"Of course we should never allow snakes on a plane. Snakes on a plane can create havoc and destruction. Snakes on a plane are..." "Excuse me Emily, I said Sheiks on a Plane, not Snakes on a Plane." "Oh, Never mind."
If you've read my posts in this thread I've actually stated that what the Imans were doing could make people nervous and that they should consider how other people might react. Anyway how is it conventional wisdom to side with the Imams? The opinion here is divided and the opinion among most outside of CF.net is to side with the other passengers. As much as I love CF.net most of the opinions here aren't conventional wisdom if so Kerry would've won in 04 in a landslide. If you've read most of my post you would realize that I consider many sides. If you notice in the taser thread I never state that the suspect is innocent and my argument is that the police acted poorly in a manner that placed themselves and other people in danger. I agree that there is uncertainty here and again if you read my first post in this thread, other than the one where I introduce the article with no comment, that I say it is important for people to be careful of how they act because of how it can be interpreted by others. Hardly a blanket pass in favor of the victim. Not being able to see into your mind I will take your statement at face value and that you are more open minded than you portray, I think making statements like "But you can't even consider it" is a sign of open mindedness. My impression though is that you feel the need to take a contrarian position and argue it as forcefully as possible since you feel you are taking on the majority.
I think I understand your point but what if it were only a small minority of passengers who were bothered by the actions of another passengers? At that point anyone could get anyone else thrown off of a flight if they objected to them in some way. Agree that fear often isn't rational but rationality has to come into play at some point.
If I recall correctly the NTSB had other evidence besides just the prayer that led them to the determination that the co-pilot committed suicide and that there was no evidence of a catastrophic mechanical failure that would've necessitated a rapid dive.
Alright so let's get back to the debate then since we seem to be on the same page. What do you think should happen in these cases? I'll give you that the line between rationality and irrationality is thin. And let's face it, logic is the only way we process information. We have an intuition which is also highly accurate in reading situations, but it comes from the limbic side of our brain and processes information in a way that's non-linear and we're not actually able to break it down. It's known as "our gut or intuition" but studies show it can be highly accurate. So there will be times when passenger can suspect other passengers for three different reason: 1. Out a fear based on irrational biases 2. Out of logical observation of behaviors suggesting actions (seeing a weapon for instance, or smelling an explosive). 3. Out of intuitive knowledge - which can include reading subtle facial cues or body gestures. So I agree that number one isn't a basis to have passengers removed. And number 2 clearly is a basis for having a passenger removed. But then what about number 3. What if you are sitting there and it's not out of fear based on ignorance, but it's based on your intuition? Do you sit there and take a chance that you are wrong and face possible death? That's irrational in and of itself. More irrational then any action you can take? What do you do? You must speak out. You might be wrong...but you might be right. So the question is, how can we guard number 3 while minimizing the inconvenience. But in this situation, we don't fully know all the facts. So we can't properly assess whether it's one, two, or three. While I agree that if number 2 is the sole reason for these guys being removed - then yes, the Imams are innocent and should get something back from the Airlines. But what constitutes the airlines actions? We don't know. We don't know what they acted on and may never know. They may choose not to reveal that information since this can become a legal issue. If I were the airline, and had detected something that intentified these guys as a threat - i would only share it with the DHS and definitely not the media. So in the end - you can't come up with any judgement. There simply is not enough information. We can only speak conditionally.
That was why I suggested that the pilot should have the option of giving the people who are upset access to a later flight.
Because of the following: You stated that there was no way that praying could be a sign of danger. I am seeking to disprove your hypothesis.
Good post and I agree we don't have full information. From what I've seen on the news it isn't clear to what extent the Imans were muttering threats or such. You're arguing its right to expect the worst and I'm saying not necessarily. I think the facts of the case have borne out that there was no threat although I will agree it is murky. The problem I have though with going with your gut is that your gut is highly influenced by things like the media and all sorts of things. We've seen many cases of irrational panic over all sorts of things, including terrorism, driven by paranoia. While yes there are potential threats out there over reaction n the part of over zealous individuals can create as many problems as are solved. In a situation like this a little cultural understanding would've gone a long way to preventing this situation in the first case. While I think the passengers were over reacting I don't blame them as much as the airline. Passengers will complain to flight crews about all sorts of things but its up to the crews judgement to determine the threat. Once the imans were determined not to be a threat they should've let them fly on a later flight instead of forcing them to make other arrangements.
congratulations. i still don't see prayer being a threat to your saftey. but ok. hey, the 9/11 terrorists went to a strip club the night before. so there should be a new rule. if you went to a strip club the night before, you shouldn't be able to fly the next day. it might scare people.
I think they were offered a later flight but it wasn't until the next day.... Also, gut and biases are independent - they come from different parts of the brain all together. I can tell for instance what my gut tells me over what fear tells me. Fear often comes to conclusions about someone. My gut just tells me things like "this person is hiding something". And that's usually 95% accurate. But most people can't discern their gut from their insecurities. And even for me, i know my fears can interfere with my intuition. It's just hard to say. I'm not saying the imams are guilty and they weren't arrested....the crew just took a precaution. It's unfortunate, but they have a right to feel safe - everyone does. The imams can not expect people to do things they feel unsafe doing. And the key is not feeling uncomfortable, but feeling their life is threatned. Personally, I think if it's just one or two passengers who feel unsafe, then it should be the passengers who should deboard and get another flight - that should be an option. BUt if it's a lot of passengers - then you have to ask the imams to leave. I don't have a solution - I am just taking the opposite position because i know condemning the airline and calling people racists isn't the solution. They have a valid perspective that we can never ascertain and being justified or not. That's my argument. This is a difficult situation and challenges our ideas as a nation because it pits rights against rights. Personally, I do think the imams can exhibit better tact while flying. Is it necessary to pray while boarding? I mean, that is a little spooky. Why not pray before you get in line to board or after well into the air??? They aren't the brightest Imams in my opinion. I know a lot about being a minority. Look, I'm smart enough to avoid certain situations because I know perception is more important than reality. As a minority I work to control that perception by paying careful attention to my appearance when it counts. That's something minorities have to do. It's the reality of life.
I'm stepping in late to the debate, but I would like to say that this whole Flying While Muslim thing is absolutely for real. I have a good friend who is Lebanese, and her family gets searched every time they fly. This summer, her family went back to Lebanon for a wedding, and her mother was detained at the airport for two whole days. To make matters worse, they aren't even correctly profiled, because they aren't Muslim. Racism and xenophobia are alive and well in this country. Just because you're white like Tucker Carlson and you don't experience it, it doesn't mean that it isn't real.
If anyone looks like a terrorist it's me. I am six five and have flown many times with sunglasses and unshaven. I've never been detained or treated differently. I have only been searched once, and it wasn't even that care of a search. Do people look at me - yes, when I walk in a plane, everyone notices me. The pilots always ask how I am doing when I get on, and when i say fine, I've never seen anything but a friendly smile. Why? I've flown 100's of times since 9/11 for both business and pleasure - domestically and internationally....from all three nyc airports and other airports around the country. Why? People call me Osama and say I look like a terrorist - so why don't i ever get profiled????
According to local news here they were given a refund on their flights but not offered another flight on US Air. If your gut is 95% accurate you must be hard to beat at poker since that would mean you can only be bluffed 5% of the time. The fact that people can be bluffed or taken by con men or get into all sorts of problems show that gut or whatever you want to call it is far from certain. Gut it self isn't some indpendent thing and is shaped by biases, past experiences and other things. For instance the usual example of a white woman walking down a street sees a black man on the same side so her gut tells her to switch to the other side. While she may not consciously be racists she is reacting on gut feeling that is itself the product of cultural biases acting on a pre-cognitive level. For example the gut that you talk about can actually be trained. Soldiers, police and athletes are trained to hone their instincts so they can rapidly assess a situation and act in a manner at a sub-cognitive level. The fact that such things are trainable shows that gut is hardly an independent unbiased defense my mechanism but is one that is inherently shaped by one's own experiences, including cultural. I agree and said that the Imans should be conscious of how their actions could be interpretted. Not denying at all that people might feel unsafe. The flight crew needs to make a judgement call. That said once that judgement call is made and the Imans are foudn to not be a threat at all then every courtesy should be shown to them. For that matter the flight crew themselves should be trained in more cultural sensitivity and in conflict resolutiont to diffuse a potential situation between passengers. I believe they do have training like that but I don't know how much they used it in this situation. As I said again people should be conscious of how their actions should be percieved by others that said we live in a diverse heterogeneous society and to survive we need to be more tolerant and understanding of others. As I said regarding someone who has Turrets, that yes that causes lots of problems but at the same time that doesn't mean that you shouldn't display some tolerance and courtesy with someone who has a problem like that. Being a Muslim though isn't having Turrets syndrome or inately prone to violence. Being a Muslim in this society though does mean you might act in a way that is different to the majority. So while yes the Muslim needs to adapt at the same time though they should still be allowed to practice their religion without the automatic assumption that they are a threat.
could that be because the imams did in fact create a disturbance intentionally? [/quote] If your gut is 95% accurate you must be hard to beat at poker since that would mean you can only be bluffed 5% of the time. The fact that people can be bluffed or taken by con men or get into all sorts of problems show that gut or whatever you want to call it is far from certain. Gut it self isn't some indpendent thing and is shaped by biases, past experiences and other things. For instance the usual example of a white woman walking down a street sees a black man on the same side so her gut tells her to switch to the other side. While she may not consciously be racists she is reacting on gut feeling that is itself the product of cultural biases acting on a pre-cognitive level.[/quote] i can be bluffed more then 5%, less then 40% in poker....because it's hard to get a gut feeling a lot of times. It should be important to note that by gut i mean intuitive knowledge - not knowledge based on fears which are in fact insecurities and can cloud your gut. that white woman isn't listening to her gut, it's her fears, because she can't see the mans face or other subtle signs. you see, most people communicate their state of mind through their bodies and faces - so when you read people, this is what you are picking up on...it's not their race or anything, it's being attuned to information that isn't consciously perceived.... this is reprogramming the brain - practicing something until it requires less conscious thinking - but it's not gut - you can only learn how to listen to your gut better and seperate it from the other sources of thoughts and feelings...you can't actually train your gut - it's comes from your sub-conscious. [/quote] we're in full agreement here.
I am not Muslim so I don't really know what I'm talking about with any degree of certainty, but my understanding is that there is no latitude regarding the times for prayer. I'm not sure how well this is adhered to, but I would think that if anybody would adhere to the times in a strict way it would be a group of Imams.
Did they actually kneel and perform one of the five daily prayers (there's a lot of movement during such prayer) OR did they merely utter a prayer before boarding? There is a big difference between the two. If they actually performed a prayer, than that is certainly inconsiderate of them and they should have known better.
The article mentions them prostrating themselves on the ground. I know that that occurs durring the 5 daily prayers, but as for otherwise, I don't know. Perhaps you can answer? The article talks about them praying in the terminal, not on the plane. Or am I misunderstanding what you were trying to say?
