Should Public Prayers Be Allowed on Planes?

starshine1234 · 16-08-2016 06:25PM

It doesn't have to be an official hidden camera show. It just has to be someone with a camera.

If the airline acts incorrectly they could be sued, or face major public relations issues.

Everyone in the west is walking on eggshells for fear of being policitically incorrect or being labelled a racist. This is very dangerous as peoples fear can be exploited by trolls or by criminals, or by hidden camera show producers.

People are afraid to criticise Islam. People tend to appease islamists when they make demands. This might be a mistake.

The only real reason I can think of for someone to pray in an exhibionist way on a plane is that that person wants to be provocative. In other words, they're a troll.

Peregrinus · 17-08-2016 01:53AM

starshine1234 wrote: »

The only real reason I can think of for someone to pray in an exhibionist way on a plane is that that person wants to be provocative. In other words, they're a troll.

This probably tell us more about the limits of your imagination, though, than it does about their motivation. If you can't or don't understand the reasons for his behaviour that\'s your problem, not his, and I can't see that the proper response is to restrict his behaviour.

MrPudding · 17-08-2016 10:44AM

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.

But the problem here is both the rights to freedom of speech and the right of freedom of religion are qualified rights. In the later, this is particularly the case for manifestations of religion which are, in fact, not protected at all, as a string of employment tribunal cases has shown. In addition to this, it is widely held that the freedom of religion extends to freedom from religion. So this would mean there is a conflict between one's right to shove one's religiosity in the face of everyone within range and the right of those within range to have peaceful enjoyment of whatever activity they happen to be attempting. I am not sure the religious would win this one. Perhaps you can point out where in the bible it says one has to stand up on an aeroplane and pray loudly?

But leaving all the aside, the religious aspect, as others have pointed out, is pretty irrelevant. Anyone standing during a flight loudly shouting anything, be excerpts from Harry Potter, an impromptu performance of the Vagina Monologues, quoteS from <INSERT PREFERRED HOLY BOOK> or off the hoof prayers should be told to sit down and shut up. Any policies to stop this kind of behaviour could, and should, be applied to any of behaviour of this nature, be it religious or otherwise. The religious have no greater right to inflict their beliefs on other as a Harry Potter fanboy has to shout out his favourite passages.

Anyone on a flight, particularly considering the lack of ability to move away from any nuisance has a reasonable expectation that they will have peaceful enjoyment of the service they have purchased. If you have an overwhelming urge to loudly pray and show everyone how super religious and holy you are, become a pastor and tell it to people that care.

MrP

magicbastarder · 17-08-2016 10:55AM

MrPudding wrote: »

In addition to this, it is widely held that the freedom of religion extends to freedom from religion.

'freedom from religion' does not mean you have a right to be free from being reminded other religions exist; it means that your rights should not be curtailed on the basis of beliefs or practices of other religions. not that you have a say in whether people can pray out loud.

plus, the concept of freedom of speech or freedom of religion is not illuminated by employment tribunal cases, and employment law should not inform us regarding those rights. i have freedom of speech to call politician Y a wanker, or claim that god is great - but my employer may legitimately bar me from expressing these thoughts to customers if i am a waiter in a restaurant.
in this case, you could not sensibly argue that my freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, or that it's an example of the limits of those rights.

MrPudding · 17-08-2016 11:10AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

'freedom from religion' does not mean you have a right to be free from being reminded other religions exist; it means that your rights should not be curtailed on the basis of beliefs or practices of other religions. not that you have a say in whether people can pray out loud.

Agreed, but then I never said one has a right not to be reminded religion exists. I would argue that someone loudly praying where one does not really have any way to get away from it goes way beyond simply being reminded of the existence of religion.

People do have other rights that can be infringed by such behaviour, in simple contract terms, if you buy a flight, a service, you have an implied right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment. Some @sshole, and yes, someone that behaves like this is an asshole, same as anyone that does any of the other things I mentioned above, praying loudly is breaching that right.

magicbastarder wrote: »

plus, the concept of freedom of speech or freedom of religion is not illuminated by employment tribunal cases, and employment law should not inform us regarding those rights. i have freedom of speech to call politician Y a wanker, or claim that god is great - but my employer may legitimately bar me from expressing these thoughts to customers if i am a waiter in a restaurant.
in this case, you could not sensibly argue that my freedom of speech or religion is being curtailed, or that it's an example of the limits of those rights.

Actually, I would disagree on the lack of illumination offered by employment tribunal cases. The fact that it is employment law is not the salient or relevant point. In coming to the decision they did the judges in those cases had to look at where the rights overlapped, the right to manifest one's religion and that right not to have such manifestations foisted upon oneself. And that has an application beyond employment law. Employment law is not informing us about those rights, the analysis carried out by the judges to determine exactly what the rights were, how far they went and how they worked with other party's rights, all before employment law was applied or considered, is what informs us.

If you haven't already I would highly recommend you read some of the cases.

MrP

magicbastarder · 17-08-2016 11:26AM

i would guess - without having read the cases mentioned - that it's the intersection between employment law and the neutral provision of services which is the salient point.
i.e. it's not about curtailing the rights of the employee, it's about respecting the rights of the customer, and the employee is part of the delivery of the service which must respect those rights.

MrPudding · 17-08-2016 07:33PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

i would guess - without having read the cases mentioned - that it's the intersection between employment law and the neutral provision of services which is the salient point.
i.e. it's not about curtailing the rights of the employee, it's about respecting the rights of the customer, and the employee is part of the delivery of the service which must respect those rights.

Sort of... Where the right is qualified they look to understand how far that right goes and why it might be qualified, in that particular case. This would include where the exercising of one person's right might infringe on the same, or a different, right of another person. This is usually carried out as a kind of pure analysis of the particular right, rather than how it intersects with, for example, employment law. So, for example, if you look at the cases one of the key points that came out of that was the right to hold a particular belief was what was protected, and the manifestations of that belief, particularly where those manifestations might breach someone else's rights, did not attract protection.

All this is just about the rights, they have not looked at actual employment law yet. And this is why I think these cases are useful, as they usually contain a pretty good analysis of the various rights, how far they go, where they conflict and what the priorities are. Of course, they then look at the employment law side of things, as they must. I would suggest that even this is informative. Yes, it is employment law, but certain principles apply that probably transfer. Discrimination, under certain circumstances, is allowed. They key principle is that the discrimination is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end. The discrimination is only as much as is necessary to achieve a certain goal, and that goal is legitimate. Also, the use of comparators is informative in trying to understand is a particular act was discriminatory. Again this is an employment law tool, but can really help in analysing the situation.

So in this particular case would telling the guy to sit down and shut up be a proportional act to achieve a legitimate end? You could also use a comparator, would a person without the guys protected characteristic (his religiousness), doing the same thing also be told to sit down and shut up?

MrP

pauldla · 18-08-2016 02:44AM

Matthew 6:5-6

5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Let them do it in the lavvy, so. Is there a Mile High Club for praying?

Qs · 18-08-2016 03:39PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Everyone in the west is walking on eggshells for fear of being policitically incorrect or being labelled a racist.

Speak for yourself. I find it very easy not to be labelled a racist.

starshine1234 · 18-08-2016 04:10PM

By not speaking is it?

Qs · 18-08-2016 04:19PM

By not being a racist.

starshine1234 · 18-08-2016 04:47PM

No, not being a racist isn't enough.

For example, the invasion of Muslims with a completely different culture is dangerous for Europe. People who say this are called racists.

But racism requires an 'irrational' fear of others.

It isn't irrational to fear an invasion of people with a different culture who have stated that they intend to kill some of us.

Therefore, not being racist isn't sufficient to not be called a racist.

My point is that perfectly reasonable concerns are incorrectly being labelled as racism by childish liberals. Therefore, my statement that people are walking on eggshells for fear of being called a racist is perfectly correct and valid.

Thoie · 18-08-2016 05:00PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

No, not being a racist isn't enough.

For example, the invasion of Muslims with a completely different culture is dangerous for Europe. People who say this are called racists.

But racism requires an 'irrational' fear of others.

It isn't irrational to fear an invasion of people with a different culture who have stated that they intend to kill some of us.

Therefore, not being racist isn't sufficient to not be called a racist.

My point is that perfectly reasonable concerns are incorrectly being labelled as racism by childish liberals. Therefore, my statement that people are walking on eggshells for fear of being called a racist is perfectly correct and valid.

That sounds word for word like the homophobia argument. "I'm not homophobic, because I'm not irrationally afraid of them, I just think it's unnatural and they should all be beaten with sticks".

People who use the emotionally charged word "invasion" followed by "dangerous" generally sound a fair bit racist. The "I have perfectly reasonable concerns that aren't being addressed" also sounds like a standard playbook statement.

It's perfectly possible to have a reasonable discussion about the cultural effects of immigration without anyone being labelled racist.

starshine1234 · 18-08-2016 05:10PM

I don't agree.

Immigration is not discussed. It is ignored.

Europe is being changed due to unfettered and illegal immigration. It is correct for people to be concerned but they are labelled racists if they do.

Today, we had the vice chancellor of Germany saying people should be locked in prison if they disagree with German immigration policy. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Swedish women are being raped on masse and the cuck Swedish government is allowing the rapists to walk free as the rapists claim to be children. We're not allowed to talk about this.

Irish people should be allowed to make choices about Ireland. We shouldn't be bullyied by Germany or others.

It is the culture of many Africans that is the problem, not the fact that they are African. This is another reason why it isn't racist to criticise the current invasion.

Thoie · 18-08-2016 05:14PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

I don't agree.

Immigration is not discussed. It is ignored.

Europe is being changed due to unfettered and illegal immigration. It is correct for people to be concerned but they are labelled racists if they do.

Today, we had the vice chancellor of Germany saying people should be locked in prison if they disagree with German immigration policy. That doesn't seem reasonable to me.

Swedish women are being raped on masse and the cuck Swedish government is allowing the rapists to walk free as the rapists claim to be children. We're not allowed to talk about this.

Irish people should be allowed to make choices about Ireland. We shouldn't be bullyied by Germany or others.

It is the culture of many Africans that is the problem, not the fact that they are African. This is another reason why it isn't racist to criticise the current invasion.

OK, let me rephrase that. Other people can have reasonable discussions about it. You apparently can't, based on the number of emotionally charged words you've scattered throughout your post.

starshine1234 · 18-08-2016 05:16PM

Words hurt you do they?

Point out which words please?

You come across as childish and scatterbrained.

Is it the word 'cuck' which is short for cuckold?
I consider the word is perfectly apt.

Thoie · 18-08-2016 05:24PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

Words hurt you do they?

Point out which words please?

You come across as childish and scatterbrained.

Is it the word 'cuck' which is short for cuckold?
I consider the word is perfectly apt.

And you come across as racist and volatile, so I guess none of us are perfect.

starshine1234 · 18-08-2016 05:34PM

And you said people weren't unfairly labelled as racists.

And then you do so yourself.

As I said, childish and scatterbrained.

magicbastarder · 18-08-2016 05:36PM

Well, that went south quite quickly.

Qs · 18-08-2016 06:53PM

starshine1234 wrote: »

No, not being a racist isn't enough.

For example, the invasion of Muslims with a completely different culture is dangerous for Europe. People who say this are called racists.

But racism requires an 'irrational' fear of others.

Yes an irrational fear of others. Like when people call immigration an "invasion".

Kiwi in IE · 18-08-2016 07:20PM

As someone else pointed out, would a passenger standing randomly in the aisle of a plane for a prolonged period singing loudly, reciting poetry or reading from a book, at a level that other passengers are disrupted be tolerated? If so then praying cannot really be seen as being any different, but if not, is there any reason why religion should be given a special pass for behaviours not otherwise tolerated? Airlines should have a policy on disruptive behaviour and the loud singing or reciting of anything should not be tolerated on a plane. A plane is a confined space where other passengers are unable to remove themselves from a source of annoyance or nuisance, totally different from loud singing, praying, preaching, reciting on the street or in a park. Would it be tolerated if an atheist stood in the aisle of a plane stating loudly and repeatedly that God does not exist? I don't think it should be, and nor do I think that loud, disruptive praying should be.

Peregrinus · 19-08-2016 02:50AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

As someone else pointed out, would a passenger standing randomly in the aisle of a plane for a prolonged period singing loudly, reciting poetry or reading from a book, at a level that other passengers are disrupted be tolerated? If so then praying cannot really be seen as being any different, but if not, is there any reason why religion should be given a special pass for behaviours not otherwise tolerated? . . ..

But the OP doesn't ask whether religious displays should be specially tolerated; it asks whether religious displays should be specially banned. It's acknowledged right from page 1 of this thread that similarly annoying or inconvenient, but non-religious, behaviours do occur on airplanes. So phrasing the question in term of the special rights of non-religious people "not to have public displays of religion foisted on them" seems tendentious.

Can airlines, etc. prohibit behaviour which is annoying, inconvenient or even dangerous to other passengers? Certainly they can. Should they single out religious behaviour for such a ban? Certainly not.

MrPudding · 19-08-2016 06:33AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the OP doesn't ask whether religious displays should be specially tolerated; it asks whether religious displays should be specially banned. It's acknowledged right from page 1 of this thread that similarly annoying or inconvenient, but non-religious, behaviours do occur on airplanes. So phrasing the question in term of the special rights of non-religious people "not to have public displays of religion foisted on them" seems tendentious.

Can airlines, etc. prohibit behaviour which is annoying, inconvenient or even dangerous to other passengers? Certainly they can. Should they single out religious behaviour for such a ban? Certainly not.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the question in the OP. Sometimes difficult questions need to be asked, and besides, it isn't really the question that matters, it is the answer. The OP's question can be answered quite reasonably:

Yes. But not necessarily by a specifically targeted ban. A general ban on all @sshole behaviour would be sufficient.

Simples.

MrP

Peregrinus · 19-08-2016 06:52AM

Not quite so simples. In the words of the OP, the core question is:

silverharp wrote: »

. . . do non religious people have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them?

Surely the first response has to be, no, there are no rights specially for non-religious people?

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.

Frankly, as it's phrased in the OP, I bracket this question along with "do straight people not have a right not to have same-sex public displays of affection foisted on them?"

If you want a simple answer to either of those questions, there's only one option: No, they have no such right.

If we want to give a simple but positive answer, we have to start by framing the question that we think the OP should have asked in the first place. And we'll find, when we reframe it that way, the word "religion" doesn't appear in it.

Kiwi in IE · 19-08-2016 07:10AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the OP doesn't ask whether religious displays should be specially tolerated; it asks whether religious displays should be specially banned. It's acknowledged right from page 1 of this thread that similarly annoying or inconvenient, but non-religious, behaviours do occur on airplanes. So phrasing the question in term of the special rights of non-religious people "not to have public displays of religion foisted on them" seems tendentious.

Can airlines, etc. prohibit behaviour which is annoying, inconvenient or even dangerous to other passengers? Certainly they can. Should they single out religious behaviour for such a ban? Certainly not.

I totally agree, that was pretty much what I said in my post. Disruptive behaviour with a religious theme should neither be especially discriminated against, or especially privileged on airlines. It should be treated the same as all types of similar disruptive behaviour without a religious theme (eg Flight crew request that offender cease behaviour in consideration for others).

19-08-2016 09:55AM

Just because people consider their poetry to have superpowers does not indeed make it so.

If someone stands to recite a poem (of the superpower variety or not) in contravention of the airlines rules, they ought to be asked to be seated.

That's pretty much it on the matter really.

Consider this, if the recital was done in another language, and so you didn't know if it were a speech, a poem, a nervous passenger using mindfulness techniques to calm themselves or indeed a religious passenger praying, would you be more or less upset to find out after the fact that it was the latter?

If that is the case, that's a you-problem, not a them-problem.

I repeat - Just because people consider their poetry to have superpowers does not make it so. You considering that belief in the context of the above argument in effect affects that belief and poetry with additional 'weight' instead of simply being considered the nonsense that it is. They are just words, treat them as such.

magicbastarder · 19-08-2016 10:54AM

here's a scenario - what are the consequences of saying out loud, something along the lines that you hope the plane crashes (or to be inclusionary towards religious types, audibly praying to god to ask him to smite the plane out of the sky)?
i.e. at what point does non-intrusive (i.e. not loud or obstructive) speech which is legal outside the context of the plane become an issue on a plane?

19-08-2016 10:58AM

magicbastarder wrote: »

here's a scenario - what are the consequences of saying out loud, something along the lines that you hope the plane crashes (or to be inclusionary towards religious types, audibly praying to god to ask him to smite the plane out of the sky)?
i.e. at what point does non-intrusive (i.e. not loud or obstructive) speech which is legal outside the context of the plane become an issue on a plane?

The Shouting 'Fire' in a theatre scenario?

We have an example of something similar - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29845065

starshine1234 · 19-08-2016 11:17AM

Of course religion should be banned, and for the reason that it is religion.

We can't discriminate between religions.

Therefore, if we allow one religion we have to allow all religions, including devil workship for example,and gay and minority hating religions.

We can't allow those religions. Therefore we must ban all religious expression.

Religious expression can be banned on planes, and it can be banned for the reason that it is religious. The same activity done for a non-religious reason is fine. Religious expression is not fine, and especially not on a plane.

Unless you want people loudly praying for the plane to crash so that the unbelievers on board can be smitten, or smote, whichever.

Multicultural societies do not work as one section of society often seeks to troll other sections of society with unacceptable behaviour. Burkas for example.

MrPudding · 19-08-2016 01:15PM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not quite so simples. In the words of the OP, the core question is:

silverharp wrote:

do non religious people have a right not to have public displays of religion foisted on them

Surely the first response has to be, no, there are no rights specially for non-religious people?

I don’t necessarily disagree, but still think any inadequacies in the question can be addressed in the answer, as per my previous post. So the answer could be yes, but is isn’t a specific right, it is a general right for people not to be subjected to anti-social behaviour. There does not need to be a specific right for non-religious people (though in reality there is one) this can be adequately covered by general rights.

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.

Well that simply isn’t true. We do enjoy certain right in relation what displays can be foisted upon us.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Frankly, as it's phrased in the OP, I bracket this question along with "do straight people not have a right not to have same-sex public displays of affection foisted on them?"
If you want a simple answer to either of those questions, there's only one option: No, they have no such right.

I would agree with you here, but what is the relevance? What right is being infringed by seeing a couple kiss? Seeing someone of a different sexual orientation as you is not a restriction on your right to have a particular sexual orientation. And also, if that public display of affection went too far, be it straight or gay, then the observer does have a right not to have that foisted upon them.

If we forget for a moment that anti-social religious behaviour, in the context of an aeroplane, can likely be dealt with by already existing rules and policies not specifically targeted at religion, the right to religion does still give people a right to be preached at. The right to hold a religious belief is not a right to manifest that belief. You right to manifest the tenants of your belief are restricted by the rights of other people not to have your beliefs foisted on them. This is the principle we see in a number of discrimination cases.

Peregrinus wrote: »

If we want to give a simple but positive answer, we have to start by framing the question that we think the OP should have asked in the first place. And we'll find, when we reframe it that way, the word "religion" doesn't appear in it.

It really doesn’t matter how the question is framed. It is perfectly reasonable to answer the question as posed, and simply state that the solution does not require any specific wording to address the religious nature of the behaviour in question.

MrP

Should Public Prayers Be Allowed on Planes?

Comments