News Should prayer be banned on public transportation?

[BobG]

Originally Posted by Mech_Engineer
"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.

A Newt Gingrich fan? Gingrich wants to restrict freedom of speech?

Probably not. You and Gingrich won't be able to agree on which speech should restricted.

 

[vanesch]

If the language was incomprehensible, then how do you know he was praying?

The heavy, repeated jesticulation which was highly reminiscent of some kind of ritual...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

By the way, Gokul43201, I claim the right to more leeway than MeJennifer. I am proposing that no ban be enacted. So what if I am loose in my definitions. Except of course for argument's sake. MeJennifer proposes a ban and any looseness of definition on her part is of practical import.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The heavy, repeated jesticulation which was highly reminiscent of some kind of ritual...

That's rather subjective, don't you agree. I'm not saying that he wasn't a nuisance, just focusing on the question of whether he was praying. Did you catch him in a conversation with a deity?

 

[Evo]

Huge though this difference is, MeJennifer's definition of prayer fails to make note of it. Would you define prayer this way?

"Something that the speaker believes is a conversation with a deity, often asking for something."

Yes, that would also be a valid definition. Prayer can be many things to many people.

This definition would put in the hands of other people the responsibility for determining what you believe. If the airline personel hear you speaking in a normal voice and determine in their minds that you believe you are speaking to "G-d", perhaps they misheard you when you said "G-wd" and heard you say it three times, should they judge your behavior inappropriate. Do you get a warning, or is the fact that you have already broken the rules three time suffice to warrant action?

If I am saying it quietly enough, it shouldn't draw any attention. If it does and the stewardess asks me to stop and I stop, there is not a problem.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Yes, that would also be a valid definition. Prayer can be many things to many people.

I extend to you the same leeway I claim for myself. Since you are NOT proposing a ban, as far as I am concerned, you may define prayer as you wish.

I have a private message for you, but your mail box is full and I can't send it. If possible, please make room and delete this paragraph.

 

[vanesch]

That's rather subjective, don't you agree. I'm not saying that he wasn't a nuisance, just focusing on the question of whether he was praying. Did you catch him in a conversation with a deity?

Any ritual behaviour with no obvious practical usage or clearly for sole esthetical value (such as dancing), or resulting from a clear mental disorder (epilepsy), is a form of praying, I'd say, because it must have a symbolic meaning for its author, and is clearly not meant for his fellow citizens around him. Praying doesn't need to be an expression of a dear wish, or a communication with a personified deity. It is a ritual act which has no usage for his fellow citizen or any practical usage for himself (such as putting up his spectacles, or stretching, or burping or whatever). Greeting your sword/flag/picture of your favorite star is a form of prayer. Crossing your fingers is a form of prayer.

The problem was not btw that he was a nuisance. We were a few months after 9/11, on a flight to London, and there was an Arab in traditional clothing doing things which looked a lot like if he was in some kind of religious trance. You'd be careful for less ! (that said, if he really was saying his prayers for the bomb he had brought aboard, he would probably have been more low profile...)

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

How is that offensive?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Praying doesn't need to be an expression of a dear wish, or a communication with a personified deity.

Indeed, no one except MeJennifer has proposed this definition of prayer. Evo has proposed a slight variation of it.

It is a ritual act which has no usage for his fellow citizen or any practical usage for himself (such as putting up his spectacles, or stretching, or burping or whatever). Greeting your sword/flag/picture of your favorite star is a form of prayer. Crossing your fingers is a form of prayer.

At the moment I have enough on my plate with MeJennifer's definition. I have no comment on anyone else's definition of prayer unless it is attached to a proposal to ban the behavior on airplanes. If you wish for me to pass judgement on this definition, you will need to make that proposal.

 

[BobG]

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.

How is that offensive?

Is there something that prevents Atheists from being as devoted to and protective of their own belief systems as Christians, Muslims, and other religions?

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[MeJennifer]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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?