c. 2007 Religion News Service

WASHINGTON _ The limits of Americans’ religious tolerance may be tested in the case of six imams who filed suit after being thrown off a US Airways flight last November when other passengers reported suspicious behavior.

The imams, who were flying home to Arizona after a three-day conference in the Minneapolis area, were allegedly praying in their seats, speaking negatively about President Bush and the Iraq war and asking for longer seatbelts, which passengers feared would be used as weapons.

When the imams said they are also suing several “John Does” _ the individual citizens who reported suspicious behavior _ that raised questions about how far Americans are willing to go in respecting religious expression in a post-9/11 era, especially when it comes to Muslims on airplanes.

The imams are suing the airline, the Minneapolis airport and “those who may have knowingly made false reports against the imams with the intent to discriminate against them,” according to a letter from Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Washington-based Muslim civil rights group.

The news prompted the U.S. House to pass shield laws to protect future “John Does” who report suspicious behavior. Meanwhile, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has offered to defend any “John Doe” ultimately named in the imams’ suit, at no cost.

Even though he’s spent the last 10 years defending religious liberty, Kevin Hasson, executive director of the Becket Fund, said suing passengers who thought they were helping prevent a potential terrorist attack is out of bounds because “thousands of lives could be at stake.”

“Religious liberty is not absolute,” said Hasson, “It must yield before the government’s legitimately compelling interests.”

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for CAIR, said the “John Doe” reports have been blown out of proportion by bloggers and right-wing activists. “Suing the so-called John Does has gained life and scored points with the extreme wing of Muslim bashers,” Hooper said.

It’s unclear how many “John Does” may face a claim by CAIR. Awad, in a letter to Hasson, said, “The imams will not sue any passengers who reported suspicious activity in good faith, even when the `suspicious behavior’ included the imams’ constitutionally protected right to practice their religion without fear or intimidation.”

But in this case, Hasson said the imams’ right to practice their religion had to take a backseat to what passengers and crew perceived as a potential terrorist threat.

“I wouldn’t want a Timothy McVeigh to blow up a federal building any more than I’d want Richard Reid to bring down a trans-Atlantic airliner,” said Hasson, referring to the infamous “shoe bomber” who tried to ignite a bomb onboard an American Airlines flight in 2001.

CAIR has been battered in the press for its role in the imams suits, but Hooper said he wasn’t surprised.

“This issue is not going to be popular with the public, particularly in the post-9/11 cottage industry that is looking for any angle to attack Islam and Muslims,” he said.

“People seem to think that Muslims should acquiesce to discrimination and have no legal recourse. It’s un-American.”

Hasson said CAIR should have taken a different, less controversial route, rather than threatening to sue individual citizens.

“Had the imams said, `we know what we suffered is nothing compared with 9/11′ and we’re suing the airline and the government for a dollar to make a point that religious discrimination is wrong,” they would have generated more support for their cause.

Instead, Hasson said they chose to come out “with all guns blazing.”

KRE/LF END TURNER

Editors: To obtain a file photo of Hasson, go to the RNS Web site at https://religionnews.com. On the lower right, click on “photos,” then search by subject or slug.