complicit in the terrorist agenda is so absurd. By the same logic, all Irish Catholics belong to the IRA and all Hispanics belong to the drug cartels.
Of course, it didn’t help when he, shouting, asked the female passengers if they were virgins and then said it didn’t matter because he was sending them all to hell anyway.
His partner would just shout “BOOOM!” at odd intervals.
brown people should be put on there own planes and they all smell like curry anyways… I am not getting blown up by the next wack job with a grudge!
Yes, all Muslims are terrorists.
nice to still see some ignorance in the world. i was worried people were starting to have some common sense.
#50–Cap’n==my post could easily be read as sarcastic and demeaning, but I meant it as a compliment==that you did put a “nice twist” on the subject. Very well done. Made me think. And as I thought, the notion of the counter-protests did come to mind, so I posted that too.
I think both our posts are more valid than not.
Still, I am “concerned” about the POTENTIAL changes that a large Muslim population can have on a secular free society. I say again, it comes down to one’s risk tolerance. What is freedom worth? If its worth fighting for, how soon do you start fighting and over what? I do think it is entirely possible that Muslims do come to america so they can practice their faith freely without the oppression of more conservative Imans from back home. But admitting that possibility also admits the opposite. I am not very risk tolerant when it comes to religious zealots.
I think I’d start with loyalty oaths to the separation of church and state and enforce it with the outlawing of the hajib–or really moreso the full face covering. Maybe its prejudice as I do see the Nuns and Priest Robes as completely the same thing “except” they don’t have most of their leaders advocating for any version of their own caliphate==no matter what Pope’s may secretly pine for. History does make a difference.
# 54
The “Native” Americans begs to differ actually.
#60–tdkyo==I thought the Native americans had no concept of “ownership”? To the degree that is true, how could they beg to own it?
but regardless of what this defeated pre-industrial society thought, its undenialbe that “ownership concepts” pertaining to land are irrelevant. Land is not “owned” but merely occupied by those having the strength and desire to occupy it – or – all concepts of ownership come down to the same act and ability to occupy. Thats how nations are formed and dissolved. No claim of right ever holds==power of armies are the only authority.
ain’t reality a bitch?
#61 – Bobbo – The term “native American” is generic. It does not refer to any particular tribe. Some had very pronounced ideas of possession/ownership. Some do not. Take my first wife (please). She was half Cherokee and when we were divorced she insisted everything I had actually belonged to her!
On topic: The pilots have the right to not fly whomever they feel is not conducive to a calm passenger cabin. But that does not mean they have the right to ever fly again IMHO.
And, after a second security screening in which the duo were found to be no threat, they should have been allowed to fly and the complaining passengers deplaned and allowed to wait for another flight, which, if there is any justice in the world, would have had another bunch of Muslims on it. Or maybe some Jews with boxes strapped to their foreheads.
Of course, that’s just my opinion and worth every satang you paid for it.
(1 satang = 1/100th of a baht
1 baht = 1/30th of a US dollar
1 dollar = crap…)
Animby==what tribe specifically had strong notions of ownership?
but the MAIN point was whether they did or not the only thing that matters is whether or not you have the power to keep you land regardless of who nominally owns it.
Pretty simple concept, just not popular with natives wherever they are.
Oh, Bobbette – there you go again. Do I have to do ALL your research for you? Look up the Chiracahua Apaches. I believe the Seminoles were so possessive of their land that they are technically still at war with you and me! And the aforementioned Cherokee squaw bitch. If you need more than that, I refer you to the internet. A valuable research tool that takes all the fun out of demanding other people look things up for you.
Oh, and by the way: the MAIN point should have been about Islam and flying!
Wear what ya want. Pull some shit and expect to hit the floor head first.
When innocent until proven guilty is lost, so goes one of the things America is supposed to stand for. You allow “them” to win over you by your own ignorance. Good luck with that.
Fearing Muslim garb is about as silly as some imaginary man in the sky.
#64–Animby==you chide: “Oh, and by the way: the MAIN point should have been about Islam and flying!” /// And it certainly IS. The fear of Muslims is not about their garb or their flying but rather too many Muslim Leaders, supported by their dues paying members of irrelevant private opinion, establishing a caliphate in the US of A. Losing all that it means to be freeborn in the land of the free. Who’s land is this going to be? A melting pot of many under a constitution that guarantees freedom of and from religion, or an Unfree State that Requires adherence to one and only one religion? Is that anything to fight for? If so, isn’t baring soldiers of the faith in uniforms of the opposition one possible place to start the fight?
Exactly on point? No.
Pretty close to the point, a supporting subsidiary if you will? Yes.
10 miles closer than the denominations of a baht? Oh yes.
We all take our pleasures as we do.
Alphie !!! get a grip dude. NNOOO !!!!!!! Not my dick !!! Get a grip on reality dudette. You’re a freaking dumb ass fool.
Oh, Bob. So much wrong with that.
# 66 bobbo, “a constitution that guarantees freedom of and from religion”
Nowhere in the Constitution of the USA does it guarantee freedom FROM religion. Only that the gov’t does not have the right to endorse or establish (i.e. the Church of England). In fact, you and I as atheists could be violating the Constitution as it guarantees us the freedom OF religion not the right to snicker at Alf.
“isn’t baring soldiers of the faith in uniforms of the opposition” Am I to understand that you equate dressing modestly with being a terrorist? After all, this crap about traditional “Muslim dress” is meaningless. The Koran simply requires modesty – sometimes to extremes. The Arab hijab is not typically worn in Pakistan where they prefer shalwar qameez and, trust me, the Egyptian galabeyas are very comfortable in the desert heat. So which “uniform” are you equating with terrorists?
You wanna let brown-skinned people scare you? Don’t worry about the ones wearing ‘funny’ clothes, worry about the ones trying to blend in…
Security, Alfred the Loon stylez
Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. If the government cannot impose a religion nobody can. Just as government cannot regulate speech and neither can you. Simple as that. Freedom is freedom, there is no qualification.
#70,
Unless you’re Alphie. Then you can phuc pedro all day long. Because there is freedom of phuc as well as freedom from phuc. And Alphie knows phuc all.
Poor old Animby: thinks the constitution means what any swinging dick thinks its means by simply reading it. Simply…..thats not true. The constitution MEANS what the Supreme Court says it means and on point the SCt has said exactly what I posted: Freedom of Religion also means freedom FROM religion===all as it may be foisted by the Government. Religions free to foist their idiotic beliefs as they wish all within the law.
Yes, you see it all the time, one idiot comment after another quoting the constitution. Informed/intelligent comment only comes with supporting language from a SCt case.
Silly to proudly crow one’s own ignorance.
# 72 bobbo, “the SCt has said exactly what I posted: Freedom of Religion also means freedom FROM religion”
Citation, please. Sorry to pull a Bobbo but you simply cannot make bold statements like that without SOME evidence.
Methinks you and notsosmartalix are confused by the term freedom from religion. You seem to misconstrue that to mean you get to choose what you believe. Within limits, that’s true but that is freedom OF religion. To be free FROM religion, our currency would have to drop the In God We Trust. Christmas would not be a legal holiday. Billboard evangelists would be banned and churches would have to be located out of sight of passersby. That guy standing on the street corner wearing a sandwich board proclaiming the end is nigh so repent your sins? He’s in jail. THAT’s freedom FROM religion. Last time I was visiting in the States I was awakened one Sunday morning by church bells. No freedom from religion in the USA. Just Sunday morning come to meetin’ noises. No better, no worse than the predawn call to prayer in Muslim areas.
So, if you still say I’m wrong, show me where the SCOTUS has guaranteed I am free from religion. Then, the next Sunday I visit my mother, I’ll have them damned baptists arrested.
animby–you’ve got me. I would have thought simply searching on (“freedom from religion” + Supreme Court)would bring up cases on point but seems a Plaintiff with that very name is adding a whole lot of chaff to the search results and I can’t find a word search tool that works within the body of individual cases making it somewhat tedious to find the right issue being discussed.
So–until I can back up what I say, I have to drop that from my argumentation. I’m sure I am right, I just can’t link to any proof.
Bobbo – This particular thread is getting a bit long and seems to be losing interest in me. It’s also getting on to my bedtime (almost 2am here). So, I will abandon this thread in favor of a comfie bed and an even more comfie little brown lady who is, it appears, already sound asleep.
I am equally certain you are wrong but, should you ever find proof of your proposition, please feel free to interrupt a future thread to tell me. There’s some Jehovah’s Witnesses I feel inclined to persecute,
Good night.
Anumby,
Logic works. Show me where mine is incorrect.