<p>They passed all security checks, are clearly good to go, are ACADEMIC SCHOLARS, and yet Delta Airlines sided with the pilot on the mere basis of name, ethnicity and religion.</p>
<p>Do you want your family patronising such a business that is an affront to liberty of Americans everywhere?</p>
<p>Sorry, National security trumps personal freedom in my book. While I feel badly for the gentlemen involved, given the events of the past week and threats against the US, I can understand the pilot’s position. I’m not saying it is right, but it is the world we live in.</p>
<ol>
<li>They had already passed the security checks (likely to be greater because of existing discrimination)</li>
<li>They were confirmed not to pose a threat</li>
<li>The only reason why they had to be deplaned was a pilot’s personal objections based on his bigotry.</li>
</ol>
<p>I devised a sociological experiment on this topic.</p>
<p>1.) Have a man dressed as a Catholic priest go through security and, just before getting on the plane, bow his head a little and pray for a good flight, saying, “God is great, God is great, there is no God but God.”</p>
<p>2.) Have the same man dress as a Jewish rabbi and repeat #1, but say it in Hebrew.</p>
<p>3.) Have the same man dress as a Muslim cleric and repeat #1, but say it in Arabic, “Allah u akbar, Allah u akbar, la illa illah Allah.”</p>
<p>Thanks for the post frenchcoldplay - I will now be very much looking to book on Delta whenever the price and connections work. I’m pro-security and like to see pilots taking this aspect of their job seriously.</p>
<p>And being a “SCHOLAR” does not mean you are not a terrorist or even a particularly nice human being.</p>
<p>Delta is the main airline that serves the places I fly to a lot. Consequently I’m Platinum, which means I get upgraded to first class on nearly every flight. Delta’s going to have to get a lot meaner than that before I go back to flying in coach with another airline.</p>
<p>Do we believe that security is enhanced by refusing to carry members of a religion? Members who clearly identify themselves as so by their dress, of course, as opposed to those people whom we can’t terror-classify because they don’t self-identify.</p>
<p>Also somehow, Israel, which has much worse to fear, seems to do well with much more efficient procedures. </p>
<p>besides, we all know that religious hijackers would choose to stand out by declaring their religious affiliation through the use of expressive dress.</p>
<p>Oh really? And how does this protect/benefit national security? Was there probable cause to suspect these men of a crime? Was there even a preponderance of the evidence?
If not, then on what basis is this sort of action defensible? Or should we just start restricting entire races and religions from public transport based on the actions of others?</p>
<p>The article seems to give the impression that the passengers were dressed in a way that easily identified them as Muslims. This probably made the pilot even more uncomfortable than if they didn’t wear the clothing.</p>
<p>Most people I know have had some sort of security issue when traveling by air in the last 10 yrs. it is an unfortunate fact of life for many of us. I have been singled out because of flying on a one way ticket with a carry on…my 80 yr old mother has been padded down for no apparent reason. My brother in law was detained and almost missed a flight because his name is the same as a member of the IRA who has a history of violent attacks
My daughter will soon be traveling abroad and has been instructed by the coordinating staff at her university to try to blend in and look less American…whatever it takes , we’re ok with if it means being safe.</p>
<p>This reminds me of the problem black men have in successfully hailing a cab. Someone took an Emmy award winning actor, Yaphet Kotto (sp?), and tried to make him look safer by giving him a bouquet of flowers, a baby to hold, etc., and the cabbies still wouldn’t stop. Then they had a white man, an ex-con who had committed murder, try to get the same cabs a few blocks down the street. They all stopped for him!</p>
<p>I’d be interested in a Constitutional discussion here–are we saying that service can be banned on the basis of religion? How about race? If the pilot were to feel uncomfortable about black people, could he toss them, too? Do we want the rule of law to be subsumed by “I’m not comfortable with that”? How does this square with the Constitution?</p>