Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Jun 18, 2013.
Go ahead and try. That seems a lot more specific to a religion than say, a water spigot.
It's not just a water spigot, look at the picture, it looks like a giant room to me. Why wouldn't just they just install an "interfaith-chapel", like Gatorben politely linked us to for the airport in Atlanta?
Looks like this airport already has an interfaith chapel located in Main Hall of their Arrivals Lobby. http://www.ifly.com/san-francisco-international/church-temple-religious
But hey, God forbid these tax-drivers have to walk to the place actually designated for that type of thing while they're working, am I right?
If you want to install a concrete trough and a water spigot in a public area that anyone can use, sure, feel free to baptize people in it (although I think, to the degree that you wanted to be specific, allowing organized religious services to be conducted is a little bit different than providing a water spigot to accomodate individual religious activities).
This really is getting ridiculous... I say it's time for everyone to ban together to get this outlawed...
What I gathered from the SF newspaper's post was that this was done as much as accomodation to passengers who didn't want to see cab drivers washing their feet in the terminal bathrooms as it was to the drivers themselves. Whatever.
(Also, I think it appears to be a giant room because they put the trough and spigot in a parking garage, and those tend to be on the large side. :wink
I agree all religion should be outlawed.....
What you gather isn't in the article at all, or even hinted at.
Why do I say that? Well, I'll show you:
It specifically states that this was to accomodate Mulsim cab drivers who didn't want to "lug" bottle water around(those things are so heavy these days) or use one of the bathrooms inside the terminals(Or about how the interfaith Chapel, designed speficially for people of all faiths to enjoy). But it makes no hint at what customers thought or said.
Secondly, this wasn't designed for just interfaith:
I do not care what the airport decides to install or make availiable. However if they use taxpayer money to provide any type of religious paraphernalia or religious area...then I think that is an issue. Since seperation of church and state right?
Yeah, this is the issue. Is this spigot intended to make the parking garage a "Muslim house of worship", as the article calls it, or just intended to make the overwhelmingly Islamic cab services more expedient?
Seems like we might be toeing a line here.
As Gatorben pointed out earlier, most airports in general have "chapels" already built, the big one's having multiple ones, for people of all faiths to use. But these cab drivers dont want to have to "lug" around water bottles all the time, so why not everyone everywhere built "just a spigot" and "trough" for these fellas. They require accomodations, it's so simple, right?
What I got it from was in the sentence that you quoted: "or using one of the bathrooms inside the terminal to wash — a practice not always welcomed by airport passengers."
I'm sorry if I don't understand the outrage over putting a water faucet outside in the cabbie queuing area instead of insisting that they park their cabs and go inside the airport to wash their hands.
It's amazing to see how thoroughly ingrained the rationalizations are, even in this thread. If foot-washing were a routine custom of Christians and not of Muslims, i.e. a total inversion, none of these arguments would be made. That, my friends, is what the real "islamophobia" is -- when it's not a direct and tangible fear of Muslim reprisal for perceived offense, it's still multicultural jumping at their own shadow.
Yes, I'm sorry if you don't either - because the outrage isn't over a water faucet, the outrage is over providing something that is already provided and accomodating a very small group which only sets a precedent to keep accomodating small groups who endlessly want.
it most likely would have been more expensive to run pipe and build a washing area inside one of the interfaith chapels, where as it was "nominal" to just cut into exposed water pipes under a parking garage ramp outside where most of the cabbies hang out anyway.
not defending what they did but more looking at the practicality of the situation
Personally, I have no problem with a place to wash as long as it's available to everybody and not just Muslims, but some of the folks who condemn expressions of faith supported by the government are showing their hypocrisy here.
It accomodates everyone. From a practical standpoint, who exactly benefits from making the cab drivers park and go inside instead?
If my choice is between having the airport maintenance people that I'm already paying for install a water spigot in the parking garage once, or having, 5 times a day, a significant portion of the cab drivers get out of the taxi line, go inside, wash their feet in the sinks of the passenger bathroom, etc., that seems like a pretty easy choice.
They could install a confessional booth that could accommodate everyone as well.
You are right, practically speaking, it makes sense. But this isn't about what's practical, it's about separation of church and state. Or is the lemon law not applicable when something may be practical?
It accommodates everyone! ... even though only Muslims have any habitual or likely need of it, so that's about as transparent and hollow a defense as the baptismal font would be.
Scores 0/3 on "Lemon", IMO.
Which is why I asked earlier in the thread if anyone had the knowledge to share whether it is truly required in the Muslim-culture for them to wash their hands and feet before prayer, because one of the comments below the article stated that it wasn't actually in the Qu'ran.
I understand the practicality of it, but why can't they just pray in their cars, or their homes, and use their own waters, in their own areas? The argument if this were Christians we were talking about doesn't particularly fly with me because for one, doing something that benefits a group of people that makes up the majority of your population makes perfect sense, however, doing something that shouldn't be expected for a very small group of people I believe sets a bad precedent. It's really the principle of it that bothers me. There is a place built -- the interfaith chapel, if the Airport doesn't like dirty cabbies coming into use their restrooms, provide an "interfaith-wash room" for everyone then. However, if you honestly believe the Muslims using this facility would be okay if there were multiple other religious groups hosting prayers in their new area, then I just have to disagree.
If the Airport really wanted to offer some help to these put-out cabbies who have to lug water bottles around all day - I would have offered to build them an, "inerfaith washroom," and I wonder if they would still have been okay with that. Instead, according to the article, they gave them, "a place of their very own."