The Imams removed from US Air flight - the real story?

Evo

Also, the Imams weren't in trouble for praying they were in trouble for refusing to take their seats, arguing with the flight staff, and upsetting other passengers. They should have had charges pressed against them.

Astronuc

No. It is private property being used for the purpose of public conveyance. An airport is more of a public place, but not in the sense that as a park would be.

Airports are operating business, usually under some quasi-government authority, which is effectively a business. There are public venues, such as parks and beaches where the public may gather for recreation. An airport is a business, where the public gathers to make use of transportation (airlines).

Airports are required to accept more public accommodation than a private business. They are more public than a mall or shop, which are private properties used for the purpose of commerce, that being selling of goods or services to the public.

Jimmy Snyder

This in answer to the question: Are you arguing that prayer should be universally banned on public transportation?
This will kill the already ailing Airline industry.

Evo

You are kidding right? Banning outwardly vocal prayer on airlines would even cause one person to not fly?

Besides, disruptive behavior on airlines is already banned. Pilots cannot take a plane up while any passenger is in a dispute with an attendant and planes are diverted and brought down and the passenger removed if a passenger becomes disruptive during a flight. Read the thread about the woman that lit a match to cover up the smell of flatulence, the plane was diverted to an airport for an unscheduled landing, she was taken off and not allowed to re-board the plane. And she wasn't trying to cause trouble, she was just stupid.

0rthodontist

Evo, the match example is completely irrelevant, as it suggested an actual bomb threat. Also you still haven't answered my question: why would Fred praying out loud bother a reasonable person any more than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone?

Evo

I didn't say it was relevant to the Imams, but now that you mention it, it is very relevant as an example that any behavior, no matter how innocent, if it affects passengers on an airline, they will be dealt with.

ANY disruptive behavor on an airline is not tolerable. Someone deciding to start singing country music would be told to stop, if he didn't, he'd be taken off the plane. It is not rational behavior to do something that violates the personal space of others onboard something such as a plane. If you do something and the airline personnel tell you to stop and you don't, you are in violation and you will be dealt with.

0rthodontist

It's irrelevant to prayer on an airplane, not the Imams specifically. It is irrelevant because it is not just "affecting passengers on an airline." The sulfurous odor was actually a possible indicator of a bomb threat, i.e. far outside the realm of mere annoyance, and therefore not applicable to anything you're saying about prayer being "disruptive" somehow.
If he were singing country music at a moderate volume, say about speaking volume, there shouldn't be any problem. Perhaps it's a lullaby for his child.

What if you are a Jew, wearing a yarmulke, and this offends some of the passengers because they are prejudiced? If the airline attendant asks you to take off your yarmulke, are you obligated to?

But you still haven't answered my question. Why would Fred praying out loud be any more troubling to a reasonable person than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone? Cell phone conversations are allowed in airplanes, if you use an approved phone.

Evo

I never said it was, that is something you've made up in your head. I cited it as a separate issue of why any innapropriate action will cause problems. I intentionally placed that in a separate paragraph with a separate discussion for a reason. The two aren't linked. You trying to link the two together is rather disengenious.

I answered your question. YES. It would be just as annoying. And cell phone use is restricted on planes. Have you ever been on a plane?

0rthodontist

OK, so we've established:
1. You don't think the match lady incident is relevant to the Imams
2. You don't think the match lady incident is relevant to prayer on airplanes

Yes, I have been on an airplane. Apparently (so I have read) the current policy is that you may use a cell phone on airplanes, if it is an airline-approved phone.

I asked a slightly different question than you answered. I didn't ask if they were equally annoying, I asked: why would any reasonable person consider Fred praying out loud to be more of a bother than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone?

So by your statement here, I guess you agree that praying out loud is roughly as permissible as cell phone conversations. Would you like cell phone conversations to be banned on airplanes too, or are you agreeing here that prayer should be allowed as much as cell phones? Or are you going to change your mind?

Evo

So, you have no idea what the approved use of cellular phones on an airplane is.

For the last time, YES, any sane person would find them equally as annoying. Read that as not more annoying.

You are nothing but a troll. Take advantage of your 3 day vacation and if you return, try not to make things up anymore. Trolling will not be tolerated here.

verty

I don't mind so much if someone says a prayer to themself, but what annoys me is when they direct it at me or do it in a public manner. It's like the difference between someone picking their nose and them saying "look everyone, I'm picking my nose".

Jimmy Snyder

Perhaps it is I who should be asking you this question. First I would like you to answer this question: What is prayer? If I say "G-d, I hope this plane takes off on time.", is that a prayer. Suppose I say "I hope this plane takes off on time." What if I say "I hope my lab experient is a success"?

At what expense will the airlines handle praying customers? Will they hire prayer police? How much will it cost to train them? What will potential religious customers do? After all, airports and airplanes are not places of public accommodation, but train stations and trains are.

I feel that you are dug in on this scheme which I find offensive in its intent and impractical in its application. None the less, would it be too much to ask for you to change that YES to a Yes and lose at least a couple of those exclaimation points? In my opinion, they catch a lot more attention than a bucketful of context.

Astronuc

Let's try to keep this "a level headed discussion", as requested in the OP.

Use of cell phones on planes are permitted only when the cabin doors are open (before take off) and once the plane has landed. Why? Because radio transmissions may affect the navigation systems which rely upon radio transmissions from other sources. Once the plane has landed, the operation of the plain does not require the navigation computer, so cell phones can be used. Other electronic devices, which do not transmit, may be used while the plane is in flight. Electronic devices must be turned off while the aircraft is taking off and landing because airline crews need the passengers to be able to respond to emergency instructions - i.e. it is a safety matter.


The match incident is relevant to the situation with the imams, if the imams refused to take their assigned seats. ANY disruptive behavior is inappropriate since it interferes with the safe operation of the flight.

Prayer is not necessarily relevant. As long as the prayer is not disruptive, who cares. If prayer is done loudly or in a way that infringes upon others, then it is a problem. The same would be the case if someone got up and started an oratory on any subject. It is a matter of volume, which at some point becomes subjective. If a crew members asks a passenger to tone it down, or speak more softly (lower volume), then the passenger must comply. If the passenger does not comply with the request/demand of the crew, that passenger may be arrested.

There are plenty of ordinances on public nuisance behavior or disorderly conduct - and ignorance of the law is now excuse.

The operation of a plane is very different than the operation of a train. The control of a plane is more critical than that of a train. In intercity trains, the engineer is isolated in the locomotive, away from any passenger trying to interfere with operation of the train. Local or commuter trains and subway trains are more like planes, in which the operator is separated only by a door from the passengers.

As for operation, plane crashes have much less survivability than train crashes, because planes are traveling at higher speeds, have more fuel, and are made of lighter less stronger materials (Al alloys vs steel).

BobG

Free speech on an airplane would be treated differently than free speech in the airport. On the airplane, the passengers are a captive audience. In the airport, people can move further away if a person's 'speech' is bothering them.

There's a balance between a person's right to free speech and the imposition allowing free speech puts on others. Generally, the choice is to give the right to free speech priority whenever possible, but there are reasonable limits. You don't have the right to loudly state "This plane should be blown up and all of you should die!" while in flight, for example. Nor does a person have the right to stand up and deliver a religious sermon in a movie theater in the middle of the movie.

A person afraid of flying offering a quick, quiet, even if verbal, prayer before take off wouldn't qualify as a significant disruption - in fact, they could probably get away with repeating 'Hail Mary's' all through the take off until the plane was in flight. If it looked like the person was going to keep it up through an entire transatlantic flight, I imagine someone on the flight crew would have to talk to them (and hopefully offer them a sedative), so resolving any issue that comes up is left to the crew's common sense.

In any event, the issue is more the failure to take their assigned seats and at least one asking for a seat belt extender they didn't need. With over a hundred passengers, the crew has to put safety first and were right to hold the flight until until the situation was resolved. I'd be more sympathetic if the imams had limited their demonstration just to the airport.

Jimmy Snyder

I ask you the same question I asked Evo. What is a prayer? If a group of football fans discuss a recent game in which a "Hail Mary" play occured, how many times would you allow these people to say "Hail Mary" before they were restrained? Would you cut football fanatics more slack than religious fanatics?

Evo

This thread isn't about prayer.

This is about how the real reasons for the Imams removal from the plane were not fully disclosed at first. The Imams claimed they were being persecuted for saying silent pryers, which is NOT the reason at all. We know now there were other much more disruptive behavior that was the cause.

To everyone, please do not drag this off topic with comments about prayer, it's not what this thread is about. I would like to stay on topic.

Anttech

I am still to see any evidence that what was said about them was true, (not sitting in proper seats, etc etc) or what they said was true. Seems this discussion is dead in the water until we know for sure what happened. Imams are very religious people, and the majority of them dont lie. In fact IMO more people hate Islam and would slander law abiding Imams, out of prejudiced than Imams would Lie. Yes there a few Bigot Imam's who preach Hate and Jihad, same as there are a few Bigot Christians who would slander someone of a different Faith...

If this was a Orthodox Priest, in his full attire I wonder what would have happened, or a bunch of Nuns..