Nor are the Paulistinians! They get a pass though. They are not held to the same standards that others are.
Gworld, not that any of this will be heard, since it appears to give you onanistic pleasure to spin a world that only makes sense to you; but you have, as is your only way, it seems, wholly missed the point. Perhaps some day you will come to know that wisdom doesn't come cloaked in the color of raw polemic for polemic's sake, and goading others merely because you can type a few keys on a keyboard doesn't amount to personal courage. The below is just a fuller rehashing of what I already said, but made more plain so it won't be too difficult to understand. I didn't like that after 9/11, I looked on my fellow citizens with prejudice. I said it would make me a hypocrite to condemn others' injustices, if I didn't admit the failings extant in my own heart. I condemned such prejudices in myself, but am glad that my journey over the last several years has brought me to learn something about myself and my fellow human beings. Bluntly, having the self-honesty to admit one's shortcomings is a good thing. You would do well to try it sometime. I also have said that I cannot know what it would do to a man, such as this person, to lose a son to war; nor a woman. It's why I won't judge Cindy Sheehan for her actions, and I won't judge this man for his. For all I know, he is indeed lost his mind, and for that I grieve for him. That said, if I have a great deal of compassion for this man's loss, I reject his view, which is to name muslims in our country enemies simply because they are Muslims. I call that anti-American. In fact, coming from the martial and spiritual path I once came from, I have seen the evil such practice has wrought, on many Americans of Japanese descent. However, if I reject the impetus for his protest over the airport action, I think he is de facto correct in calling for its termination. I do not support the establishment of any religious traditions in public institutions. In this, I agree with Debunked. Supporting these "ablution bins" while raising a hue and cry over nativity scenes on public grounds is hypocrisy, pure and simple.
I'm a Christian, but I do not demand special facilities or treatment at public facilities. If muslim men have bad feet, they should invest in anti-fungal ointments and sprays that can help with feet problems or pick up some Dr. Schol's odor eater foot pads like anyone else should have to.
I am different than the nut case, I am an honest intellectual, believe me. He is maybe a nut case but let's not judge him. Let's have symphaty for him. Let's agree with him. How is installing a sink is establishing a religious tradition? Are you against handicap toilets too, in case they try to establish handicap religion?
In my opinion, not by what you post; neither honest, nor an intellectual. Yes, agreed, which is what I said. If his son's death has cracked his mind, I feel compassion for that, while condemning the actions stemming from the sickness, if that is what has caused this. Sinks? Nice obfuscation. Just curious - but do you really believe you are cleverly snowing folks, or you really don't, or can't, see it is manifest that since the ablutions are part and parcel of islamic religious ritual, uh, by definition, it is a public establishment of religious tradition? I would feel the same way for Catholic confessionals, Jewish ablution cups, or, more in my line of former practice, a room where I could change into white loincloths, and an open pit (right next to the Chuck E Cheese emporium) where I could get drenched with ice cold mountain water, while practicing misogi, ascetic martial meditation. It's a public airport, not the world parliament of religons. Don't work too hard on this one. In other words, So am I. Which is why I object to accommodations to any religion by an airport. Thank you again for your cogency - part of your "honest intellectualism," I suppose? I do have to commend you with working so hard to conflate a physical condition necessitating accommodation, to a religious tradition implemented on public grounds, by the public weal.
It is actually a CORPORATION, are you saying that companies can not decide over their own property? Since you are in restaurant business, how about you start running to polish restaurants where many display a cross on the wall and start policing them? How about the motels, should they remove the bibles from the rooms?
gworld, given previous dire discontent for Christians, Jews, Israel, America, soldiers and dmoz, would you still hold the same opinions here, if either of these two religious groups wanted special foot bathing facilities installed? I don't believe I've ever seen you say anything positive about Christians or Jews, so I was just wondering how a "supposed" atheist might have different standards for different religions.
'Kay, now that you have honestly abandoned your former intellectual positions, bringing up a private/public argument. Care to move to another? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_airport
If people want to wash their feet 5 times a day to stay clean, why not let them be? At least their feet are 5x cleaner than a regular joe's face. This is how a society works, give and take. The taxi drivers drive your customer, your going to make those drivers happy. Pointless debate. Pure hatred, that's all. As a Muslim, I don't mind one bit if the IAA offer special sinks for Jews, Christians, Hindus, whoever it is. All well and good. Some people have just too much time on their hands....
M5, it isn't hatred at all, at least it certainly isn't on my part, which is all I can speak to. The problem is that this is a public entity, and there is therefore no place for this on public land; more, certainly not one funded by that public entity. This is the constitutional principle in our country. Think on this, even logistically - where does it stop? How many religions are there in the world? Do we accommodate each and every one of them, in a finite place, intended for public transportation and that is all? Your other point, that cabbies do us a turn by their services. Waiters serve you your food - are we to make accommodations for them in public spaces, as well? How about porters, who carry your bags. If, in fact, there are groups providing services that tend to come from any one creed or religion - are we to make public accommodations to these, as well? Etc. Finally, correct me if I'm wrong - but the ablutions aren't really for just a sense of getting clean, are they? They are, in fact, ritual cleansings in direct preparation for prayer, 5 x per day, right? So the bins are very much like a baptismal font, or a confessional, or any other edifice for religious purposes, correct? It isn't hatred, but a principle, and I think a good one, that public entities are for public purposes, not religious ones.
Special facilities for different religions, bad idea, only causes resentment, but really this doesn't even violate the teachings of the bible. Exodus 40:31-32: Acts 21:26:
I know where your coming from. We're having these debates everyday in Canada, especially in the province of Quebec. I don't know much about your constitution but I am sure that if the public had been against this installation, the gov would have stepped in. Don't you think? As for the ablution, yes it has to be done for every prayer (unless you don't annul it). The place you do the ablution can be anywhere, a public restroom sink, by the river..whatever. So, I don't think it's like a baptismal font. Anyways, there will be 2 sinks (one for men and one for women). Something to think about.. In my college, we have a sink for ablution because the students and teachers didn't want us to do ablution in the regular sinks. Was that a double standard? I don't think so.. Unfortunately a small group has been reacting with hatred and irrational hysteria...
I can't help but reject the notion that Muslims are citizens, and providing for their needs in a public place somehow isn't a civil issue. Carrying to another example, what if there were no Kosher food services in public areas?
The constitution in our country isn't meant to be a reflection of what people want, in terms of current opinion. It was structured to weather changes - to ensure the basic principles of our country remained unimpinged regardless of whatever vicissitudes exist within the public's memory. In this instance, it was structured to ensure the state wouldn't have a hand in the establishment of religion. This tenet is a rather timeless one, in the lay of our land, anyway. At least this is how I view it. M5, I understand your need, as a muslim, for these ablutions, but, again, I'd ask - what if I were serious in my earlier post, about the need to perform misogi (the coldwater streams, daily, ritual prayer and meditation), and, let's say, the preponderance of the food service workers were of the same faith - would the public need to foot the bill to establish the waterfalls, and so forth, as these are endemic to the faith of these workers? Whose responsibility is it? It seems commonsense to me to say that although no one, and no law, can prohibit you from practicing your faith, equally, the public shouldn't be responsible for providing you, or anyone, with whatever implements you or they need to do so. This is also my response to Guerilla's post. I believe the state is responsible to its citizens in the way of safe ingress/egress, equal treatment to services rendered - i.e., Jim Crow, "Separate But Equal" was destroyed (at least de juris destroyed) with Brown v. the Board of Education, 1954, etc.; but as the practice of religion is a private matter, the state is not responsible for providing for its benefit. To your example of Kosher service, as far as I know, there exists no statute requiring it, for example, on airport land, nor have public monies been committed to ensure Jewish workers are provided Kosher foods, if that is your question - was it, Guerilla? Finally, M5, if the ACLU has been at the forefront of the call for the separation of Church and State, it has been shown to be entirely inconsistent in its efforts. It has zealously fought for the removal of religious symbols from public grounds, but took, effectively, a "no stand" on the Univ. of Michigan issue, citing "that as any students were free to use the ablution baths," it was a secular issue, and therefore they wouldn't be taking it up. I'm sorry, I find this utterly disingenuous. With no rancor to you or your faith, these bins are for the express purpose you stated, preparation for Islamic prayer, and as such, the separation of Church and State requires no public involvement in their funding or establishment.
I just pointed out that your arguments don't hold in any front but may be you should go to real source instead of becoming an "expert" through wikipedia. It is a CORPORATION according to their own report, don't you think they know more about themselves than wikipedia? http://www.indianapolisairport.com/uploads/docs/2004-cafr_1C7T3T.pdf
Uh, Gworld, I guess I wouldn't say tossing your hands up exactly constitutes "intellectual honesty." I believe I have squarely shown the flaws in your argument. If I am incorrect, please disabuse me of my errors. If not, I'd think quiet might be a good option over saying "well...well, you're wrong!" Particularly since you don't seem to understand there is a difference between a municipal corporation, such as the Airport Authority is, and ACME, Inc. If you don't know the definition of a municipal corporation, then I'm afraid relying on wikipedia is the least of your worries. You'd best begin anew. In the very report you provide, the Indianapolis Airport Authority defines itself as a municipal corporation (see IAA letter, page 1; page 9 of your attached pdf): A municipal corporation is a local governmental body, not a private "C" or "S" corporation; and it is established and sanctioned as such under state authority by the State of the municipal corporation's legal and physical existence. Gworld, I realize you'd like to find a way around the hole you've dug, but just a friendly suggestion: you may want to investigate - using some of that much vaunted "intellectual honesty" - just a bit more before making the attempt again, buddy.
The drivers are already happy, the customers give them a job & income, yet you want the customers to go a step further & help them with their religious beliefs too, will the taxi drivers carry me down my garden path?