News Should prayer be banned on public transportation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy Snyder
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around whether prayer should be banned on public transportation, particularly airplanes. The initial rhetorical question sparked a lively debate, with many participants expressing that prayer should not be banned as long as it does not infringe on others' rights. Participants emphasized the importance of maintaining a respectful environment, suggesting that vocal prayer could be disruptive in confined spaces like airplanes. Some argue for the right to pray silently, while others advocate for a ban on vocal prayers, citing the need for courtesy in shared spaces. The conversation also touches on legal aspects, highlighting that religious expression is protected under the Constitution, but it must not disturb others. The consensus leans towards allowing silent prayer, while vocal expressions should be moderated to avoid annoyance. The thread ultimately underscores the balance between individual rights and communal respect in public settings.
  • #101
Severian said:
I disagree. His question is perfectly valid. The whole thread was attempting to address "Should prayer be banned on public transportation?", so asking for a clear and concise definition of "prayer" seems eminently reasonable.
He got a clear and concise definition and now he's arguing pointlessly against it.

Listen, guys, one of the main points from the beginning of this thread is that what offends people is an individual thing and different from person to person, which is why arguing the minutae of the definitions is pointless: there is no need to agree on such definitions. But, a reasonable, logical person should be able to understand what might be offensive and why and judge how offensive it is to how many people (that's kinda what is required to avoid offending people yourself!). Ie, the thing about athiests. I'm not an athiest, but I know some athiests get offended by religious talk and I can understand why. This should not require argument/explanation, and so many examples have already been given and discussed, it should be easily to extrapolate to other scenarios.

I am not going to explain Santa Claus only to have to move on to the Easter Bunny, then the Tooth Fairy, then the Loch Ness Monster, etc. There is no point and no end to the argument.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
BobG said:
Whether a push back against being a minority in a mostly Christian society or some other reason, there are many Atheists who are just as zealous about their own beliefs as a "born again" Christian. Lawsuits to remove religious symbols from city seals (re Los Angeles city seal) go beyond just logic. Spanish missions played a part in the city's history whether you believe in the religion or not. In that case, it turned into an attempt to erase portions of history that Atheists wished hadn't happened.
A straw-man fallacy. How do you conclude that all atheists have such an opinion?
I have never heard of atheists having problems with Spanish missions.

Personally I have no problem at all with the display of religious symbols. On the contrary the quest by some groups to remove Christmas from the public life is borderline idiotic IMHO.
It is only when things becomes annoying, I object, not because it is religious but because it annoys. For instance when I look for a book in Borders or drink my coffee Starbucks two weeks before Thanksgiving and I have to listen daily to Christmas songs. Things like that, that is just annoying. But there I have a choice, I can go somewhere else, but in a 12 hour flight I cannot.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
MeJennifer said:
A straw-man fallacy. How do you conclude that all atheists have such an opinion?
I have never heard of atheists having problems with Spanish missions.
Actually, he said many atheists. I think that would actually be the "fringe" group of atheist. And there is a "lunatic Fringe" of atheists, I had the misfortune of meeting one. YIKES!

Anyway, I think all the threads on these subjects have worn themselves into the ground. Time to say goodbye.
 
  • #104
russ_watters said:
He got a clear and concise definition and now he's arguing pointlessly against it.
This is untrue. In all of my posts, I have accepted MeJennifer's definition. I have never argued against it pointlessly or otherwise. However, I have asked for clarification:

Here's where we are now as I see it. A prayer is a conversation with a deity. An example of such would be "Lord, I hope the plane takes off on time." Such prayers should be banned from airplanes. MeJennifer, is this a fair description of your stance?

Evo says that she sometimes uses a deity's name in such expressions but is not having a conversation with a deity. I have heard many other people who seem to do the same. But then I can also imagine someone saying "I hope the plane takes off on time" and in their own mind they ARE having a conversation with a deity. What shall we do with these?

Meanwhile, I note that some prayers begin as follows: "Dearly beloved, we are gathered here ..." While this prayer may mention a deity, it is specifically a conversation with the gathered people and not with any deity. What are we to do with these?
 
Back
Top