http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2007/07/religion-and-law.html A modern Pagan perspective Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:46:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2007/07/religion-and-law.html#comment-1239 Jason Pitzl-Waters Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:05:00 +0000 http://patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2007/07/religion-and-law.html#comment-1239 "In the case of the "flying imams," it's clear that suspicion was reasonable."Actually it isn't clear, <a HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Imams_controversy#Conflicting_accounts" rel="nofollow">there have been conflicting accounts</a> of what actually went on. Some of the "facts" about the Imams being reported by the conservative blogs hasn't been confirmed by the airlines or authorities. The real truth is that we don't know the "real truth" of what exactly went on. What strikes me as funny is that this amendment doesn't "help stop terrorism", it simply legal protects profiling behavior. Does anyone really think that a serious terror attack is going to come from people in full Muslim religious garb begging for attention? The 9/11 attacks were successful because they blended in, not because people were afraid to report suspicious behavior. “In the case of the “flying imams,” it’s clear that suspicion was reasonable.”Actually it isn’t clear, there have been conflicting accounts of what actually went on. Some of the “facts” about the Imams being reported by the conservative blogs hasn’t been confirmed by the airlines or authorities. The real truth is that we don’t know the “real truth” of what exactly went on. What strikes me as funny is that this amendment doesn’t “help stop terrorism”, it simply legal protects profiling behavior. Does anyone really think that a serious terror attack is going to come from people in full Muslim religious garb begging for attention? The 9/11 attacks were successful because they blended in, not because people were afraid to report suspicious behavior.

]]> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2007/07/religion-and-law.html#comment-1238 Anonymous Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:04:00 +0000 http://patheos.com/blogs/wildhunt/2007/07/religion-and-law.html#comment-1238 As far as the John Doe Amendment--yes, it *could* be abused, but I doubt it will be. The JDA keeps people from being subject to civil suits. If someone shouts "fire" in the crowded theater (or "terrorist" on a crowded airplane as the case may be), they can still be subject to federal and local prosecution if it is found that they were making false and unfounded accusations.In the case of the "flying imams," it's clear that suspicion was reasonable. The imams were not just praying publicly, but rather loudly in the terminal and in the plane. They requested seat-belt extensions when they did not need them. They were heard commenting negatively on America and praising Osama bin Laden. They refused to sit in their assigned seats and, instead, sat in the front, back, and exit aisles (which is apparently where the 9/11 terrorists sat). The suspects were also flying one-way tickets across the country. It wasn't just that other passengers reported these individuals as acting suspiciously, but flight attendants reported the strange behavior as well.Sorry, but if somebody is acting that suspiciously, I would like to not be sued later on even if I am wrong...and I'd like for others to report what they see without hesitation because they're afraid of being sued.It is ridiculous that the other passengers are being sued by the "flying imams." They were performing their civic duty in reporting activities they thought suspicious.Just my opinion... As far as the John Doe Amendment–yes, it *could* be abused, but I doubt it will be. The JDA keeps people from being subject to civil suits. If someone shouts “fire” in the crowded theater (or “terrorist” on a crowded airplane as the case may be), they can still be subject to federal and local prosecution if it is found that they were making false and unfounded accusations.In the case of the “flying imams,” it’s clear that suspicion was reasonable. The imams were not just praying publicly, but rather loudly in the terminal and in the plane. They requested seat-belt extensions when they did not need them. They were heard commenting negatively on America and praising Osama bin Laden. They refused to sit in their assigned seats and, instead, sat in the front, back, and exit aisles (which is apparently where the 9/11 terrorists sat). The suspects were also flying one-way tickets across the country. It wasn’t just that other passengers reported these individuals as acting suspiciously, but flight attendants reported the strange behavior as well.Sorry, but if somebody is acting that suspiciously, I would like to not be sued later on even if I am wrong…and I’d like for others to report what they see without hesitation because they’re afraid of being sued.It is ridiculous that the other passengers are being sued by the “flying imams.” They were performing their civic duty in reporting activities they thought suspicious.Just my opinion…

]]>