It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Airline bans Bibles to avoid offending Muslims

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
That is sick. I mean, they can do as they please when they come to western countries, and we are supposed to respect their culture when they don't respect ours. It's like in the US one cannot say "MERRY CHRISTMAS" on tv because it might hurt someone!!! Quite sick. And recently here in Finland, they have banned the nativity play in some schools because it MIGHT offend people. However, they should keep in mind that christianity is the basis of many countries. Try banning some of their traditions in their countries... It would never happen.




posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
i so cant wait till OIL runs out then they will NEED us to help them all time and we wont be depending on them for OIL muhahaha that time is so soon too, then we can dictate what we want to them and they either except or become 3rd world country.

also they come to our country to live RESPCT OUR LAWS thx and OBEY them, we dont care about your laws an faith, YOU have come to live in this non muslim country WHY???????

[edit on 13-1-2006 by blobby]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nordman
That is sick. I mean, they can do as they please when they come to western countries, and we are supposed to respect their culture when they don't respect ours.

Not to single you out, because practically everyone has said this, but thats not true.

Western countries demand a certain amount of assimilation. Its also illegal in most western countries to have multiple wives. Infact, lots of the extreme islamic religious laws, like the strict control over women, not recognizing divorce unless its okayed by a religious cleric, etc, those are all not legal in the west. And those are the actions of the government. In the netherlands and other western countries, they can't wear their traditional clothes. Also, the examples we are talking about here are about people visiting saudi for a short time, so its not much of an inconvience, yet muslims who are citizens in western countries can't wear these things.

Also, muslims get derided and made fun of all the time in the west by the public.

So I don't think that there's much of a case for 'we allow them to not assimilate without any pressure'.


It's like in the US one cannot say "MERRY CHRISTMAS" on tv because it might hurt someone!!! Quite sick.

What's sick is that thats entirely untrue. There isn't any such restriction at all.

And recently here in Finland, they have banned the nativity play in some schools because it MIGHT offend people.

Its funny how the seperation of church and state is seen as bad when it keeps christian stuff at bay, but not when it does the same for islamic stuff. If a similar law was enacted to prevent a re-enactment of mohammed receiving the scriptures from god, or of the muslim version of the crucifixtion in which jesus is removed before dying and doesn't resurrect, I doubt anyone would complain. Or if a town had a large muslim population and a muslim mayor and it put up green banners in white arabic lettering proclaiming that 'there is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet, happy eid-al-fatur', people would be pulling their hair out in rage.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   
Why does it seem we're constantly bending over backwards to placate these total bastards who want to kill us?

I'd really like to know...

[edit on 1/13/2006 by djohnsto77]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Well I imagine it has something to do with the fact that 99.9% of Muslims DON'T want to kill us, and we're attempting to respect their laws and customs. Just as when they come here there is some culture shock as far as OUR laws and customs.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
WHO gains WHAT from political correctness going way too far? Because measures similar to these don't even make a difference to Muslims. It only gives fuel to groups like the BNP or NF and makes ordinary people angry.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Why does it seem were constantly bending over backwards to placate these total bastards who want to kill us?


dj', don't you think that's stereotyping all Muslims.

This article is from Australia, where i live.

Force's new look of diversity
By Alana Buckley-Carr
January 14, 2006


NAVY blue hijabs, loose-fitting shirts and turbans emblazoned with the police logo will be part of a new range of West Australian police uniforms.

But the institution of religiously appropriate attire to attract to the ranks Muslims and Sikhs was lambasted yesterday by the police union and state Opposition.
Opposition police spokesman Rob Johnson asked if officers would also be permitted to interrupt their duties to pray to Mecca.

Victoria and Queensland police have already allowed culturally appropriate uniforms for Muslims and Sikhs on a case-by-case basis, but West Australian Police are the first to introduce blanket uniform exemptions to accommodate religious beliefs.

Superintendent Duane Bell said under the initiative, officers would be allowed to keep their beards or wear shoes made of synthetic materials rather than leather in order to remain faithful to their customs.

"In essence, we recognise that the police uniform has been a barrier to people wishing to become police officers, from certain ethnic backgrounds," Mr Bell said. continues... news.com.au


This has to be a step forward in my opinion, as many immigrants / refugees have been persecuted by government authorities in their country of origin.

This way, the Australian police will not be as "threatening" to people of all faiths.

Sanc'.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Just out of interest that article says they can wear synthetic shoes instead of Leather because of there beleifs, what on earth did they wear before the invention of synthetic materials ?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Listen up people, especially women, if you dont want to eventually have to cater to these islamic rituals and be a slave, then you better get on this war effort.

I dont care how many examples you give of 'muslims' integrating the fact is they do because they must, when there are enough of them to really influence something.....

look at france.....

nuff said....



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Listen up people, especially women, if you dont want to eventually have to cater to these islamic rituals and be a slave, then you better get on this war effort.

maybe if the muslims themselves demanded such things, and which effort would that be anyway? the crusades 2?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Its funny how the seperation of church and state is seen as bad when it keeps christian stuff at bay, but not when it does the same for islamic stuff. If a similar law was enacted to prevent a re-enactment of mohammed receiving the scriptures from god, or of the muslim version of the crucifixtion in which jesus is removed before dying and doesn't resurrect, I doubt anyone would complain. Or if a town had a large muslim population and a muslim mayor and it put up green banners in white arabic lettering proclaiming that 'there is no god but allah and mohammed is his prophet, happy eid-al-fatur', people would be pulling their hair out in rage.


really? so i guess this wasnt you agreeing with complaints about the UN investigation into political cartoons against muhammad on the thread laughing at islam:


Originally posted by Nygdan


According to Muslims it is blasphemy to depict the prophet and the paper should apologize for having done so

What a crock. No one has the right to tell someone else that they must obey their religion. Denmark should tell these 'scholars' to 'suck it'.

[edit on 23-12-2005 by Nygdan]


you know damn well that christianity is never given the same considerations as islam. if those had been cartoons making fun of jesus, no one would have said a word, and their certainly would not have been a UN investigation. why would you agree with this concept on that thread, but have a completely opposite argument on this one? change your mind that quickly?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I'm a muslim, and I'm very well educated about the ways of islam.

I'm sick and tired of having islam and muslims abused because of other people's ignorance. I'd like to inform all of you that it is not offensive for a muslim to own and read any book whether it's a bible, a torah, or any other book refferring to another religion.

This ban will offend muslims and christians alike.

Banning stuffed toys is also an act of ignorance, because I've read texts proving that children used dolls way back in the beginning of the islamic era, and any muslim scholar will agree with what I'm saying.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700
really? so i guess this wasnt you agreeing with complaints[...]why would you agree with this concept on that thread, but have a completely opposite argument on this one? change your mind that quickly?

What does the one have to do with the other? No one has a right to dictate another person's religion. The makers of the cartoon haven't commited blasphemy. And what are you talking about, christianity isn't given the same consideration as islam? What country are you in? Most western countries give a special position to christianity and the public will vehemently attack anyone even suggesting that there is something wrong with christianity, or for doing something as innocuous as having a 'happy holidays' banner inside a store rather than a 'merry christmas' one.
I haven't changed my position at all here. No one has a right to dictate religion to another person. No one can force the stewardesses to do anything, they figure that they're better off getting a paycheck than wearing their cross.

Why does it seem we're constantly bending over backwards to placate these total bastards who want to kill us?

Who's bending over backwards? The airline execs? I get the impression that they're not super-pious christians. INfact, I get the impression that no one that'd remove their cross and drop their bible for a job is a very pious christian, or at the least I wouldn't say that they are bending over backwards for anyone. The regulations here are a minor inconvience for some stewardesses.

Because measures similar to these don't even make a difference to Muslims.

I seriously doubt that, muslims flying on this airline are undoubtedly the source of a complaint in this case.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doku
I'm a muslim, and I'm very well educated about the ways of islam.

I'm sick and tired of having islam and muslims abused because of other people's ignorance. I'd like to inform all of you that it is not offensive for a muslim to own and read any book whether it's a bible, a torah, or any other book refferring to another religion.

This ban will offend muslims and christians alike.

Banning stuffed toys is also an act of ignorance, because I've read texts proving that children used dolls way back in the beginning of the islamic era, and any muslim scholar will agree with what I'm saying.


Thank you, Doku! For inserting some intelligence into a thread full of idiocy (with the exception of input from Nygdan that is).

It is my understanding that Muslims view both followers of Judaism and Christians as "children of the Book" (i.e. the Bible). I am sorry that you are currently having to read a plethora of really inane doodoo.

Like I said, if the opportunity ever arises I will gleefully reject this airline - not because of some religious difference between myself (as a Christian) and Muslims, but because morons such as those who came up with this totally ludicrous policy don't deserve to take my well-earned greenbacks hostage.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Airline bans Bibles to avoid offending Muslims



I hope they don't get to the point where airlines ban wings to keep from offending bird-lovers.

Edited to fix quote tag.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by FEMA]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Listen up people, especially women, if you dont want to eventually have to cater to these islamic rituals and be a slave, then you better get on this war effort.

I dont care how many examples you give of 'muslims' integrating the fact is they do because they must, when there are enough of them to really influence something.....

look at france.....

nuff said....





well gee, I've written congress asking them to close the border to those immigranting from predominately islamic countries like saudi arabia, Iran, ect. not because I don't like arabs, or because I'm anti immigrant.....but it is good common sense when discussing national security and threats to it, when the threats are coming from those mainly from those that fit that description!!! but, na.......they don't want to do that, and more than likely, there's probably a terrorist or two in our universities studying microbiology or nuclear physics or something.
don't tell me to get behind the "war effort" using this as a motivational force. I'm not willing to give up my constitutional rights "for the war effort" when they are just too plain greedy, dumb, or lazy, whatever, to at least restrict the people from coming here in the first place!!!

besides, they might as well just kill me because there's no way that I would be walking two steps behind the men, dressed head to toe, and relying on my family to get from point a to b....

and I can use the Koran just as easily as I can the bible to debunk all the silly traditions that either religous zealot would want to enforce on me.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I seriously doubt that, muslims flying on this airline are undoubtedly the source of a complaint in this case.


Well there are similar cases of political correctness going mad in Britain where there wasn't any Muslims complaining about the area that was addressed, but it was in fact leftists going too far. How can you be so sure that Muslims undoubtedly complained? after all, as Valhall mentioned, Muslims still see Jews and Christians as people of the book and therefore respect their beliefs, why would they have a problem with someone elses beliefs regardless of that anyway?

Why should someone's intolerance matter to the airlines anyway, do 'Muslims' have bombs with them at all times in case they suddenly get annoyed, which incidentally manage to make it on to the airplane? Wouldn't surprise me if it was either some misguided head of the airline company who probably isn't very aware of how things work on the ground (great pun?) or someone who wants to stir up hatred against Muslims, or just some weirdo.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by sal88]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sanctum

This article is from Australia, where i live.

Force's new look of diversity
By Alana Buckley-Carr
January 14, 2006


NAVY blue hijabs, loose-fitting shirts and turbans emblazoned with the police logo will be part of a new range of West Australian police uniforms.

But the institution of religiously appropriate attire to attract to the ranks Muslims and Sikhs was lambasted yesterday by the police union and state Opposition.
Opposition police spokesman Rob Johnson asked if officers would also be permitted to interrupt their duties to pray to Mecca.

Victoria and Queensland police have already allowed culturally appropriate uniforms for Muslims and Sikhs on a case-by-case basis, but West Australian Police are the first to introduce blanket uniform exemptions to accommodate religious beliefs.

Sanc'.



That's great Australia is attempting to help Muslims integrate into the Australian culture with these rules. I'm just not convinced any Muslim country will reciprocate.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
This sounds more like a joke than anything and I suspect it is. Only two sources, one being World Net Daily and the other a British tabloid?

At any rate, if it were true, I would respect the decision of a private organization as it is their right to make their own policies. However, that does not mean I would agree with it and I would most definitely think it was ridiculous and foolish. You do not oppress one group to placate another.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
In the absence of corroboration, I'm gonna have to assume the premise for this thread is bunk. World Net Daily is the source for many of the most ridiculous rumors that filter into ATS discussions on a daily basis.

But...

That notwithstanding, the issue is a valid one to discuss, because the Kingdom is famous for this sort of nonsense.

My stance on it is simple. I won't ever have business in Saudi Arabia, and I don't expect my government to sublimate decency for the oppurtunity to profit. Leave them alone in their God-forsaken desert Hell. Good riddance to bad rubbish, and all that.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join