An investigation has begun in New York, after a US Airways jet crashed late Thursday afternoon into the Hudson River. Miraculously, authorities say all passengers survived.
A bold crash landing into Manhattan's Hudson River, and stories of miraculous rescues of passengers on board.
"It would appear that the pilot did a masterful job of landing the plane in the river, and then making sure everybody got out," said New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
US Air Flight 1549 went down into the Hudson River shortly after takeoff from New York's LaGuardia Airport.
"The left engine just blew, flames were coming out. Smelled gasoline," recalled Flight 1549 passenger Jeff Kolodjay.
Authorities say all passengers and five crew members were able to exit the plane safely in less than two minutes.
The Airbus 320, bound for Charlotte, North Carolina was airborne for less than three minutes when the pilot radioed in, saying the plane had hit a flock of geese and two engines were disabled.
"Pilot said, 'Brace for a hard impact.' Everyone started saying prayers. Looked over the water, we thought we had a chance, because there was water. You have to give it to the pilot, he made a hell of landing," Kolodjay said.
Witness along Manhattan's West Side say they saw the plane go down hard in the river. With water temperatures in the 30s, rescue boats and ferries raced to help passengers escape.
Many are crediting the pilot for the controlled crash landing that spared the lives of all on board as well as residents of densely populated New York City.
Divers had to rescue some people from the frigid waters after the crash.
An air traffic controller ordered the pilot to divert to nearby New Jersey for an emergency landing before the pilot decided to land in the Hudson River.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.msnbc.com/id/28679787/
---------------------------------------------------------------
My Thoughts
This is another example of the power of prayer and our foundation as a religious nation.
Showing posts with label Prayer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prayer. Show all posts
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Atheist Group Files Lawsuit Against Prayer at Presidential Inauguration
By Mike Majchrowitz FOXNews.com Tuesday, December 30, 2008
The head of an atheist group told FOX News Radio on Tuesday that by allowing a prayer at President-elect Obama's inauguration, the government is subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.
The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between "believers" and "those who don't believe" and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.
Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has joined with Michael Newdow, who fought to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration. The 34-page legal complaint similarly seeks to enjoin Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., from adding the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential oath of office.
"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio.
"The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers," he continued.
Barker, who said government's not picking sides on the issue of religion is "hard wired into our Constitution," called the 29 members of the suit all atheists and agnostics who love their country and participating in the inauguration. "Yet we are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," he said.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the same group that fought to have atheist displays next to holiday displays, most notably in Washington state this year.
He said if Obama wants to hold a private religious ceremony, that would be more appropriate than having religious figures up on stage at his swearing in ceremony.
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said it's Obama's decision whether to include a prayer, not the government's.
"The atheists, while they have every right to practice their atheism, they do not have an absolute right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't agree with. So I think this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever," Sprigg said.
Barker argued that by allowing religious phrases to be used in the ceremony as well as inviting Revs. Rick Warren and Joe Lowery, who are named as defendants in the suit, to participate in the inaugural festivities, the government is picking a winner in the dispute over religion and atheism."
Those people who do pray do believe in God and they are in fact trying to use the government to pick sides. In America we are free to disagree. We can disagree with Rev. Rick Warren but we're not free to ask our government to settle the argument," Barker said, adding that government causes harm when it takes on "the mantel of religion and expresses religion as an official governmental function.
"Sprigg said he thinks the case has no merit and, like previous attempts to block inaugural prayer, this too will fail. "These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies can not include prayers or acknowledgment of the existence of God," he told FOX News Radio.
Asked if prayer is excluded, wouldn't that mean government is choosing atheists as the winner, Barker replied, "There is a difference between neutrality and hostility. "If the government were to invite me as a national atheist leader to get up and give an invocation that curses the name of God and that encourages people to stop believing and stop being so childish and divisive then that would be wrong because the government would be taking a pro-atheist position," he said.
Sprigg said he doubts that Roberts being named in the suit will affect the outcome or that Roberts would have to recuse himself if the case came before the high court.
"That's intriguing but I don't think even the liberals on the court would go so far as to prevent prayer at the inauguration," he said.
My Thoughts
Just like the Olympics, this is another attack on prayer that happens every four years when a president is sworn in. Every inauguration a prayer is said, and every time here come the atheists trying to take our freedom of religion and the free expression thereof. When will they learn to shut up and stop being so sensitive? Our prayers are not hurting them. We're not forcing them to pray with us under the threat of imprisonment or death. This country was founded as a religious nation. Get over it Dan Barker and company.
The head of an atheist group told FOX News Radio on Tuesday that by allowing a prayer at President-elect Obama's inauguration, the government is subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.
The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between "believers" and "those who don't believe" and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.
Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has joined with Michael Newdow, who fought to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration. The 34-page legal complaint similarly seeks to enjoin Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., from adding the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential oath of office.
"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio.
"The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers," he continued.
Barker, who said government's not picking sides on the issue of religion is "hard wired into our Constitution," called the 29 members of the suit all atheists and agnostics who love their country and participating in the inauguration. "Yet we are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," he said.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the same group that fought to have atheist displays next to holiday displays, most notably in Washington state this year.
He said if Obama wants to hold a private religious ceremony, that would be more appropriate than having religious figures up on stage at his swearing in ceremony.
Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said it's Obama's decision whether to include a prayer, not the government's.
"The atheists, while they have every right to practice their atheism, they do not have an absolute right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't agree with. So I think this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever," Sprigg said.
Barker argued that by allowing religious phrases to be used in the ceremony as well as inviting Revs. Rick Warren and Joe Lowery, who are named as defendants in the suit, to participate in the inaugural festivities, the government is picking a winner in the dispute over religion and atheism."
Those people who do pray do believe in God and they are in fact trying to use the government to pick sides. In America we are free to disagree. We can disagree with Rev. Rick Warren but we're not free to ask our government to settle the argument," Barker said, adding that government causes harm when it takes on "the mantel of religion and expresses religion as an official governmental function.
"Sprigg said he thinks the case has no merit and, like previous attempts to block inaugural prayer, this too will fail. "These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies can not include prayers or acknowledgment of the existence of God," he told FOX News Radio.
Asked if prayer is excluded, wouldn't that mean government is choosing atheists as the winner, Barker replied, "There is a difference between neutrality and hostility. "If the government were to invite me as a national atheist leader to get up and give an invocation that curses the name of God and that encourages people to stop believing and stop being so childish and divisive then that would be wrong because the government would be taking a pro-atheist position," he said.
Sprigg said he doubts that Roberts being named in the suit will affect the outcome or that Roberts would have to recuse himself if the case came before the high court.
"That's intriguing but I don't think even the liberals on the court would go so far as to prevent prayer at the inauguration," he said.
My Thoughts
Just like the Olympics, this is another attack on prayer that happens every four years when a president is sworn in. Every inauguration a prayer is said, and every time here come the atheists trying to take our freedom of religion and the free expression thereof. When will they learn to shut up and stop being so sensitive? Our prayers are not hurting them. We're not forcing them to pray with us under the threat of imprisonment or death. This country was founded as a religious nation. Get over it Dan Barker and company.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)