News Should prayer be banned on public transportation?

[Jimmy Snyder]

This is a rhetorical question from another thread. As such, it should not have captured my interest. As with any rhetorical question, the expectation was probably that it would not be answered. None the less, it was answered with an enthusiastic "yes". It was off-topic to that thread and has been declared taboo there. Yet, interesting as the topic of that thread is, I find this one even more interesting because of the support it received. So I invite comment.

Should prayer be banned on public transportation?

 

[Astronuc]

This is a rhetorical question from another thread. As such, it should not have captured my interest. As with any rhetorical question, the expectation was probably that it would not be answered. None the less, it was answered with an enthusiastic "yes". It was off-topic to that thread and has been declared taboo there. Yet, interesting as the topic of that thread is, I find this one even more interesting because of the support it received. So I invite comment.

Should prayer be banned on public transportation?

This wasn't the issue in the thread about the imams who were removed from an aircraft. The issue was disruptive behavior on an aircraft, which is a violation of the law. The imams were not targeted beacuse of an act of prayer, they were targeted for refusing to comply with requests from the crew and other disruptive behavior.

Prayer is not now banned, nor does it need to be banned, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

This wasn't the issue in the thread about the imams who were removed from an aircraft.

You are right. That is why I have started this thread. It paraphrases a question in message 18 from that thread.

 

[russ_watters]

There really isn't much to discuss here - legally, ethically, Constitutionally, Astronuc's answer is about all there is to say. It is a pretty clear-cut issue.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

No, prayer should not be banned anywhere. Disruptive behaviour that infringes on the rights of other people should be banned everywhere.

edit:woops russ/Astro didn't see/read your post, I agree.

.

 

[Evo]

Prayer is not now banned, nor does it need to be banned, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.

I don't see how anything but silent prayer will not infringe on the rights of others. I have no problem with people praying silently.

There are too many religions, with too many varying beliefs. You have several hundred people crammed together inside a metal tuibe, usually for hours, with no possiblity of getting away if they do not wish to hear you. Pray in silence all you want, just do not pray out loud enough that you can be overheard by the person next to you.

So, I would vote to ban vocal praying on transportation such as an airplane. I'm not paying hundreds of dollars to be bombarded by someone else's religious beliefs. I would also not want to hear someone reading out loud, or singing. It's rude and discourteous. I have a right to read or sleep, or work on the plane undisturbed.

If someone wants to pray out loud in the terminal, I can move away from them, on a plane I am trapped. And as I mentioned ealier, the same goes for any vocal outbursts that would infringe on me

 

[russ_watters]

One thing I'd like to point out from one of Astronuc's posts in the other thread: it isn't just a matter of volume. If someone is having a vulgar conversation near you, but is having it in a normal speaking voice, that is disruptive too.

Now, legally and practically, it is not really possible to outlaw certain types of conversations. But if one is bothering you, it is not unreasonable to ask them to stop or have someone in a position of authority (whether a flight attendant or usher at a movie) stop them.

Personally, I'm not against quiet (not silent) prayer in public/on a plane, but I think it is reasonable for others to be against it and not want to hear it. Heck, when my boss talks politics, it is like fingernails on a chalk board to me and I ask him to stop sometimes.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Yes definitely, I would say that prayer has absolutely nothing to do with it. Even just normal conversation, try striking up a conversation with people in a movie theatre, you will be removed :P. It's not so much that it is 'against the law' as it is a private property issue. If you are disruptive in any form, I think that after a warning, you will be removed in most instances, rightfully. Can you imagine sitting in a movie theatre with some guy talking loudly? It is not much different than on an airplane.

 

[dontdisturbmycircles]

Of course no one is going to get kicked off an airplane if they are just having normal conversation with the person next to them, unless it is disruptive (won't quit talking when asked to stop, talking very loudly,worshipping a god loudly/whatever.). So yea, I just wanted to make that distinction.

 

[chroot]

Evo,

As discourteous and annoying as other people can be on planes -- infants, unruly children, imams, you name it -- they paid as much as you did, and have every right to be there that you do.

I don't believe you have a "right" to tell others around you how to act, regardless of your sense of personal import.

I don't believe anyone should support a "ban" on the actions of others that do not injure us, but that we simply find discourteous or offensive. Certainly, people who sing loud prayers on airplanes are very annoying, but that's a matter of social convention, not one of legislation.

- Warren

 

[twisting_edge]

The key point to remember when discussing religious freedoms is that they are no more protected under the U.S Constitution than any other form of speech. The Constitution does not guarantee additional rights to the citizens regarding prayer, it merely ensures religious behavior will not be infringed any more than comparable, non-religious behavior would be. You cannot forbid (or even discourage) religious behavior solely because it is religious in nature. But you can certainly forbid it if comparable, non-religious behavior were also forbidden. It's in the same clause, and is given the same protection as the more general freedom of speech.

Here's what the Constitution has to say on the matter. Please note this is the only thing the Constitution has to say (except for some anti-discrimination wording in a much later amendment)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That's it. No more, no less. That's all she wrote, folks (he actually).

Now, where the matter gets muddled is in all the court decisions accreted around the various clauses of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has been very clear on that matter. Speech is protected, but within reasonable grounds. Constitutional rights are always a balancing act: "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." It wasn't Roy Rogers who first said that, it was Oliver Wendell Holmes, sitting on the Supreme Court ("The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.")

But on matters of free speech, the Court has been particularly clear. Political speech is protected beyond normal speech. Commercial speech is protected less. Religious speech falls in the middle with all the rest. There are finer grades than that, but the two major factors are politics and commerce.

 

[twisting_edge]

As discourteous and annoying as other people can be on planes -- infants, unruly children, imams, you name it -- they paid as much as you did, and have every right to be there that you do.

If I were to start chanting thrash metal lyrics, I would expect to be thrown off the plane. I doubt I would be disappointed in that regard (I have a very loud voice when I want).

 

[chroot]

If I were to start chanting thrash metal lyrics, I would expect to be thrown off the plane. I doubt I would be disappointed in that regard (I have a very loud voice when I want).

Would you really expect to be thrown off? I wouldn't.

I would expect some people to ask me to knock it off. Eventually, perhaps the flight crew would also ask me to knock it off. If I did not, that's the point at which I break both my contract with the airline and become in violation of law. As soon as I cross the line of not obeying the flight crew, I would expect to be thrown off. That has nothing to do with me annoying another passenger.

I don't think that simply annoying the person beside me -- or perhaps even the entire row -- would subject me to legal action.

- Warren

 

[Kurdt]

I think more to the point is that we live in countries with an incredible range of freedoms and we do so because we like to choose what we can and can't do for the most part. When out in public one should expect to perhaps see and hear things that they may not like. That is the price that comes from the great choice of freedom. The reasonable person will tune it out and respect that persons right to do it. Of course if that person is going out of the way to be a pain then they are in the wrong. For the most part people do not go out of their way to annoy others.

 

[Evo]

As discourteous and annoying as other people can be on planes -- infants, unruly children, imams, you name it -- they paid as much as you did, and have every right to be there that you do.

I don't believe you have a "right" to tell others around you how to act, regardless of your sense of personal import.

Actually, on a plane, you do have certain rights. I'm listing the Airline Passenger Bill of Rights from Canada, but there is an even stricter one in the US, it was referenced in another article I posted, I'll add that, but for now.

"The passenger is entitled to protection by airport and air carrier personnel against harassment, excessive noise, and obstreperous behaviour"

http://www.piac.ca/transport/airline_passenger_bill_of_rights/

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

In my opinion, a discussion of appropriate responses to inappropriate behavior is less interesting than the question of whether prayer is inappropriate behavior. Let us stipulate that the prayer is neither silent (how on Earth do you intend to prevent that?), nor louder than a normal speaking voice (inappropriate volume).

Evo, thank you for your input in this thread. I ask you the same question as I asked in the previous one. What is a prayer?

 

[chroot]

If someone is offended by a nearly-silent prayer, then that person must be offended by the content of what was spoken, not in the manner in which it was spoken. That's wholesale bigotry, if you ask me.

- Warren

 

[Evo]

In my opinion, a discussion of appropriate responses to inappropriate behavior is less interesting than the question of whether prayer is inappropriate behavior. Let us stipulate that the prayer is neither silent (how on Earth do you intend to prevent that?), nor louder than a normal speaking voice (inappropriate volume).

Ok, that's a different question. No, prayer by itself is not inappropriate.

It is where and how the prayer is performed that can be inappropriate, and that is what was discussed in the original thread.

What is a prayer?

I would say it is a ritual performed, usually a recitation, the content of which usually has to do with a person's religious beliefs.

I say usually because you can pray for something without it being religious. Like being stuck in a traffic jam and saying over and over "oh please don't let me be late".

I think the first thing that comes to people's minds is religious prayer.

So, prayer by itself as a subject is not inappropriate. I don't see what there is left to discuss?

 

[Evo]

If someone is offended by a nearly-silent prayer, then that person must be offended by the content of what was spoken, not in the manner in which it was spoken. That's wholesale bigotry, if you ask me.

- Warren

No one is talking about nearly silent prayer. We're talking about prayer that is loud enough to disturb those nearby, the same volume that ANYTHING they are saying would be deemed disturbing. The point here is that if a person would be asked to quiet down for any other reason, they cannot use the excuse that they are praying to be exempted from normal rules..

But you also have to keep in mind how strongly people feel about their religion. I don't think a Christian Evangelist will take kindly to sitting next to someone praying out loud to Beelzebub. On something like an airplane, I do think we need to excersize some common sense and common courtesy. I cannot ever see a reason why someone on a plane would have to pray out loud. At the very least, ask the people next to you if it would bother them, if they don't mind, no problem, if they mind, keep it quiet.

 

[chroot]

No one is talking about nearly silent prayer. We're talking about prayer that is loud enough to disturb those nearby, the same volume that ANYTHING they are saying would be deemed disturbing. The point here is that if a person would be asked to quiet down for any other reason, they cannot use the excuse that they are praying to be exempted from normal rules.

No, we're not. The OP changed his mind to this: Let us stipulate that the prayer is neither silent... nor louder than a normal speaking voice (inappropriate volume).

- Warren

 

[Evo]

No, we're not. The OP changed his mind to this: Let us stipulate that the prayer is neither silent... nor louder than a normal speaking voice (inappropriate volume).

- Warren

Sorry, then I have already stated that it is not a problem. Now I don't see the point of the discussion.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Evo, you seem to have been answering the question "Should excessive noise be allowed on public transportation"? Interesting as that question may be to you, it is a boring one to me as the answer seems forced. In fact the question asked in this thread, and in the previous thread is different. It is also a boring question to me and for the same reason. As I said, I wouldn't have opened this thread if you hadn't answered "YES!", or even just "yes".

 

[Evo]

Evo, you seem to have been answering the question "Should excessive noise be allowed on public transportation"? Interesting as that question may be to you, it is a boring one to me as the answer seems forced. In fact the question asked in this thread, and in the previous thread is different. It is also a boring question to me and for the same reason. As I said, I wouldn't have opened this thread if you hadn't answered "YES!", or even just "yes".

Ok, so what is it you wish to discuss about prayer that is quiet enough to not bother others? I have no problem with that.

 

[MeJennifer]

I don't see how anything but silent prayer will not infringe on the rights of others. I have no problem with people praying silently.

There are too many religions, with too many varying beliefs. You have several hundred people crammed together inside a metal tuibe, usually for hours, with no possiblity of getting away if they do not wish to hear you. Pray in silence all you want, just do not pray out loud enough that you can be overheard by the person next to you.

So, I would vote to ban vocal praying on transportation such as an airplane. I'm not paying hundreds of dollars to be bombarded by someone else's religious beliefs. I would also not want to hear someone reading out loud, or singing. It's rude and discourteous. I have a right to read or sleep, or work on the plane undisturbed.

If someone wants to pray out loud in the terminal, I can move away from them, on a plane I am trapped. And as I mentioned ealier, the same goes for any vocal outbursts that would infringe on me

I pretty much agree 100%.

Those who want to pray can easily prays silently or even mumble. No need to make it into a spectacle.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Those who want to pray can easily prays silently or even mumble.

I had stipulated normal speaking voice, and this would be above a mumble. Will you allow normal speaking voice? Also, please define prayer if you will.

 

[MeJennifer]

I had stipulated normal speaking voice, and this would be above a mumble. Will you allow normal speaking voice. Also, please define prayer if you will.

Normal speaking voice is pushing it. Many religious people have their mouths full of "right conduct" so for starters they could show the way in how not to bother others.
But anyway most do, most pray silently or make sure that they do not bother others. It is only the few who make it into a spectacle.

Define prayer? Prayer is communication with a deity usually in the form of asking for something.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I just flew in from Chicago and are my arms tired. I was sitting there with my sister discussing Arthur, our dear departed father. I said "Our father, Art, who is in heaven ...". Well the person sitting next to us misheard what I said and thought I was reciting the Lord's Prayer. I was kicked off the plane. This was at 36000 feet, so I had to flap my arms like crazy. My sister fared better. They just tasered her and sent her luggage to Timbuctu. I hope and pray this doesn't happen again. But not out loud my readers, not out loud.

 

[MeJennifer]

the person sitting next to us misheard what I said and thought I was reciting the Lord's Prayer.

Then it appears a mistake was made. Life's a drag sometimes isn't it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Prayer is communication with a deity usually in the form of asking for something.

So for starters, atheists do not believe that prayer ever occurs, is that so? I had asked the next question in a previous thread, and now I ask you directly. Is the following a prayer?

"G-d, I hope the plane takes off on time."

 

[MeJennifer]

So for starters, atheists do not believe that prayer ever occurs, is that so?

Not so. For atheists it simply means that it is a one way communication. It's like someone talking to a rock, it does not mean it is not occurring, it is just one way communication.

I had asked the next question in a previous thread, and now I ask you directly. Is the following a prayer?

"G-d, I hope the plane takes off on time."

That depends on how you pronounce "G-d".

 

[Evo]

So for starters, atheists do not believe that prayer ever occurs, is that so?

No. Atheists can hear people saying prayers, they're not deaf. What made you think that?

I had asked the next question in a previous thread, and now I ask you directly. Is the following a prayer?

"G-d, I hope the plane takes off on time."

If it's only uttered once, no, it's just a wish. If it's repeated over and over it could qualify as a prayer. I use the word "gawd" all the time, but I'm not addressing it to a god, spelled out it would be "gawd, I hope the plane takes off on time". A prayer would be more like "Dear God, please make the plane take off on time". Here you are actually asking god to do you a favor.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

If we passed legislation to ban any actions that some people found offensive, we would have laws against doing anything and everything. We do not (nor should we) have the right to not be offended.

That's all I have to say about that.

 

[MeJennifer]

If we passed legislation to ban any actions that some people found offensive, we would have laws against doing anything and everything. We do not (nor should we) have the right to not be offended.

This is not about being offended.
Why do you think that an atheist could possibly be offended if someone adresses a deity?
Deities are as real to an atheist as Disney characters.

It is not offense, it is plain and simple irritation.
Imagine you are sitting in a plane for 12 hours and someone next to you is constantly reciting prayers at normal speech level.

 

[Evo]

We do not (nor should we) have the right to not be offended.

Actually, on a plane you do. That's why so many people are asked by the flight attendants to stop what they are doing as their actions are offending others. There are stricter rules of etiquette enforced on airlines. If you didn't, you'd have people punching each other out.

Most people display common sense and courtesy on planes anyway. I've only seen a couple of people that had to be asked to stop doing something, and they apologized and stopped.

 

[BobG]

Not so. For atheists it simply means that it is a one way communication. It's like someone talking to a rock, it does not mean it is not occurring, it is just one way communication.

I'm not sure. I think some atheists would be more comfortable if the person next to them spent the flight talking to a rock than praying, and I'm only half kidding. There's not many people that talk to rocks and little likelihood that people will try to convert your family into talking to rocks. The conflicts between atheists and Christians are at least partially because atheists are exposed to Christian religion so often against their will just because religious symbols and phrases are so pervasive (it also applies to other religions, but none of the other religions are as common as Christianity in the US).

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This is not about being offended.
Why do you think that an atheist could possibly be offended if someone adresses a deity?

My comment had nothing to do with the quotes in this thread having to do with atheism. I would think atheists would be the least likely to be annoyed or offended by out-loud prayer. Besides, I'm really not interested in going into the basics of atheism with you, it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

It is not offense, it is plain and simple irritation. Imagine you are sitting in a plane for 12 hours and someone next to you is constantly reciting prayers at normal speech level

So what's the problem with asking them to stop? Who's to say I wouldn't be annoyed every time someone looks at me on the airplane? Am I allowed to utilize the powers of the government in order to get you to stop looking at me? It's really REALLY dangerous to start passing laws based on annoyance, that might be even worse than legislating morality (there is a good episode of Penn & Teller Bullsh*t on the subject, btw). I don't like children on airplanes because they cry all the time, I say we ban them all together. Do you see where this is going?

Actually, on a plane you do. That's why so many people are asked by the flight attendants to stop what they are doing as their actions are offending others. There are stricter rules of etiquette enforced on airlines. If you didn't, you'd have people punching each other out.

So perhaps our civil liberties have been banned on airplanes?! In the end, the airplane is private property and flight attendants being the representatives of the owner can have the final say, since the airline wants the customers to come back. If one person is annoying 10 others, they want to stop that person to assure the 10 other people come back, not because some law says the attendant MUST do it. The flight attendants are not government employees, they are people acting in their employer's best interests. Do we really need to make LAWS telling people how to act in every situation in society? Why limit it to planes? Why not restaurants, buses, elevators, hallways... anywhere someone might get annoyed.

Most people display common sense and courtesy on planes anyway. I've only seen a couple of people that had to be asked to stop doing something, and they apologized and stopped.

Oh my, we really should pass a law right away dictating exactly how everyone should act! This problem it out of control! My point is that a little consideration for others, and being willing to tell someone if you're having a problem (or just putting on some headphones and listening to music), can take care of it. Do we really need the government to babysit us?

 

[Evo]

Oh my, we really should pass a law right away dictating exactly how everyone should act! This problem it out of control! My point is that a little consideration for others, and being willing to tell someone if you're having a problem (or just putting on some headphones and listening to music), can take care of it. Do we really need the government to babysit us?

You're being silly. You are aware of Captain's Authority in the event of disruptive passengers (passengers that have been asked to refrain from an activity and refused). ?

"Here's what the flying public needs to know about airplanes and civil rights: Once your foot traverses the entranceway of a commercial airliner, you are no longer in a democracy in which everyone gets a vote and minority rights are affirmatively protected in furtherance of fuzzy, ever-shifting social policy. Ultimately, the responsibility for your personal safety and security rests on the shoulders of one person, the pilot in command. His primary job is to safely transport you and your belongings from one place to another. Period.

This is the doctrine of "captain's authority." It has a longstanding history and a statutory mandate, further strengthened after 9/11, which recognizes that flight crews are our last line of defense between the kernel of a terrorist plot and its lethal execution. The day we tell the captain of a commercial airliner that he cannot remove a problem passenger unless he divines beyond question what is in that passenger's head and heart is the day our commercial aviation system begins to crumble. When a passenger's conduct is so disturbing and disruptive that reasonable, ordinary people fear for their lives, the captain must have the discretionary authority to respond without having to consider equal protection or First Amendment standards about which even trained lawyers with the clarity of hindsight might strongly disagree. The pilot in command can't get it wrong. At 35,000 feet, when multiple events are rapidly unfolding in real time, there is no room for error.

We have a new, inviolate aviation standard after 9/11, which requires that the captain cannot take that airplane up so long as there are any unresolved issues with respect to the security of his airplane. At altitude, the cockpit door is barred and crews are instructed not to open them no matter what is happening in the cabin behind them. This is an extremely challenging situation for the men and women who fly those planes, one that those who write federal aviation regulations and the people who agitate for more restrictions on a captain's authority will never have to face themselves. "

 

[DaveC426913]

It seems MecgEng beat em to it.

"Appropriate actions based on individual circumstances."

If someone wants to mumble a prayer, fine, that's their right.
If ten people around him feel he's being disruptive, then that's their right.
As long as everyone is civil, respectful (even in asserting their rights) and reasonable, everybody gets along.

If we make rules based on the assumption that no one will ever get along, well we might as well be in a country-sized prison.


Really, what is the point of this thread? It seems tailor-made to stir up trouble.

 

[MeJennifer]

don't like children on airplanes because they cry all the time, I say we ban them all together. Do you see where this is going? Do you see where this is going?

Yes, that banning prayer in places like planes has a lot of resistance and that those who resist start using absurd comparisons like banning children because they are annoying.

I am all for religious freedom. If someone wants to believe in God XYZ good for them.
But annoying people with religious speech and messages in places like airplanes is not ok to me.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm not saying a waitress or captain of an airliner should not have the power to remove people from a flight. If someone is being heinously disruptive or dangerous, by all means remove them with haste! I'd like to point out that at this point we aren't even really talking about violent or dangerous passengers, we're talking about some guy sitting next to you that is praying (maybe he's praying for forgiveness as he is about to set off a bomb, maybe he's just afraid of flying).

What I'm saying is we don't need laws to give flight attendants the power to ask a person to stop doing something that is annoying other passengers (they already have that ability), nor should we make laws based on peoples' annoyances. If the person refuses to stop and is argumentative, the airline can black list him or something, and if he (the passenger) takes it a step further then its time for legal action.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Yes, that banning prayer in places like planes has a lot of resistance and that those who resist start using absurd comparisons like banning children because they are annoying.

I am all for religious freedom. If someone wants to believe in God XYZ good for them.
But annoying people with religious speech and messages in places like airplanes is not ok to me.

You believe in religious freedom, but only when they are not around you? We weren't even talking about preaching out loud, we're talking about someone praying to themselves! Just so we're clear, I'm not interested in parcticing any religion on any airplanes (I personally am half agnostic half atheist), it's just so easy to poke holes in your arguments.

And the banning children on flights comparison is valid, unless of course only your annoyances are valid...

 

[BobG]

So what's the problem with asking them to stop? Who's to say I wouldn't be annoyed every time someone looks at me on the airplane? Am I allowed to utilize the powers of the government in order to get you to stop looking at me? It's really REALLY dangerous to start passing laws based on annoyance, that might be even worse than legislating morality (there is a good episode of Penn & Teller Bullsh*t on the subject, btw). I don't like children on airplanes because they cry all the time, I say we ban them all together. Do you see where this is going?

So perhaps our civil liberties have been banned on airplanes?! In the end, the airplane is private property and flight attendants being the representatives of the owner can have the final say, since the airline wants the customers to come back. If one person is annoying 10 others, they want to stop that person to assure the 10 other people come back, not because some law says the attendant MUST do it. The flight attendants are not government employees, they are people acting in their employer's best interests. Do we really need to make LAWS telling people how to act in every situation in society? Why limit it to planes? Why not restaurants, buses, elevators, hallways... anywhere someone might get annoyed.

Oh my, we really should pass a law right away dictating exactly how everyone should act! This problem it out of control! My point is that a little consideration for others, and being willing to tell someone if you're having a problem (or just putting on some headphones and listening to music), can take care of it. Do we really need the government to babysit us?

I don't think the OP was necessarily referring to legislating a law to ban an activity. I think it was more general than that. (It was kind of a rhetorical question).

None the less, you still addressed the key point, at least when it comes to airlines. The airline acts in a way that will result in the most repeat business and that's perfectly legitimate. A confined space with a large number of people is a specific special circumstance where the airline is justified in applying special rules.

I still wonder what would be the best policy for the airline regarding prayer. They're almost openly inviting conflict on flights if their policy is based just on who complains the loudest.

 

[MeJennifer]

I still wonder what would be the best policy for the airline regarding prayer.

I'd say take it to the restroom!

 

[Mech_Engineer]

"Though I may not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it."

-Denis Diderot

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I'd say take it to the restroom!

Surely you must see that is rather ridiculous...

 

[MeJennifer]

Surely you must see that is rather ridiculous...

Well you are entitled to your opinion and I am to mine.

While some may see prayer as some enlightened human activity I think it is quite the opposite.

 

[Evo]

What I'm saying is we don't need laws to give flight attendants the power to ask a person to stop doing something that is annoying other passengers (they already have that ability), nor should we make laws based on peoples' annoyances. If the person refuses to stop and is argumentative, the airline can black list him or something, and if he takes it a step further then its time for legal action.

I agree, I don't think it has to be a law. It appears it can be written into an airline's Zero Tolerance Policies.

http://www.afanet.org/unruly.htm

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Well you are entitled to your opinion and I am to mine.

Indeed, but I am not going to let you pass a law PREVENTING anyone else from doing whatever it is they feel like doing. No matter how loud or annoying you are.

While some may see prayer as some enlightened human activity I think it is quite the opposite.

Well, it could be we have cut to the heart of your argument after all...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I agree, I don't think it has to be a law. It appears it can be written into an airline's Zero Tolerance Policies.

http://www.afanet.org/unruly.htm

I'm just trying to illustrate the difference between the captain having ultimate say in a situation where there might be a problem (and might act accordingly), versus where he is REQUIRED to act under a law based on someone's arbitrary annoyances...

 

[MeJennifer]

Well, it could be we have cut to the heart of your argument after all...

Well interestingly I suspect that there are some who pray loudly just to show how much they can annoy others with it.