Here's a little example of the reason that most sane people would like to throttle someone who says they're from the govenment and here to provide help:

[size=4]Airport-security firm
at mercy of Muslims[/size=4]
[b]EEOC case forced company to rehire Arabs, instate Islamic-sensitivity training program[/b]
By Paul Sperry © 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – A leading airport-security firm under fire for hiring foreigners was pressured by the federal government two-and-a-half years ago to rehire Arab non-citizens.

Argenbright Security Inc., which provides security at both Washington Dulles International and Ronald Reagan Washington National airports, agreed in early 1999 to rehire seven Muslim women after they filed a religion-bias complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

[b]The Justice Department, in the wake of the Sept. 11 hijackings, is investigating the same company for failing to properly screen its guards[/b].

Argenbright operates the screening posts under contract with United Airlines at Dulles and Newark International Airport in New Jersey, where Islamic terrorists hijacked two of the four jumbo jets.

[b]Airport security experts say the EEOC settlement – which also mandates Muslim-sensitivity training for all Argenbright employees – goes a long way toward explaining why 87 percent of the checkpoint screeners at Dulles are not U.S. citizens. All seven Muslim complainants worked as Dulles screeners at the time[/b].

"If I were Argenbright and being investigated, I'd tell them, 'You want to sue us? Go talk to the damn EEOC. They're the ones who forced these people on us,'" said Steve Elson, a former Federal Aviation Administration airport-security inspector.

Atlanta-based Argenbright, owned by London-based Securicor PLC, declined comment. Argenbright runs passenger and luggage checkpoints at most of the nation's major airports.

Four of the seven Muslim workers are from Sudan, a country on the State Department's terrorist blacklist. One is from Egypt, and another is from Afghanistan.

[b]The Muslims contended they were fired by Argenbright for refusing to take off their head scarves while screening passengers. They said covering their heads is required by the Koran.[/b]

Apparently, United had received complaints from passengers nervous about Middle Easterners still running security after the year-earlier U.S. embassy bombings in Africa.

The EEOC complaint was drafted by a lawyer for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based interest group that has spoken out in support of terrorist groups and has called for a halt to U.S. bombing in Afghanistan.

- continued -

In 1998, after Osama bin Laden was fingered for blowing up the U.S. embassies, CAIR demanded that a Los Angeles billboard with bin Laden's picture and the caption, "Enemy No. 1," be removed.

On Sept. 17, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad stood next to President Bush at the Islamic Center of Washington, where Bush pleaded for Americans to "respect" Muslims and Islam's teachings of "peace." Awad also was seated near the first lady at Bush's Sept. 20 speech to Congress.

Rep. David E. Bonior, D-Mich., joined CAIR, which publishes booklets called "An Employer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices," in denouncing the firing of the seven Arab non-citizen screeners.

"This incident raises a larger issue: that of widespread and systematic discrimination against Muslims and Arab-Americans in airports all across the country," said Bonior in a March 1999 House floor speech.

Bonior, whose Detroit-area district has a large Muslim population, has lobbied FAA administrator Jane Garvey, a Clinton appointee, to end profiling of Muslims and Arabs at U.S. airports.

"I'm angry. This is my religion," said Iklas Musa, one of the EEOC complainants at the time of the March 1999 filing.

In April, Argenbright agreed to give the women back pay and $2,500 in compensation, as well as a written apology. In addition, the company implemented a Muslim-sensitivity program at all its U.S. locations.

Some of the Muslim women, like Rueaia F. Mohammed, didn't think the settlement went far enough and wanted to make Argenbright apologize on TV.

Ex-FAA inspector Elson says airport-security contractors can't win. On one hand, the government slams them for hiring foreigners. But if they don't hire them, or fire them, the government nails them for discrimination.

"The only standard government enforces is making every minority happy and comfortable and not offending anybody," Elson told WorldNetDaily.

"But the Constitution doesn't say you can't offend anybody, and it doesn't say we can't discriminate against people if they're a threat to our security," he added. "When it comes to our survival, I really don't give a damn about Muslim sensitivities."

See article at: [url] http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25259[/url]

Eric The(See,NowCan'tWeJustAllLearnToLiveIn[u]Pieces[/u],Sorry,MyEnglishIsBad)Hun[>]:)]

Now, aren't you glad to see that sorry POS David Bonior is leaving Congress! [>]:)]

Uh, no. Not if he's gonna run for governor!

That guy is a total POS. He just about about never comes back to the district. He's even had his residency requirement called into question in the past. He was staying at an apartment that didn't even turn out to be his or something. Really just a full time Washington insider who visits every election.

I remember a few years back at election time his people were going door to door leaving pine seedlings to show what a great environmentalist he was. Few people, if any, wanted them and most died anyway. Of course he's run tv ads and sent out mailings since then recreating that monumental humanitarian event. We must never forget!

Uh, Paul... I think you missed something.  Muslims are loyal to their god first and their country second, as we all are (our principles).  Islam is not physically tolerant of opposition to it.  The only difference in Muslims is how far they intend to go to follow Islamic principles.  

Damn if I would get on a flight if I knew the screeners were Islamic.  How do you know the screener is not willing to comply with the second greatest Islamic commandment to participate in Jihad?  Planerench out.

Post from Paul -

Whoa, Paul, who said anything about killing anyone?

But do you believe that there is some inherent human right to have any particular job? So the free-labor doctrine that America went by all of its history up until the liberal revolution of the 60s-70s was wrong from the get-go?

These ladies have a 'right' to this particular job? Who gave them that right, cause it's certainly not found in our Constitution?

Well, that may well be, but not because it's the right thing to happen, it's just because some people who sit on juries (and judges) will permit that to happen! How did these ladies suffer 'millions of dollars' in damages? I thought we were talking about minimum wages folks?

Yes, but I imagine that the [i]yamulka[/i] may be worn without much fanfare [u]beneath[/u] the regular service headwear or headgear. And I imagine that there are rules and regulations that would, at times, forbid the wearing of even this small item!

I have no problem whatsoever with religious freedom, for issues that properly pertain to religion. It may have kept me from being a piano player in a whorehouse![:D]

But if I really [u]wanted[/u] to be a piano player in a whorehouse, do you feel management would have the right to prevent me from banging out 'Onward Christian Soldiers' on the piano, at least during 'working hours'?

So if your religion requires that you [u]not[/u] associate with unmarried members of the opposite sex, best strike a whole lotta careers off your list of things to be when you grow up, rather than trying to reform those careers to something that agrees with your religion!

Yes, they may be rolling in their graves, but it would most certainly be over the suggestion that a person's religious identity could trump anything that his or her employer would require in the workplace.

So if it could be proven that American airline passengers would forego flying rather than board planes with the crew wearing turbans and pass through checkpoints manned by Taliban-looking folks in their religious costumes, your answer to the airlines would be - kiss off?

I firmly believe our Founding Fathers would be telling someone to 'kiss off' if these EEOC rules and regulations had been submitted for their consideration!  

And it most definitely wouldn't be me!

What an apt quote for my side of this argument!
If anyone around here has a get-rich-quick scheme brewing, it's the trial lawyers who will be taking the airlines, security companies, et al., to Court over this!

Eric The(ButHey,That'sJustAnotherOpinionIShareWithTeddy!)Hun[>]:)]

Eric, I sincerely hope to meet you someday.  Well said.  Erik the Planerench.

Planerench - [i][b]Much grass, amigo[/b][/i].

Meet? Who knows, maybe at some future AR15.com convention held in the great Midwest![>]:)]

We call the midwest the middle east.  I have to travel east 500miles to get to the midwest!  (Texans don't like being called 'back east' by smart aleck westerners).  I can fly though.  Maybe on a weekend.  Planerench out.

I mean that Midwest is a good centrally located place for holding a 'convention' - if you're looking to just meet some other AR15.compadres, then [u]any[/u] gun show in Texas will be jes' fine!

The woods are full of them around here! And I mean that both literally and figuratively! [>]:)]