Should Public Prayers Be Allowed on Planes?

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

And the second response has to be, there are no rights "not to have displays foisted on you". If you fear that seeing people do things you wouldn't do yourself is going to cause you to clutch your pearls and come over all faint, with the attendant risk of collapsing into the arms of a handsome gentleman who will chivalrously administer the smelling salts, that's your problem, not theirs.

I'd say your reasoning is way off, its about wanting to defend a secular society especially as we are bumping up against assertive religions. As it happens the public religious demonstration in such a confined space overlaps broadly with standard H&S or otherwise being a nuisance to other passengers that a company would normally enforce.
On the assumption that no existing company regs need to be amended then its just about consumer and staff awareness that this kind of behaviour should be deemed to be an imposition on fellow passengers and not worthy of any special exception or leniency

looksee

I think this is nothing to do with public prayers - anyone who imposes their own thoughts/ conversation /activities on a plane full of people is a self-absorbed liability.

magicbastarder

silverharp wrote: »

I'd say your reasoning is way off, its about wanting to defend a secular society

what is about wanting to defend a secular society? the proposed ban on prayer?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

I'd say your reasoning is way off, its about wanting to defend a secular society especially as we are bumping up against assertive religions. As it happens the public religious demonstration in such a confined space overlaps broadly with standard H&S or otherwise being a nuisance to other passengers that a company would normally enforce.
On the assumption that no existing company regs need to be amended then its just about consumer and staff awareness that this kind of behaviour should be deemed to be an imposition on fellow passengers and not worthy of any special exception or leniency

I find it tricky to imagine that 'secular society' has any relationship with 'standard Health & Safety'. If you want to advocate for a secular society that's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with health & safety, and vice versa.
A secular society is neutral on matters of belief, since banning an act of belief is not a neutral act, it's not the action of a secular society. A secular society cannot then in good conscience ban prayer on a plane.
A health and safety conscious society might well restrain passengers in an aircraft who might reasonably be believed to pose a threat to the safety or security of the aircraft or other passengers, and in fact, that is generally the case.
So I'd say so long as someone's praying is not a threat to safety or security, they're well within the limits of their own freedom to express themselves, and if it becomes a threat, there is already a facility to deal with that.

In short; non-religious people do not have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them, and everyone has a reasonable expectation of both freedom and privacy which does not extend to endangering others.

Peregrinus

We don't have a secular society; churches and religiously-inspired social institutions abound.

What we have, or aspire to have, is a secular state. Which means that the state should act "with regard solely to to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state" (to borrow the language of G. J. Holyoake, the ninteteenth-century secularist who coined the term "secularism". As Ab, points out, that means that in deciding whether to ban particular behaviour on aircraft, the religious character of the behaviour, or the lack of it, is irrelevant. The word for banning behaviour because it is religious is not "secularism"; it's "bigotry".

Which brings me back to my original point. The OP seeks special consideration for non-religious people, and special restrictions on religious behaviour. Secularists should not be glossing over or excusing these errors; they should be pointing them out.

magicbastarder

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which brings me back to my original point. The OP seeks special consideration for non-religious people, and special restrictions on religious behaviour. Secularists should not be glossing over or excusing these errors; they should be pointing them out.

amen to that.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I find it tricky to imagine that 'secular society' has any relationship with 'standard Health & Safety'. If you want to advocate for a secular society that's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with health & safety, and vice versa.
A secular society is neutral on matters of belief, since banning an act of belief is not a neutral act, it's not the action of a secular society. A secular society cannot then in good conscience ban prayer on a plane.
A health and safety conscious society might well restrain passengers in an aircraft who might reasonably be believed to pose a threat to the safety or security of the aircraft or other passengers, and in fact, that is generally the case.
So I'd say so long as someone's praying is not a threat to safety or security, they're well within the limits of their own freedom to express themselves, and if it becomes a threat, there is already a facility to deal with that.

In short; non-religious people do not have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them, and everyone has a reasonable expectation of both freedom and privacy which does not extend to endangering others.

it depends on the framework , my initial stance is that this be dealt with by normal company H&S and behaviour expected in a confined space. You are generally expected to be in your seat , not blocking Isles etc. Defending a secular society would be my motivation for pointing out that airlines and passengers should view these blatant religious demonstrations as an annoyance or potential hazard.

silverharp

Peregrinus wrote: »

We don't have a secular society; churches and religiously-inspired social institutions abound.

What we have, or aspire to have, is a secular state. Which means that the state should act "with regard solely to to the well-being of mankind in the present life, to the exclusion of all considerations drawn from belief in God or in a future state" (to borrow the language of G. J. Holyoake, the ninteteenth-century secularist who coined the term "secularism". As Ab, points out, that means that in deciding whether to ban particular behaviour on aircraft, the religious character of the behaviour, or the lack of it, is irrelevant. The word for banning behaviour because it is religious is not "secularism"; it's "bigotry".

Which brings me back to my original point. The OP seeks special consideration for non-religious people, and special restrictions on religious behaviour. Secularists should not be glossing over or excusing these errors; they should be pointing them out.

in fairness it is normally religious people that want special exemption , not to handle pork or alcohol or do their job as registrar or the myriad other considerations some religious people want. In a confined space non religious people shouldn't have to put up with disruptive/unsafe or distracting behaviour just because someone is doing it for religious reasons. Im happy enough if the enforcing is done based on no religious assumption , after all in theory the individual might not be religious and just doing a prank or social experiment , who knows, its of no consequence what the hamsters are doing in the person's head.

magicbastarder

silverharp wrote: »

In a confined space non religious people shouldn't have to put up with disruptive/unsafe or distracting behaviour just because someone is doing it for religious reasons.

as has been repeatedly mentioned, religious practice which is disruptive or unsafe does not appear to be a problem on aircraft, and if it was, the staff are empowered to deal with it.

silverharp

magicbastarder wrote: »

as has been repeatedly mentioned, religious practice which is disruptive or unsafe does not appear to be a problem on aircraft, and if it was, the staff are empowered to deal with it.

they might be empowered but obviously they depending on the airline they might be ropey implementing their own rules

here is a story about a group of religious Jews that wouldn't sit next to women, they stood for 11 hours in the Isle, plus they harassed the women if they didn't move. the airline did nothing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHm0N-3amek

magicbastarder

that appears to be a failure of the airline staff to use the powers given to them, rather than a failure to legislate for such an event.
it's interesting in that it's not an example which has been discussed much in the thread; this is not about prayer or preaching, it's just about someone using a religious excuse to be an asshole.
if you are unwilling to sit next to a woman, you either tell the airline when you're booking your ticket - and see how far you get - or find alternative means of transport.

silverharp

magicbastarder wrote: »

that appears to be a failure of the airline staff to use the powers given to them, rather than a failure to legislate for such an event.
it's interesting in that it's not an example which has been discussed much in the thread; this is not about prayer or preaching, it's just about someone using a religious excuse to be an asshole.
if you are unwilling to sit next to a woman, you either tell the airline when you're booking your ticket - and see how far you get - or find alternative means of transport.

in fairness my own view is that legislation ought not be needed, either the airline enforces their own rules or if they are regulated the regulator steps in or in a case like above someone takes a case against the airline because it was unsafe or other distress which at least in that particular example would seem to be an easy win.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

it depends on the framework , my initial stance is that this be dealt with by normal company H&S and behaviour expected in a confined space. You are generally expected to be in your seat , not blocking Isles etc. Defending a secular society would be my motivation for pointing out that airlines and passengers should view these blatant religious demonstrations as an annoyance or potential hazard.

So in short, if it's H&S issue it's already dealt with, and if it's a religious issue then irreligious people should expect no more special dispensation than religious people?

silverharp wrote: »

in fairness it is normally religious people that want special exemption <...> in the person's head.

Though, since we're not talking about religious people wanting special exemption but irreligious people wanting special exemption, you're ok with the irreligious not getting it either, regardless of the hampsters in their heads?

starshine1234

Peregrinus wrote: »

... As Ab, points out, that means that in deciding whether to ban particular behaviour on aircraft, the religious character of the behaviour, or the lack of it, is irrelevant. .....

The above quote is completely wrong.

Certain activities can be banned simply because they are religious activities, and for no other reason.

I have already stated this clearly but for some reason no-one has decided to challenge me on it.

An activity can be banned on a plane because it is religious. The exact same activity can be done for a non-religious reason. The reason the first activity is banned, or can be banned, is precisely because it is religious.

I have given examples of stretching to allivate deep vein thrombosis, which is very similar to prostrate type praying.
Praying can be banned while very similar stretching is perfectly allowable.


Religious expression in public, or in private like on planes on in restaurants, can be banned as it may lead to unrest. Allowing religious expression can lead to unsafe environments and therefore, for safety reasons, all religious expression can be banned.

The exact same activity carried out for a non-religious reason is perfectly fine.


It is the fact that something is religious that can cause it to be provocative and potentially disruptive.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

So in short, if it's H&S issue it's already dealt with, and if it's a religious issue then irreligious people should expect no more special dispensation than religious people?

but clearly awareness is an issue, either for the religious person or the people enforcing the rules.

Absolam wrote: »

Though, since we're not talking about religious people wanting special exemption but irreligious people wanting special exemption, you're ok with the irreligious not getting it either, regardless of the hampsters in their heads?

as above

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

but clearly awareness is an issue, either for the religious person or the people enforcing the rules. as above

So... everyone should be aware of currently existing rules and observe them?

starshine1234

magicbastarder wrote: »

as has been repeatedly mentioned, religious practice which is disruptive or unsafe does not appear to be a problem on aircraft, and if it was, the staff are empowered to deal with it.

Any religious expression can be described as potentially disruptive and therefore potentially unsafe. It can then be banned on safety grounds.

A blanket ban on religious expression could be implemented on safety grounds.

In our PC world safety trumps everything. Therefore, religion expression can be banned.

magicbastarder

u ok hun?

starshine1234

magicbastarder wrote: »

u ok hun?

Is this an attempt at discussion of some sort?

Very childish response from you.

magicbastarder

true. it's a comment which implies that i find your statements absurd.

starshine1234

But my statements are perfectly fine.

The fact you think my reasonable statements are absurd proves my point that you are childish and afraid of the truth.

The reason given for the burkini ban in France is exactly the one I have given above; namely, that overt religious expressions leads to public unrest and potentially leads to public harm.


Was your childish comment intended as personal abuse of me?
Why do you seek to abuse me, or to belittle my position?

magicbastarder

saying 'i think what you are saying is absurd' is not abuse.
as to the why - your comments re 'any form of religious expression is potentially disruptive' is hysterical nonsense.

starshine1234

magicbastarder wrote: »

u ok hun?

Was this comment intended as personal abuse?
Was this comment intended to belittle me, or intended to belittle my argument?

If neither of the above, what was the intention?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

So... everyone should be aware of currently existing rules and observe them?

it would need to specifically mentioned that religious exhibitionism is the reason for the reminder. I would take it that the staff know the rules but not sure how to deal with religious people in relation to the rules

robindch

Boys and girls -

magicbastarder wrote: »

u ok hun?

starshine1234 wrote: »

Was your childish comment intended as personal abuse of me?

Stop waving your umbrellas at each other and give each other a friendly hug lest one of your friendly moderators reaches into his pocket to issue a card or a ban.

Me first - hugs to you all

- robin.

magicbastarder

no offence intended.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

it would need to specifically mentioned that religious exhibitionism is the reason for the reminder. I would take it that the staff know the rules but not sure how to deal with religious people in relation to the rules

Why would it? Surely you would only need to remind staff about enforcing currently existing rules if they weren't enforcing them, regardless of whether people were breaking rules because or religion or any other reason; they're still breaking existing rules. If anyone actually is breaking the rules, obviously. It would seem focusing on passengers reasons for breaking rules would detract from staff focusing on dealing with passengers breaking rules, given that we've agreed no special dispensations apply with regard to ir/religion?

Peregrinus

starshine1234 wrote: »

But my statements are perfectly fine.

But they'd be just as perfectly fine if you made the same statements, omitting the word "religious" wherever it occurred. Look:

starshine1234 wrote: »

Any . . . expression can be described as potentially disruptive and therefore potentially unsafe. It can then be banned on safety grounds.

A blanket ban on . . . expression could be implemented on safety grounds.

In our PC world safety trumps everything. Therefore, . . . expression can be banned.

So, you're justifying a ban on any religious expression with arguments that can be used with equal validity to ban any non-religious expression.

magicbastarder

i'm reminded in a roundabout way by some of the opinions in this thread, of what a friend of mine who used to see a therapist was told - 'stop trying to carpet the world and put some shoes on instead'.
probably makes sense in my head.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

People should be able to prey anywhere they like, even on planes. Just like I'm able to whistle "7 Nation Army" over and over on a plane or fart on a plane.

Will it make me popular on the plane, getting in peoples faces with my whistling and farts? Probably not. And I'm sure it will probably be something similar with one who can't prey in their minds and have to project on others in narrow spaces like planes.

Yes, I know I compared two biological, natural things to someone who has a choice (religion and preying) but I can keep a fart in til I use the bathroom and save others around me or I can refrain from whistling.