Pray on a plane

So what happened to the dude "reaching for his gun"?

i think he calmed down, and helped Zeia.  I've wondered what happens to those guys after they have been 'outed' as a US Marshall. 

WOW.  what a story.  What an AWFUL position to be in.  Because ya nobody believes you that it's really just your back!  ah poor guy. 

Don't you grab your back when it gets thrown out?  Why would you reach for the stewardess?  I think he watches too many movies.  Tell him he just had a bad dream.

he said he knew he was about to fall, and she was right in front of him, so he kind of reached towards her to catch himself from falling.  Dude, when my back went out (a thousand times) i don't remember exactly what i did on my way to the floor. 

It is sad that it had to get to this point.  Poor Zeia. 

hahaha, thats pretty funny. good thing he didn't scream...."ALLAH ACKBAR!"

He probably didn't scream "Allahu akbar" because statistically most Indians are Hindu, not Muslim. Plus, it means "God is the greatest" not "Oh crap! My back!"

snort Jame..

but seriously, poor guy! i don't know what it's like to be judged by my color (truly) he was in pain and all they thought was terrorist. see if he ever flies that airlines again (or if they let him)

Man Jay, you got pwnt.

haha, good call Jamie...but what you ARE saying is that statistically he COULD have been muslim, even though he was indian, and from most middle east war videos that i watch, the crazy terrorists are usually yelling "allahu akbar" as a 500 lb US bomb is going off 100 yards away, and 50 cal rounds are barreling down at them. So, just as an american would say "Oh God!" or "Jesus Christ!" when they stub their toe on the railing, I'm assuming a muslim could yell "God is great!" when their back goes out....maybe? just a thought :)

Wow!  What a position to be in - We wonder what we would have done had we been close to him.  Try to give him the benefit of a doubt!

I'm surprised no one on the plane died of a heart attack.

Well Jay, he COULD be Muslim, but that phrase isn't the equivalent of taking God's name in vain for us. It's a sad state of affairs when someone is presumed to be a terrorist because of his skin color, isn't it? It's hard to counter the fear that we are being perpetuated into feeling toward Muslims and people of color, but I would hope that we are all trying to reason through the fear-mongering and stereotyping.

Well how many Japanese Muslim terrorists have we seen?  I have to side with Adam Carolla on this one.  We all wish everything could be fair and equal, however to do that we have to screen every last human being in the airport causing massive lines and delays just to make sure little Johnny or Grandma Betty isn't carrying an RPG.  We are ALL forced to pay the price for someone's stupidity.  I say use a little common sense.   

Stereotyping really sucks, as in this situation with my friend, who is a fantastic, hard-working American citizen.  But stereotyping is the result of repeated events.  So it is what it is.  And unfortunately, many times stereotyping is accurate.  Like Metallica says, "Sad but true."

There are many comedians who make LOTS of money reinforcing their own stereotypes.   And in the news and talk shows (yah, mostly you Oprah), we get force-fed racial accomplishments.

Oh and the most prejudiced system used today:  Affirmative Action

Kept Jay out of Berkeley cause he was white.  Kept my kids out of HS clubs cause they were white.  Kept my kids off of basketball teams as kids in SJ cause they were white.  Got Geoff beat up at a park in SJ cause he was white--and he mouthed off.  HA HA

What?  Geoff and Jay both played on the high school bball teams.  They didn't keep us out of any clubs.  Everyone was allowed to join any club they wanted to. 

No, there were black clubs that you had to be black to join at IHS and basket ball teams that you had to be Asian to play.  I didn't say the HS basketball team. 

hmmm, I don't think so.  They made it very clear you were allowed to join any club you wanted to at school. 

i think ur referring to the fact that they didn't allow the White Student Union at Independence High School. They had every other one, Black Student Union, Asian Student Union, etc. 

Most of the world is very inconsistent with racial topics.  When it is time to reward somebody, generate revenue, or celebrate, then it is okay to point out race, create tv channels for it, announce it on the news, create awards for it, etc.  But then, we are taught every day to not look at people and their race.  We should just all be Americans.

Can't have it both ways, but society hasn't seemed to figure that out.

Mooooom they didn't keep you out of the Black club if you weren't black.  But they did NOT allow you to create a White club - because that was racist. But they had a Vietnamese club, and a Mexican club and everything else, so basically if you were white you were the only people who didn't belong anywhere.

I see, so you could belong to the black club but not the white--ha ha

No, there was a basketball league in SJ for kids of asian-ethnicity/descent, and all my friends were members of the team called the Ninjas, including calvin shueh. I was not allowed to play in this league.

Regarding racial profiling...its unfortunate there are innocent victims of this, but its a necessary evil of society that takes place every day in all parts of our society. I was just looking at elementary school scores a couple days ago trying to find which schools are good for mailynn, and across the board, no matter which elementary school I looked at, the proficiency scores broken down by ethnicity were consistently like this:

Asians: 90% proficient

Whites: 85%

African/American: 55%

Hispanic/Latino: 35%

Keep in mind these are scores for a single elementary school where all the kids live in the exact same neighborhoods. elementary school boundaries are all pretty darn small around here. So, the schools that had the best OVERALL scores were of course the schools who had the highest % of asians/whites.

If I owned a convenience store, I would get a lot more nervous when 3 black guys walked in around the age of 25 than I would when 3 white girls 25 years old walked in. Is it because I'm racist or sexist? Or simply a logical realist ? Of course the 3 25 year old black guys pose much more of a threat to me in terms of the percentages that they might rob me, steal something, hold me up at gunpoint, etc etc.

The exact same thing is true for islamists, unfortunately they are the ones in this current day in age that pose the most % chance that they will blow themselves up, hijack a plane, etc etc. Since most islamic people are from the middle east, this means that we are going to be much more skeptical and cautious around people that appear to be from the middle east. It's all just logical associations and its the reality we live in.

I wish the world was as koombaya as we wanted it to be!

I think this is all pretty easy for a bunch of middle class white people to complain about, quite frankly. Affirmative Action and all the other pro-minority measures you all brought up were created for a reason. To deny that minorities (including women, gays and everyone of color) have been excluded from equal opportunities for the first few millennia of Western Civilization and ALL of American history until roughly the mid 1960's is just completely absurd. OF COURSE there are groups that white kids aren't welcome in! Why would many of these minority groups want to have anything to do with us based on how they have been treated by mostly white America?!?!?! I think it would help for all of us to stop getting our knickers in a twist over what brown/black/asian/etc. people are getting that we aren't and take a serious look at the legacy of white privilege. After all, the only people upon whom we can effect change is ourselves.

You guys wear knickers?  Gross. 

So you're saying because of how they were treated 200 years ago they are allowed to discriminate?  I think most of those people are dead by now.  I'd say move on and get over it. 

I agree Jamie that history is littered with unfortunate episodes and events.  Measuring them against each other is impossible, and there is little benefit in trying.  Nearly every person can point back to when "their people" were abused or mistreated.  Whether that is black racism, jewish stereotyping, mormon murders, dictators, military abuse, the list goes on and on, and spans the world. 

So, we can choose to make laws and rules to reinforce those differences and boundaries, just so we feel better about how we were treated in the past. That seems to further the divide, and continue the stereotypes.  I personally would rather see us move towards people being people, as equal as we can be.  No more affirmative actions, no more rejoicing when the first asian becomes a truck driver, or the first woman to join the Citadel.   I don't expect Illinois to send me a check for all the property they stole and lives they took from the Mormons in the 1800's.  Nor do i expect a law to be passed that says all mormons eat for free in the state of illinois.

Yeah, I'm not sure what exact freebies have been handed down to me because I'm white. If someone could kindly point them out so I can be thankful for them, that'd be great. From what I can recall I worked my tail off as a paperboy for 8 years, then went to college for 7 long years, then started my own company, then worked some more, and some more, and some more. I think where I am today is a result of the work I've put in and the education I got, not because I'm male & white.

yes, Sean you would say that..however, the truth is..are you ready?  discrimination still exists. i can't speak for Jamie as she will most likely clarify any misconceptions anyone might have. the fact remains that we are finding more and more clever ways to keep discrimination alive.

i believe the change lies within ourselve to create the difference. my heart breaks for the past grievances caused to people, but today, now...we are still causing grief.

I agree, discrimation still exists.  But I also think people have a tendancy to over react in certain cases.  I think there are assumptions we can generally make about all ethnicities, the clothes they wear, the food they eat, cars they drive, places they live.  I don't see anything wrong with that, its what makes us all different.  Unfortunately, each ethnicity can be tied to certain negative aspects that they most likely would be guilty of.  The first thing a detective does when working on a case is begin to setup a profile.  Certain crimes can be tied to certain ethnicities of a certain age or gender based on statistical evidence.  Are we going to call the detective a racist?  Is it OK for him to profile but not for the rest of us civilians.  It's just a fact of life that certain attributes can be tied to certain ethnicities.  Which goes back to the original topic of this post.  All of the people on that plane got nervous because a man of a certain ethnicity which has of late been tied a number of times with terrorist acts was acting very suspiciously on a plane.  Big deal.  The other passengers arent racist, they just reacted to recent events where several thousand people lost their lives. If I was on that plane with my wife and family I'd have taken the guy down and asked questions later too.  Better to be wrong and alive then right and dead. 

Unfortunately, another reinforced stereotype.   

NEW YORK – A Pakistani-born U.S. citizen was hauled off a plane about to fly to the Middle East and will face terrorism charges in the failed attempt to explode a bomb-laden SUV in the heart of Times Square, authorities said Tuesday. One official said he claimed to be acting alone.

Faisal Shahzad has admitted his role in the botched bombing attempt and is talking to investigators, providing them with valuable information, Attorney General Eric Holder said.

He's supposedly admitted now to receiving bomb making training in Pakistan.

here is an example of a certain group wanting to be recognized and free to honor who and what they may, but then they turn around and fight against those that also want to honor who and what they may.  seems like the same thing happened in the same-sex marriage fiasco. 

http://news.yahoo.com/video/local-15749667/19585803

The talk shows in CA are going crazy over this.  The hosts are so hopping mad and parents are calling in saying they have had it and are not going to tolerate these types of actions anymore.  It has gone too far when we as Americans can't even honor our own country.  A couple of mothers called in who are Mexican-American and they were disgusted with the principal's actions.  Interesting the school would not comment but the district did not approve of their actions.  Now some Mexicans are protesting, rioting and chaining themselves to a illegal detention center in LA that detains illegal criminals. 

I couldn't believe that when I saw that.  What I always wonder is how Mexico would feel if we celebrated the 4th of July down there with American flags all over.  

It is almost a guarantee - ANY group that is asking for tolerance and respect is without a doubt unwilling to show the same tolerance for others.  Same-sex marriage wants to ruin the traditional institution of marriage and they show anger and hatred when they are opposed.  The gays and non-christians wanted to ruin what the christians and conservatives enjoyed about Scouting.  And now this Mexican group has no tolerance for Americans showing patriotism.  Pretty ironic and hypocritical.

Don't forget the fight to make In God we Trust, one nation under God and prayers in public institutions unconstitutional even though the Founding Fathers wanted it that way.

Actually quite a few of the Founding Fathers were Atheists or Free Masons, not Christians.

And I think that people just don't like the fact that the Scouting organization seems to have put an awful lot of effort into keeping the abuse quiet and shuffling abusive Troop leaders around rather than fire them/call the police/ etc. Doesn't seem like anyone is trying to ruin Scouting for anyone - just make it safe!

"None of them were atheists, they were however all secualrists (meaning they believed that church and state should be seperate, to each his own.) but the personal beliefs of the founding fathers fell into three religious categories: first, the smallest group, founders who had left their Judeo-Christian heritages and become advocates of the enlightenment religion of nature and reason called "Deism" like Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen who believed in a supreme being who laid the foundations of the universe but doesn't intervene to break its' laws (meaning in the Deist' point of view it is unreasonable to believe in a personal god or believe in the existence of miracles which defy natural laws) The second largest group consisted of the founders who remained practicing Christians. They retained a supernaturalist worldview, a belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and an adherence to the teachings of their denomination. These founders included Patrick Henry, John Jay, and Samuel Adams. The largest group , consisted of founders who retained Christian loyalties and practice but were influenced by Deism. Like John Adams, George Washington, James Monroe and Benjamin Franklin. "

I would get right in line with any group that was concerned about the Boy Scouts hiding abusive scoutmasters.  Unfortunately, that pales in comparison to the attacks the Boy Scout program has endured, and continues to fight.

Margaret Downey's son was banned from Scouts for being a loud atheist.  A big belief in the Scouting program is the belief in a higher power.  Scouts does not teach religion, but bases much of the program on a "God". 

So unfortunately, Jamie, there are many people trying to attack the traditional Scouting program.   To me, that is the same as ruining it.

The lady called the Scouting program similar to the Brown Shirts of Hitler.  I don't think that is a compliment.

Full article:  http://www.phillyburbs.com/news/news_details/article/92/2010/april/08/scout-leader-fires-back-at-atheists-attack.html

About 3 comments down below that article, some person states that the Scouts not welcoming people of other beliefs into their club as the same thing as Nazism.  Well, I highly disagree.  The big difference is Scouting is optional. It is a private club, and has no intention of condemning OTHER clubs.  If the Nazi's didn't like you, not only could you not "join their club", but you were enslaved or killed.  Quite different than the Boy Scouts.  If you cannot fit the standards of the Boy Scouts, you are 100% free to create your own club.

i too had to look up the Founding Fathers being atheist comment. 

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson^[12][13] (who created the "Jefferson Bible"), and Benjamin Franklin^[14]. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to those of deists.

I'm curious, who was Atheist?  It has no mention of it here from Wikipedia.

Brad agrees with all of your findings.

I mis-spoke...I meant to say Agnostic (by which I mean non-religious) not Atheist. Sean where did you find your info? I thought this site was interesting because of how many published, academic sources it cited. http://skeptically.org/thinkersonreligion/id9.html   I'm not a fan of Wikipedia because of its somewhat unverified nature. In any case it sounds like we all found similar info, all of which points to the idea that the Founding Fathers were not all Christian nor trying to make everyone in this nation Christian. they were about the business of securing religious freedom so that even the Agnostics (or even Atheists!) could be free of persecution and punishment.

Geoff, I read the article and I agree that likening the Scouts to anything related to Hitler is ridiculous. I think that the Scouts are an honorable group, and being a private organization should be allowed to have certain membership requirements within reason. I did, however, think that the spokesperson for the Scouts in this article stuck his foot in his mouth here: "It's a gross disservice to let this woman say these things just because she has her own opinion," Hasel said. "We don't impose our beliefs on anyone, but we do believe religion is something for the home." While I think her comments were inappropriate, the phrasing "let this woman say these things" is assinine and offensive. The Scouts' right to be a private organization with religious affiliations is protected by the same Constitution that "lets" this woman say whatever she believes. His phrasing made him sound like a chauvanistic caveman, which doesn't do much for the image of any group, let alone one with PR issues like child molestation. 

Yah his phrasing was pretty juvenile.  I think more people need to develop the talent of knowing when to take a stand, and when to just let it go.   Too often nowadays, people get all bent out of shape over one little thing someone said, rather than just taking a silent approach and ignoring it.   They are giving this lady a lot of visibility just by acknowledging her.

OK, that makes more sense.  That specific quote was from wiki.answers.com but I'd found several others citing the same info.  I just thought that one was shorter and more to the point.  Isn't the internet great?  We all quickly become experts at any topic with our cut and paste abilities.  :) 

As far as the "woman" comment, I didn't take it that way at all.  If he'd have said "let this 'man' say these things" then it automatically disqualifies him as being chauvinistic.  I don't think he was saying she doesn't have a right to say something simply because she was a woman.  Only that it's unfortunate that she's allowed to say the Boy Scouts are like the Nazis.  If he'd have changed his statement from saying 'let' to 'have' might have been a better choice of wording but it's just one word.  And who knows, he may have said something completely different.  The media changes peoples quotes all the time. 

Geoff you're going to have this SAME experience if you don't stay on the drugs for a couple more days.

hahah, wow yah good call. 

Hahaha, Geoff the terrorist.

Ha ha wait and see tomorrow night.