What is Digg?45 Comments
- simardown, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3dude - Sikhs are perfectly cool with random pat downs and checks. they are perfectly cool with x-ray machines and puff tests. what's not cool is that they're now singling out sikhs for additional pat downs and searches at the discretion of the 43,000 TSA screeners, based on the logic that you can hide something in a turban that you couldnt hide anywhere else?
if you have a flat chested woman and have her wear a D-size bra, she could hide more items there than any turban. if it's explosives or non-metallic items, she would pass a metal detector or possibly a puff test (depending on the explosive). now, there's a chance she'd be pulled aside to have random pat down and search (again, sikhs don't object to those). BUT, if a sikh is subjected to a discretionary search because of what is possible to hide in a turban, why arent they extending the logic to hiding objects ANYWHERE on the body. it makes no sense, runs into an array of constitutional questions.
which brings me to the final fault in your argument. you are completely incorrect in your summation of religion issue. Sikhs are not asking for any additional rights what so ever. they are asking to be afforded the same rights - to practice freely. if the government ever wants to impose on right to practice religion, the Supreme Court has established the strict scrutiny analysis, that the government has to demonstrate compelling state interests and their methods for imposing on relgiion must be narrowly tailored to acheive that end. Sikhs do not contest that national security is of the utmost importance. Which is why they make no fuss what so ever about been patted down or searched when EVERYONE is subjected to it or it is done at random. But, when a policy singles the turban out, which in the West is worn ONLY by Sikhs, the government must demonstrate that their policy is narrowly tailored to achieve their national security ends. I have pointed out how silly it is in several of my posts, but morever, the TSA has not even seen fit to release the policy to the public or any organizations citing national security concerns. Thus, they wish to infringe on religious rights without having to justify the infringement. This is ass backwards. - FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You are all missing the point here.
How did someone manage to smuggle a MONKEY on a plane underneath a HAT? Was it a very small monkey? An exceptionally large hat? What kind of hat was it? Are monkeys considered weapons or, barring that, terrorists? - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4because the law doesn't protect your personal beliefs, it protects freedom to practice religion. for example people who claim they use marijuana for religious practice are regularly arrested because it is not an established religion.
- simardown, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6wow - are you guys completely missing the point.
yarmulkes and skullcaps are specifically excluded. second, when the TSA adopted this policy, they disregarded the policy they've had in place since November, 2001 - one that permitted the pat down and searching of turbans IF the metal detector went off.
this new policy recommends the pat down and removal of turbans, a constitutionally protected article of faith, by lumping it in with cowboy hats and berets. these searches are to be done at the discretion of the TSA screener and are wholly different than the "random" pat downs that all passengers are subjected to.
finally - wtf is the purpose of this policy. i'm not sure what you non-metallic object (the point of these pat downs) you can hide in a turban that you can't hide under a bra, in a pair of briefs, under baggy shirts or pants, or taped to the small of the back. the policy does nothing to actually heighten security, all the while subjecting sikhs (the only ethnic or religious group subjected to these searches) to public and additional searches. this is especially sad because Sikhs have had NOTHING to do with any recent terrorist activity or conflicts, especially against the US, and they've been fighting tooth and nail to win over the hearts and minds of all the ***** renecks and ***** in this country who have been displaying an amazing amount of overt and covert ignorance and hostility. - FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No one has yet taken advantage of turbans. Nor have I seen any reports of people hollowing out books in order to smuggle contraband inside of them. Maybe we should ban books from planes so that no one thinks to do just that?
All of these so-called "safety measures" that are being added don't actually protect anyone and they're not even effective. People are still managing to bring contraband aboard and the ones who really suffer are the regular people who simply want to bring a bottle of water with them.
Come on, this whole thing is happening because of a rogue monkey. None of these things are for the safety of the passengers, they're a thin veil trying to disguise the fact that NO ONE is doing anything real to ensure the safety of airline passengers. - search9286, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Does anyone remember Richard Reid, the shoe bomber? There is a lot more space in a turban than a shoe. Flying is not a right! It is a privilege. If the Sikhs don't want their turbans searched, or the Jews their yarmulkas, or the rednecks their cowboy hats, then don't let them on the plane.
- cooldude99, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5As a response to the first two people that posted. I respectfully disagree (especially about the "redneck" thing). Firstly, Sikhs are NOT Muslims. I have some Sikh friends and their religion practices equality amongst all people and they believe in one God (and DON'T try to convert people (unless they want to)). They wear turbans as part of their faith. It's not a fashion statement - like a beret or a cowboy hat. It's a religious item.
This is ABSOLUTELY discrimination on the part of the TSA.
I am a patriotic white guy who is a pretty conservative republican Christian who doesn't wear a turban or a yarmulke or a beret or a cowboy hat - but I think everyone in the United States should have the right to. I also think everyone should be allowed to practice their religion without fear of additional scrutiny from government organizations. "Simardown" was correct in saying people can hide objects anywhere on themselves. Additional scrutiny of Sikhs is just another way to discriminate against people who have already suffered a lot from mistaken identity. - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4From Liam76: "I have seen big turbans that could very easily hold explosives." HAHAHA Yeah, because A) a t*rrorist would clearly wear a turban, in order to evade detection, and B) a t*rrorist would obviously hide his expl*sive in the most obvious place imaginable, because nobody would ever think to look there. And furthermore, the hat checks aren't about terrorism, they are about A ***** MONKEY IN A HAT there I said it
- simardown, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2one additional point - the TSA thought through enough to exempt the yarmulke, because in all seriousness, you can't really hide anything under a yarmulke. that's fine and dandy. they failed discuss this new and secretive policy with any sikhs or sikh organizations and probably and completely fail to recognize that it'd be damn hard to hide something under a turban that you couldnt hide anywhere else on your body...like in your socks. that the TSA has made the distinction between two different kinds of religious headdress but have provided no rationale for the distinction doesn't pass constitutional muster. it would never pass a strict scrutiny analysis before a court.
so, if ANYONE passes through a metal detector and the puff tests, should they not be subject to pat downs to ensure they're not hiding something on their body?
The TSA, in all its wisdom, had decided know. so now the people in turbans, who already garner the suspicious and attention of pretty much every passenger on a flight, and are already subject to random pat downs, are now subject to additional attention from the TSA on ***** reasoning, while anyone else can hide something under their clothing.
the more i think about it, the more preposterous this is. - simardown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3mydigga -
again - the difference is, that your shoes are not constitutionally protected. if the government wants to impose on constitutionally protected religious rights, they have to narrowly confined method and demonstrate a compelling state interest. the interest here is clear and necessary and Sikhs have always acknowledged it - National Security. Thus, when Sikhs don't pass through metal detectors, they have never objected to pat downs and, if necessary, searches of their turbans. However, now, even if do pass through metal detectors and the puff tests, they are being separated from other passengers on the basis of their religious headdress based on faulty logic - that they are capable of hiding something that NO ONE else would be able to hide. Again - this disregards that ANYONE can hide something under their clothes that it might be possible to hide in a turban. Ever seen a a turban wrapped? it is a huge piece of cloth, and very tightly wrapped....there's very little space up there - certainly less than might be under a bra. - jcr89fumkc, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I have to take off my cowboy boots and my hat to have them inspected to get on a plane or to enter a concert. I have been doing so for years. Is it racial profiling against rednecks? Nope its common sense. People sneak knives and other weapons in their boots or hats all the time into events. They check everyone at sporting events too.
It has nothing to do with race, ethnicity, or stereotypes. If that were the case the French would never have to go through security screenings, seriously when was the last time a Frenchman blew up anything let alone a plane? If other cultures think we are picking on them, then maybe they should take care of the bad part of their cultures. If all the Muslims got together and went to the radicals and said, "look stop blowing up crap, I am getting sick of waiting at security check points to go on vacation." Maybe things would change. But we can't do that, its not nice. I don't support the radical Christians in my country and I actively oppose them, so maybe the Muslims can do the same. Then maybe we can work toward a more active piece and better global community. But everyone, not just the US has to step up the plate. - cooldude99, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Shoes are not a religious item. Laptops and jackets are not religious items. Cowboy hats and berets are not religious items. TURBANS ARE RELIGIOUS ITEMS.
Is it realistic to say someone should either put up with the rules or not fly? Are we not allowed to disagree with rules that are imposed by bureaucratic organizations? Especially when it doesn't add anything to security? What is a Sikh supposed to do if they have to travel for work or even just want a vacation? Not fly because they (as free speaking Americans) object to a new discriminatory policy?
Why not make everyone get naked and be subject to a full body cavity search? Someone could hide something in their underwear or in their socks or in their bras.
Again - I think Sikhs are getting unfairly picked on because there aren't as many of them as other minorities. They are an easier group to pick on because there aren't as many of them as Christians or Jews or Hindus or other religions.
The new rules are turning our country into a police state that UNFAIRLY punishes people who look different than the "average" person. - simardown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3wow - misterkurtz - i don't even know where to start.
the air india bombing - action that was widely condemned by the vast majority of the Sikh community, was carried out by extremists and can be paralleled to bands of hindus who slaughter muslims out of hate, jews who fought the israeli army over settlements and assassinated Rabin, christians who bomb abortion clincs, and fanatics that kill their fellow muslims to make a political point. all have some degree of support in their community and are trying to make a political point, but are condemned by the vast majority of their own people.
as for your generalization that Sikhs are theives, liars and cheats, and kill wives or are in youth gangs, all the while labeling a religion a "terrorist organization?" i think you showed your colors as a close-minded bigot.
FYI - Sikhs are a non proselytizing religion....very different than Christianity or Islam. It's also a dharmic rather than abrahamic faith. but hey, given your statements, i wouldn't really expect you to care. - wpi97, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"yarmulkes and skullcaps are specifically excluded." First, a yarmulka, also known as a kipah, is a scull cap. Second, it makes sense for scull caps to be excluded because it is nearly impossible to hide anything under them.
- simardown, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Liam - one question...
have you ever studied how this great nation's courts determine what is a religion, what is not a religion, what it is to practice religion, what the freedom of religion actually is, and when the right to practice religion can be can be limited?
because all of your ridiculous hypotheticals and questions can be answered and resolved by looking at a few Supreme Court decisions, or even a law school textbook, and you'll realize how inapplicable and silly they all are.
just thought i'd let you know. maybe you want to brush up on actual law before you interject again. - imacyco, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just so everyone knows, people who have been flying since this policy was enacted have observed the following:
1 - There is rarely (if ever) a place for someone to take off their turban or put it back on in private.
2 - Security personnel have been accused of being rude and insensitive to law abiding citizens based on what they are wearing.
3 - To force a Sikh (man or woman) to take off their turban is equivalent to asking them to strip in public. They come from a different culture and have a legal, moral and constitutional right for their faith and practices to be respected by the agents of the government of the very country of which they are a citizen.
Needless to say, the yokels posting BS need to STFU. - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sikhs have been known to play crazy sports, such as Sikhball http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1683723578513042667&q=sikhball&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Most bra's that are size D have a metal wire and normally require additional wanding or pats.
I disagree that it only singles out Sikh's because it would be applied to anyone who has a large hat. As the cowboy originally said he is under the same suspiscion that a sikh. Even witht he pat down they are getting "special treatment" because they aren't required to put their oversized headgear through the x-ray machine. If they were only applying this to turbans, you would have a point, however anyone with a big hat or head covering has to have it checked. The problem stems from Sikh's not liking to take off the covering or having it patted down in public (from my understanding), not from only looking at turbans. - Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4what if that is my personal belief.
Why should a Sikh's personal belief grant him more rights than me? - cooldude99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0That's exactly what I'm saying Liam76. I think Sikh people are being punished for their religion. What about nuns with habits? Why are they being excluded? Clearly any type of headgear or clothing can be used for hiding anything. Why don't we just have everyone take off all their clothes? It's because people wouldn't stand for either of those 2 things. There are too many Catholics to allow nuns to be searched.
Sikhs are far fewer in number in the US - so their rights get stomped on. They are, indeed, being punished for their beliefs. - cooldude99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0What does that mean?
- cooldude99, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You really don't make a lot of sense kurtz. Are you just trying to get everyone to convert to your religion?
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Too everybody who dugg down my comments without responding, try ans suspend your PC indignation for a minute and think.
If Turbans become some how "protected" so TSA won't pat them down, how long do you htink it will take for someone to take advantage of that loophole? I don't think Sikh's are any more likely to be terrorists than figiin mormons, but the fact remains once give something like that "hands off" policy others will exploit it.
So I am sorry if it hurts your feelings and is bothersome to you, but freedom of religion doesn't allow you to trump laws that are reasonable (yes you can sneak things in turbans) and for your safety. - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Get back to us when the Cowboy religion requires that cowboys never take off their cowboy hats in public.
- misterkurtz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0So I got your attention, Simardown. It may surprise you to know that I believe we are all one family, begun with a common father and mother. I also believe that all the world's religions have one source that began after the flood. I also believe that our "family differences" are going to be solved once and for all and that all me will live in peace together, with one pure religion and universal prosperity for all -- soon. Remember there has been more blood spilt in the name of god and religion than for any other cause over the history of mankind and Sikhism is no exception.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1reply button demonstration
- duggtodeath, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Sim Sim Salabim!
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I agree the "cowboy" religion wouldn't have much of a legal leg to stand on, but it would certainly have a moral one.
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Read the comments.
People are trying to say turbans are religious items and should be constitutionally protected. If that were the case they would be filled with explosives tomorrow. - FyreGoddess, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Then what is stopping someone wearing a turban from filling it with explosives today? Why wait until tomorrow? Why wait until it becomes an excepted item?
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Freedom of religion in this country means that the govt won't specifically interfere with your religion. It doesn't give special protection to people who attach special belief to articles of clothing. If having a turban checked in private (which is an option) is too intrusive for some, it is their choice not to fly.
Turbans can be quite big and it would be very easy to slip some type of explosive in there that a metal detector or a puffer wouldn't set off. - simardown, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1wow - misterkurtz - i don't even know where to start.
the air india bombing in 1985 (22 years ago) - action that was widely condemned by the vast majority of the Sikh community and motivated by a huge and complex conflict between Sikhs and the Indian government - was carried out by extremists and can be paralleled to jews who fought the israeli army over settlements and assassinated Rabin, christians who bomb abortion clincs, bands of hindus who slaughter muslims or sikhs during riots, and fanatics that kill their fellow muslims to make a political point. all have some degree of support in their community and are trying to make a political point, but are condemned by the vast majority of their own people.
as for your generalization that Sikhs are theives, liars and cheats, and kill wives or are in youth gangs, all the while labeling a religion a "terrorist organization?" i think you showed your colors as a close-minded bigot.
FYI - Sikhs are a non proselytizing religion....very different than Christianity or Islam. It's also a dharmic rather than abrahamic faith. but hey, given your statements, i wouldn't really expect you to care. - Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Because as of today they are searched. They have always been periodically searched. The Sikh's are mad because now it is clear in the policy that they will be searched.
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Where are yarmukles and turbans specifically excluded? That is a very broad definition of freedom of religion to say that the govt can never ask you to remove a type of religious headgear.
Pat downs don't work on turbans because it is a relatively solid mass where even if you touch it something can be hidden. With pat downs on baggy clothes, etc a solid lump that could be a knife, bomb etc would be noticable. - Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1That is your opinion. If you religion can say you have some special clothes that can't be removed then why can't someone elses religion say the same thing about another piece of clothes? Freedom of religion doesn't give anyone special priveleges, it just means you won't be punished for your beliefs.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1WTF are you talking about... People think it is their religious right to blow themselves up, and everyone around them. Are they constitutionally protected?
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Unless they pat it down how do you know how tightly it is wrapped? Isn't it possible you could use a smaller piece of clothe and put some explosives up there as well.
As far as shoes being constitutionally protected I could be part of a small religion of boot, and always have to keep my boots on, should the govt then not be allowed to search them? - Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Personal beliefs and religion are very close. What If I called my personal beliefs the church of cowboy and said I had to keep my boots on all day. Why would a Sikh get special protection and I wouldn't?
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Books go through x-ray machines. x-ray machines are fairly reliable at showing explosives. Nobody has taken advantage of turbans, yes. But nobody took advantage of flying planes into buildings before 9/11, and nobody took advantage of putting bombs in shoes before Reid, why don't we try thinking of these things first for a change.
i agree the water one is stupid to make an explosive out of two different liquids aboard a plane is a lot more difficult than in Diehard three. But the fact remains that it woulld be pretty easy to pack a little C4 in a turban and none of the current technology would be likely to catch it without a pat down.
what would suggest a REAL course of action would be to protect passengers? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2If you don't like the policy, don't fly. The policy makes sense, relative to the other policies already in place. If I have to take off my shoes, I should probably have to take off my hat as well.
- misterkurtz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Perhaps many don't realise that corruption, bribery (and hence lying and cheating) are a well documented fact of Indian culture. I might add and unfortunate fact. I have heard many Indian journalists state on radio and TV that until this changes, the poverty and shoddy infrastructure of the country will not change, cannot be changed. Case in point, after the last large earthquake, one journalist pointed out, the only buildings left standing were the ones built by the British. The ones destroyed were buildings built later where every inspector had been bribed to allow the construction to be built. That is a sad fact. Are the Indian journalists bigots? Or are they realistic and honest?
- Liam76, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Even people who pass the metal and puff test still have to be patted down. I have seen big turbans that could very easily hold explosives.
Freedom of religion means you can practice whatever religion YOU want. If taking off a Turban is to oburdensome in YOUR religion YOU shouldn't fly. - simardown, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1wow - misterkurtz - i don't even know where to start.
the air india bombing - action that was widely condemned by the vast majority of the Sikh community, was carried out by extremists and can be paralleled to bands of hindus who slaughter muslims out of hate, jews who fought the israeli army over settlements and assassinated Rabin, christians who bomb abortion clincs, and fanatics that kill their fellow muslims to make a political point. all have some degree of support in their community and are trying to make a political point, but are condemned by the vast majority of their own people.
as for your generalization that Sikhs are theives, liars and cheats, and kill wives or are in youth gangs, all the while labeling a religion a "terrorist organization?" i think you showed your colors as a close-minded bigot.
FYI - Sikhs are a non proselytizing religion....very different than Christianity or Islam. It's also a dharmic rather than abrahamic faith. but hey, given your statements, i wouldn't really expect you to care. - misterkurtz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Sihkism is only a terrorist organization anyway. They were responsible for bringing down the Air India flight in the Irish Sea. Their goal, like the other two religions, Christianity and Islam, is world domination. We have a large population, on the whole the majority (though not all) are thieves, liars and cheats. They come not to build the country but to take! They brought violence with them, wife killing and youth gangs... As for being unfairly picked on? Read the above. They bring it on themselves and deserve more than they get.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is