A Flight is Diverted by a Prayer Seen as Ominous

Following the events of 9/11, Americans have become increasingly more skittish around non-mainstream religious practices. This particular article discusses an event in which an observant Jew, engaging in a customary religious ritual, was mistakenly viewed as a threat to the security of a Kentucky-bound flight. On January 22, 2010, a 17-year-old male, aboard the flight, strapped tefillin to his wrists and head, and began the ritual of morning prayer. An alarmed flight attendant, ignorant to this customary practice, alerted the captain, believing that the boy had just strapped some sort of explosive device to himself in order to destroy the aircraft. The pilot, erring on the side of caution, diverted the plane to Philadelphia. Upon landing, police officers boarded the plane and searched for explosives, while placing the boy and his sister in handcuffs. After discovering that there was no imminent threat, the boy and his sister were released. In retrospect there existed no threat to the security of the aircraft and its passengers; however, ignorance of anomalous religious practices caused the flight attendant to raise the alarm. “But the obvious reality of it is that when we see people carrying explosive material in their shoes and their pants and I am the passenger next to him and see someone strapping, I would panic too,” Isaac Abraham, an observant Jew said.

It is evident from this article that although the First Amendment to the Constitution provides individuals with the right to engage in the free exercise of his/her own religion, this right, as has been seen throughout the history of the United States, is not absolute. There do exist certain exceptions to the Free Exercise Clause. The question then becomes: When is it necessary to restrict one’s religious practices? In this particular instance, one might also ask: Was it beneficial or even necessary to land the plane prematurely and apprehend the alleged terrorist? One could even go further and ask: Did such actions taken by the flight crew and police officers violate the young man’s rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution?

In response to such questions I would say that first and foremost it is pertinent to understand that the Free Exercise Clause, along with other clauses contained in the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. Although the Framers intended to establish a nation grounded in the acknowledgement of certain individual rights, they recognized that exceptions to such freedoms did exist. As can be seen throughout the history of the Supreme Court there have been instances in which freedom of speech, press, and religion were denied under varying circumstances. “Fighting words,” for example, have been deemed to be illegal; because the statement of such words could result in imminent danger to individuals. Similarly, at times, religious practices could be halted if they present danger to innocent civilians. In the post 9/11 world that we live in, it is in our nature to be more skeptical of “unusual” religious practices. The fear of future terrorist attacks has caused the implementation of somewhat harsher restrictions on individual freedoms. In the predicament described in the article it does appear that there was no threat of an attack. However, at the time, the flight attendant was acting in a manner of good faith. She felt that it was her duty to protect the innocent individuals aboard the aircraft. If that meant alerting the captain; prematurely landing the plane; and having the suspicious individual searched and handcuffed; then that was the risk she was willing to take. In my opinion I believe that the flight crew and police officers acted in a fitting manner. At times one’s rights must be suspended in order to ensure the security of others. Some might argue that the ignorance of the flight attendant caused an innocent individual’s rights to be suspended for no legitimate reason; and that such actions were a violation of the Constitution. I would argue, however, that in this instance, due to the nature of the world that we currently live in, it is better to act in good faith to protect innocent individuals; then to allow one person to continue with his/her religious practices that could possibly lead to the loss of innocent lives.

In summation, at times, and I believe in this instance, religious freedoms can be infringed upon in order to guarantee the safety of others.