Should Public Prayers Be Allowed on Planes?

looksee

Insert joke about the Catholic Church and preying...

The topic is not so much about praying as standing in the aisle of a plane and doing public praying/ making a nuisance of oneself and creating H&S issues.

seamus

Post #2 effectively deals with this. There is nothing stopped two guys from having a loud conversation on a plane, or one guy deciding to read from his book out loud, or a group of football fans starting a singsong. So likewise there is nothing stopping some idiot from standing up and reciting prayers out loud.

The main difference here is probably the social stigma where prayers have some perceived preciousness. Staff should be instructed to recognise that disruptive or offensive behaviour is all equal and ask passengers to sit down and STFU where their behaviour is considered to be upsetting to other passengers or disruptive to the everyday operations of the flight. If they refuse, you make a report and have them arrested when you land.

And this should apply whether theyre reciting Jewish prayers, reading from the Koran or singing "there's a big pile of **** down the back".

For the individual passenger who might be subjected to this, talking loudly over the prayer reciter or making a point of summoning one of the cabin crew to express your unhappiness is probably best.

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

looksee wrote: »

Insert joke about the Catholic Church and preying...

The topic is not so much about praying as standing in the aisle of a plane and doing public praying/ making a nuisance of oneself and creating H&S issues.

Again, I'll keep by what I originally said. I wouldn't call a ban on preying but would call a ban on anything that may cause disruption to fellow passengers. And that's something the management will have reserve the right to do. After all they have an obligation of customer service.

So if we have a Boeing 747 heading to Lourdes and Sister Assumpta wants to have an auld prey.. I don't think people will mind so much.. :P

However, if it's a chartered flight to Lanzarote and we have Muhammad trying to kneel east wards and praying on his knees it might be call for concern. Might be an issue with the auld drinks trolley getting through

I'll listen to to whole video now. I do enjoy Gad Saad. Admittedly I responded without listening to the whole video.. :pac:

EDIT: Seamus, completely agree. Said it much better than I could.

Peregrinus

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

So if we have a Boeing 747 heading to Lourdes and Sister Assumpta wants to have an auld prey.. I don't think people will mind so much.. :P

However, if it's a chartered flight to Lanzarote and we have Muhammad trying to kneel east wards and praying on his knees it might be call for concern. Might be an issue with the auld drinks trolley getting through

Nothing stops the drinks trolley.

starshine1234

starshine1234 wrote:

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.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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



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.

I agree to some extent but I also disagree.

Religious behaviour is more likely to be misunderstood, or to cause offence, or to cause upset, and therefore, it can be dealt with more harshly than some other activities, for example, football chanting.

The airline crew can ban anything they want. They ultimately make the decisions. They can make mistakes and ban things in error but they are entitled to make genuine mistakes. People cannot complain if the airline crew are overzealous, unless they are being non-genuine.


So, your point stands to a small degree but only because the airline can ban anything they want, and also because the airline is permitted to make genuine mistakes and mis-characterisations.


Religion is different because it is arbitrary. This is very important. It is made up. A person could make up a religion tomorrow which requires anything.
Therefore, because religious belief is completely arbitrary, it can be banned full stop.

Peregrinus

starshine1234 wrote: »

I agree to some extent but I also disagree.

Religious behaviour is more likely to be misunderstood, or to cause offence, or to cause upset . . .

Only if the people exposed to it are bigotted towards or intolerant of the religion in question, or religion in general. And we shouldn't be reinforcing bigotry or intolerance by law.

starshine1234 wrote: »

The airline crew can ban anything they want. They ultimately make the decisions. They can make mistakes and ban things in error but they are entitled to make genuine mistakes. People cannot complain if the airline crew are overzealous, unless they are being non-genuine.

So, your point stands to a small degree but only because the airline can ban anything they want, and also because the airline is permitted to make genuine mistakes and mis-characterisations.

Don't be silly. We're always entitled to complain about over-zealousness, mistakes and mischaracterisation.

starshine1234 wrote: »

Religion is different because it is arbitrary. This is very important. It is made up. A person could make up a religion tomorrow which requires anything.
Therefore, because religious belief is completely arbitrary, it can be banned full stop.

Political beliefs are arbitrary. You can make up any political belief you want. Therefore political beliefs can be banned full stop.

Artistic expression is arbitrary. You can engage in any artistic expression that you want. Therefor artistic expression can be banned full stop.

Speech is arbitrary. You can utter any combination of words you want. Therefore speech can be banned full stop.

Scientific hypotheses are arbitrary. You can hypothesise anything you want. Therefore scientific hypotheses can be banned full stop.

D0NNELLY

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?

No different than overhearing any other conversation..
Its just a one way conversation here

Unless the prayers affect you? Then you may be holier than you think.

silverharp

D0NNELLY wrote: »

No different than overhearing any other conversation..
Its just a one way conversation here

Unless the prayers affect you? Then you may be holier than you think.

if I thought it was a 2 way conversation I'd be all ears :pac: