News Should prayer be banned on public transportation?

[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.

 

[verty]

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

They are evidencing their belief, that's the whole point.

 

[MeJennifer]

They are evidencing their belief, that's the whole point.

There are many who are religious and do show discretion in public. Some religions even advice it. For instance in Christianity.

 

[MeJennifer]

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

-Denis Diderot

I most certainly would not. I think this is generally a rather self destructive strategy for life.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I most certainly would not. I think this is generally a rather self destructive strategy for life.

I really needn't say more, you said it all right there.

 

[MeJennifer]

I really needn't say more, you said it all right there.

Good, I have no problem with being uncontested!

 

[sas3]

You can look at this form another point, what if a christian was sitting next to a satanist and the satanist started praying, now the christian is in the atheist position.
See how annoying that is.
More then likely both the christian and the satanist would start fighting and both would get kicked off or whatever.
But you see my point.

However, I can't see making this a law. Let the flight attendants and crew take care of it if it becomes annoying.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would like to bring this discussion back to the topic. No discussion of whether prayer should be banned would be meaningful without a definition of prayer. As for the definition of prayer given, I was surprised that in a forum for physicists, no one could follow my argument that an atheist, who does not believe in a deity could then not believe in a conversation with one. I am not insisting that you agree with the argument, just understand it.

MeJennifer, please accept my apology for unclarity. It is a taboo among my ancestors to write or speak the name of the deity. Although I suffer lapses, I do try to keep this tradition for reasons which I keep to myself. At any rate, the term "lord" is often used in its place and my question could easily be made more clear in this fashion. Is the following a prayer?

"Lord, I hope this plane takes off on time."

I hope this clears up the issue of pronounciation and you will be able to answer the question.

Evo, although I read your definition of prayer with interest and am considering the idea that when some people say "G-d" it is a prayer and when other people say "G-wd", it is not. Also the idea that repetition can turn a non-prayer into a prayer. None the less, I hope you accept the fact that any definition of what prayer is that you may give is of a relatively academic interest to me. This is because you have already stated that if the prayer is said in a normal speaking voice it should not be banned. I have a more practical interest in MeJennifer's definition since she would ban prayer. I fear that without a definition of what exactly it is that she would ban, excesses may occur.

 

[twisting_edge]

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.

OK, that's a fair observation. It is also what the imams did, refusing to go to their assigned seats.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

No need to pass more - we have plenty of laws like that. As Evo has already said, they apply quite strictly to conduct on airplanes.

 

[russ_watters]

...I was surprised that in a forum for physicists, no one could follow my argument that an atheist, who does not believe in a deity could then not believe in a conversation with one. I am not insisting that you agree with the argument, just understand it.

I think we followed you just fine, but the problem is that you're missing your own point! An athiest does not believe in conversations with God, and that is why it is offensive to hear people attempting it.