Pilot in Hot Water for Allegedly Using Plane as Flying Pulpit

Talon News / GOP USA ^ | Feb. 10, 2004 | Jeremy Reynalds

[Rainmist]

Now, I wouldn't have minded it if he asked everyone to join him in a silent prayer for our safety from one destination to the other. Nothing wrong with that. But if he started going all Dr. Dean on me about repenting or go to hell, then I'd start thinking that maybe he's having some kind of episode. After 9-11, I think I'd exit stage left and get another flight.

[libravoter]

All religious speech is not forbidden. The Reverend Martin Luther King seems to be rather venerated. Is there a double standard here somewhere?

I agree with your first 2 sentences 100%, but not the last (not that there aren't double-standards apparent in many situations - just disagreeing on this one.)

And if this was a public forum, if they did not have their lives in his hands . . . and the big difference, if he were not acting in his capacity as an employee, I would feel differently. But he's covered not just by the 1st ammendment, but my American Airlines policy, and "American's 11,000 pilots are covered by "policies that affect all our employees" regarding the discussion of "topics that are inappropriate in the workplace with other employees and with our customers," an American Airlines spokesman said.

[jim35]

"...Do you believe that it is appropriate behavior to discuss your religious beliefs with perfect strangers, at any time, in any place?..."

Just what is it about religious speech that frightens people so much? That makes them so uncomfortable? If he'd started talking about his house, or his furniture, would that have been prohibited also? After all, it doesn't fall under the category of "accepted pilot speech" either. I'm amazed that Freepers, of all people, can't see the secularist movement to eliminate free religious expression from the public dialogue, or you even openly advocate it. Sure, the company can prevent your religious speech to a degree if you're an employee, but the fact that you're on board with this loss of a basic freedom is quite disturbing. "Any time any place...?" I hope when your particular type of speech is squelched, that you take it this well. And you, modernman, now espouse the belief that ANY person should keep mum about religion, except at some particular time or place. So who decideds what time or place? Business? Governmental speech police? The ACLU?

"...What about those passengers on the flight who might be bothered by a Christian message?..."

There is a simple matter of right vs wrong. Just because both would be a type of religious speech, doesn't mean that they are equal. Muslims are at war with America, Christians are not. The difference is easy to see. Any religious speech in public that is not the utterances of our blood enemies is acceptable. Before 9/11, it would have been ok for muslims, too. But now we're at war. Remember? You seem to be in the camp of those who believe that their right not to be offended supercedes the right of others to speak freely. This is a very dangerous precedent.

"...I'm not against what this guy said, I'm against the context in which he said it..."

Sure, sure. That's what they always say when they take away your right to speak out. The reasonable voice of the judge of all men will soothe your fears, until it's your ox that's being gored.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Pilot:

Ladies and gentleman you can now unbuckle your seat belts and relax, we have reached our cruise speed of 400 mph and leveling off at 30,000 feet, at this time I suggest you all bow your heads in prayer and hope for the best. Have a pleasant flight.

[jim35]

"...It is readily apparent that you view Christian persecution as synonmous with separation of church and state..."

It is readily apparent that you view the constitution as a document which calls for separation of church and state. This was not the framer's intention, nor is it even mentioned. Read the amendment again. Do I need to spell it out for you? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Where is the separation part? Looks to me like its a protection of individual rights, not a prohibition of them.

"...There is today an unprecedented rise in very visible Christian speech and presence..."

So religion should be kept in it's place, right? In church, or on the TV (but only the religious channel, right?), and you're generous enough to allow street preachers too. Nice. Just as long as they don't try using that kind of discomforting speech in YOUR earshot, though. Then they must be stopped. Right. Oh, and it's also ok for the president to espouse his religion, but not for much longer, since that violates the "separation" part of the constitution. How about on the job? Shall we prohibit the wearing of crosses in schools, like the French? Where is this leading, if the secularists get their way? I'll tell you where. To a complete loss of our rights of freedom of religious expression. You are blind, or you are on the other side of this (which I strongly suspect). You sound just like the ACLU. And don't tell me that Christianity isn't being squelched just because the majority embraces it. Tell it to the courts. They obviously havn't gotten the memo. Then tell it to the media, since they also missed it.

[Stone Mountain]

If it was a cab driver would the reaction be the same?

I don't think so. In fact, I'm sure it happens all the time. The difference is that you can always tell the cab driver to pull over and let you out... Also, you can talk to the driver personally and tell him what you think of his comments (without having to wait until the end of the ride). That's why I would have much less of a problem with a cab driver doing this than with a pilot.

[jim35]

"...and jim35, you have a stupid god..."

I'm just guessing, but your I.Q. would be about, what... 75? Are you a teenager, using dad's computer? Just a guess. I hope you're not a full grown adult. Your immaturity is absolutely glowing here.

[jim35]

"...An older gentleman said that he had confronted the Captain as he left the plane and told him he would do everything in his power to see that he was never in command of an airplane again..."

Maybe we should just feed him to the lions. What a monster this pilot is! What nerve, "spouting off" about Christianity! Hanging is too good! This fanatic might someday carry a gun? Oh, the horror! Anyone who would ask if you're a Christian is obviously a madman! Funny, this is the kind of dialogue I'd expect to find on DU, not on FREE REPUBLIC.

[jim35]

"...if he were not acting in his capacity as an employee,..."

Ok, just what rule of A.A. did he break? Is religious speech prohibited by the airline? No, this is just the whiners looking for an excuse to be offended. Again. Someone will probably sue over their right not to hear speech that might make them uncomfortable.

[Stone Mountain]

This pilot, like any other American, has a God

I don't think so. Modernman, gcruse - you buy this?

[jim35]

"...YOU are doing all the bashing, you and your fanatic ilk,..."

Try reading your own posts. Like, for instance, this one.

[Stone Mountain]

"...An older gentleman said that he had confronted the Captain as he left the plane and told him he would do everything in his power to see that he was never in command of an airplane again..." Maybe we should just feed him to the lions. What a monster this pilot is! What nerve, "spouting off" about Christianity!

The point isn't that he was spouting off about Christianity. The point is that he is alienating customers. The older gentleman over-reacted, sure. But he probably won't fly American Airlines again, nor will many people who hear this story. Right or wrong, the pilot's words are causing American Airlines to do damage control and may lose them revenue. This makes the pilot a liability to AA.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Please don't spam with that.

[Stone Mountain]

Ok, just what rule of A.A. did he break? Is religious speech prohibited by the airline?

I would guess that alienating your customers would be prohibited by AA. Would you say that AA shouldn't fire a pilot if he asked all Democrats to raise their hands, and then said that you would have to be crazy to be a Republican? Just because there is no specific rule spelling out examples of transgressions doesn't mean that a rule was broken.

Again. Someone will probably sue over their right not to hear speech that might make them uncomfortable.

Hasn't happened yet. This is a strawman argument until a suit is actually filed. I don't think it will happen...

[Stone Mountain]

Just because there is no specific rule spelling out examples of transgressions doesn't mean that a rule was broken.

Sorry - that should be WASN'T broken...

[sinkspur]

Preachy pilot needs a new flight plan

By SUSAN PAYNTER
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER COLUMNIST
February 11, 2004

The separation of church and flight hit another air pocket last Friday when the pilot of an American Airlines 767, an apparently fervent fellow with God as his co-pilot, followed his weather/altitude spiel by asking all Christians aboard to raise their hands.

Now, at any time since, say, the era of Lucky Lindy, this might have been an unlucky move to make in the air.

But surely, in the nervous and multiculturally touchy time since 9/11, you've got to wonder if pilot Rodger Findiesen's brain didn't experience a sudden loss of cabin pressure during takeoff from Los Angeles.

Moments after takeoff, Findiesen told those apparent non-Christians who had not raised their arms that they just might wonder why their seatmates were so crazy as to raise a hand like that in public. Then he suggested that they use the rest of the 4 1/2-hour flight to New York to ask the hand-raisers about their religious beliefs.

Discomfort ensued and several passengers had complained before their Samsonites struck the carousel at JFK.

Not that captive strangers might not relish an entertaining cross-country comparison of the Bible and the Quran, for instance, if they chose to skip the in-flight movie. But it seems that many on board actually expected a pilot, not a spiritual facilitator.

Findiesen also announced that he'd be available after the flight to answer any questions. Maybe something along the lines of, "Are you taking anything that might hamper your ability to operate heavy machinery?"

"He had recently been on a Christian mission to Costa Rica and I guess he wanted to share his emotions," AA spokesman Tim Wagner told me on Monday. "Some passengers were made to feel uncomfortable. Our policy is to make all passengers and employees feel comfortable at all times since we operate in a society with many individuals of diverse backgrounds. We have a long history of supporting diversity."

AA employees undergo sensitivity training when it comes to diversity. And one aspect of that training is to keep in mind how they would feel if a situation were reversed.

Probably there are at least a few Muslim pilots, for example, among the 11,000 who fly for AA. Imagine the holy heck that might break out in the aisles if one of them asked all the Muslims on board to raise their hands and share their beliefs with their seatmates.

Wagner said the incident on Flight 34 is under investigation. Findiesen isn't scheduled to fly again anytime soon. And the results of the inquiry will not be made public. "It's a question of whether his judgment was appropriate while on duty," Wagner said.

Actually, no, that's not in question.

It wouldn't have been appropriate even before we started eyeing each other's turbans and yarmulkes warily across the aisles. And it sure isn't appropriate now.

This is a time in which the Court of Appeals upholds the contested right to a Christian fish symbol as a workplace screen saver one minute, and then rules against "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance the next.

This is a time when, even unspoken, those little biblical prayer cards that Alaska Airlines slips in with the plastic silverware tend to polarize the frequent fliers who praise reverence among the condiments from those who resent getting a prayer like a Cracker Jack prize.

This is a time when Southwest Airlines finds itself in court over the claim of an implied racial insult three years after a flight attendant thought she was being cute when she said, "Eenie, meenie, minie, moe, pick a seat, we gotta go."

So surely a call over the intercom for a show of hands and an interfaith gab fest crosses the line between pilot and preacher.

If Capt. Rodger Findiesen believes he is on a mission from God, amen to that. Let him go forth and plant the seeds of understanding where the ears have the choice of whether to listen. And where the guy telling people to put their hands up isn't flying tons of combustible metal through the clouds.

But, as for a future in commercial flight, I think it's time to say Rodger and out.

[gcruse]

This pilot, like any other American, has a God

I don't think so. Modernman, gcruse - you buy this?

Actually, he said God-given right.

To the extent there is a God, yes.
In other words, no.

[Stone Mountain]

You're right - I got thrown off by those parenthetical remarks. Durnit...

[Iwo Jima]

You have done more singlehandedly to discredit religion in general and Christianity in particular on this thread than anyone I have run across in a long time. You have totally destroyed your Christian influence with people who come in contact with you here.

Had this happened to me, I would have been sure that the pilot was telling us that something was terribly wrong and that we were all likely to die. If we were on the ground, I would have left and loudly told anyone foolish enough to stay that they were CRAZY!

If we were in the air, I would have called 911, called my family and said my final goodbyes, and looked around for the likely terrorist to put into effect my own personal anti-terrorist program. In short, I would have acted pretty much LIKE THESE PASSENGERS ACTUALLY DID.

If anyone looking at all suspicious had made one move toward the cockpit or even the restroom or messed with his shoe, he would have been pounced on and hurt as badly as possible. If that happened, or if someone had managed to take on board an ostensiby innocuous object which could be used as a deadly weapon and was used to kill the suspected "terrorist," or if the plane had been shot down by our air force due to some horrible misunderstanding, the blood would be on the hands of this stupid, idiot, crazy pilot.

I would have felt and acted the same if the pilot had just come back from an estate planning seminar and announced "If you con't have a will raise your hands. You need to speak to someone during this flight about having a will. Don't let this flight go by without handwriting a will using the materials you can get from the flight attendant" Diito if he had returned from a family togetherness seminar and he announced " Have you told your family today that you love them? Call your family right now and tell them so. You never know if this is this last time that you have to talk to them. Share your cell phones with each other."

I couldn't blame these passengers if they had beat the $hiot out of this senile old fool. He should be fired and have his pilot's license revoked.

I have ZERO interest in hearing what you have to say in response, so don't even bother. The only thing that I can figure out is that you ARE this fool of a pilot. There can't be two of you out there who are this dense.