NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, Muslims want they're own prayer rooms in airports (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20401.html?cat=1). Great go to the non-denominational chapel. Or quietly use the meditation rooms at any number of other airports.

But wait, aren't airports government facilities, by and large? What business do they have in providing _any_ facility for any religious purpose?

Can't Muslims pray quietly while sitting or standing in a quiet area? Does it always require the rugs, the kneeling, and the loud chanting?

No, thats the nature of their prayer

Now, Muslims want they're own prayer rooms in airports (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20401.html?cat=1). Great go to the non-denominational chapel. Or quietly use the meditation rooms at any number of other airports.

But wait, aren't airports government facilities, by and large? What business do they have in providing _any_ facility for any religious purpose?

Can't Muslims pray quietly while sitting or standing in a quiet area? Does it always require the rugs, the kneeling, and the loud chanting?

In most airports there are already secluded, nondenominational prayer rooms that are generally empty.

I say that they should use those rooms. No special rooms for specific religions.

Now, Muslims want they're own prayer rooms in airports (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20401.html?cat=1). Great go to the non-denominational chapel. Or quietly use the meditation rooms at any number of other airports.

But wait, aren't airports government facilities, by and large? What business do they have in providing _any_ facility for any religious purpose?

Can't Muslims pray quietly while sitting or standing in a quiet area? Does it always require the rugs, the kneeling, and the loud chanting?

I'd be inclined to give them the Prayer Room if they want it that badly, because their praying is significantly more complex that the Christian form. People complain of how much special treatment the Muslims are asking for, but I'm not sure how much they realise just how... demanding their beliefs are, and that their worship isn't really on the same level as that of your average Christian.

So, in short, let 'em 'av it if they want it.
Not really much of a hassle anyway, an extra room shouldnt cost too much for the Aiport builders.

No they shouldn't have their special prayer rooms on government property.

I dunno, on one hand I'd agree with "what's one extra small room in an airport?". However, there's a non-denominational area already set aside. We strive to be all-accepting, but at some point we just have to sigh and step on some toes. If they get a private room, then everyone else should get a private room. Either everyone gets it, or no one. It's the only way to be fair.

I say if they want it, then they should have to pay for it.

On the same note, how successful do you guys think I would be at getting a Catholic prayer room? You know, a prayer room with the crucifix, a statue of Mary, Joseph, and the saints?

Now, Muslims want they're own prayer rooms in airports (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20401.html?cat=1). Great go to the non-denominational chapel. Or quietly use the meditation rooms at any number of other airports.

You seem to have mischaracterized the article here. It is made clear that the airport in question did not have a meditation room, and the proposed solution here was to add one. They aren't asking for a special "Muslim room", but for *somewhere* they could go and be out of the way while saying prayers.

But wait, aren't airports government facilities, by and large? What business do they have in providing _any_ facility for any religious purpose?

Generally, no they are not. A government may help fund them by giving certain grants because they want the boost to the economy that an airport can bring, but I don't think they are generally considered government facilities.

Can't Muslims pray quietly while sitting or standing in a quiet area? Does it always require the rugs, the kneeling, and the loud chanting?

Depends on the Muslim and how they choose to pray.

Of course, it wouldn't be an issue if idiots didn't complain and have Muslims kicked off airplanes because they were praying in the airport.

I'd be inclined to give them the Prayer Room if they want it that badly, because their praying is significantly more complex that the Christian form. People complain of how much special treatment the Muslims are asking for, but I'm not sure how much they realise just how... demanding their beliefs are, and that their worship isn't really on the same level as that of your average Christian.

So, in short, let 'em 'av it if they want it.
Not really much of a hassle anyway, an extra room shouldnt cost too much for the Aiport builders.

how exactly is their faith more demanding?

just curious.

however, I think either they use the room provided or they are out of luck, eveyrone gets their own room or nobody does, sounds fair to me.

I'd be inclined to give them the Prayer Room if they want it that badly, because their praying is significantly more complex that the Christian form. People complain of how much special treatment the Muslims are asking for, but I'm not sure how much they realise just how... demanding their beliefs are, and that their worship isn't really on the same level as that of your average Christian.

So, in short, let 'em 'av it if they want it.
Not really much of a hassle anyway, an extra room shouldnt cost too much for the Aiport builders.

For building a new Airport, no, not much of a hassle. For FINDING a room at our many cramped, overcrowded and underfunded airports already operating above their designed capacity, yes. A MAJOR hassle.

Let'em use the non-dem prayer rooms. That's what they're for.

I'd be inclined to give them the Prayer Room if they want it that badly, because their praying is significantly more complex that the Christian form. People complain of how much special treatment the Muslims are asking for, but I'm not sure how much they realise just how... demanding their beliefs are, and that their worship isn't really on the same level as that of your average Christian.

So, in short, let 'em 'av it if they want it.
Not really much of a hassle anyway, an extra room shouldnt cost too much for the Aiport builders.

Bullshit. Their praying isn't any more complex than say, Orthodox Jews praying, or Catholics praying.

If they get their own room, everyone, including the Scientologists, get their own room.

I'd say you'd be pretty damn successful. Ya'll forget, this entire nation was hijacked by the Xians over a century ago, most of our society was created to placate them.

First 9/11, now this. They deserve to be deported, not to be given special priveledges.

I say if they want it, then they should have to pay for it.

Why? Various airports, as mentioned in the article, have meditation rooms and such for this sort of thing. It would seem that people other than Muslims would value such a room and that it would be a good business idea for any airport.

On the same note, how successful do you guys think I would be at getting a Catholic prayer room? You know, a prayer room with the crucifix, a statue of Mary, Joseph, and the saints?

You didn't read the article, did you?

I wasn't aware that airports were government property, or at least, I thought the land belonged to the state, and the terminals themselves were owned by the airlines. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Let'em use the non-dem prayer rooms. That's what they're for.

Another person who didn't read the article, apparently. Not all airports have such rooms, that's the problem.

There was no mention of Muslim-specific rooms, just *somewhere* out of the way that prayers could be carried out. If the airport in question had a meditation room or a prayer room, it wouldn't be an issue.

I wasn't aware that airports were government property, or at least, I thought the land belonged to the state, and the terminals themselves were owned by the airlines. But correct me if I'm wrong.
The FAA manages most airports. Most of the airports are quasi-governmental, or fully governmental entities. They lease gates to the airlines.

Now, Muslims want they're own prayer rooms in airports (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20401.html?cat=1). Great go to the non-denominational chapel. Or quietly use the meditation rooms at any number of other airports.

But wait, aren't airports government facilities, by and large? What business do they have in providing _any_ facility for any religious purpose?

Can't Muslims pray quietly while sitting or standing in a quiet area? Does it always require the rugs, the kneeling, and the loud chanting?

Two points. Maybe if airlines wouldn't pull imams off planes simply because they'd dared to pray in the departure lounge, the Muslim community wouldn't be reacting this way. But as long as some asshole on a plane can get a person who looks slightly different tossed simply because he's shitting his pants over nothing, this is going to be an issue. The airlines could put a stop to this simply by saying that once a person clears security, they're flying, and anyone who is uncomfortable can find another flight.

Secondly, airports are these curious meld of public and private, and I think in this case, the private wins out. If the airport authority wants to make the exception, or even better, if an airline wants to provide an area for Muslims to pray in private, then so be it. It could be a sales tool, if marketed correctly.

Two points. Maybe if airlines wouldn't pull imams off planes simply because they'd dared to pray in the departure lounge, the Muslim community wouldn't be reacting this way.

According to the police report, that's not all they did. They performed a pattern of behavior on the plane itself, together, that fit the pattern of a security probe by terrorists - a pattern of behavior that had nothing to do with praying.

gorias suggests all prayer rooms in airports should be replace with firey pits.

According to the police report, that's not all they did. They performed a pattern of behavior on the plane itself, together, that fit the pattern of a security probe by terrorists - a pattern of behavior that had nothing to do with praying.

Ass covering by the airline. I used the imam example because it's the most recent, but it's hardly the only incident.

First 9/11, now this. They deserve to be deported, not to be given special priveledges.

Only deported?

Whats the matter, another cowardly, dishonest nazi too chicken to say what he really wants?

Ass covering by the airline. I used the imam example because it's the most recent, but it's hardly the only incident.

I don't believe that the following is asscovering:

One imam has direct ties to Hamas.
They all requested seat belt extenders (which can be used as a weapon) even though none of them is large enough to require one.
They all entered with the first class passengers at boarding, even though only one had the first class ticket, then immediately dispersed in pairs throughout the plane into seats that were not assigned to them.

This pattern, especially the seat belt extenders and the entry pattern and dispersion has been seen many times before - done by people known to intelligence services to be doing a "test run".

I don't believe that the following is asscovering:

One imam has direct ties to Hamas.
They all requested seat belt extenders (which can be used as a weapon) even though none of them is large enough to require one.
They all entered with the first class passengers at boarding, even though only one had the first class ticket, then immediately dispersed in pairs throughout the plane into seats that were not assigned to them.

This pattern, especially the seat belt extenders and the entry pattern and dispersion has been seen many times before - done by people known to intelligence services to be doing a "test run".

And I'm sure you have a source for all this? It certainly wasn't reported in any news article I saw.

First 9/11, now this. They deserve to be deported, not to be given special priveledges.

oh my god.

And I'm sure you have a source for all this? It certainly wasn't reported in any news article I saw.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C11%5C29%5Cstory_29-11-2006_pg7_9

Muslims are no better, nor worse than any other religion. They shouldn't expect special treatment.

A piece of advice:

If you're on a plane, and you do anything that fits the pattern of what they call a "security probe", it doesn't matter if you're the Pope - you're going to get the attention of law enforcement. Period.

The plane WILL be delayed. You will either be forced to take another flight, or, if your behavior is extremely coincidental with the patterns, you will be detained for questioning.

Additionally, certain flights towards major cities in the US have a rule - no one - and I mean NO ONE - is allowed to get up out of their seat for ANY reason for the first and last 30 minutes of the flight.

To do so invites immediate arrest upon landing. It's a Federal law and regulation.

And again, it wouldn't matter if you were Queen Elizabeth, or the Pope.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C11%5C29%5Cstory_29-11-2006_pg7_9

It does seem rather suspicious that all this has been added, and they completely removed the woman in the first stories - the one who had supposedly handed a note to the attendants saying they made her nervous. All of a sudden, she's not even part of the story?

And, to tell you the truth, the suggestion that one of the imans has direct ties to Hamas is ludicrous. If it were true, he'd be on a no-fly list already.

Considering that none of this was reported initially, and it doesn't seem to be in a single AP-article, I'm pretty skeptical of it.

Additionally, certain flights towards major cities in the US have a rule - no one - and I mean NO ONE - is allowed to get up out of their seat for ANY reason for the first and last 30 minutes of the flight.

Actually, I'm fairly certain this rule applies only to flights arriving in and leaving Washington, DC.

Of course, I'm not sure how this applies. The plane never got in flight before the 6 imans were asked to leave.

It does seem rather suspicious that all this has been added, and they completely removed the woman in the first stories - the one who had supposedly handed a note to the attendants saying they made her nervous. All of a sudden, she's not even part of the story?

And, to tell you the truth, the suggestion that one of the imans has direct ties to Hamas is ludicrous. If it were true, he'd be on a no-fly list already.

Considering that none of this was reported initially, and it doesn't seem to be in a single AP-article, I'm pretty skeptical of it.

Ah, so you trust the AP... when they've been caught lying about the existence of sources of stories in Iraq...

Here. Here's the police report - a PDF file.

http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2006/12/FlyingImamsPolice%20Report.pdf

Also interesting that only one of the six had any luggage.

Gee, going on a trip, and no luggage...

First 9/11, now this. They deserve to be deported, not to be given special priveledges.

I always thought it was cheaper to gas them and burn the bodies.

Ah, so you trust the AP... when they've been caught lying about the existence of sources of stories in Iraq...

Here. Here's the police report - a PDF file.

http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2006/12/FlyingImamsPolice%20Report.pdf

I trust the AP a lot more than I trust Pajamas Media, simply because the AP is not a monolithic entity. It's an aggregator of news stories that supplies them to all the major news outlets. On individual stories, the local AP editor or reporter might fuck something up--any company like this might, as Reuters did with that photog in Lebanon--but on the whole, they get it right a lot more often than they get it wrong.

I trust the AP a lot more than I trust Pajamas Media, simply because the AP is not a monolithic entity. It's an aggregator of news stories that supplies them to all the major news outlets. On individual stories, the local AP editor or reporter might fuck something up--any company like this might, as Reuters did with that photog in Lebanon--but on the whole, they get it right a lot more often than they get it wrong.

Sorry, it's a PDF file from the police.

AP fucked up the story about people being burned alive - and still won't retract it even though it's been proven that their source - a non-existent Iraqi police captain - has never existed.

Ah, so you trust the AP... when they've been caught lying about the existence of sources of stories in Iraq...

Here. Here's the police report - a PDF file.

http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2006/12/FlyingImamsPolice%20Report.pdf

Interesting how the police report doesn't mention them sitting in any unassigned seats or having ties to Hamas.

Most of the complaints are either, "ZOMG! They were talking about the Middle East politics!" ((as if that isn't big on the minds of many people - my fiance and I have discussions like that all the time)) or, "I was scared because they were 'facing a certain direction' and praying loudly," (OH NOES!).

There is the rather odd suggestion that one of them "pretended to be blind," but since none of the other witnesses back that up, I think we can safely ignore it.

Nothing is said about them getting up and praying on the plane -which your article stated that they did.

As it stands, the most suspicious thing about them is that they asked for seatbelt extensions. Of course, that could have been a comfort thing. I didn't even know that seatbelt extensions exist, or I would probably ask for them, not because I need it (I can buckle the seatbelt), but because I can see how it might be more comfortable to have a little extra slack.

Also interesting that only one of the six had any luggage.

Gee, going on a trip, and no luggage...

They had carry-ons. My advisor goes on week (or more)-long trips with only a carry-on because checked luggage is such a pain in the butt. Seasoned travelers often can pack everything they need in a carry-on and never have to check anything. It makes the whole traveling process much easier.


Let's face it. If myself and 6 of my friends held hands and said a prayer together before getting on a plane, then had a political discussion while waiting, even if we asked for seatbelt extenders, we would not have had a single problem.

I trust the AP a lot more than I trust Pajamas Media, simply because the AP is not a monolithic entity. It's an aggregator of news stories that supplies them to all the major news outlets. On individual stories, the local AP editor or reporter might fuck something up--any company like this might, as Reuters did with that photog in Lebanon--but on the whole, they get it right a lot more often than they get it wrong.

Here's the New York Times reporter after the AP asked him to back them up on their story:

Hi Tom,

You ask me about what our own reporting shows about this incident. When we first heard of the event on Nov. 24, through the A.P. story and a man named Imad al-Hashemi talking about it on television, we had our Iraqi reporters make calls to people in the Hurriya neighborhood. Because of the curfew that day, everything had to be done by phone. We reached several people who told us about the mosque attacks, but said they had heard nothing of Sunni worshippers being burned alive. Any big news event travels quickly by word of mouth through Baghdad, aided by the enormous proliferation of cell phones here. Such an incident would have been so abominable that a great many of the residents in Hurriya, as well as in other Sunni Arab districts, would have been in an uproar over it. Hard-line Sunni Arab organizations such as the Muslim Scholars Association or the Iraqi Islamic Party would almost certainly have appeared on television that day or the next to denounce this specific incident. Iraqi clerics and politicians are not shy about doing this. Yet, as far as I know, there was no widespread talk of the incident. So I mentioned it only in passing in my report.

Best,
Edward Wong

Seatbelt extenders, and the seating pattern in the plane is in the report.
Attempting to sit in unassigned seats is in the report (read the witness statements by the attendants).

Let's face it - if you sat in the pattern they spoke of, and asked for the seatbelt extenders - even if you said nothing and didn't pray - if you were seen as part of an initial group there WOULD be a problem.

Sorry, it's a PDF file from the police.

AP fucked up the story about people being burned alive - and still won't retract it even though it's been proven that their source - a non-existent Iraqi police captain - has never existed.
You asked if we trusted the AP. I do, and I continue to do so, because their errors of fact are few and far between. I read the pdf file, and it still sounds like ass covering by the airline to me.

Funny. When it's Muslims wanting a prayer room in an Airport, people are up in arms over violation of the separation of church and state, yet as soon as mention evolution, abortion and gay marriage that part of the US Constitution nips off for a metaphorical cigarette.

Or at least, that's what it seems like...

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C11%5C29%5Cstory_29-11-2006_pg7_9

Yeah, you said things that article did not say. Only three of them got seatbelt extenders, not "all" as you charge.
The only really suspicious thing here is their selection of seats.

And the Muslims don't want a special prayer room for themselves. They just want a nondenominational room in an airport which lacks them. Good job misrepresenting the facts.

Seatbelt extenders, and the seating pattern in the plane is in the report.
Attempting to sit in unassigned seats is in the report (read the witness statements by the attendants).

I read all the witness statements, and saw nothing at all about attempting to sit in unassigned seats. There was one statement, by someone who sounded pretty outrageous, that wasn't backed up at all. It said that one of the "pretended to be blind" and asked if someone would switch seats with him. Someone working at the desk also said that one asked to be upgraded to 1st class, and was told that there were no 1st class seats available. However, no flight attendant or officer mentions anyone sitting in the wrong seat.

Let's face it - if you sat in the pattern they spoke of, and asked for the seatbelt extenders - even if you said nothing and didn't pray - if you were seen as part of an initial group there WOULD be a problem.

I highly doubt it, unless my Muslim friends were with me. None of these activities would have been seen as suspicious if the men hadn't been obviously Muslim. If a woman hadn't complained about them praying, the police never would have been called in at all.

Now, Muslims want they're own prayer rooms in airports (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20401.html?cat=1). Great go to the non-denominational chapel. Or quietly use the meditation rooms at any number of other airports.

But wait, aren't airports government facilities, by and large? What business do they have in providing _any_ facility for any religious purpose?

Can't Muslims pray quietly while sitting or standing in a quiet area? Does it always require the rugs, the kneeling, and the loud chanting?Well, if airports are that governmental and not the private businesses they seem to be, perhaps we should do away with non denominational chapels too. Aside from that, there is a point to it, considering that mosques tend to be built differently from churches in the inside. It's kind of hard to kneel down and pray if there's a bench in the way.

EDIT:
On a quick review of the maps of that airport, I don't see any non-denominational chapels in the first place.

Also interesting that only one of the six had any luggage.

Gee, going on a trip, and no luggage...

I've done that. What's your point?

Funny. When it's Muslims wanting a prayer room in an Airport, people are up in arms over violation of the separation of church and state, yet as soon as mention evolution, abortion and gay marriage that part of the US Constitution nips off for a metaphorical cigarette.

Or at least, that's what it seems like...

How is it a Constitutional violation?

It's it a federal airport?
Does the airport deny other Religion requests?

As to the other comments? :confused:

Well, if airports are that governmental and not the private businesses they seem to be, perhaps we should do away with non denominational chapels too. Aside from that, there is a point to it, considering that mosques tend to be built differently from churches in the inside. It's kind of hard to kneel down and pray if there's a bench in the way.


You have to admit, the world would be a better place if Christians and Muslims could be in the same room, doing their thing and nobody cared......

The irony of this thread is that the linked article in the OP is about a gropu of Muslims who are trying to create a relationship and a dialogue with the airport so that Muslims do not feel marginalised, while still addressing security concerns.


After their prayer, the group of clerics went into a private meeting with Wareham and officials from the airport's police force. Airport spokesman Pat Hogan said the group didn't make any specific demands, but were more interested in forging a better relationship with airport decision-makers.

Hogan said the clerics invited a group from the airport to come visit a mosque, an offer Hogan said they would accept.

"I think there's a mutual recognition that it would be helpful for there to be a solid understanding," Hogan said.

Yeah, you said things that article did not say. Only three of them got seatbelt extenders, not "all" as you charge.
The only really suspicious thing here is their selection of seats.

And the Muslims don't want a special prayer room for themselves. They just want a nondenominational room in an airport which lacks them. Good job misrepresenting the facts.

Then they should do what I saw a Jewish fellow do the other day. Find an empty gate in an out of the way place and pray there. Or learn how to pray without all the hoopla, thus being more discrete about the whole thing.

For building a new Airport, no, not much of a hassle. For FINDING a room at our many cramped, overcrowded and underfunded airports already operating above their designed capacity, yes. A MAJOR hassle.

Let'em use the non-dem prayer rooms. That's what they're for.

Just build a new room... duh... :p
See, its now economically justifiable as the USA is loosing business for lack of Cultural sensitivity.

how exactly is their faith more demanding?

just curious.

however, I think either they use the room provided or they are out of luck, eveyrone gets their own room or nobody does, sounds fair to me.

Well, as far as I know there isn't really a Christian equivilant to the Headscarf for one.

Bullshit. Their praying isn't any more complex than say, Orthodox Jews praying, or Catholics praying.

If they get their own room, everyone, including the Scientologists, get their own room.

Not really. Catholics don't really have to do much when it comes to praying, but I'll admit I don't know much when it comes to Orthodox Jewry.

The real solution is, however, to have no religious buildings at all, what with the Airport being State owned and everything.
If the Muslims don't like it, they can start their own airport. That's the beauty of a free market.

You have to admit, the world would be a better place if Christians and Muslims could be in the same room, doing their thing and nobody cared......Indeed, its just that churches tend to have benches and mosques tend to have floors. It also isn't considered rude to wear your shoes in a church, whereas its anathema in a mosque. Likewise, you shouldn't wear a hat in a church, but shouldn't enter a synagogue without one on. There's just a bunch of subtle things that don't work together.

Well, as far as I know there isn't really a Christian equivilant to the Headscarf for one.

Of course there is. Greek/Eastern Orthodox women, for instance, often wear such headcoverings to protect their modesty. Amish and Mennonite women generally at least partially cover their hair (as well as being forbidden to cut it short, as a "shorn" woman is scorned). Nuns wear a covering that completely covers their hair and neck.

Not really. Catholics don't really have to do much when it comes to praying, but I'll admit I don't know much when it comes to Orthodox Jewry.

They do cross themselves, generally. It's pretty obvious to those around them that they are praying. My mother once sat next to a priest on a plane and he began praying just before take-off (nervous flier, apparently). It made her even more nervous because it made her think about it.

The real solution is, however, to have no religious buildings at all, what with the Airport being State owned and everything.

From what I have read, airports are not state-owned. They are highly regulated by the government, and are often built with some sort of government-granted money (generally with the purpose of boosting the economy), but they are privately owned and operated.

If the Muslims don't like it, they can start their own airport. That's the beauty of a free market.

The Muslims in the article obviously don't mind praying in public. However, others mind seeing it. They figured it would be easier and less of a problem if there was somewhere more private they could go to do it when they were traveling.

why not just set up the former smoking areas as meditation/prayer areas.

if you are going to accomodate islamic prayer, it has to be in every concourse on the secure side. ive been in several airports where you cant go from concourse to concourse without going through security and they wont let you into another concourse without a ticket leaving from that area.

I think that airports should have facilities for religious worship, but that they should not be fashioned for any particular religion.

It looks like this is in response to the rather embarassing display of stupidity involved in no-fly-listing muslim men because they were praying.

I think a better remedy would be federal civil rights violation charges and a big law suit.

Can't Muslims pray quietly while sitting or standing in a quiet area? Does it always require the rugs, the kneeling, and the loud chanting?

Yes. That's kinda their religion. How would you like it if I went to a church, on sunday, when christians ALWAYS go to church, burned down the cross, had my way with the statue of the virgin mary, and set fire to the music?

That's basically what you're proposing, as muslims MUST pray 5 times per day.

Yes. That's kinda their religion. How would you like it if I went to a church, on sunday, when christians ALWAYS go to church, burned down the cross, had my way with the statue of the virgin mary, and set fire to the music?except that's willful and malicious destruction of property.

I can see building a small room where everyone can pray, keep it open windowed or monitored so that nothing illegal goes on, but sealed so that outside noise won't disturb them. that way, you can have other religions as well as people using that room for meditation and reflection. the only rule, what goes on legally in that room stays in that room...

I tend to feel about muslim prayers the same way I do about smoking. Its just people doing something stupid thats a waste of time. But my main problem with smoking is when it inconveniences me, like if my friends are smoking and have to go outside every half hour, or they insist on having a cig before going into a cinema, even though the film is starting. Give them a room to do it and they stop whining and stop annoying us.

how exactly is their faith more demanding?

just curious.
It seems to be very perscribed and highly ritualized, much moreso than Christian prayers (At least according to Wiki): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_prayer

I can't see this being done somewhere by a gate and not expecting a crowd to show up or security.

Since the prayers have to be said out loud, it may make more sense to have a partitioned room, one for noise and one for meditation.

If it's been established that you are providing religious facilities, then you may as well have facilities for Muslims. The way I see it, they just want some privacy, and if you deny them that, then why not take out separate toilet cubicles, for example? :p

False.

Let's pretend the OP isn't highly biased against muslims for one moment.

The muslims wanted a prayer room for PRAYER, not for THEIR prayer. They have their own rituals, and they asked for a prayer room for ANYONE with their own rituals to pray in. That way, OTHER religions could also use the room.

I also find you conspicuously silent whenever the issue is about the CHRISTIAN religion wanting to have a say on state matters. Let's not forget that you support a man that claims to be guided by GOD as a president.

You had a reason to try and make this sound bad, which is, now I stop pretending, your bias against muslims.

Game, set, match.

I just thought of some problems tho. if these "Prayer/Meditation" rooms are open for anyone to use, what's stopping the general public from commandeering these rooms for their own little psduo lounge? thus making those prayers the same in those rooms as if it was done at the main waiting lounge.

and if anyone can go in, that doesn't stop the problem that those 6 clerics had when they prayed and one idiot complained. someone in those "Prayer/Meditation" rooms can still see them and complain... back to square one.

the main problem is not that the Muslims Pray. but that people see them praying and think "OMG, Islamic terrorists" like that idiot did when he saw some of those six clerics praying.

having them go to a special room (even if it's open for meditation/prayer for all religions) might backfire since people would wonder, are they praying or finalizing plans for some act of terror.

also if these rooms are not monitored, you can have smugglers using these rooms also.

I just thought of some problems tho. if these "Prayer/Meditation" rooms are open for anyone to use, what's stopping the general public from commandeering these rooms for their own little psduo lounge? thus making those prayers the same in those rooms as if it was done at the main waiting lounge.

and if anyone can go in, that doesn't stop the problem that those 6 clerics had when they prayed and one idiot complained. someone in those "Prayer/Meditation" rooms can still see them and complain... back to square one.

the main problem is not that the Muslims Pray. but that people see them praying and think "OMG, Islamic terrorists" like that idiot did when he saw some of those six clerics praying.

having them go to a special room (even if it's open for meditation/prayer for all religions) might backfire since people would wonder, are they praying or finalizing plans for some act of terror.

also if these rooms are not monitored, you can have smugglers using these rooms also.

The areas in question are not open to non-travelers. So if smugglers are trading stuff, then airport security has failed.....

Just privatize the airports, duh...

I just thought of some problems tho. if these "Prayer/Meditation" rooms are open for anyone to use, what's stopping the general public from commandeering these rooms for their own little psduo lounge? thus making those prayers the same in those rooms as if it was done at the main waiting lounge.

and if anyone can go in, that doesn't stop the problem that those 6 clerics had when they prayed and one idiot complained. someone in those "Prayer/Meditation" rooms can still see them and complain... back to square one.

the main problem is not that the Muslims Pray. but that people see them praying and think "OMG, Islamic terrorists" like that idiot did when he saw some of those six clerics praying.

having them go to a special room (even if it's open for meditation/prayer for all religions) might backfire since people would wonder, are they praying or finalizing plans for some act of terror.

also if these rooms are not monitored, you can have smugglers using these rooms also.So do you mind that there's pretty darn luxurious parenting rooms? No one seems to commandeer those for unnecessary purposes or use them for smuggling...

I just thought of some problems tho. if these "Prayer/Meditation" rooms are open for anyone to use, what's stopping the general public from commandeering these rooms for their own little psduo lounge? thus making those prayers the same in those rooms as if it was done at the main waiting lounge.

and if anyone can go in, that doesn't stop the problem that those 6 clerics had when they prayed and one idiot complained. someone in those "Prayer/Meditation" rooms can still see them and complain... back to square one.

the main problem is not that the Muslims Pray. but that people see them praying and think "OMG, Islamic terrorists" like that idiot did when he saw some of those six clerics praying.

having them go to a special room (even if it's open for meditation/prayer for all religions) might backfire since people would wonder, are they praying or finalizing plans for some act of terror.

also if these rooms are not monitored, you can have smugglers using these rooms also.

Considering that many airports already HAVE a prayer-room, it doesn't seem to be a problem. But I do agree that the problem of jackasses complaining based on their religion, a problem which would be solvable by hefty fines (and forcible pay for damages) to whatever company that didn't fly someone who was cleared in security without evidence against the person.

Considering that many airports already HAVE a prayer-room, it doesn't seem to be a problem. But I do agree that the problem of jackasses complaining based on their religion, a problem which would be solvable by hefty fines (and forcible pay for damages) to whatever company that didn't fly someone who was cleared in security without evidence against the person.To my knowledge, the airport in question does not.

Considering that many airports already HAVE a prayer-room, it doesn't seem to be a problem. But I do agree that the problem of jackasses complaining based on their religion, a problem which would be solvable by hefty fines (and forcible pay for damages) to whatever company that didn't fly someone who was cleared in security without evidence against the person.
A smart airline--an oxymoron if ever there were one--might make it quietly known among the Muslim community that they're willing to guarantee that if security says you're clean, you won't be harassed off a plane, and would then find themselves the airline of choice for a growing segment of Americans. It wouldn't be enough to sustain an airline, but it might certainly be a niche market that could boost some profits.

Here's an idea, build a Muslim prayer area and then charge for use of it. I smell profit. :D

Here's an idea, build a Muslim prayer area and then charge for use of it. I smell profit. :D

No profit due to the fact that the muslims would cater to the common prayer area they asked for, for free. Even IF that was ethical.

A smart airline--an oxymoron if ever there were one--might make it quietly known among the Muslim community that they're willing to guarantee that if security says you're clean, you won't be harassed off a plane, and would then find themselves the airline of choice for a growing segment of Americans. It wouldn't be enough to sustain an airline, but it might certainly be a niche market that could boost some profits.

They'd lose market from conservative nutcases.

They'd lose market from conservative nutcases.
That's why they'd have to keep it quiet. It's certainly not something that you could broadcast loudly.

Okay, it's probably unworkable, but I figure that with the current shape of the airline industry, anything is worth trying once, right? What's the worst that could happen? Bankruptcy? Airlines go in and out of bankruptcy like Liz Taylor went in and out of marriages.

A smart airline--an oxymoron if ever there were one--might make it quietly known among the Muslim community that they're willing to guarantee that if security says you're clean, you won't be harassed off a plane, and would then find themselves the airline of choice for a growing segment of Americans. It wouldn't be enough to sustain an airline, but it might certainly be a niche market that could boost some profits.
I thought sustaining operation required profitability. In fact, I would have thought a profitable airline would be operational, as well. I must have missed something.

The idea of In sha' allah Airlines is kind of intriguing, though after that Egypt Air pilot committed suicide, along with the murder of a couple hundred souls on board, I'm not so sure I'd fly it.

I thought sustaining operation required profitability. In fact, I would have thought a profitable airline would be operational, as well. I must have missed something.

The idea of In sha' allah Airlines is kind of intriguing, though after that Egypt Air pilot committed suicide, along with the murder of a couple hundred souls on board, I'm not so sure I'd fly it.

I didn't word that well. What I meant was that it's probably not a big enough market to sustain an airline on its own, but it could be a niche that, if exploited well, could make a difference on the bottom line. There is, however, a great potential for backlash, as someone else pointed out.

Considering that many airports already HAVE a prayer-room, it doesn't seem to be a problem. But I do agree that the problem of jackasses complaining based on their religion, a problem which would be solvable by hefty fines (and forcible pay for damages) to whatever company that didn't fly someone who was cleared in security without evidence against the person.
First, remember that our security is a joke, anyway. I mean it hires people that can barely think and then discourages them from doing any more than following a set of procedures.

Second, remember that the folks that hijacked the aircraft on 9/11 were cleared by a security process that is remarkably similar to the one that we have today.

Last, I would hate to see airlines coerced into flying unsafe passengers because they were afraid of fines.

Last, I would hate to see airlines coerced into flying unsafe passengers because they were afraid of fines.
And I'd hate to see innocent people forced off a plane due to bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance.

First, remember that our security is a joke, anyway. I mean it hires people that can barely think and then discourages them from doing any more than following a set of procedures.

Second, remember that the folks that hijacked the aircraft on 9/11 were cleared by a security process that is remarkably similar to the one that we have today.

Last, I would hate to see airlines coerced into flying unsafe passengers because they were afraid of fines.

Well, the potential for fines would certainly cause the airline inustry to "encourage" stronger security measures, wouldn't it?

It sounds to me like we have similar goals--safe flights. We just have different methods about getting there.

If they should be granted special religious accommodations in a largely public and secular area, then in turn I should be able to walk into a mosque and demand a ham sandwich.

I'm conflicted. I vastly prefer that the superstitious refrain from practicing their mumbo-jumbo around me, and so I like the idea of creating a nice quiet little box for them to go play in.

At the same time, however, I don't think they are entitled to have special spaces set up to cater to their superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

So which will win? My principled anti-mumbo-jumbo stance, or my strong personal desire to have superstition removed from my presence?

And I'd hate to see innocent people forced off a plane due to bigotry, intolerance, and ignorance.
Ah, the compassionate idealist...

Here's where my theory on decisions takes over. One is faced with a decision that must be made. The information is limited. The best decision is the one that has the least damaging consequences if it is made incorrectly.

Faced with six potentially hostile passengers (PHP), a pilot must decide whether or not to take them on his aircraft. If he decides to take them, the flight may be completed without incident, or in the worst case, the aircraft and all passengers may be lost due to some action on the PHPs. If he decides to eject them, figuratively of course, the plane may or may not be relatively safer, but the worst case is that the PHPs are re-screened, re-boarded, and reach their destination a little late.

The best decision is the one to remove the PHPs from the aircraft. Of course, you have to be in touch with real life for it to make any difference to you.

Well, the potential for fines would certainly cause the airline inustry to "encourage" stronger security measures, wouldn't it?

It sounds to me like we have similar goals--safe flights. We just have different methods about getting there.

I would think lost revenues would be a stronger encouragement. But what we see is that the airlines and airports are reluctant to refuse the TSA's 'help'. Now we get the banned item of the week, neatly wrapped up in a quart ziplock bag. Personally, I just don't fly if the trip is under 8 hours of driving. My old threshold was 6 hours and it might go up again if the TSA continues to promote rude and incompetent employees into positions of responsibility.

Ah, the compassionate idealist...

Here's where my theory on decisions takes over. One is faced with a decision that must be made. The information is limited. The best decision is the one that has the least damaging consequences if it is made incorrectly.

Faced with six potentially hostile passengers (PHP), a pilot must decide whether or not to take them on his aircraft. If he decides to take them, the flight may be completed without incident, or in the worst case, the aircraft and all passengers may be lost due to some action on the PHPs. If he decides to eject them, figuratively of course, the plane may or may not be relatively safer, but the worst case is that the PHPs are re-screened, re-boarded, and reach their destination a little late.

The best decision is the one to remove the PHPs from the aircraft. Of course, you have to be in touch with real life for it to make any difference to you.
But why do you perceive them as potentially hostile? Because they're of a different faith? Because they speak a different language? What you're really describing is just an excuse for bigotry, ass-covering as I described it earlier.

I would think lost revenues would be a stronger encouragement. But what we see is that the airlines and airports are reluctant to refuse the TSA's 'help'. Now we get the banned item of the week, neatly wrapped up in a quart ziplock bag. Personally, I just don't fly if the trip is under 8 hours of driving. My old threshold was 6 hours and it might go up again if the TSA continues to promote rude and incompetent employees into positions of responsibility.

That much we agree on. It's actually to the point that in less than a month, my g/f and I are driving 14 hours to New Orleans picking up my daughter and getting on a train to Denver for her brother's wedding, in part because she doesn't like to fly. Funny thing is, in the long run, it's going to be slightly cheaper to do it that way as well.

Ah, the compassionate idealist...

Here's where my theory on decisions takes over. One is faced with a decision that must be made. The information is limited. The best decision is the one that has the least damaging consequences if it is made incorrectly.

Faced with six potentially hostile passengers (PHP), a pilot must decide whether or not to take them on his aircraft. If he decides to take them, the flight may be completed without incident, or in the worst case, the aircraft and all passengers may be lost due to some action on the PHPs. If he decides to eject them, figuratively of course, the plane may or may not be relatively safer, but the worst case is that the PHPs are re-screened, re-boarded, and reach their destination a little late.

The best decision is the one to remove the PHPs from the aircraft. Of course, you have to be in touch with real life for it to make any difference to you.
Actually, I view it more as, "Oh noes! Those people are different from me! I'm scared! WAAAAA!!! I'm gonna bitch and moan, and piss myself till the airline agrees with me that all brown skin people are kicked off the plane."
And this argument has been used with EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. SO-CALLED. THREAT!

Quick! The Chinese are coming! The Yellow Peril! We MUST keep them out of the country!

OH NO! Blacks are running around! We HAVE to keep them segregated for our safety!

Dear God! The Japanese have bombed Pearl, obviously we MUST lock up all American citizens of Japanese decent to keep them from attacking us.

The Irish, the Italians, the Native Americans, the Mexicans. Don't you guys every get tired of being proved wrong? Because that's always how it happens. You crap your pants in fear, do something horrible, and then we as a nation end up apologizing over it years later wondering how on earth we could have been barbaric enough to EVER think of such a thing!

I'm conflicted. I vastly prefer that the superstitious refrain from practicing their mumbo-jumbo around me, and so I like the idea of creating a nice quiet little box for them to go play in.

At the same time, however, I don't think they are entitled to have special spaces set up to cater to their superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

So which will win? My principled anti-mumbo-jumbo stance, or my strong personal desire to have superstition removed from my presence?

I suspect they'll compromise, they get a mumbo jumbo room very far away, but it's dark and smelly and the janitor keeps his cleaning equipment there.

It's a bit late in the thread to introduce another question, but what the hell: Does anyone think that even if the airports provided a room where Muslims could pray in private, that assholes still wouldn't try to get them tossed off planes? Hell, you'd probably have some jerks who would start a movement to keep an eye on the room and tail whoever came out of it. They'd accuse the Muslims who went in there to pray of secretly planning another attack and demand the room be wired for surveillance.

It seems to me that the imams in the original story are trying to go about this rationally, never admitting that the people who are coming after them aren't rational.

It's a bit late in the thread to introduce another question, but what the hell: Does anyone think that even if the airports provided a room where Muslims could pray in private, that assholes still wouldn't try to get them tossed off planes? Hell, you'd probably have some jerks who would start a movement to keep an eye on the room and tail whoever came out of it. They'd accuse the Muslims who went in there to pray of secretly planning another attack and demand the room be wired for surveillance.
I doubt the assholes in question will ever be happy with having muslims anywhere near them. I think we'd all be better off to segregate the assholes from society. We'd all be happier.

I doubt the assholes in question will ever be happy with having muslims anywhere near them. I think we'd all be better off to segregate the assholes from society. We'd all be happier.
I forget which of the many xenophobic threads this happened in, but I read one person ranting about how there are more Muslims than ever, and too few xenophobes who hate Muslims. According to this ranter, the Western world is now full of Muslims and virtually out of white racists who hate Muslims.

It sounded to me like a great argument for why we should boot the xenophobes; it would be far more cost effective to remove a few of them than to deport the vast Muslim hordes that they claim are already living among us.

I forget which of the many xenophobic threads this happened in, but I read one person ranting about how there are more Muslims than ever, and too few xenophobes who hate Muslims. According to this ranter, the Western world is now full of Muslims and virtually out of white racists who hate Muslims.

It sounded to me like a great argument for why we should boot the xenophobes; it would be far more cost effective to remove a few of them than to deport the vast Muslim hordes that they claim are already living among us.

Sounds workable to me. They'd be happy being away from all the icky muslims, and everyone would be happy with less racist xenophobes wandering round.

But why do you perceive them as potentially hostile? Because they're of a different faith? Because they speak a different language? What you're really describing is just an excuse for bigotry, ass-covering as I described it earlier.

Notice that I didn't qualify what makes a potentially hostile person. It could be a drunk, or it could be an hysterically afraid passenger. It could even be six Muslims that act suspiciously. That's something for a pilot to decide when the time comes. I don't know enough about the situation with the Imams to decide how they fall out because I wasn't there and I haven't read a report of the investigation. This is more of an abstract exercise that points out why it might be a good idea to remove someone from an aircraft.

[Or go to war with Iraq, for that matter. It's a general sort of theory.]

I'm going to assume that most pilots are interested in maintaining a favorable image of their airline in the public eye. That's probably re-enforced by airline management to the point of suspensions or even firings for arbitrary acts that cause really bad publicity or really expensive litigation.

So I'll further assume that the removal of one or more passengers isn't going to be a personal act of bigotry. It might be unfounded -- I allow for that and there might be some ass-covering on the part of the airline. Even though it's been shown time and time again that cover ups don't work, people always seem to think they're the ones that can pull it off -- this time.

Notice that I didn't qualify what makes a potentially hostile person. It could be a drunk, or it could be an hysterically afraid passenger. It could even be six Muslims that act suspiciously. That's something for a pilot to decide when the time comes. I don't know enough about the situation with the Imams to decide how they fall out because I wasn't there and I haven't read a report of the investigation. This is more of an abstract exercise that points out why it might be a good idea to remove someone from an aircraft.

[Or go to war with Iraq, for that matter. It's a general sort of theory.]

I'm going to assume that most pilots are interested in maintaining a favorable image of their airline in the public eye. That's probably re-enforced by airline management to the point of suspensions or even firings for arbitrary acts that cause really bad publicity or really expensive litigation.

So I'll further assume that the removal of one or more passengers isn't going to be a personal act of bigotry. It might be unfounded -- I allow for that and there might be some ass-covering on the part of the airline. Even though it's been shown time and time again that cover ups don't work, people always seem to think they're the ones that can pull it off -- this time.

Too bad the muslims in question weren't acting in any suspicious way. Too bad Iraq had no WMDs and now people are dead. Too bad you're perfectly willing to get all those innocents caught in the middle because of their religion. How many mistakes will you allow, then? How many murders until you feel safe? You act like an Aztec god!

Now, kindly answer the FIRST response you got from me in this thread? Or do you accept it as being true?

The only line between church and states is where the states keeps out of the church and not the other way around. However, I still do disagree with the muslims.

Too bad the muslims in question weren't acting in any suspicious way. Now, kindly answer the FIRST response you got from me in this thread? Or do you accept it as being true?

Why? It's irrelevant, off topic, and completely in error. Wait, I forgot offensive and prejudiced in the list of reasons of why I shouldn't respond.

Why? It's irrelevant, off topic, and completely in error. Wait, I forgot offensive and prejudiced in the list of reasons of why I shouldn't respond.

Point out how it's irrelevant and off-topic. Point out the errors. And, given your own history, point out how it is "prejudiced". As for offensive, not only show me where it offended you, you also call muslims worse things in a regular basis.

You could have attempted to dodge the point in a more stylish (and effective) way.

The only line between church and states is where the states keeps out of the church and not the other way around. However, I still do disagree with the muslims.

YES the other way around as well, church has no business putting its paws on the state. However, that's not the issue here, not even for the muslims in question. What they asked was the same kind of ecumenic prayer room other airports have already, nothing more, nothing less.

Well, as far as I know there isn't really a Christian equivilant to the Headscarf for one.
that would depend on your denomination, however what you mean is you see it as more legalistic because of the outward signs of the faith and therefore choose to believe that it's more demanding.

This talk about segregating and deporting people based on their beliefs (in this case xenophobia), dispite how abhorrent they may be, is a bit too orwellian don't you think? Why not wire peoples' brain with a device that terminates the subject when a distasteful thought or idea enters their mind?

This talk about segregating and deporting people based on their beliefs (in this case xenophobia), dispite how abhorrent they may be, is a bit too orwellian don't you think? Why not wire peoples' brain with a device that terminates the subject when a distasteful thought or idea enters their mind?

Nah, the technology to do that doesn't officially exist yet.

YES the other way around as well, church has no business putting its paws on the state. However, that's not the issue here, not even for the muslims in question. What they asked was the same kind of ecumenic prayer room other airports have already, nothing more, nothing less.


Excuse me, but wasn't the United States of America based upon Christianity? If this is so doesn't that mean that the church has every right to be in the government?

Excuse me, but wasn't the United States of America based upon Christianity? If this is so doesn't that mean that the church has every right to be in the government?
No, and no.

Next question?

Excuse me, but wasn't the United States of America based upon Christianity? If this is so doesn't that mean that the church has every right to be in the government?

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

And bear in mind that I'm not even FROM your country, yet I seem to know more about this.

Excuse me, but wasn't the United States of America based upon Christianity? If this is so doesn't that mean that the church has every right to be in the government?

Incorrect, sir.

http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/xian.php

Read up and be informed.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

And bear in mind that I'm not even FROM your country, yet I seem to know more about this.

Yeah, it's sad. It seems the most "patriotic" seem to know the least about their country, and the most "faithful" seem to know the least about their religion.

Yeah, it's sad. It seems the most "patriotic" seem to know the least about their country, and the most "faithful" seem to know the least about their religion.

The more you know about it, the less devoted you'll wanna be. ;)

This talk about segregating and deporting people based on their beliefs (in this case xenophobia), dispite how abhorrent they may be, is a bit too orwellian don't you think? Why not wire peoples' brain with a device that terminates the subject when a distasteful thought or idea enters their mind?

If we'd been serious about it, perhaps you'd have reason to be worried.

I'd be inclined to give them the Prayer Room if they want it that badly, because their praying is significantly more complex that the Christian form. People complain of how much special treatment the Muslims are asking for, but I'm not sure how much they realise just how... demanding their beliefs are, and that their worship isn't really on the same level as that of your average Christian.

So, in short, let 'em 'av it if they want it.
Not really much of a hassle anyway, an extra room shouldnt cost too much for the Aiport builders.

Compromise:
Let any religion that wants to put up the cash and rent one of the airport shops, just like they'd rent a building for a church/temple/mosque.

Why should the 90+% of folks who aren't that particular religion have to shell out for the use of a small percentage of the folks who want to pray there?

Alternatively, let CAIR put together their equivlant of the Crown Rooms, the clubs frequent fliers can join to get into the plush lounge certain airlines provide. Then Moslem folks who are frequent fliers who contribute $X to CAIR would get a pass to let them into the "Airport Mosque"

Point out how it's irrelevant and off-topic. Point out the errors. And, given your own history, point out how it is "prejudiced". As for offensive, not only show me where it offended you, you also call muslims worse things in a regular basis.

You could have attempted to dodge the point in a more stylish (and effective) way.

You're delusional. I think you're seeing things that aren't there. Please point out of few of those 'worse things'.

If we'd been serious about it, perhaps you'd have reason to be worried.

It can be hard to tell on these forums. I've heard worse, and they were quite sincere.

Compromise:
Let any religion that wants to put up the cash and rent one of the airport shops, just like they'd rent a building for a church/temple/mosque.

Why should the 90+% of folks who aren't that particular religion have to shell out for the use of a small percentage of the folks who want to pray there?

Alternatively, let CAIR put together their equivlant of the Crown Rooms, the clubs frequent fliers can join to get into the plush lounge certain airlines provide. Then Moslem folks who are frequent fliers who contribute $X to CAIR would get a pass to let them into the "Airport Mosque"

This would be a fine compromise if they were asking for a room to a specific religion, which they ARE NOT, unlike what the OP wants to fool people here into thinking.

Excuse me, but wasn't the United States of America based upon Christianity? If this is so doesn't that mean that the church has every right to be in the government?No:
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rantpix/article11.gif

I don't know, maybe I'm not understanding the facts of what appears to be happening.

It seems that the majority, in America, are some what tied to Christianity. Now, as the majority being Christian, It seems as if Christianity appears to being under attack (prayer in schools=no more, The Pledge's "Under God"=under attack and is losing the battle to remain in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" found on the US Dollars=under attack, The "Ten Commandments"=no longer allowed at courthouses, etc......)

I don't feel that the above should be declared to be a conflict/limits of seperation of church and state. I don't feel that the above is a reflection of favoritism. I feel it to be giving into the demands of the majority and their right to "Freedom of Religion" I don't believe that the constitution declares it to be "Freedom of Religion in the privacy of your Home" To state that it is unconstitutional to have anything in regards to God in the Public place doesn't sound like "Freedom of Religion" to me. It sounds more like "Restricted and Designated places of Religion".

I guess, I just never understood why it is wrong and unconstitutional to support the majority.

Most of the important airports in my country have a Christian Prayer room, which is always empty (at least when I walk by it).
No one has complained yet.
Except me, but well, thats me.

You're delusional. I think you're seeing things that aren't there. Please point out of few of those 'worse things'.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11891111&postcount=9

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9539080&postcount=1

Now will you stop dodging and actually answer that first reply I gave you, or admit defeat?

I guess, I just never understood why it is wrong and unconstitutional to support the majority.

That's a cute, and emotional, strawman you just created there.

Majority still rules in the US, but it doesn't mean it should become a tyrant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

There's a difference between democracy and ochlocracy. Do some research and check if you'll get it.

I guess, I just never understood why it is wrong and unconstitutional to support the majority.


Replace christians as the majority with just about anything else,
vegetarians
muslims
nudists
lesbianism
fox hunting


now do you want it printed on your money
on display as the base standard outside courts
or have schools promote it to your children
just because the majority are happy with it

I don't know, maybe I'm not understanding the facts of what appears to be happening.

It seems that the majority, in America, are some what tied to Christianity. Now, as the majority being Christian, It seems as if Christianity appears to being under attack (prayer in schools=no more, The Pledge's "Under God"=under attack and is losing the battle to remain in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" found on the US Dollars=under attack, The "Ten Commandments"=no longer allowed at courthouses, etc......)

I don't feel that the above should be declared to be a conflict/limits of seperation of church and state. I don't feel that the above is a reflection of favoritism. I feel it to be giving into the demands of the majority and their right to "Freedom of Religion" I don't believe that the constitution declares it to be "Freedom of Religion in the privacy of your Home" To state that it is unconstitutional to have anything in regards to God in the Public place doesn't sound like "Freedom of Religion" to me. It sounds more like "Restricted and Designated places of Religion".

I guess, I just never understood why it is wrong and unconstitutional to support the majority.
Come on, man. You don't really think christianity is under attack, right? You're smarter than that, right?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11891111&postcount=9

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9539080&postcount=1

Now will you stop dodging and actually answer that first reply I gave you, or admit defeat?
You're first post in this thread is quite disorganized and doesn't make a lot of sense. It looks more like a rant and a personal attack. If you would revise it, so that there is a point to it, I'll see what I think. But right now, it's too incoherent for a response.

Interesting choices, but despite the obvious use of hyperbole on my part, I stand by my statements. I do think that profiling would completely eliminate the problems that the Imams experienced on the U.S. Airways flight. As the second link points out, not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorists are Muslim. Again, note the hyperbole.

Besides what's wrong with the statement, "we must expel people who resist western values and encourage terrorism."?

Montreal has a non-denominational prayer/meditation room that is on the public side of the security cordon. I peek my head in when I go to the airport. It is not used too often, but people do use the space for praying and meditation. I assume it is always monitored, just like the rest of the airport. It seems to work fine. The Muslims in the OP article are probably going to end up with something like that, now that they have opened a dialog with the airport.

I liked the article, by the way, and I should bookmark it for whenever people say that the Muslim communities are not making an effort to find a solution to the problems caused by the war on terror.

The areas in question are not open to non-travelers. So if smugglers are trading stuff, then airport security has failed.....err... smugglers are usually travelling. and a nice private room to provide a private area to "move stuff to different hiding areas" would make em harder to catch.

So do you mind that there's pretty darn luxurious parenting rooms? No one seems to commandeer those for unnecessary purposes or use them for smuggling...how do you know?

also Parenting Rooms usually means kids. most people without kids, I can see, would avoid those rooms since they will be stuck on a flying, pressurized tube with those kids for a while.

Considering that many airports already HAVE a prayer-room, it doesn't seem to be a problem. But I do agree that the problem of jackasses complaining based on their religion, a problem which would be solvable by hefty fines (and forcible pay for damages) to whatever company that didn't fly someone who was cleared in security without evidence against the person.there is such a thing in place. it's called a civil lawsuit. defamation of character. especially if it leads to things such as being labeled a thread and tossed off the plane. now if they (those that are labeled as such) point their lawsuit at the passenger that id'ed them...

You're first post in this thread is quite disorganized and doesn't make a lot of sense. It looks more like a rant and a personal attack. If you would revise it, so that there is a point to it, I'll see what I think. But right now, it's too incoherent for a response.

Interesting choices, but despite the obvious use of hyperbole on my part, I stand by my statements. I do think that profiling would completely eliminate the problems that the Imams experienced on the U.S. Airways flight. As the second link points out, not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorists are Muslim. Again, note the hyperbole.

Besides what's wrong with the statement, "we must expel people who resist western values and encourage terrorism."?
If that's what the second link is actually claiming, you need to find new sources, because they're idiots. There's been way more home-grown terrorism in the US than Muslim terrorism. Hell, I did a massive thread on it just a week or so ago. It's vastly underreported, but it exists all the same.

You're first post in this thread is quite disorganized and doesn't make a lot of sense. It looks more like a rant and a personal attack. If you would revise it, so that there is a point to it, I'll see what I think. But right now, it's too incoherent for a response.

Oh really? Let's see what the other posters think, then.

False.

Let's pretend the OP isn't highly biased against muslims for one moment.

The muslims wanted a prayer room for PRAYER, not for THEIR prayer. They have their own rituals, and they asked for a prayer room for ANYONE with their own rituals to pray in. That way, OTHER religions could also use the room.

I also find you conspicuously silent whenever the issue is about the CHRISTIAN religion wanting to have a say on state matters. Let's not forget that you support a man that claims to be guided by GOD as a president.

You had a reason to try and make this sound bad, which is, now I stop pretending, your bias against muslims.

Game, set, match.

Everyone here, please make a judgement call on the coherency of this post?

Interesting choices, but despite the obvious use of hyperbole on my part, I stand by my statements. I do think that profiling would completely eliminate the problems that the Imams experienced on the U.S. Airways flight. As the second link points out, not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorists are Muslim. Again, note the hyperbole.

Besides what's wrong with the statement, "we must expel "people who resist western values and encourage terrorism"?

"Obvious hyperbole", nice dodge there. You claim to be offended by my pointing out your bias against muslims and cry hyperbole when I point out a description of you calling them (NOT "people who resist western values and encourage terrorism") enemies of civilization.

Do you think you're fooling anyone besides yourself into believing that you can beat me in this argument?

You seem to have mischaracterized the article here. It is made clear that the airport in question did not have a meditation room, and the proposed solution here was to add one. They aren't asking for a special "Muslim room", but for *somewhere* they could go and be out of the way while saying prayers.



Generally, no they are not. A government may help fund them by giving certain grants because they want the boost to the economy that an airport can bring, but I don't think they are generally considered government facilities.



Depends on the Muslim and how they choose to pray.

Of course, it wouldn't be an issue if idiots didn't complain and have Muslims kicked off airplanes because they were praying in the airport.

The title of the article was "Muslim Prayer Room Sought at MSP". I don't think I characterized anything incorrectly. And while there are private airports, certainly they are not all privately owned. The city of Atlanta owns and administers Hartsfield-Jackson, other cities own other airports. My concern is that if the display of the Ten Commandments is unconscionable, then so should be an airport prayer room. I am all for a quiet room to meditate, but I would expect other occupants to have the courtesy to use the room for the stated purpose.

Oh really? Let's see what the other posters think, then.



Everyone here, please make a judgement call on the coherency of this post?



"Obvious hyperbole", nice dodge there. You claim to be offended by my pointing out your bias against muslims and cry hyperbole when I point out a description of you calling them (NOT "people who resist western values and encourage terrorism") enemies of civilization.

Do you think you're fooling anyone besides yourself into believing that you can beat me in this argument?
Again, you're delusional. I'm not trying to argue with you. It's not possible. If we were face-to-face, this would be a shouting match, except that I don't do that. As far as your quoted post goes, I'd rather have you point out the premise to me, rather than ask for others to interpret it.

The title of the article was "Muslim Prayer Room Sought at MSP". I don't think I characterized anything incorrectly. And while there are private airports, certainly they are not all privately owned. The city of Atlanta owns and administers Hartsfield-Jackson, other cities own other airports. My concern is that if the display of the Ten Commandments is unconscionable, then so should be an airport prayer room. I am all for a quiet room to meditate, but I would expect other occupants to have the courtesy to use the room for the stated purpose.

So you're basically trying to push us the title of the article as opposed to its content, which clearly states that the muslims are looking for a non-denominational room.

That's so... you.

Actually, I view it more as, "Oh noes! Those people are different from me! I'm scared! WAAAAA!!! I'm gonna bitch and moan, and piss myself till the airline agrees with me that all brown skin people are kicked off the plane."
And this argument has been used with EVERY. GOD. DAMNED. SO-CALLED. THREAT!

Quick! The Chinese are coming! The Yellow Peril! We MUST keep them out of the country!

OH NO! Blacks are running around! We HAVE to keep them segregated for our safety!

Dear God! The Japanese have bombed Pearl, obviously we MUST lock up all American citizens of Japanese decent to keep them from attacking us.

The Irish, the Italians, the Native Americans, the Mexicans. Don't you guys every get tired of being proved wrong? Because that's always how it happens. You crap your pants in fear, do something horrible, and then we as a nation end up apologizing over it years later wondering how on earth we could have been barbaric enough to EVER think of such a thing!all that proves is that PEOPLE (in general) take a long time to learn to accept that which is different.

It's a bit late in the thread to introduce another question, but what the hell: Does anyone think that even if the airports provided a room where Muslims could pray in private, that assholes still wouldn't try to get them tossed off planes? Hell, you'd probably have some jerks who would start a movement to keep an eye on the room and tail whoever came out of it. They'd accuse the Muslims who went in there to pray of secretly planning another attack and demand the room be wired for surveillance.

It seems to me that the imams in the original story are trying to go about this rationally, never admitting that the people who are coming after them aren't rational.I did touch upon that idea. all that such rooms will do is identify whos a religious person, and if they "look" muslim, then that paints an even bigger and more noticable target on their backs.

Excuse me, but wasn't the United States of America based upon Christianity? If this is so doesn't that mean that the church has every right to be in the government?since everyone else was... anyway. no. America may (by matter of opinion) be influenced on the Christian religion, but it's not MEANT to be a Christian nation. it's actually baised on the freedom to worship any religion you choose. even if you choose not to worship anything. The Church has no place telling the government what to do, and at the same time, the Government has no right telling the church what to do (outside the context of laws meant for everyone)

Most of the important airports in my country have a Christian Prayer room, which is always empty (at least when I walk by it).
No one has complained yet.
Except me, but well, thats me.really... it actually says "Christian Prayer Room" on the door? wow...

If that's what the second link is actually claiming, you need to find new sources, because they're idiots. There's been way more home-grown terrorism in the US than Muslim terrorism. Hell, I did a massive thread on it just a week or so ago. It's vastly underreported, but it exists all the same.
I know you understand what hyperbole means. Sometimes I have weak moments and I like sweeping generalizations.

I know you understand what hyperbole means. Sometimes I have weak moments and I like sweeping generalizations.

You weren't clear on whether you were being hyperbolic, or whether the article was the hyperbolic one. Just trying to clarify.

The title of the article was "Muslim Prayer Room Sought at MSP". I don't think I characterized anything incorrectly. And while there are private airports, certainly they are not all privately owned. The city of Atlanta owns and administers Hartsfield-Jackson, other cities own other airports. My concern is that if the display of the Ten Commandments is unconscionable, then so should be an airport prayer room. I am all for a quiet room to meditate, but I would expect other occupants to have the courtesy to use the room for the stated purpose.So you're basically trying to push us the title of the article as opposed to its content, which clearly states that the muslims are looking for a non-denominational room.

That's so... you.
actually, no I blame the newspapers and media in general. such "Scare" headlines puts the focus on the wrong thing. I too had to re-read the article a couple of times to realize that the muslims were not asking for a Muslim Prayer room, but a quiet area where they can pray (and is open to others.) the Title does condition the mind to expect and read into it, more than is there.

So you're basically trying to push us the title of the article as opposed to its content, which clearly states that the muslims are looking for a non-denominational room.

That's so... you.

A separate room "in which they could say one of their five daily prayers to Mecca" doesn't sound all that non-denominational to me. Which article did you read?

I know you understand what hyperbole means. Sometimes I have weak moments and I like sweeping generalizations.

Wait, does that mean I get to offend people and get away with it by yelling "hyperbole" five seconds after?

actually, no I blame the newspapers and media in general. such "Scare" headlines puts the focus on the wrong thing. I too had to re-read the article a couple of times to realize that the muslims were not asking for a Muslim Prayer room, but a quiet area where they can pray (and is open to others.) the Title does condition the mind to expect and read into it, more than is there.

I've read the linked article a few times and the only thing that is directly attributable to Muslims, that I see, is the part where they want a room to say prayers in. That sounds like a prayer room to me. And when they are saying their prayers, it will be very difficult for me to use it as a quiet room for meditation, won't it?

A separate room "in which they could say one of their five daily prayers to Mecca" doesn't sound all that non-denominational to me. Which article did you read?

Yes. A room in which THEY could say one of their five daily prayers to Mecca, which, and I hope you don't fail discourse analysis at THIS level, does NOT preclude Christians using it to kneel and pray, or chaoticians using it to charge a sigil...

I've read the linked article a few times and the only thing that is directly attributable to Muslims, that I see, is the part where they want a room to say prayers in. That sounds like a prayer room to me. And when they are saying their prayers, it will be very difficult for me to use it as a quiet room for meditation, won't it?

Would your panties be in a bunch if it was a group of Christians that wanted to say THEIR prayers out loud? It's not like the muslims yell their prayers. Admit it, you just don't want muslims to pray. Or exist, for that matter.

I've read the linked article a few times and the only thing that is directly attributable to Muslims, that I see, is the part where they want a room to say prayers in. That sounds like a prayer room to me. And when they are saying their prayers, it will be very difficult for me to use it as a quiet room for meditation, won't it?

yes, but when you combine that with the title, it implies a muslim prayer room.

and the thing is, they didn't ask for a "Prayer room" at all. but a quiet private room open to all for things including prayer and meditation.

yes, but when you combine that with the title, it implies a muslim prayer room.

and the thing is, they didn't ask for a "Prayer room" at all.

And yet that's what Myrm insists on claiming they did.

In most airports there are already secluded, nondenominational prayer rooms that are generally empty.

I say that they should use those rooms. No special rooms for specific religions.


Agreed.

And yet that's what Myrm insists on claiming they did.

They might draw less attention, they told airport officials Friday, if they had a separate room in which they could say one of their five daily prayers to Mecca.

with the title in mind "Muslim prayer room sought at MSP", that is exactly what it sounds like.

and with that in mind, it's the airport director that made the suggestion/mention of Meditation rooms that are in other airports. not the clerics, so reading deeper, it's sounds more like the muslims are asking for a room for muslim prayers and the airport director being the "open" one.

and all that can be inferred by a mind that is "tainted" by a slanted title.

now if the title said "A General Prayer/Meditation room sought at MSP" the article takes on a different tone.

I've read the linked article a few times and the only thing that is directly attributable to Muslims, that I see, is the part where they want a room to say prayers in. That sounds like a prayer room to me. And when they are saying their prayers, it will be very difficult for me to use it as a quiet room for meditation, won't it?

I do not believe they made a specific demand for a prayer room. It appeared to me that they were more interested in developing a dialogue.

After their prayer, the group of clerics went into a private meeting with Wareham and officials from the airport's police force. Airport spokesman Pat Hogan said the group didn't make any specific demands, but were more interested in forging a better relationship with airport decision-makers.

I got that impression from the bolded sentence in the article.

Again, you're delusional. I'm not trying to argue with you. It's not possible.

I agree that it's not possible for YOU to argue with me. Other posters have had no such difficulty.

If we were face-to-face, this would be a shouting match, except that I don't do that.

Only if you chose to make it one. Right now all you seem to be able to do, instead of discussing my points, is dodge.

As far as your quoted post goes, I'd rather have you point out the premise to me, rather than ask for others to interpret it.

Let's play it your way, then, even though the premise is clear.

1- The muslims didn't want a prayer room for themselves, they wanted one for the public in general, not only muslims.

2- You posted a thread with a title that implied that they were blurring the line between church and state, which they aren't.

3- You have a history, as I have shown, of bias against muslims.

Ergo, you posted the thread in which I am currently winning an argument against you in order to uphold that bias by making a non-issue into an issue. You did that by implying that the muslims wanted a prayer room for themselves when, clearly, they didn't. And you're increasingly grasping at straws to justify your claims.

Is that understandable now?

Now, Muslims want they're own prayer rooms in airports (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20401.html?cat=1). Great go to the non-denominational chapel. Or quietly use the meditation rooms at any number of other airports.

But wait, aren't airports government facilities, by and large? What business do they have in providing _any_ facility for any religious purpose?

Can't Muslims pray quietly while sitting or standing in a quiet area? Does it always require the rugs, the kneeling, and the loud chanting?
1) Your opening paragraph denotes prejudice and has nothing to do with the content of the article you linked to. I enjoy the way you just ignore the facts presented in your own article -- this is not a demand being made by Muslim groups for special treatment at all airports. The fact is that the specific airport in question DOES NOT provide a chapel or meditation space for anyone, so that those who wish to practice their religion have no choice but to do it in public. But hey, why let a little thing like truth get in the way of a good anti-Muslim rant?

2) Airports in the US are NOT government facilities, neither federal nor state. That's why there has been so much controversy over whether the government or the airports themselves should provide security and screening. US airports are private property licensed by the FAA, and they may offer whatever ancillary service facilities they like.

3) It is not up to you to dictate the form of other people's prayers. If Muslims believe that they have to kneel on a rug and pray aloud, it is not your place to tell them they don't have to. Just like it's not your place to tell Hassidic Jews that they do not have to daven (bow) while praying, nor your place to tell Catholics that they do not have to cross themselves while praying -- even though the sight of people praying in an airport may make other passengers superstitious about the danger of flying.

[snip] even though the sight of people praying in an airport may make other passengers superstitious about the danger of flying.
Idduno... the sight of those airline insurance kiosks also makes me more afraid of the dangers of flying than those that pray... :p

Idduno... the sight of those airline insurance kiosks also makes me more afraid of the dangers of flying than those that pray... :p
That and the sight of pilots knocking a few back at the concourse bars... KIDDING! KIDDING!

That's a cute, and emotional, strawman you just created there.

Majority still rules in the US, but it doesn't mean it should become a tyrant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy

There's a difference between democracy and ochlocracy. Do some research and check if you'll get it.

Oh, now I see so much clearer. Since I disagree with your views regarding taking religion out of everything in the public square and eyes view, I must be a strawman. I must be a troll too, for having different views and ideas. and all this time I thought I had the same Freedoms as anybody else in America. Guess not. I must be a Trolling Strawman. I'll keep this in mind. Right. :rolleyes:

Oh, now I see so much clearer. Since I disagree with your views regarding taking religion out of everything in the public square and eyes view, I must be a strawman. I must be a troll too, for having different views and ideas. and all this time I thought I had the same Freedoms as anybody else in America. Guess not. I must be a Trolling Strawman. I'll keep this in mind. Right. :rolleyes:

The troll remark is yours alone.

And you, indeed, HAVE set up a strawman by claiming that "if the religion of the majority isn't the state religion, the majority is being disrespected in its rights".

Now, will you kindly address my points or is that too difficult for you?

The troll remark is yours alone.

And you, indeed, HAVE set up a strawman by claiming that "if the religion of the majority isn't the state religion, the majority is being disrespected in its rights".

Now, will you kindly address my points or is that too difficult for you?

I hope what you put in Quotation isn't claiming what I said. If it is. I call you a liar and false quoter.

Why should I address your points? Are you referring to the false accusation of a "strawman" towards me for having a different view than you. I would have to say, Yes, it is difficult for me to discuss anything with a flamebaiter, such as yourself, who gives Quotes of flat out lies (Quotes of the Never said) and one who chooses to throw "Flame-baiting" names towards another.

I hope what you put in Quotation isn't claiming what I said. If it is. I call you a liar and false quoter.

Why should I address your points? Are you referring to the false accusation of a "strawman" towards me for having a different view than you. I would have to say, Yes, it is difficult for me to discuss anything with a flamebaiter, such as yourself, who gives Quotes of flat out lies (Quotes of the Never said) and one who chooses to throw "Flame-baiting" names towards another.

It isn't a claim to what you said, it's a claim to what you implied.

You made a strawman because you compared the majority not having its religion imposed to the majority being disenfranchised.

Bottom line is this: The USA do not have a state religion based on the majority because they were founded by people that were fleeing that exact same problem when they ran away from England.

You would do well to read more on your country's history.

Now, Muslims want they're own prayer rooms in airports (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20401.html?cat=1). Great go to the non-denominational chapel. Or quietly use the meditation rooms at any number of other airports.

But wait, aren't airports government facilities, by and large? What business do they have in providing _any_ facility for any religious purpose?

I don't see a problem with this at all. And I think its a stretch to say airports a part of the government, and a further stretch to to say that allowing this would somehow violate the so called "seperation of church and state"


Can't Muslims pray quietly while sitting or standing in a quiet area? Does it always require the rugs, the kneeling, and the loud chanting?
reading this made my head hurt, thanks.

2) Airports in the US are NOT government facilities, neither federal nor state. That's why there has been so much controversy over whether the government or the airports themselves should provide security and screening. US airports are private property licensed by the FAA, and they may offer whatever ancillary service facilities they like.


Yes they are. I've already stated that the Hartsfield airport is a City of Atlanta property, but here is a snippet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport#Airport_ownership_and_operation)from the Wiki.

In the United States, most airports are operated directly by government entities or government-created airport authorities (also known as port authorities). Only Indianapolis International Airport, which is owned by the City of Indianapolis and leased to BAA Indianapolis, Inc., a subsidiary of the British airport firm BAA plc, and Stewart International Airport in New York's Hudson Valley, are entirely operated by a private entity. Stewart International Airport was the nation's first privatized commercial airport and operates under a 99-year lease agreement with the New York State Department of Transportation. National Express Group, Inc., operates Stewart International Airport and is the United States subsidiary of the National Express Group, plc, in the United Kingdom.


So now we're down to allowing a room for meditation -- certainly a quiet pursuit. If a group starts to use it loudly, that clearly violates the purpose of the room. That is certainly why, in the second paragraph of the article I linked in, the Muslim group is asking for a prayer room. And there is no room for a prayer room in a government facility, be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddist, Sikh, or Hindu.

Yes they are. I've already stated that the Hartsfield airport is a City of Atlanta property, but here is a snippet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport#Airport_ownership_and_operation)from the Wiki.


So now we're down to allowing a room for meditation -- certainly a quiet pursuit. If a group starts to use it loudly, that clearly violates the purpose of the room. That is certainly why, in the second paragraph of the article I linked in, the Muslim group is asking for a prayer room. And there is no room for a prayer room in a government facility, be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddist, Sikh, or Hindu.

Oh, really? Tell me all about meditation, then, go ahead. Tell me, the friggin' OCCULTIST, that there are no methods of meditation or concentration that make the slightest bit of noise... Please, I BEG of you, claim that to me. Do you know what a mantra is?

Oh, really? Tell me all about meditation, then, go ahead. Tell me, the friggin' OCCULTIST, that there are no methods of meditation or concentration that make the slightest bit of noise... Please, I BEG of you, claim that to me. Do you know what a mantra is?

please calm down... you're making a scene. :p

most matras even most prayers are done quietly. infact, for christian prayers, doing it quietly and privately is encouraged.

is there any other prayer ritual that requires putting out a mat, facing a specific direction, kneeling and bowing and praying loudly?

even Mantras are not proscribed to being said LOUDLY, they can be murmured to ones self becuase the idea is not to disturb other meditators. and as for sitting in the lotus posistion, I do that because it's comfortable to me. and yes, I do that while sitting on one of those god awful chairs they got in the waiting area. so while unusual, it's not alarming.

I don't see a problem with this at all. And I think its a stretch to say airports a part of the government, and a further stretch to to say that allowing this would somehow violate the so called "seperation of church and state" I believe that even if the city owns it, it's part of the Government (City, State, Federal.) so making such specific allotments (a Prayer room) can be argued that it's a breaking of Church and State.

Now calling it a meeting room... or private rooms... that's something else.

even Mantras are not proscribed to being said LOUDLY, they can be murmured to ones self becuase the idea is not to disturb other meditators. and as for sitting in the lotus posistion, I do that because it's comfortable to me. and yes, I do that while sitting on one of those god awful chairs they got in the waiting area. so while unusual, it's not alarming.

Some mantras are a tad louder, yes. There are occultists that chant in an actually loud tone depending on the method they use (I don't, but that's just me). And Myrm is GREATLY exaggerating the loudness of muslim prayers. And their lenght (less than 2 minutes).

Some mantras are a tad louder, yes. And Myrm is GREATLY exaggerating the loudness of muslim prayers. And their lenght (less than 2 minutes).

and are those Mantras SUPPOSED To be said at certain times?

and while I agree LOUD is relative, that doesn't explain the others. (kneeling and such) which will cause people to look, watch, and draw their own conclusions. so having them gather in a special room really won't solve the problem.

wouldn't it be just as easy for the clerics to issue a tenant saying Prayers in Airports can be exscused provided it's done when one leaves the airport? They've had such proclimations decreed before on other things (of course its usually condemnation, but they must have some that are constructive...)

and are those Mantras SUPPOSED To be said at certain times?

and while I agree LOUD is relative, that doesn't explain the others. (kneeling and such) which will cause people to look, watch, and draw their own conclusions. so having them gather in a special room really won't solve the problem.

wouldn't it be just as easy for the clerics to issue a tenant saying Prayers in Airports can be exscused provided it's done when one leaves the airport? They've had such proclimations decreed before on other things (of course its usually condemnation, but they must have some that are constructive...)

Most proclamations are not condemnations, really. And it wouldn't work simply because SOME clerics say stuff that OTHER clerics disagree with, and islam isn't like the Catholic Church. Regardless, such rooms already exist in other airports and it's not an issue. And the rooms would allow for the muslims in question not to be seen. What IS an issue here is that only the muslim prayers seem to be bothering Myrm's sensibilities so much.

Where does the line between Church and State end? Hopefully, it doesn't end at all.

So now we're down to allowing a room for meditation -- certainly a quiet pursuit. If a group starts to use it loudly, that clearly violates the purpose of the room. That is certainly why, in the second paragraph of the article I linked in, the Muslim group is asking for a prayer room. And there is no room for a prayer room in a government facility, be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddist, Sikh, or Hindu.

I think they could probably get around the 'separation of church and state' thing as long as they point out that the area is for meditation and prayer, and that it is non-sectarian. Then the airport authorities can honestly say that they are not supporting a specific religion.

Here is the second paragraph of the article you linked to:
They might draw less attention, they told airport officials Friday, if they had a separate room in which they could say one of their five daily prayers to Mecca.

To me, that does not sound like a demand for a prayer room. It sounds more like they are stating a fact. It would draw less attention if they prayed in a private room.

As I mentioned in previous posts, I do not think the Muslims from the article are demanding anything. They seem to be trying to create a dialogue that will help Muslims and the Minneapolis airport.

Where does the line between Church and State end? Hopefully, it doesn't end at all.

So you should be expelled for saying Jesus in school?

Most proclamations are not condemnations, really. And it wouldn't work simply because SOME clerics say stuff that OTHER clerics disagree with, and islam isn't like the Catholic Church. Regardless, such rooms already exist in other airports and it's not an issue. And the rooms would allow for the muslims in question not to be seen. What IS an issue here is that only the muslim prayers seem to be bothering Myrm's sensibilities so much.
not talking about Myrm. I just don't know that much about Muslim rituals and laws... that's all.

I do hear about proclimations (fatwas I think... or are those something else) have been used to condem and I am certain that some are used to praise or to refine some rules. that's what I was asking about.

As I mentioned in previous posts, I do not think the Muslims from the article are demanding anything. They seem to be trying to create a dialogue that will help Muslims and the Minneapolis airport.

As luck would have it, Myrm doesn't care about that, having decided to forget the facts in order to bash muslims.

That's good, because it gives people like us something to do in an afternoon.

not talking about Myrm. I just don't know that much about Muslim rituals and laws... that's all.

I do hear about proclimations (fatwas I think... or are those something else) have been used to condem and I am certain that some are used to praise or to refine some rules. that's what I was asking about.

It's complicated.

Much like the non-gay-bashing Christians make the news way less than Jerry Falwell, the fatwas that make the news are the fatwas of Islam's own Jerry Falwells. Islam isn't an organized religion, or, it isn't organized with a hierarchy. As such, if a cleric says "go" and the other says "stop", it's up to the muslim who to follow.

As luck would have it, Myrm doesn't care about that, having decided to forget the facts in order to bash muslims.

That's good, because it gives people like us something to do in an afternoon.

it's winter, probably snowing where he is. Bashing things keeps the blood circlulating and thus the person warm. :D [joking]

It's complicated.

Much like the non-gay-bashing Christians make the news way less than Jerry Falwell, the fatwas that make the news are the fatwas of Islam's own Jerry Falwells. Islam isn't an organized religion, or, it isn't organized with a hierarchy. As such, if a cleric says "go" and the other says "stop", it's up to the muslim who to follow.

so if a couple of clerics say "altering the prayer time in the case of public transportation is ok as long as the prayer is done before or after the traveling period." it would then be up to the muslims themselves to follow it?

that sounds like Christians. :)

so if a couple of clerics say "altering the prayer time in the case of public transportation is ok as long as the prayer is done before or after the traveling period." it would then be up to the muslims themselves to follow it?

that sounds like Christians. :)

Pretty much, yes.

At the same time, however, I don't think they are entitled to have special spaces set up to cater to their superstitious mumbo-jumbo.

The majority isn't entitled to get what they want? I'm sure most people agree that there should be religious spaces, but not fashioned for any particular religion. Do you even disagree with that?

If they should be granted special religious accommodations in a largely public and secular area, then in turn I should be able to walk into a mosque and demand a ham sandwich.

What they are asking for - and what is being considered - is a "meditation room" that anyone can use for prayers/meditation/getting away from the crowd/what-have-you.

If you really think that equates to walking into a holy place and demanding food that you know they won't have, I have to question your intelligence.

The majority isn't entitled to get what they want?

Unless it tramples on the rights of the minority, it is.

I'm sure most people agree that there should be religious spaces, but not fashioned for any particular religion. Do you even disagree with that?

I, for one, agree with that.

I guess, I just never understood why it is wrong and unconstitutional to support the majority.

In many cases, "supporting the majority" amounts to government establishment of the majority's religion.

Keep in mind that 10 Commandments displays as part of a display on law (ie. not a completely religious display) are not removed. If it is a religious display, it is an establishment of religion, suggesting that the courthouse is run by Christian values, and non-Christians would not receive the same justice there.

Keep in mind that "under God" in the pledge was added in the '50's with the express purpose of discriminating against "Godless Commies." It would be one thing if it had always been part of the pledge - then it would be historical. However, it is not, and was specifically added as an establishment of religion.

The title of the article was "Muslim Prayer Room Sought at MSP".

So you only read the title and not the article? If you had read the article, you would not have characterized this as Muslims wanting a special room built just for them, as there was nothing of the sort in the article.

I don't think I characterized anything incorrectly. And while there are private airports, certainly they are not all privately owned. The city of Atlanta owns and administers Hartsfield-Jackson, other cities own other airports. My concern is that if the display of the Ten Commandments is unconscionable, then so should be an airport prayer room. I am all for a quiet room to meditate, but I would expect other occupants to have the courtesy to use the room for the stated purpose.

The display of the Ten Commandments is quite different, and is only a problem when it is meant to be a religious display. You see, if the 10 Commandments are found in or outside a courthouse as a religious display, that is a clear sign that the courthouse in question values Christianity above all other religions - a clear establishment of religion in the government. If, instead, they are part of a larger display on the role and establishment of law, they are considered completely appropriate.

If a courthouse were to put in a room for prayer and meditation, there would be no problem with that, because it would not establish a particular religion. It would simply be a courtesy provided for those who, for whatever reason, need to be at the courthouse. It would be even less of a problem in an airport, which is much more removed from the law and from government establishment.

It's a bit late in the thread to introduce another question, but what the hell: Does anyone think that even if the airports provided a room where Muslims could pray in private, that assholes still wouldn't try to get them tossed off planes? Hell, you'd probably have some jerks who would start a movement to keep an eye on the room and tail whoever came out of it. They'd accuse the Muslims who went in there to pray of secretly planning another attack and demand the room be wired for surveillance.

1. I don't think that Muslims get tossed off planes that much.

2. It's a separate issue to the events on a plane.

3. Prayer rooms would be used by all faiths, not just Muslims.

4. All parts of an airport should be under surveillance.

Admit it, you just don't want muslims to pray. Or exist, for that matter.
Come on, let's not flame.

actually, no I blame the newspapers and media in general. such "Scare" headlines puts the focus on the wrong thing. I too had to re-read the article a couple of times to realize that the muslims were not asking for a Muslim Prayer room, but a quiet area where they can pray (and is open to others.) the Title does condition the mind to expect and read into it, more than is there.

Funny, I was able to read it without that issue the first time. It was incredibly evident that the Muslims in question were looking for somewhere out of the way they could say their prayers, not a "Muslim-only" prayer room.


A separate room "in which they could say one of their five daily prayers to Mecca" doesn't sound all that non-denominational to me.

Why not? They didn't say they wanted a mosque built or a room that no one else could use. They just want a room in which it would be appropriate to say their prayers. You are assuming, without any cause, that they would want others kept from using the room.

This is backed up by the fact that the airport's response was to consider a non-denominational prayer and meditation room that anyone could use, and there were no complaints from the Muslims who were a part of the dialogue.

Which article did you read?

The one linked in the OP.

wouldn't it be just as easy for the clerics to issue a tenant saying Prayers in Airports can be exscused provided it's done when one leaves the airport? They've had such proclimations decreed before on other things (of course its usually condemnation, but they must have some that are constructive...)

The problem with such a statement is that it carries with it a suggestion that Muslims should be ashamed of their practices and should hide them away from everyone else. Interestingly enough, this is something on which many Christians and many Muslims disagree. Christians quite often bow their heads and close their eyes while praying silently, while many Muslims will do so with open arms outstretched to the sky, and open eyes to take in God's creation, praying aloud. In both cases, one will often tend to think of the other's mode of prayer as "incorrect", with the Christian seeing the Muslim as being too public and the Muslim seeing the Christian as acting as if he is ashamed of his connection to God.


So you should be expelled for saying Jesus in school?

That wouldn't be separation of church and state. It would be state infringement of an individual's religion - which would cross the line of separation of church and state and impose a restriction on free practice of religion.

Just a random thought...
Perhaps the whole subject of a prayer room wouldn't have been addressed if someone could kindly explain the meaning of shortening prayers in Islam or praying extra when the trip is over.

And this forum has other ideas for traveling Muslims: http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3458&PN=1
And other independent sources:
http://www.omeriqbal.com/a/70
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/pillars/prayer/prescribed/pp2_28.html

Granted, everyone's needs are different. But in such circumstances, I do wonder why a prayer room is actually requested when there are allowances to not pray while traveling...

1. I don't think that Muslims get tossed off planes that much.
When you consider how many flights there are in a day, nobody gets thrown off a plane very often. However, the perception in the news is that Muslims get tossed at a higher rate, and always because they've made someone nervous, generally in a non-specific way.

2. It's a separate issue to the events on a plane.Yes, it is. And your point?

3. Prayer rooms would be used by all faiths, not just Muslims.Yes, it would be. That's what we've been saying all along.

4. All parts of an airport should be under surveillance.

What I was describing is the sort of thing that private individuals would take upon themselves, vigilantism, if you will, outside the purview of the state.

all that proves is that PEOPLE (in general) take a long time to learn to accept that which is different.
And this means that we, or I, should accept us starting down the exact same path yet again? We're humans, technically we're supposed to be smart enough to learn from our mistakes. :p

And this means that we, or I, should accept us starting down the exact same path yet again? We're humans, technically we're supposed to be smart enough to learn from our mistakes. :p

We say that, and yet time and again, we prove that we have to step in it to find it.

I guess, I just never understood why it is wrong and unconstitutional to support the majority.Didn't pay attention to the Holocaust when it was treated in history class? Textbook example right there why majority != right.

When you consider how many flights there are in a day, nobody gets thrown off a plane very often. However, the perception in the news is that Muslims get tossed at a higher rate, and always because they've made someone nervous, generally in a non-specific way.
Indeed.

Yes, it is. And your point?
That talking about tossing people off planes is irrelevant to the thread.

Yes, it would be. That's what we've been saying all along.
;)

What I was describing is the sort of thing that private individuals would take upon themselves, vigilantism, if you will, outside the purview of the state.
You mean spying?

Unless it tramples on the rights of the minority, it is.
I wonder how a non-denominational prayer space is trampling on anyone's rights.

When you consider how many flights there are in a day, nobody gets thrown off a plane very often. However, the perception in the news is that Muslims get tossed at a higher rate, and always because they've made someone nervous, generally in a non-specific way.
Indeed.

Yes, it is. And your point?
That talking about tossing people off planes is irrelevant to the thread.

Yes, it would be. That's what we've been saying all along.
;)

What I was describing is the sort of thing that private individuals would take upon themselves, vigilantism, if you will, outside the purview of the state.
You mean spying?

I wonder how a non-denominational prayer space is trampling on anyone's rights.

So do I, because I agree with you.

So do I, because I agree with you.
We must fight to the death!

That talking about tossing people off planes is irrelevant to the thread.

No, it isn't. Incidents like that are precisely what a separate room to allow for more private prayer would help to prevent. If ignorant person A didn't see Muslims doing their "crazy" prayers in front of her, she very well might not tell the attendants that they were making her nervous and try to have them removed.

We must fight to the death!
MORTAL KOMBAT!

The Pacifist Womble Vs. Heikoku!

Round 1!

FIGHT!!







Sorry, couldn't help myself.

except that's willful and malicious destruction of property.

I can see building a small room where everyone can pray, keep it open windowed or monitored so that nothing illegal goes on, but sealed so that outside noise won't disturb them. that way, you can have other religions as well as people using that room for meditation and reflection. the only rule, what goes on legally in that room stays in that room...

Monitored? Do the monitor the meditation rooms? I don't think so, you just associate muslims with crime.

Ah, so you trust the AP... when they've been caught lying about the existence of sources of stories in Iraq...

Here. Here's the police report - a PDF file.

http://pajamasmedia.com/upload/2006/12/FlyingImamsPolice%20Report.pdf

Police reports are written up with the objective of getting an arrest and a conviction. I do not consider them to be neutral.

MORTAL KOMBAT!

The Pacifist Womble Vs. Heikoku!

Round 1!

FIGHT!!







Sorry, couldn't help myself.

*Licks his whole body* TRY AND GRAPPLE ME NOW!!! :D

(And yes, EW.)

Yes they are. I've already stated that the Hartsfield airport is a City of Atlanta property, but here is a snippet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airport#Airport_ownership_and_operation)from the Wiki.
Here is the part you conveniently left out:

Many U.S. airports still lease part or all of their facilities to outside firms, who operate specific functions such as retail management and parking. In the United States, all commercial airport runways are certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, but maintained by the local airport under the regulatory authority of the FAA.

Despite the reluctance to privatize airports in the United States (despite the FAA sponsoring a privatization program since 1996), the government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) arrangement is the standard for the operation of commercial airports in the rest of the world
The truth is that, despite the official reluctance to privatize airports, in actual practice the various functions of US airports ARE contracted out to private, corporate contractors. So any given part of the airport that you are standing in is going to be someone's private property -- either owned by the government or owned by the gov and leased to a service provider. In addition, governmental jurisdiction is split at many US airports between federal and state levels. For instance, Logan International is run by the MassPort, the State of Massachusetts Port Authority, which contracts out most of the services, including security to private contractors, even though they share that duty with federal TSA officers.

Because of this splitting of jurisdiction and contracting out of services, I say it is still accurate to say that airports are not government buildings/centers. There are too many different authorities at work in the same place.

So now we're down to allowing a room for meditation -- certainly a quiet pursuit. If a group starts to use it loudly, that clearly violates the purpose of the room. That is certainly why, in the second paragraph of the article I linked in, the Muslim group is asking for a prayer room. And there is no room for a prayer room in a government facility, be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Buddist, Sikh, or Hindu.
Bullshit. You are still trying to dictate the religious practices of others, and to disallow the religious practices of a select few.

And your claim that "there is no room for a prayer room in a government facility" is also bull -- and this comes from a staunch "wall of separation" person. By your argument, it should be illegal to provide religious services to soldiers in the military or prisoners in the prison system. Allowing people to practice their religion is not the same as endorsing or establishing a religion.

Monitored? Do the monitor the meditation rooms? I don't think so, you just associate muslims with crime.

Dunno, I've never seen those meditation rooms.

and if you read my posts as well as the Article, those rooms are open for all to use, not just for prayer or meditation. ;)


Or are you suggesting a MUSLIM ONLY prayer room at these airports?

Allowing people to practice their religion is not the same as endorsing or establishing a religion.

You see, we're dealing with a person that goes "it is if that religion is the muslim one, no matter how many nonexistant hairs I have to split or how many fictitious straws I have to grasp at" here.

Myrm could have chosen an easier thing to defend. Maybe then he might have had some success in the argument.

Or are you suggesting a MUSLIM ONLY prayer room at these airports?

Actually, the only person suggesting a muslim only prayer room in this whole discussion is Myrm...

Didn't know you liked muslims that much, Myrm. :D

You see, we're dealing with a person that goes "it is if that religion is the muslim one, no matter how many nonexistant hairs I have to split or how many fictitious straws I have to grasp at" here.

Myrm could have chosen an easier thing to defend. Maybe then he might have had some success in the argument.
My brother once observed that reductio ab absurdum doesn't really work with people like this, because there's no limit to the absurdities they are willing to argue. Myrm is willing to put out an argument that would end in forbidding all US military personnel from praying before going into battle just so he can pick on Muslims over this stupid little non-story.

Funny, I was able to read it without that issue the first time. It was incredibly evident that the Muslims in question were looking for somewhere out of the way they could say their prayers, not a "Muslim-only" prayer room. that's because not everyone is as smart as you Dem. :p

The problem with such a statement is that it carries with it a suggestion that Muslims should be ashamed of their practices and should hide them away from everyone else. Interestingly enough, this is something on which many Christians and many Muslims disagree. Christians quite often bow their heads and close their eyes while praying silently, while many Muslims will do so with open arms outstretched to the sky, and open eyes to take in God's creation, praying aloud. In both cases, one will often tend to think of the other's mode of prayer as "incorrect", with the Christian seeing the Muslim as being too public and the Muslim seeing the Christian as acting as if he is ashamed of his connection to God.you see shame, I see courtesy to others. and I've seen christans pray in public with their hands outstreatched to the sky, right in the street.

Prayers, either by muslims or by christians or anyone, doesn't bother me personally...

well until the blood sacrifices start... :p

And this means that we, or I, should accept us starting down the exact same path yet again? We're humans, technically we're supposed to be smart enough to learn from our mistakes. :pA person is smart, wise and intelligent, People are dumb, stupid, and ignorant.

Force People to accept something quickly (in the timeframe as society and not as individuals) and the People will push back. often times with embarrassing and down right frigtening results.

Individuals will accept that which is different. BUT however long an individual takes to become accepting is a blink of an eye to how long it would take PEOPLE to accept that which is different.

so what to do? simple, to change the minds of people, you work with the individuals. don't rush, and don't push. take it one person at a time, the more you try to convince at once, the harder it gets. Social changes don't happen overnight, nor will it happen in ONE lifetime. it will take years, maybe even decades to effect the change.

Rush and you will have violence, resentment and a seething, rotting emotion that will erode society from the inside out. that's how groups like the Southwestern Baptist Accademy, Neo-Nazi Groups, KKK, Al Quaeda and other hate groups get a steady stream of members to keep em alive.

Actually, the only person suggesting a muslim only prayer room in this whole discussion is Myrm...

Didn't know you liked muslims that much, Myrm. :D

dunno, Zarakon seems to also think those rooms are Muslim only, or that only Muslims commit crimes...

(Zarakon, if you read my posts, it posits anyone using those rooms, not just for prayer or meditation and definiatly not just muslims.)

<snip>
you see shame, I see courtesy to others. and I've seen christans pray in public with their hands outstreatched to the sky, right in the street.
<snip>
Whereas, I see a religious ritual from a religion I do not practice. I assume that people pray the way they do because that's what their religion dictates, not because they are trying to be either polite or obnoxious to me.

Meanwhile, I can't help but wonder when we all got so nervous about loud religious activities at airports. I would have thought the Hare Krishna* would have gotten us all used to that.





*International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)

My brother once observed that reductio ab absurdum doesn't really work with people like this, because there's no limit to the absurdities they are willing to argue. Myrm is willing to put out an argument that would end in forbidding all US military personnel from praying before going into battle just so he can pick on Muslims over this stupid little non-story.

Meh. I have a few of my own techniques that do not include reductio ad absurdum. You know them, no doubt. Riddler and Brutus' Honor come to mind. :D

Meanwhile, I can't help but wonder when we all got so nervous about loud religious activities at airports. I would have thought the Hare Krishna* would have gotten us all used to that.

Why, when muslims started to, y'know, exist in front of us. Well... Not US.

Myrm - who is, indeed, an honorable man, so are all the muslim bashers, all honorable men...

(And yes, there is a possibility that I will unleash Brutus' Honor upon him soon... Stay tuned.) ;)

dunno, Zarakon seems to also think those rooms are Muslim only, or that only Muslims commit crimes...

(Zarakon, if you read my posts, it posits anyone using those rooms, not just for prayer or meditation and definiatly not just muslims.)

It's gonna be fun if he posts further...

Meh. I have a few of my own techniques that do not include reductio ad absurdum. You know them, no doubt. Riddler and Brutus' Honor come to mind. :D
Yes indeed, O Great One. *salaam to the rahjah*

But reductio ab absurdum is kind of my thing, and I think I'll keep it up. My brother was talking about the futility of winning that way, but I'm not here to win. I enjoy revealing the absurdity of things, and I appreciate that people like Myrm give me so much material, again and again.

Whereas, I see a religious ritual from a religion I do not practice. I assume that people pray the way they do because that's what their religion dictates, not because they are trying to be either polite or obnoxious to me.

Meanwhile, I can't help but wonder when we all got so nervous about loud religious activities at airports. I would have thought the Hare Krishna* would have gotten us all used to that.





*International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)I think the point was, until a certain event, no one really cared about Muslim prayers. however, since after a certain event, it was made clear that the majority of those attacks against US people and property, were carried out by one group of religous people. so after that, yes, as Heikoku said, "Why, when muslims started to, y'know, exist in front of us. Well... Not US." it as if anyone wearing a long, buttoned up Trenchcoat people will view as most likely being a flasher. or that All Baptists are Gay Hating Bigots.

Yes indeed, O Great One. *salaam to the rahjah*

But reductio ab absurdum is kind of my thing, and I think I'll keep it up. My brother was talking about the futility of winning that way, but I'm not here to win. I enjoy revealing the absurdity of things, and I appreciate that people like Myrm give me so much material, again and again.

Suit yourself, I can use the material you're producing in one of my own attacks. I shall be merciful, however, if they go silent. If they don't, I'm picking between Brutus' Honor, Riddler and, maybe, a recreation of My Last Duchess, an attack I have yet to name...

Suit yourself, I can use the material you're producing in one of my own attacks. I shall be merciful, however, if they go silent. If they don't, I'm picking between Brutus' Honor, Riddler and, maybe, a recreation of My Last Duchess, an attack I have yet to name...

just make sure it's not a personal attack, but attacking their posistion. ;)

I think the point was, until a certain event, no one really cared about Muslim prayers. however, since after a certain event, it was made clear that the majority of those attacks against US people and property, were carried out by one group of religous people. so after that, yes, as Heikoku said, "Why, when muslims started to, y'know, exist in front of us. Well... Not US." it as if anyone wearing a long, buttoned up Trenchcoat people will view as most likely being a flasher. or that All Baptists are Gay Hating Bigots.

Yet Tim McVeigh did not condemn all christians to go through this kind of prejudice, and us, reasonable folks, will not automatically assume all Baptists to be bigots, or, in my case as an occultist, all christians to favor what happened in Salem.

Because we work with reason.

I have seen many occultists that utterly hate any Christian because of the events in Salem when neither of them were born; these are usually goth wicca-wannabes, which are occultist versions of Jerry Falwell, really.

These aren't people that work with reason. Neither are those that start bashing muslims based on an attack by people that CLAIMED to be carrying out the will of the Muslim idea of a God.

just make sure it's not a personal attack, but attacking their posistion. ;)

Do a search on my posts. Include words like "Shakespeare" or "so are they all", and you will see that the texts only attack positions. Although it might be a tad off-putting to have your position attacked in an adaptation of Mark Antony's speech. Ah well. ;)

I think the point was, until a certain event, no one really cared about Muslim prayers. however, since after a certain event, it was made clear that the majority of those attacks against US people and property, were carried out by one group of religous people. so after that, yes, as Heikoku said, "Why, when muslims started to, y'know, exist in front of us. Well... Not US." it as if anyone wearing a long, buttoned up Trenchcoat people will view as most likely being a flasher. or that All Baptists are Gay Hating Bigots.
"A certain event," eh? All you're doing in this post is showing how that "certain event" gave some people a license to show off their bigotry in public. Which still, of course, has nothing at all to do with the OP article, which makes it clear that even the most heinous of bigots would have nothing to whine about if all airports allowed for private, non-denominational spaces for the use of passengers. So the point you think was being made is really no point at all. Do us all a favor and put that "certain event" card back in the deck.

"A certain event," eh? All you're doing in this post is showing how that "certain event" gave some people a license to show off their bigotry in public. Do us all a favor and put that "certain event" card back in the deck.

I don't think he needs to put that card back in the deck, no.

After all, it is a fact that 9/11 gave some people the excuse they so needed to practice their prejudice against someone - anyone. They needed a target, 9/11 provided them that target. Were the terrorists Latvian Orthodox Christians, he'd be raving about how Orthodox Christians are the enemy of civilization and so on. The only exception? WASP. Because he is one. Had no attack occurred? Less specific remarks on, I don't know, blacks, non-Christians, immigrants, all of the above... The enemy du jour, if you will.

Junii is - as far as I know - just pointing out the fact that the excuse existed, not saying it's an acceptable excuse. I hope.

Yet Tim McVeigh did not condemn all christians to go through this kind of prejudice, and us, reasonable folks, will not automatically assume all Baptists to be bigots, or, in my case as an occultist, all christians to favor what happened in Salem.

Because we work with reason.

I have seen many occultists that utterly hate any Christian because of the events in Salem when neither of them were born; these are usually goth wicca-wannabes, which are occultist versions of Jerry Falwell, really.

These aren't people that work with reason. Neither are those that start bashing muslims based on an attack by people that CLAIMED to be carrying out the will of the Muslim idea of a God.
simple, while what Tim McVeigh did was tragic, it was one act.

how many attacks on American or US interests were carried out by the Middle eastern people.

1979 Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. 14 were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.

1982-1991 Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.

1983 April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

1983 Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.

1983 Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait: Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.

1984 Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.

1984 Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. 2 Americans killed.

1985 June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.

1993 Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.

1995 Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing 5 U.S. military servicemen.

1996 June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. 13 Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.

1998 Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. 4 men connected with al-Qaeda 2 of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.

2000 Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. 17 sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.

2001 Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed 2 commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; 2 more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)

and there were at least six others, but not counting them since the "war on terror" was started.

and that's also not counting the attacks done by Libya (4) that can be considered Middle East... a stretch, but possible.

the others took place in Greece, Guada canal, Madrid [1985], and alot of others (no indication as to group, so assuming non ME involvement) and a couple early ones (including one that involved a horse drawn wagon. :p )

So Tim McVeigh (white christian whatever) did one act, and Middle eastern men did at least 14 acts of terror against the US in a span of 27 years. is it no wonder that such suspicions of Muslims and all Middle East persons exsist?

oh and when you hear of an Abortion bombing/shooting, yes, Christians are looked at first, and yes, most of em arn't "True Christians". so it does goes all around.

now it's not for me to say who's a "true" whatever, that's between them and God. however, public and people's opinions and views are determined by what they see and hear, which bellies the power of the media and the responsibility that they don't even realize they have.

For your benefit, people I link here to two examples of my Brutus' Honor attack.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10915922&postcount=127

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10948454&postcount=1

Neither, as you can see, is insulting to the hapless victim.

"A certain event," eh? All you're doing in this post is showing how that "certain event" gave some people a license to show off their bigotry in public. Which still, of course, has nothing at all to do with the OP article, which makes it clear that even the most heinous of bigots would have nothing to whine about if all airports allowed for private, non-denominational spaces for the use of passengers. So the point you think was being made is really no point at all. Do us all a favor and put that "certain event" card back in the deck.
read my post above.

it's not just that "certain event" that cause such fear and suspeicion. but a whole history of events.

Stop trying to pin a viewpoint on me that I don't hold. I'm mearly holding a discussion with Heikoku as to possible reasons for the public's viewpoints and feelings.

oh and when you hear of an Abortion bombing/shooting, yes, Christians are looked at first, and yes, most of em arn't "True Christians". so it does goes all around.

now it's not for me to say who's a "true" whatever, that's between them and God. however, public and people's opinions and views are determined by what they see and hear, which bellies the power of the media and the responsibility that they don't even realize they have.

Minding that the Quran strongly condemns killing people as well. But, as you said, the media.

Junii is - as far as I know - just pointing out the fact that the excuse existed, not saying it's an acceptable excuse. I hope.you are correct, I am not saying it's an acceptable excuse, but an excuse PEOPLE will use.

Minding that the Quran strongly condemns killing people as well. But, as you said, the media.

just as the Bible condems killing people. however, fanatics abound in all catagories...


*le sigh* :(

you are correct, I am not saying it's an acceptable excuse, but an excuse PEOPLE will use.

Well, regardless, I'm waiting for the people that use said excuse to keep on going. I am even hoping I get to use my Brutus' Honor on them... :D

(Do I sound like an anime character when I talk like this?)

Well, regardless, I'm waiting for the people that use said excuse to keep on going. I am even hoping I get to use my Brutus' Honor on them... :D

(Do I sound like an anime character when I talk like this?)

only if you execute the Brutus Honor attack by getting into a giant robot, screaming the name out loud and pulling a gawd awfully big sword out of Gawd knows where while a scantily clad maiden swoons.


oh and you need to have a lock of hair covering half your face. :p

only if you execute the Brutus Honor attack by getting into a giant robot, screaming the name out loud and pulling a gawd awfully big sword out of Gawd knows where while a scantily clad maiden swoons.


oh and you need to have a lock of hair covering half your face. :p

I was going more for the "fighting anime" style, think Rurouni Kenshin, Yuu Yuu Hakusho if you know the anime...

I do can cover half my face with a lock of hair, yes.

I was going more for the "fighting anime" style, think Rurouni Kenshin, Yuu Yuu Hakusho if you know the anime...

I do can cover half my face with a lock of hair, yes.
the big ass sword from god knows where and the shouting of the name still applies tho.

the big ass sword from god knows where and the shouting of the name still applies tho.

Nah, I'm more of the Kusari-gama style, or daggers. I'll be glad to type the name of the attack, though.

About the "scantily clad lady swooning over me", if I had one, do you think I would be here talking to you? :p

Well, gotta go to bed. Laters.