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

[Evo]

Well, we all read the "abreviated" version of this story. How many read all the facts of what really happened? Quite a different story. Excellent opinion piece from the WSJ. The information seems to be corroborated by the following CNN article with interviews of passengers saying the same thing that the WSJ article states.

What do you believe happened? Sounds like the Imams deliberately planned to cause trouble. This is shameful.

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009348

""Allahu Akbar" was just the opening act. After boarding, they did not take their assigned seats but dispersed to seats in the first row of first class, in the midcabin exit rows and in the rear--the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution teams. The head of the group, seated closest to the cockpit, and two others asked for a seatbelt extension, kept on board for obese people. A heavy metal buckle at the end of a long strap, it can easily be used as a lethal weapon. The three men rolled them up and placed them on the floor under their seats."

Whoa, why did they ask for these extensions which can be used as lethal weapons? Did they expect to be denied as they obviously did not need them, and then to claim discrimination due to them being Muslim? Well, that backfired. But what they did with them is a definite RED FLAG. Storing potential weapons under their seats? Why were they sittng in first class where they did not have seats? Why did they refuse to take their assigned seats? Hmmm, seems an AWFUL lot of important facts were withheld from the public about what really happened.

See this CNN newstory with video from passengers that corroborate that they sat in first class, refused to take their seats etc...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/21/passengers.removed.ap/index.html

I want a level headed discussion. If you have documented facts that sheds more light or debunks something said "from a credible independant source", post it. I feel like I was mislead by the slanted journalism that failed to give full details of what really happened.

 

[Daverz]

Seatbelt buckle wielding Imams? Am I not supposed to giggle?

 

[Apost8]

Related article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701643.html"

 

[Evo]

Thanks, it does seem to be that the Imams intentionally staged the whole thing. Absolutely shameful. They should be charged by authorities and hit with fines by the airline.

 

[kyleb]

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009348

""Allahu Akbar" was just the opening act. After boarding, they did not take their assigned seats but dispersed to seats in the first row of first class, in the midcabin exit rows and in the rear--the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution teams. The head of the group, seated closest to the cockpit, and two others asked for a seatbelt extension, kept on board for obese people. A heavy metal buckle at the end of a long strap, it can easily be used as a lethal weapon. The three men rolled them up and placed them on the floor under their seats."

Where is she getting her details here? She doesn't say she was on the plane herself, but doesn't attribute her claims to any source either. Perhaps this thread would be better suited for the scepticism and debunking forum?

 

[Evo]

Where is she getting her details here? She doesn't say she was on the plane herself, but doesn't attribute her claims to any source either. Perhaps this thread would be better suited for the scepticism and debunking forum?

I linked to the CNN report that had live video interviews with passengers on the flight that corroborated the Imam's actions.

 

[kyleb]

No one in that video said anything corroborating "the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution teams" claim or bit about the seat belt straps being rolled up and placed floor under the their seats. And those are the only fishy things mentioned in that article as proclaiming 'God is greatest' in Arabic is hardly an odd thing to hear from a group of praying Muslims.

 

[Evo]

No one in that video said anything corroborating "the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution teams" claim or bit about the seat belt straps being rolled up and placed floor under the their seats. And those are the only fishy things mentioned in that article as proclaiming 'God is greatest' in Arabic is hardly an odd thing to hear from a group of praying Muslims.

The passenger stated the positons the Imams placed themselves in, which were not their seats, which they were asked to move from which they refused. They didn't have to say "the exact configuration of the 9/11 execution teams", they gave the seating positions, whch match. Also, read the Washington post article.

This was a pre-meditated act to cause trouble. It's abominable behavior for ANYONE. They should be made to publicly apologize for what they have done.

 

[Daverz]

What's shameful is the way some Americans wet their pants every time some Muslims get on a plane.

http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/12/06/the-flying-imams/ has weighed in on this. I'm waiting for the TBogg coverage.

 

[0rthodontist]

The Muslims were wrong for not taking their seats, but...

There's nothing wrong with emphasizing who you are. Just saying "allahu akbar" is perfectly benign. If some passengers are prejudiced enough to become alarmed at foreign-sounding prayer, they are in the wrong. Actually it seems like a nice thing to do. I have no affiliation with Islam, but I would like to see an Islamic movement to say "allahu akbar" or some other prayer whenever they enter an airplane, not yelling it but saying it loud enough for others to hear. Muslims-and other victims of discrimination-should not hide their identity as if it were something to be ashamed of. If there's a prevailing attitude that muslims should keep quiet and not say who they are, then that attitude needs to be countered.

It would be especially nice if such a movement chose, for its prayer, a phrase which is a blessing towards the other passengers. That would make it less confrontational, without diluting the message that muslims should not feel like they should hide themselves and that other people should learn to accept that there are those with different beliefs.

Again, I have no affiliation with Islam. I'm just looking at this in terms of discrimination.

 

[berkeman]

I haven't read much about this. Where did these guys initially do the prayer together? Was that in the lobby, and then they got on the plane and did all this? How were they removed from the plane? Were they arrested? (sorry that I'm not current on this)

 

[berkeman]

Just saying "allahu akbar" is perfectly benign.

I thought that was the traditional prayer that suicide bombers commonly yell out right before... I don't know much about this stuff -- is that an urban myth?

 

[verty]

Muslims-and other victims of discrimination-should not hide their identity as if it were something to be ashamed of.

It's not their identity. This is not a race issue.

 

[0rthodontist]

I thought that was the traditional prayer that suicide bombers commonly yell out right before... I don't know much about this stuff -- is that an urban myth?

According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, bad source) it's also on the national flags of Iraq and Iran. According to lexicorient, it is used as a greeting, and is repeated twenty times a day in the adhan, a prayer call. It's central to Islam. If a serial killer repeats the Hail Mary when killing people, does that mean the prayer should no longer be said?

It's not their identity. This is not a race issue.

You believe someone's religion is not part of their identity?

 

[berkeman]

According to Wikipedia (yeah, yeah, bad source) it's also on the national flags of Iraq and Iran. According to lexicorient, it is used as a greeting, and is repeated twenty times a day in the adhan, a prayer call. It's central to Islam.

Interesting, I didn't know that. Good to learn, too. If I heard somebody use that phrase near me in a public place prior to your explanation, my hackles would have gone up. Learn something new every day, especially on the PF.

The wrong seats and seatbelt straps and refusing to move things still are a problem in this incident, if all true, IMO.

 

[Evo]

What's shameful is the way some Americans wet their pants every time some Muslims get on a plane.

Except this was all staged, and we now know what really happened. This was nothing innocent. First they sat in first class without tickets and refused to move, then they requested seat belt extensions wihich are available to grossly obese people. The Imams were sure since they didn't need them and they could be considered lethal weapons, that they would be denied, so they could claim racial discrimination. But the extensensions were given to them , so that blew that. So they refused to take their seats, they refused to co-operate in any form. The flight could not take off without them taking their seats. It went on from there. ANY person behaving this irrationally would have been removed from the plane and as we can see from previous incidents, they all have.

 

[Evo]

You believe someone's religion is not part of their identity?

I believe that when you are in public, you respect the people around you. If that means canning a prayer party until you're back on home turf, so be it.

In a public place we cannot cater to the thousands of quirky individual religious and superstitious beliefs of EVERYONE. That's just nuts. Show some self control and understanding for those around you that do not hold your beliefs. AND ABIDE BY THE SAME RULES EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO, YOU ARE NOT AN EXCEPTION BOZO.

If my religion calls for me to burn overwhelming incense and sacrifice animals every hour, regardless of where I am, should I be allowed to do that in a public place? This is getting ridiculous. Can we all try to PRETEND to be normal, rational, considerate human beings for the few hours that we have to share public transportation? Is that too much to ask? I think not.

 

[0rthodontist]

I should re-iterate here that I have already said the people in this case had gone too far in refusing to take their seats. Their prayers were justified, their other actions were not. (but by the way, a pen is a far more lethal weapon than a seatbelt)
-------------------------------------------

No one should be forced to refrain from public prayer, and we aren't. Are you arguing that praying out loud creates a disturbance similar to sacrificing animals?

Are you arguing that prayer should be universally banned on public transportation?
-------------------------------------------

Or are you arguing that Muslim prayer specifically creates a disturbance because people associate it with terrorism? So do you reason Muslims should not pray in public but it's OK for everyone else?

 

[Evo]

I should re-iterate here that I have already said the people in this case had gone too far in refusing to take their seats. Their prayers were justified, their other actions were not. (but by the way, a pen is a far more lethal weapon than a seatbelt)

May or may not be, the pen would have to hit a specific spot, the heavy metal buckle swung on the cord could crush someone's skull.

No one should be forced to refrain from public prayer, and we aren't.

I disagree with that, there are too many religious sects and if they all chose to start performing their ceremonies in public it would be a joke. There is no reason why that kind of thing can't wait. You are inconveniencing and inflicting your religious beliefs on others that don't want it.

Are you arguing that praying out loud creates a disturbance similar to sacrificing animals?

Where is it appropriate to draw the line? My god specifically says I need to kill and burn a goat every 2 hours or suffer eternal damnation. What do I do?

Are you arguing that prayer should be universally banned on public transportation?

YES! There is absolutely NO REASON for it. It imposes on the rights of others. It is disruptive, it is impolite to the point that it is impinging on my personal freedom. Say the prayers silently to yourself if you feel you must, do NOT intrude your beliefs on others.

Or are you arguing that Muslim prayer specifically creates a disturbance because people associate it with terrorism? So do you reason Muslims should not pray in public but it's OK for everyone else?

No, ANYONE praying in public places should be stopped. A public space is NOT appropriate for an individual to carry out their religious practices. It's also not an appropriate place for explicit acts of sex, which are ok in some religions. Rule of thumb..."will my personal actions impinge upon the normal activities of other people that have a right to be there? Will my religious activities mock theirs? Will it make them uncomfortable? If you can answer yes to of these questions, then it is unethical to do them.

 

[0rthodontist]

How about:

• missionaries
• Jehovah's witnesses (door-to-door soliciting)
• Mormons (I mention them only because of the recent thread about them by Ivan Seeking)
• church bells
• funeral processions
• carolers

These are all public, often intrusive religious actions. Most people would agree that they should be permitted. Do you disagree?

Why would Fred praying out loud bother a reasonable person any more than Fred talking loudly on a cell phone?

 

[Cyrus]

No, ANYONE praying in public places should be stopped. A public space is NOT appropriate for an individual to carry out their religious practices.

Amen to that!

 

[Rach3]

How about:

• missionaries
• Jehovah's witnesses (door-to-door soliciting)
• Mormons (I mention them only because of the recent thread about them by Ivan Seeking)
• church bells
• funeral processions
• carolers

These are all public, often intrusive religious actions. Most people would agree that they should be permitted. Do you disagree?

Of course all of these are permitted w/respect to Congress - just let them try to wander onto my property, get a boot in the rump.

 

[Rach3]

No, ANYONE praying in public places should be stopped. A public space is NOT appropriate for an individual to carry out their religious practices. It's also not an appropriate place for explicit acts of sex, which are ok in some religions. Rule of thumb..."will my personal actions impinge upon the normal activities of other people that have a right to be there? Will my religious activities mock theirs? Do I have a right to mock them openly? Will it make them uncomfortable? If you can answer yes to either of these questions, then it is unethical to do either.

Even as an atheist who is harassed by the same people I'm defending, I see no reason why the very religious should not pray in public (though I find it distasteful, personally). I mean, religious expression is a fundamental form of expression as in the 1st amendment, and public spaces are generally public forums for speech. In fact prayer isn't even solicitous or commercial, so it ought to be allowed in places where protests or commercial activity are restricted (e.g. airports).

 

[Rach3]

If a serial killer repeats the Hail Mary when killing people, does that mean the prayer should no longer be said?

Hail Mary, mother of god! *swish* *splat*

(a common sound in the 12th-13th centuries...)

The problem here is that Catholics and Christians are intrinsically safe because they are a strong political majority, whereas Muslims are (in the States) a small and persecuted minority. The source for this thread is the perception of events from the point of view of (presumably) a bunch of Christian passengers with the usual antipathy and fear of Muslims that is supported by our society - it's unreasonable to expect anything but a highly biased and loaded account of the story ("suspicious-looking", "shifty"). There is really nothing against these people other than the mere suspicion of conspiracy, a few paranoiacs on a plane seeing 'coincidences' with a previous terrorist attack and raising an alarm without need.

The saddest part of this is that, after these innocent men were cleared of wrongdoing, commentators here and everywhere persit in branding them with stigma, throwing around unprovable conspiracy theories in the literal sense of the word. This thread suggests that these men intentionally formed a conspiracy to provoke non-Muslims (by acting 'scary'), and offers anecdotal and circumstantial evidence to support that (the men themselves http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/21/national/main2202120.shtml, if anyone is listening). Come on people, whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty? Is this a modern day Salem, where it is considered acceptable to throw around hypothetical scenarios of wrongdoing with the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence, and use that to sully the name of innocent men?

Get a grip!

 

[Rach3]

By the way, if XYZ is suggested to be a lethal weapon on an airplane, the proper response is to call for XYZ to be banned from airplanes, not to arbitrarily criminalize six out of the millions of passgers who fly with XYZ.

(seat belt extenders)

 

[Yonoz]

BTW I'm not sure about these particular Imam's tradition, but I've worked with many Muslims and they've never had to shout anything out aloud whilst praying.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

YES!

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.

 

[George Jones]

Where did these guys initially do the prayer together? Was that in the lobby, and then they got on the plane and did all this?

I thought that was the traditional prayer that suicide bombers commonly yell out right before...

It's not their identity. This is not a race issue.

According to lexicorient, it is used as a greeting, and is repeated twenty times a day in the adhan, a prayer call. It's central to Islam.

BTW I'm not sure about these particular Imam's tradition, but I've worked with many Muslims and they've never had to shout anything out aloud whilst praying.

Practising Muslims, be they liberals or fundamentalists, have certain memorized prayers that they recite. All of these prayers contain the words "Allahu Akbar" ("God is the Greatest", and is not so different from a Christian's "Praise the Lord") several times.

When a group of practising Muslims is together (e.g., in a home, or in a park at a picnic) often one them will lead the prayer.This person will recite the prayer somewhat loudly, but usually with a projecting voice similar to a lecturer's, not a shouting voice.

Alone and in groups, Muslims also pray separately. In this case, they recite the memorized prayer to themselves, but as anyone who has memorized a speech knows, this is difficult to do completely silently. Also, when sitting down, the full range of movements in a standard Muslim prayer is impossible.

Net result - a sitting, praying Muslim will bob around and mutter "Allahu Akbar" under his breath every several seconds. This is the behaviour of a normal person, and does not indicate that the person is a suicide bomber working himself up into the frenzy necessary to perform the deed.

"Allahu Akbar" is also recited several times at the start of each call to prayer (adhan), but I have never heard of it being used as a greeting. The standard Muslim greeting (see https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=147363") is "alsalam alekum" (not all transliterations are the same), which means "Peace be upon you.", and is similar to a Jewish greeting.

There are Muslims of many different races. For example, the Muslims in Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population, are not Arabs.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I disagree with that, there are too many religious sects and if they all chose to start performing their ceremonies in public it would be a joke.

This in response to the statement:
No one should be forced to refrain from public prayer, and we aren't.

The first amendment to the Constitution protects the free expression of religion. Although the "joke" argument has not been tested before the Supreme Court, I believe it would fail.

You are inconveniencing and inflicting your religious crap on others that don't want it.

Are you saying that we should be enjoined from doing anything that inconveniences someone else, or only enjoined from praying? Do you include silent prayer? What if we can hear faint whispering, or see the person's lips moving? What if the hands are folded in a manner usually reserved for praying, and the eyes closed? Will we get a lighter sentence if our eyes are kept open?

 

[Astronuc]

This in response to the statement:
No one should be forced to refrain from public prayer, and we aren't.

The first amendment to the Constitution protects the free expression of religion. Although the "joke" argument has not been tested before the Supreme Court, I believe it would fail.

Are you saying that we should be enjoined from doing anything that inconveniences someone else, or only enjoined from praying? Do you include silent prayer? What if we can hear faint whispering, or see the person's lips moving? What if the hands are folded in a manner usually reserved for praying, and the eyes closed? Will we get a lighter sentence if our eyes are kept open?

I don't think Evo was including all prayer as much as she seemed to be addressing the 'personal use' of public space, which in the case of imams was prayer.

There seems to be at least two issues in this story. One is accommodation of personal religious practices in the public domain (or in general personal use of public space), and the other is personal actions or behavior which are disruptive or intrusive upon others (public in general).

Another article indicates the some Muslims have requested that the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport provide an on-site prayer room - which I believe does exist already. I have seen such rooms at various airports, which are effectively equivalent to airport chapels. They are simply special rooms where one may go and practice one's personal religious activities, e.g. prayer. Perhaps they are viewed as being too Christian. Then the question becomes, should a public facility, like an airport, provide prayer rooms for each religion. That seems too much of a burden. On the other hand, if a religion wishes to pay for the construction of such a room, then perhaps that should be given consideration.

As for the apparent disruptive behavior of the imams, I would expect that the airline could quite easily determine whether or not the imams sat in the appropriate (assigned) seats or not. If they refused and disrupted the operation of the aircraft or interferred with the crew (which is a violation of federal law), then they were rightfully removed from the aircraft and no apology is necessary.

I have no problem with people praying, unless its loud, disruptive or otherwise imposes upon others. I would also have a problem with anyone singing or laughing loudly or giving an oratory or sermon in a confined common space.

There does need to be some accommodation for personal or group activities in public, but that has to be balanced against the rights of others.

I enjoy the periodic visits of Jehovah's witnesses. I like the opportunity to correct their misundertandings.

 

[Evo]

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.

I love how you take it out of context of the rest of my post where I state

Say the prayers silently to yourself if you feel you must, do NOT intrude your beliefs on others.

 

[Evo]

Just a couple of weeks ago a California couple were arrested by the FBI for groping each other while on a Southwest Airlines Flight. What the Imams did was much worse, why hasn't the FBI arrested them? Why are they getting preferential treatment? Hmmm?

And these people were in their assigned seats!

In-flight foreplay leads to FBI charges

RALEIGH, N.C., Nov. 14 (UPI) -- A California couple who repeatedly refused requests to stop engaging in foreplay on a flight to Raleigh, N.C., faces federal interference charges.

The incident aboard a Southwest Airlines flight from Los Angeles to Raleigh with a stop in Phoenix happened on Sept. 15, when passengers complained about the couple groping, kissing passionately and contorting into questionable positions in their seats, the Raleigh (N.C.) News & Observer reported Tuesday.

Flight attendants told FBI agents they asked the couple to stop several times, and finally stopped serving them alcohol.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=Quirks&article=UPI-1-20061114-13501100-bc-us-planesex.xml

 

[0rthodontist]

Lewd behavior is not protected in the same way that religion is protected. Prayer gets "preferential treatment" because of the political history of religion. Someone's religion reflects that person's culture, and we have determined that it is very bad for society to try to suppress people's cultural identity. Various dictatorships have tried suppressing religion--it doesn't work well.

Free speech, free press, free religion, free assembly--it is a fact that these things often bother people. We allow them because we want to live in a society where we have the right to bother people about certain important things like our political views or our right to practice religion. Bothering people in these extremely important ways is very fundamental to a free society.

"Free speech" does not mean "say what you want, so long as I can't hear it." "Free press" does not mean "write what you want, so long as I never read it." "Free assembly" does not mean "gather peacably wherever you want, so long as it's nowhere near me." And "free religion" does not mean "believe what you want, so long as I never notice."

Now, does this apply to an airplane? Is an airplane a legally public space? I'm not a lawyer, I don't know. I believe it should apply because of the inter-state nature of airplanes and the fact that most people would consider being on an airplane "being in public," as well as the fact that I've heard of various religions passing out pamphlets at airports, but I can't be sure. I believe it should be protected as a public space, but it's possible that it isn't actually protected as a public space. However, these freedoms certainly do apply to spaces that are clearly public, such as town commons, and apparently you believe that prayer should be prohibited in those places too.

 

[verty]

Orthodontist, whether or not the law prohibits it has little to do with whether or not it should be done.

 

[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]

Is an airplane a legally public space?

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]

YES! There is absolutely NO REASON for it. It imposes on the rights of others. It is disruptive, it is impolite to the point that it is impinging on my personal freedom. Say the prayers silently to yourself if you feel you must, do NOT intrude your beliefs on others.

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]

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.

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]

Evo, the match example is completely irrelevant,

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

ANY disruptive behavor on an airline is not tolerable. Someone deciding to start signing 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.

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]

It's irrelevant to prayer on an airplane, not the Imams specifically

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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?

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]

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.

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

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?

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

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?

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]

You are kidding right?

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" does not mean "say what you want, so long as I can't hear it." "Free press" does not mean "write what you want, so long as I never read it." "Free assembly" does not mean "gather peacably wherever you want, so long as it's nowhere near me." And "free religion" does not mean "believe what you want, so long as I never notice."

Now, does this apply to an airplane? Is an airplane a legally public space? I'm not a lawyer, I don't know. I believe it should apply because of the inter-state nature of airplanes and the fact that most people would consider being on an airplane "being in public," as well as the fact that I've heard of various religions passing out pamphlets at airports, but I can't be sure. I believe it should be protected as a public space, but it's possible that it isn't actually protected as a public space. However, these freedoms certainly do apply to spaces that are clearly public, such as town commons, and apparently you believe that prayer should be prohibited in those places too.

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]

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.

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.