Should Public Prayers Be Allowed on Planes?

silverharp

In this case , this chap Gad Saad was on a plane and a religious jewish person stood up in the isle and started praying, I assume nobody stopped him. But the question is do non religious people have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them in particular in a confined space, plains, trains and busses?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLnJ9cIlcYo

evolving_doors

I suppose Numpties have a right to do a singsong on the way to Euros and be commended so it's open season!

It's like asking, do you have a right to be a numpty if the airline has no policy?

Could you go a step further and start singing ed Sheerin song standing right beside him, Would that be rude?

Or... What if a guy started praying to Allah and went around the aisle chanting 'allahu akbar', now that would be awkward wouldn't it. I'd prefer the Jewish prayers for some reason.

vicwatson

Should not be allowed, could be an incitement to riot for some and on an aircraft that can be done without, pray in your head if ya want I say.

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

In this case , this chap Gad Saad was on a plane and a religious jewish person stood up in the isle and started praying, I assume nobody stopped him. But the question is do non religious people have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them in particular in a confined space, plains, trains and busses?

I don't know why non-religious people in particular would have such a right. Are non-religious people some kind of superior being, such that they have rights that are denied to others?

Reframe the question in a less unfortunate way: do people have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them?

It's very hard to argue that they do, really. Most conceptions of human rights include rights to freedom of expression/free speech, and to freedom of belief/religious practice. Obviously any ban on manifestations of religion in a a public place would infringe these rights, and so would require some fairly powerful justification. I'm not saying that there couldn't be a justification; just that we need to produce one, we can't assume it. And that it needs to be a pretty convincing one.

Of course, this goes to the question of whether the law or could should ban public displays of religion on planes, buses and trains. We could ask a different question; could such a ban be imposed by airlines, bus operators, railway companies as part of the conditions of carriage? Don't they have rights too, and don't their rights include the right to control/limit/regulate the behaviour of passengers through the terms of their contracts with the passengers?

We could sidestep the question in a couple of ways. One, such a ban is totally impractical. (If I'm chanting loudly in a language that might be Hebrew but on the other hand might be Icelandic, how confident are you that I'm engaged in a public display of religion, or just giving an off-key version of the B-side of Iceland's Eurovision entry for 1994?) Two, it's unlikely that airlines, etc, would choose to impose such a ban, since it would attract controversy and almost certainly cause them more commercial damage than is caused by the (I suspect, fairly infrequent) phenomenon of public expression of religion on public conveyances of one kind or another.

But let's not sidestep the question. If, say, a private bus operator were to impose such a ban, would it be lawful? Obviously if it was a ban that was imposed on, say, just Muslims, that would be unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion. If it was a ban that targetted all religious expressions, there's a fairly strong argument that it would still be unlawful discrimination on the basis of religious belief, if expressions of belief which were otherwise similar but were not of religious belief were not banned. But a ban on disruptive, attention-seeking speech or behaviour? I think you're good to go with that one.

magicbastarder

the specific scenario above would be an easy one, i suppose. if someone stands up in the aisle without requiring to use the facilities, or to allow another passenger in or out of their seat, would generally soon be asked to sit down by the cabin crew to allow other passengers or cabin crew to pass. so leading prayer from the aisle would be an issue.

but as peregrinus points out, you'd need to prove the benefit of a ban in order to be able to justify it.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't know why non-religious people in particular would have such a right. Are non-religious people some kind of superior being, such that they have rights that are denied to others?

Reframe the question in a less unfortunate way: do people have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them?

It's very hard to argue that they do, really. Most conceptions of human rights include rights to freedom of expression/free speech, and to freedom of belief/religious practice. Obviously any ban on manifestations of religion in a a public place would infringe these rights, and so would require some fairly powerful justification. I'm not saying that there couldn't be a justification; just that we need to produce one, we can't assume it. And that it needs to be a pretty convincing one.

Of course, this goes to the question of whether the law or could should ban public displays of religion on planes, buses and trains. We could ask a different question; could such a ban be imposed by airlines, bus operators, railway companies as part of the conditions of carriage? Don't they have rights too, and don't their rights include the right to control/limit/regulate the behaviour of passengers through the terms of their contracts with the passengers?

We could sidestep the question in a couple of ways. One, such a ban is totally impractical. (If I'm chanting loudly in a language that might be Hebrew but on the other hand might be Icelandic, how confident are you that I'm engaged in a public display of religion, or just giving an off-key version of the B-side of Iceland's Eurovision entry for 1994?) Two, it's unlikely that airlines, etc, would choose to impose such a ban, since it would attract controversy and almost certainly cause them more commercial damage than is caused by the (I suspect, fairly infrequent) phenomenon of public expression of religion on public conveyances of one kind or another.

But let's not sidestep the question. If, say, a private bus operator were to impose such a ban, would it be lawful? Obviously if it was a ban that was imposed on, say, just Muslims, that would be unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion. If it was a ban that targetted all religious expressions, there's a fairly strong argument that it would still be unlawful discrimination on the basis of religious belief, if expressions of belief which were otherwise similar but were not of religious belief were not banned. But a ban on disruptive, attention-seeking speech or behaviour? I think you're good to go with that one.

I take the point, the guy in the piece is of the same religion technically and he wasn't happy. Im not talking about the law seeking a ban, the way I view this is that these are private spaces so its for the company involved to have a policy. I have heard of a few cases on busses where the driver got angry but here there is a health and safety issue in that someone staying in the isle for a long period becomes a risk in the case of an accident but in a plane the H&S case would be a bit weaker but could be argued.
A company might not be able to have a total ban but on H&S they could say you cant block an Isle and even standing up in your seat for possibly 10 or 15 minutes is interfering with the passengers behind in terms of being able to view staff etc. if someone wants to mumble in their seat that's fine and Ive no issue with these people going to the loo.
And it may come down to consumer votes and which would hit an airline more, Muslims or Jews saying they wont fly with airline X or a public campaign to avoid airline X

Peregrinus

silverharp wrote: »

I take the point, the guy in the piece is of the same religion technically and he wasn't happy. Im not talking about the law seeking a ban, the way I view this is that these are private spaces so its for the company involved to have a policy. I have heard of a few cases on busses where the driver got angry but here there is a health and safety issue in that someone staying in the isle for a long period becomes a risk in the case of an accident but in a plane the H&S case would be a bit weaker but could be argued.
A company might not be able to have a total ban but on H&S they could say you cant block an Isle and even standing up in your seat for possibly 10 or 15 minutes is interfering with the passengers behind in terms of being able to view staff etc. if someone wants to mumble in their seat that's fine and Ive no issue with these people going to the loo.
And it may come down to consumer votes and which would hit an airline more, Muslims or Jews saying they wont fly with airline X or a public campaign to avoid airline X

All of this is true, but the inconvenience (or worse) caused by somebody blocking the aisle/getting in the way/making loud noises doesn't depend on whether he's doing it for religious reasons. So I think it would be irrelevant at best, and going out of your way to give offence and cause trouble at worst, to frame this in terms of a ban on religious expression. A ban on blocking the aisle/disruptive behaviour/whatever which makes no reference to religion would be the way to go, surely?

Stealthfins

silverharp wrote:

In this case , this chap Gad Saad was on a plane and a religious jewish person stood up in the isle and started praying, I assume nobody stopped him. But the question is do non religious people have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them in particular in a confined space, plains, trains and busses?

We'll also ban people who listen to or wear Iron Maiden T-shirts where people into housey music hang out.
The housey Music people may get offended.

Oh hold on we have a guy into Techno in the mix he drops an old school Techno classic....

And the beat goes on .....

Let it go let it go....

magicbastarder

i don't think such a ban on blocking the aisle is needed; you can't stand up in an aisle for fifteen minutes and refuse to get out of the way as it is. you are bound to follow the instructions of the cabin crew on a flight.

magicbastarder

Stealthfins wrote: »

We'll also ban people who listen to or wear Iron Maiden T-shirts where people into housey music hang out.

well, here's a recent flight where i suspect someone standing in the aisle (in this case, the captain) leading the passengers in a rendition of 'the number of the beast' might have been tolerated:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/12/iron-maiden-djibouti-bruce-dickinson-lands-first-passenger-jet

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of this is true, but the inconvenience (or worse) caused by somebody blocking the aisle/getting in the way/making loud noises doesn't depend on whether he's doing it for religious reasons. So I think it would be irrelevant at best, and going out of your way to give offence and cause trouble at worst, to frame this in terms of a ban on religious expression. A ban on blocking the aisle/disruptive behaviour/whatever which makes no reference to religion would be the way to go, surely?

possibly but then it might overreach, ive no problem with a parent standing in the isle because they are trying to deal with their kids or someone with back problems standing up for several minutes, I'd assume already that if someone stood up and wanted to recite their poetry the staff would be over to them in a shot but if someone does the exact same thing for a religious reason the staff would be second guessing themselves more and thinking law suit and losing their job.

Stealthfins

magicbastarder wrote:

well, here's a recent flight where i suspect someone standing in the aisle (in this case, the captain) leading the passengers in a rendition of 'the number of the beast' might have been tolerated:

Wouldn't that be a classic,or the flight of Icarus,maybe Aces High.....

Walter H Price

Gebgbegb wrote: »

I suppose Numpties have a right to do a singsong on the way to Euros and be commended so it's open season!

It's like asking, do you have a right to be a numpty if the airline has no policy?

Could you go a step further and start singing ed Sheerin song standing right beside him, Would that be rude?

Or... What if a guy started praying to Allah and went around the aisle chanting 'allahu akbar', now that would be awkward wouldn't it. I'd prefer the Jewish prayers for some reason.

while i'm no fan of any of the religious nonsense its hard to argue with that point bin on pleantly of flights over to the football or with stag's or hen's on them with people actin the maggot like i suppose this could offend non football fans , fans of other teams or the morally sensitive :P

That said im on a plane and i hear some beardy dude praying to Allah or some young one in the bin bag getting her prayer mat out , im off see ya later :P

magicbastarder

maybe silverharp's real fear is finding the public prayer compelling to the point of conversion?

silverharp

magicbastarder wrote: »

maybe silverharp's real fear is finding the public prayer compelling to the point of conversion?

ha ha ha ha ... :rolleyes: , ill give you a C- for that, could do better :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

Nobody should have to endure anti-social behaviour, and religion should not get its traditional free pass in that regard.

In short, I wish those bloody bells would stop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBBlRB1HH2g

recedite

Silent prayers are OK. Loud prayers should be banned, unless the plane is actually crashing.
(A bit of turbulence doesn't count)

magicbastarder

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nobody should have to endure anti-social behaviour, and religion should not get its traditional free pass in that regard.

why is praying out loud anti-social? i.e. what forms of vocalisation are anti-social, and what are not?

Fleawuss

Any behavior on a plane that could lead to disorder should be banned. Given the international nature of the passengers on most flights a Jew might well give offence to a Sunni who could give offence to a Shia etc. Equally soccer ultras chanting racist crap, BLM lying down in the aisle (if they did so) are covered. In short you need a general enough ban so that the flight gets there safely with no grandstanding.

Discretion of the captain is needed too. Someone standing in the aisle "praying" needs to be told to get out of the way and leave devotions until he gets to terra firma.

magicbastarder

Fleawuss wrote: »

Any behavior on a plane that could lead to disorder should be banned. Given the international nature of the passengers on most flights a Jew might well give offence to a Sunni who could give offence to a Shia etc.

i'm actually genuinely confused by some of the opinions in this thread. summed up by this, which i thought was an article of faith for atheists.

magicbastarder

i.e. the problem lies with the person taking the offence - if a jew prays on a plane and this offends a sunni muslim, who gets shirty, the fault lies with the muslim.

uck51js9zml2yt

Im against people clapping when the plane lands. Why should. I be subject to this imposition on my auditory senses?
Can we bring in a policy to ban it?
In fact, why should I be subjected to anything I don't like?

Fleawuss

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm actually genuinely confused by some of the opinions in this thread. summed up by this, which i thought was an article of faith for atheists.

OED: atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in god or gods.
Sorted.

Fleawuss

magicbastarder wrote: »

i.e. the problem lies with the person taking the offence - if a jew prays on a plane and this offends a sunni muslim, who gets shirty, the fault lies with the muslim.

The point is that on a plane whether someone gives offence or someone takes offence is irrelevant if the resulting disorder leads to violence and endangers the safety of all. Hence a general rule banning all demonstrations governed by the captains discretion.

Fleawuss

Duke Purple Matrix wrote: »

Im against people clapping when the plane lands. Why should. I be subject to this imposition on my auditory senses?
Can we bring in a policy to ban it?
In fact, why should I be subjected to anything I don't like?

There was a thread about the banning of clapping somewhere on boards recently due to the health issues of someone, AFAIK.

The answer to your question is it likely to lead to disorder? In your case obviously not as you are a religious person who is peace loving.

If you are posing a hypothetical about someone objecting well the answer is that disorder thing.

branie2

How about flying to and from Lourdes?

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

why is praying out loud anti-social? i.e. what forms of vocalisation are anti-social, and what are not?

In a confined place like an aircraft, any vocalisation loud enough to be heard by someone not in the seat next to you is anti-social. I don't want to listen to the witterings of others, religious witterings or not.

Hotblack Desiato

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm actually genuinely confused by some of the opinions in this thread. summed up by this, which i thought was an article of faith for atheists

Generally you'll find it's Religion X taking offence at Religion Y, not atheists.

Fleawuss

branie2 wrote: »

How about flying to and from Lourdes?

If they're all on the pilgrimage then the communal recitation of the 15 mysteries of the Rosary isn't going to cause disorder is it? In fact it should be de rigeur with all the trimmings; a pilgrimage has to be a pilgrimage doesn't it?

Hotblack Desiato

I think I posted before about the time my wife and I were on a flight to Dubrovnik - we didn't know but it's the main airport for pilgrimages to Medjugorje, so the plane was 1/4 twenty/thirty somethings on a sex/booze/sightseeing holiday to Dubrovnik and 3/4 pensioners on pilgrimage.

The airport is in a valley and often has strong low level turbulence, we did a couple of 45 degree rolls back and forth just above the runway and probably weren't that far off dinging a wingtip when the crew made the right decision to whack the throttles open and go around. Cue furious hail marys all around us and the rosary beads being whipped out :pac: about fifteen minutes later we landed smoothly. All in a day's work for a flight crew but the god squad thought they were going to meet their maker slightly early :pac:

Fleawuss

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I think I posted before about the time my wife and I were on a flight to Dubrovnik - we didn't know but it's the main airport for pilgrimages to Medjugorje, so the plane was 1/4 twenty/thirty somethings on a sex/booze/sightseeing holiday to Dubrovnik and 3/4 pensioners on pilgrimage.

The airport is in a valley and often has strong low level turbulence, we did a couple of 45 degree rolls back and forth just above the runway and probably weren't that far off dinging a wingtip when the crew made the right decision to whack the throttles open and go around. Cue furious hail marys all around us and the rosary beads being whipped out :pac: about fifteen minutes later we landed smoothly. All in a day's work for a flight crew but the god squad thought they were going to meet their maker slightly early :pac:

The extraordinary nature of it: why would a supreme being be arsed if the plane crashed? If the supreme being had the existence, the interest and the power to stop it, why would you be so craven as to beg?
Rhetorical questions. Answers on a postcard to Larry Gogan please.