Our item Wednesday about an incident in which airline passengers were alarmed by a group of imams praying in Arabic brought this interesting comment from reader Dennis Gibb:
Recently, my wife and I were on a trip to Europe and we changed planes at Kennedy Airport. When we reported for our overseas flight, we found that we were accompanied by a large number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, who are a familiar sight in New York with their beards, long sideburns, black clothing and hats.
As we sat waiting for the flight, the rabbi with the Jewish men announced that they were all going to perform their normal sundown prayer early because they did not want to frighten anyone on the plane with what might, to the uninformed, have sounded like an Arabic prayer.
It is so PC that these supposed Islamic scholars have so little sensitivity to what is happening in the world that they would insist on imposing actual Arabic prayers on an airplane filled with people uniformed as to the reason or the nature of the activity?This is an excellent point. Look at the Council on American-Islamic Relations' Web site, and you'll be hard-pressed to find any indication that CAIR cares about the feelings of Americans who, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, have perfectly understandable apprehensions about being on a plane with Arab men chanting "Allah, Allah."
We're not arguing that the passengers were in the right, only that if they overreacted, their overreaction was understandable in light of recent history. By demanding sensitivity while refusing to offer any in return, CAIR is behaving boorishly, abusing the good nature of the American character.
Practitioners of identity politics not only act like jackasses while insisting that they are entitled to sensitivity. They also claim to advocate "diversity" while demanding that others march in ideological lockstep. The Pioneer Press of St. Paul, Minn., reports on one example:
It started out as a who's who of Twin Cities law firms joining forces to lure minority attorneys to Minnesota.
But the Twin Cities Diversity in Practice group set off a tempest when it excluded a firm that handled a pair of landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases challenging affirmative action.
The group's leaders said letting the Minneapolis law firm of Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand join the effort would hamper its mission: to make the bar more racially diverse. . . .
Maslon's managing attorney said she and others in her firm were mystified by the group's decision to deny them membership.
"We agree with their mission, absolutely agree with their mission," said Terri Krivosha, chairwoman of the Maslon firm's governance committee. . . .
The controversy centers on Maslon attorney Kirk Kolbo, who represented three University of Michigan applicants--two for an undergraduate program and one for the law school--who sued as part of a class action because of the school's raced-based admissions policies.
If Maslon itself had colorblind hiring policies, the exclusion would make sense, but Krivosha tells the paper that her firm is committed to "diversity": "We are moving on to work for an inclusive legal community and an inclusive law firm. Diversity is a bedrock of our firm." But the Twin Cities DIP group insists the firm be ideologically pure in its choice of clients.
The imams knew their provocative behavior would spark a reaction among passengers. These terrorist-wannabes are just looking for a lawsuit and know the enemies of America like the ACLU and CAIR will support them in the monkey-courts of activist jurists posing as judges.
No comments :
Post a Comment