POLL: Should Muslims be given prayer rooms in airports?

Remove all ads!

@ JSBB,

It's not so much about who has the right to/not to do something, it's about respecting others. It's just more polite. If I have a religious practice that I love but know that it makes others uncomfortable for whatever reason, I would do what I could within reason to practice it in private. A separate area for religious practice would accomplish this. If I were a jerk and didn't care who my actions offended, then I wouldn't worry about it - because it's my right to do whatever I want. But I would appreciate it when others do make that little extra effort, because it shows respect to me even as a stranger.

This is along the same lines, to me, as smoking, people who change their baby's dirty diapers, talk loud on cell phones, etc. I consider these actions rude because the person doing it is showing utter disregard for those around them. These people of course have the right to do these things, but it does bother those around them. Choosing to do these things in a separate area is just common courtesy IMO.

 

I'll probably get burned by this: But I tend to think, that all sorts of religion should be banned from the "common" space or what you it. So I said no, only because I think religion gets too much space in our society.

 

I don't anything about 'unconstitutional' because we don't have constitutions. I'm ambivalent on it. If an airport wants to they can, if they don't, I don't mind.

On a related matter, are airports run by the government in the USA? In NZ, they are companies, so an airport will do whatever it feels like in order to increase business.

 

Airports are privately owned, but heavily regulated by the government.

 

I may be wrong about this, but they are "public airports", and unless this has a different meaning in the US than the terms "public parks" and "public education", this would indicate that they are owned by the people via a government or quasi-governmental agency. My understanding of public airports is that they are usually owned by municipalities, usually run by trusts that are set up by the municipality and usually funded initially by taxpayer $'s with the hopes that the operations will offset any further need for "public funding". The case in the article I linked revolves around the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, which is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC). MAC was created by state law in 1943 as a public corporation. The board of commissioners is appointed by the Minnesota Governor. The Mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul set and interpret the commission's policies. IMO that makes this particular airport as much a part of the government as a courthouse or a public school, and this is a typical public airport setup I my very limited experience.

If it is the case that and the major airports in America are owned and operated by government or quasi-governmental agencies, they would constitutionally be considered a government entity, and setting up a place of worship within them could easily be interpreted to be endorsement of a religion, and unconstitutional.

As far as who would pay for such rooms if they were offered at the prevailing rates, CAIR or NAIT (who is believed to hold the ownership for possibly the majority of Islamic Mosques, but regardless holds many titles to Mosques and would make an interesting topic in and of themselves) could easily afford such and expense, and could even consider asking for alms in the prayer rooms to offset the cost.

Personally, I don't really want my tax dollars setting up areas for religious observations of any kind. Even if they are funded by their operations (for the most part) this is still a tax, just a tax paid willingly by those who travel.

 

Sure - why not? It helps some people, it harms no one. So sure - bring on the prayer rooms.

 

Well, making prayer rooms for Muslims harms people insofar as that you're allocating money for prayer-time when you could be using it to (for example) improve airplane safety, security, airport efficiency, etc.

This being said, it can improve how an airport is run, but it depends on how much importance you place on quiet prayer for people.

 

A quiet meditation place would be nice. Some plants and/or a fountain, no? One could pray there or just think about things in peace and quiet. As for Muslims themselves, I don't like the idea of:

• Removing them from public sight, implying that there's some shame in their religion
• Singling them out for individual treatment - both giving some people the impression that Muslims are treated more favourably than others, and some Muslims the impression that they are a second category of people; basically, whatever discrimination you want to see her, with enough "good will" you can
• Possibly contributing to some Muslims' ideas that their prophet is to be protected more than those of other religions, that their symbols should receive more protection than those of other religions, that they are more immune to criticism than other religions are

All above as much as I would love them to be able to pray quietly whenever they feel such a need.

 

@Darkwolf:

You see, this is a gray area for me. Like you, I only have knowledge of what my local airport is like. For me, the nearest airport is the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, and the land upon where the airport itself is located is privately owned. What I don't know is if the owner of the property is also the owner of say, the terminal. I know the company that owns the property also makes money by leasing space to the different airlines to store their planes overnight. I also have no idea if BWI is the norm, or if Minneanapolis/St. Paul is the norm.

I always assumed that the way BWI did it was how most people did it. That's why I equated airports to hospitals. They are both public in that anyone can use their services, but that does not mean that they cannot be privately owned and that the owners cannot make money from it. After thinking about this more, I am inclined to think that due to a lot of government regulations, it is likely that many airports receive some types of government subsidies, but I have no idea whether or not that effects private ownership status.

EDIT: I guess the bottom line is most airports are probably some combination of privately funded and governement funded. It's not like anyone can just decide to build an airport (assuming you have an area big enough and the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to build one). Unfortunately, I don't have nearly enough knowledge of constitutional law to know whether or not such a combination has reprecussions on what the law says about observing religious practices. It seems to me, that as long as the area in question would be open to anyone, and not just Muslims, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

@Death Rabbit -

I know you corrected yourself, but no, this isn't a right. And let's not bring up the legally untennable 'common decency' ogre.

Humankind is cramming itself closer and closer together; the counts vary but there's definitely more than six billion of us in total, and I *know* y'all recently passed your three hundred million mark. So where's the 'common decency' in this practice? It's implicitly agreed to by all the 'sardines'...otherwise the nay-sayers to increased crowding GO OUTSIDE. Or they live in a rural area that has maybe a mile between their house and their neighbour's.

And as things get more and more cramped, we as a civilisation are going to HAVE to look into these little things called 'tolerance' and 'acceptance'. People who are offended or put of by another person's overt act of religious belief are simply the ones with the problem - you don't have to watch this act prayer, Snoopy McSnoop!

I, myself, abhor crowds, simply because my ears are sensitive enough to hear *everything* going on in a large room...sadly my brain isn't good enough to translate all this sensory information into meaningful 'sounds', and I'm left with 'hearing' a dozen distinct murmured conversations and am left intensely curious about what's being said in ALL of them.

But you know what? My auditory "Figure-Ground Recognition" problem is just that - MY PROBLEM. I do NOT go around asking people to shut up so that I'm not distracted. I suck it up and concentrate harder on whatever I happen to be doing while in this crowd situation.

Let's have the PC 'decency police' put in this 'private space' before they start infringing on the first clause of the U.S. First Ammendment, or heaven forbid, the UDHR:

 

@ jaded empath,

Couple of things. First, I didn't say common "decency," I said common "courtesy," and to me there is a big difference. Second, you're correct - common courtesy is NOT a right, which is precisely why it's called courtesy. You're not required to do something, but you do it anyway to show respect to others. Holding doors, not parking in handicapped spaces, proper turn signals etc. while driving, not pissing on toilet seats and, in deference to this discussion, praying privately, are all forms of common courtesy. I don't think I'm asking a whole lot here. (I realize two of those have legal ramifications, but they are rarely enforced so people ignore them regularly).

I believe there is a time and place for everything, and in a free society we have the right to do more or less whatever we want, which thankfully includes free expression of religion. But at that point, it's up to the person exercising that right to free expression to do so in an appropriate manner. That, IMO, means on your own time and in private when possible. Its part and parcel with paying respect to the very freedom itself.

You kind of (accidently) prove my point here:

Try this: My religious practices are just that - MY PRACTICES. I don't go around expecting people to make room for me to exercise practices of a faith they don't share. I suck it up and pray in private, not subjecting what I do to whomever might be uncomfortable with it.

It's easier (and certainly more fair) for the people engaging in religious expression to be courteous to others than it is to expect everyone around them to just "suck it up." If some guy started talking on his cell phone during a movie, and saw no reason to quiet down out of a conviction that everyone else in the theater should just "suck it up," wouldn't you think that guy was a dick? I would.

[ December 05, 2006, 16:58: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

There is a huge difference between someone talking on a cell phone in a movie and someone praying in an airport waiting area. In the phone in a theatre example the person is preventing others from being able to hear the movie which I would agree is rude. In the praying example the person is not inconveniencing the other people so that is not rude. No one is forcing you to watch the person praying in the airport but you don't have a choice about what you hear in the theatre.

If the person rolled out their prayer mat in the middle of a busy sidewalk and expected everyone to have to dodge around him/her then I would agree that is rude. If the person started praying out loud or moving in such a manner that he/she was interfering with your watching the film in the theatre I would say that it was just as rude as talking on a cell phone.

Also, given that it is illegal to park in a handicap spot without a permit it is more than just being discourteous.

 

@ JSBB,

Perhaps comparing the cell phone use to prayer was not the best comparison in the world, but courtesy is about more than not inconveniencing people.

I was on a plane recently, two rows behind a man having a conversation with another passenger. He was railing about what an idiot Bush was and how anyone who supported Bush needed their head examined. Though I share his distaste for Bush, I found his comments extremely rude, particularly given the situation. He wasn't shouting or addressing the whole cabin, but he wasn't exactly making much of an effort to keep the conversation private, either. I was flying back to Texas at the time, so naturally I wasn't the only passenger on the plane who was made uncomfortable. None of us were inconvenienced, but that doesn't mean it didn't piss me off, and I have no doubt that he didn't mean to do so. Fact remains, it was inappropriate. I hold religion in public to the same standard that I do politics: there's a time and place, people.

Point is - it wouldn't matter if we were on a plane full of Boston ACLU hippies, it was rude for him to air his political views in a confined space where you have no choice but to occupy that space with strangers. The waiting area is certainly more roomy, but no different in that everyone who's there is stuck there for the time being and everyone has to share that space. People should make some effort to be courteous to others who might find their behavior offensive, from the jerk yacking on his cell phone (who everyone considers rude) to the man engaging in his daily prayer (who, at the very least, would make some people uncomfortable). Taking a minute to walk to and pray in a designated area isn't a lot to ask.

Another thing to remember here - Christians (and I would assume Jews as well) can conduct a silent prayer in any position they wish. Muslim doctrine requires not only the rug, but the prostration and frequency (5 times per day). It's nearly impossible for a Muslim prayer to go unnoticed in a public place, making it a certainty that at least SOMEone will be bothered by this, especially people of other faiths whose doctrine does not require such displays.

 

People being offended by praying Muslims in airports or whatever is only the symptom of a greater conflict. The real (as well as the imagined) grievances need to be addressed. Ushering Islam into backdoor rooms - a la out of sight, out of mind - wont do the trick. On top of it I'm not sure I like what that looks like...

 

I'm not saying Muslims should be ushered away. I'm saying they should be encouraged to use a designated space which many of them would prefer anyway. If you read the article Darkwolf originally linked to, it's Muslims who are requesting this designated area.

And you're right - the perception of Islam in western society does need to be addressed. But an airport is hardly the place to start.

 

I wasnt responding to your post. It's merely my opinion on the matter.

Regardless of what the Muslims wish - yet more seclusion for this religion isnt advisable. Airports arent the place to start, nor are they the place to broaden the rift.

 

I agree. That's why these rooms would be open to all faiths, not just Muslims.

 

There are non-denominational chapels in most airports, there should also be non-denominational prayer rooms.

 

I think it is the people offended who really need to change. While I'm not generally a proponent of tollerance in all things, I will definitely say that people need to grow thicker skins.

There's also the issue that it is very hard to block out noise, while visual stimuli are frequently very easy to ignore. If the muslim chooses to pray in the middle of the aisle, we have a problem and he needs to move, but if he picks a quiet corner out of the way and not blocking a TV, particularly attractive view, etc. then all you have to do is look away and you can't see him anymore. That's easy to ignore and I'd say that this issue lays on the shoulders of the common public to change. Now if said muslim also feels a need to cry out the traditional (but not required as far as I know) call to prayer, then we may ask the muslim to go somewhere else or be quiet.

 

Well, at Sydney's Kingswood Smith Airport, they've got Prayer Rooms...not MUSLIM prayer rooms...they have like a chapel and some Bibles, Korans and Tohrats in there as well as caps and those Jewish caps (duno what they are called) so yeah...its a generic prayer room. Not a special room for Muslims...

IMO its not even an issue! Unconstitutional? Since when is freedom to practice the religion of your choice unconstitutional?? I bet if the religion in question was Christianity, this thread wouldn't even have been created...

You crazy Americans...