There have been several instances of people being nervous or uncomfortable at US airports by the Muslim practice of prostrating themselves for their daily prayers. This was even the start of an incident where a group of Islamic men were pulled off a plane. According to the attached article the solution is to provide Islamic people with a private room in which to make their prayers in every public airport. Of course this creates a problem where government owned airports are providing a special service based upon religion, which is generally a major no-no in the US (read unconstitutional). So I put it to you, should space be provided in public airports for the practice of religion?

Forgot to link the story: Prayer rooms at airports. (http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S20401.html?cat=1)

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 30 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Should Muslims be given prayer rooms in airports? (30 votes.)

Should Muslims be given prayer rooms in public airports? (Choose 1)
* Yes, space should be provided. - 47% (14)
* Yes, space should be offered, but only if the space is leased at the prevailing rate for each airport. - 20% (6)
* No, public airports are government facilities and as such this would violate the 1st Amendment. - 33% (10)

Yes, I think the space should be provided. Spaces are provided for mothers to tend to their babies, I don't see this as really all that different. As long as these areas are open to ALL religions, of course. It wouldn't require that much space, and would generally increase customer appreciation at airports. Business wise it makes sense, and if strategically placed could actually increase retail revenue at airports.

I don't see this as the government providing a "service," per se, they're providing a space to do it away from everyone else. The government doesn't have to sanction or conduct anything, therefore not violating the constitution. I believe it's when one faith is "recognized" over others that the constitution is violated, so a multi-purpose meditation area should be kosher (pun intended). Nearly all hospitals have "meditation rooms" available for this purpose, as well as grieving, etc. This could work the same way. It wouldn't hurt for them to try it, at least - they could always use the spaces for something else later.

Also - in your second voting option - if these spaces were to be leased out at the standard rates any other business would have to pay, who would pay for these rooms? If any one church paid for it, they'd obviously exclude other faiths, so I don't see how that would work. The way I see it either the airports would provide the space, or not have them at all.

edit - Good to have you back, douchebag. :p :wave:

No, I tell you what, if people have a problem with a Muslim praying, give THEM a room to go to if they don't like it. The Muslim's aren't the ones with the problem here.

If the airport feels the necessity to do so, yes. IMO, there really is no need, since religions should have no special treatment even if some of the members start falling flat at specific times.

On the ground floor with Barmy, the handsome devil that he is.

I can't see any harm in it. But then again some idiot will claim its discrimination / segregation.

Of course I feel that muslims should be allowed to pray wherever they want but if it disturbs other paying customers then I think the airport should consider preparing a separate room for them. As DR said it should be open for all religions and not just muslims. However I don't think airport should be forced to prepare any such rooms if they don't want to.

It certainly isn't unconstitutional for reasons DR pointed out, but on top of that, most airports are privately owned. It is true that all airports must confrom to government regulations, but the airports themselves are usually privately owned. As such, the constitution doesn't really enter into this. I thought of the hospital example immediately as well. In many regards airports are public in the same way that hospitals are public - i.e., while they must all conform to government regulations, and are available to all to use, they are usually privately owned.

[ December 04, 2006, 21:50: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

Wow, Barmy, Clixby and I agree on something. Is this a sign of the end?

Seriously, though, the problem is the other people. I would have no problem whatsoever if I saw a man set himself off to the side (where he isn't in the way), roll out a rug and prostrate himself in muslim prayer. I might be a tad curious what he planned to do if the prayer hour fell while he was on the plane, but I wouldn't be offended or worried in any way.

Why can't muslims just pray where they want to pray? Will they set up a special room for christians who want to pray? Or a special room with shrines for Vishnu and Shiva and Ganesha for hindus? Or a special room for scientology?

If muslims can get special treatment in the US airports when they want to pray, how about special treatment for Shaivites who want to smoke charas in honour and praise of Shiva at US airports?

Because Islam says that you have to pray at a certain time of day, each day. Hinduism and other religions dosn`t have that "demand" in their teachings. Plus I am sure they would want prayer rooms on all airports, not just the US ones.......

Have we forgotten so soon the ruckus that Muslims praying quietly on a plane caused? Setting aside the space is a good idea, so long as it's generic (solely Muslim or any other faith is unfair discrimination). We have generic chapels in most hospitals, so it's not a big stretch to put them in airports too. Just putting aside a space for any prayer is probably a good idea considering the possibilities for misinterpretation of public prayer.

Because Islam says that you have to pray at a certain time of day, each day. Hinduism and other religions dosn`t have that "demand" in their teachings. Plus I am sure they would want prayer rooms on all airports, not just the US ones.......There are various religious practices that I think we'd be daft to allow. Should Sikhs be permitted to carry swords onto planes? Should veiled Muslim women keep their faces obscured as they go through passport control? Obviously these are far from the prayer room scenario at hand, but I think that once you start making special allowances for all sorts of religious requirements, it's a slippery slope.

I would rather see these "prayer" rooms turned in smoking rooms so people can smoke without passing there smoking waste for others to breathe.

Yes, and there's that. It seems like more efficient use of space and funding even just to avoid packing everyone in like sardines in the waiting rooms.

Nothing wrong with a room if it makes everyone happy. Me, I wouldn't give two hoots if someone was sacrificing goats next to me. Ok, maybe I'd be a little concerned.

While I agree with those who have said "who cares if somebody prays," the fact remains that there are some people who do care, have cared for hundreds of years and in all likelyhood will always care. Some people consider it rude when someone makes an overtly religious action in a public place, and rolling out a rug on the floor for a prayer would certainly qualify. Though your beliefs say it's perfectly alright, others may not feel the same way. If the rights of an individual to pray as he wishes is to be respected, the rights of others not to be bothered or subjected to that show of religious practice should also be respected, should they not?

For those whose religion requires that show of respect to God, why not give them a place to do that where they won't draw attention, get in anyone's way, or otherwise bother other people at the airport? Sure, we should all be so tolerant that it wouldn't bother anybody, but that's hardly the world we live in, is it? A separate universal prayer area would appear to solve everyone's problems.

That said, will people cry "discrimination" when an airport employee interrupts a prayer group in an attempt to shuttle them off to the appropriate area...

In other words: would this prayer room be enforceable? Would it be pointless to have one if it weren't?

I know this thread is about US airports, but im sure last time i was in Edinburgh Airport in Scotland i saw signs for a chapel and for a prayer room, so the scheme must work here, why not in the US?

I have seen private prayer/meditation rooms in several airports and I really don't see a problem with it. It seems like a pretty chaotic environment to be trying to pray in an airport and I have no problem with providing a non-denominational place for quiet prayer.

On the other hand, I think that the Muslims should be able to pray in the waiting area if they want to and the people who gave the Muslims a hard time should be ashamed. The Muslims are not harming anyone else by praying and it is not illegal to pray so it is no one elses business if they do so. If you don't like to see people pray then just don't watch them do it.

If the rights of an individual to pray as he wishes is to be respected, the rights of others not to be bothered or subjected to that show of religious practice should also be respected, should they not?
Since when is not having to be exposed to others doing things that are perfectly legal but you don't like a right? If I decide that I don't like bubble gum should that mean that no one else is allowed to chew gum when I am around?

I don't think it's unconstitutional in the US if a privately owned airport has a prayer room (however one could argue by the 10th amendment that it is unconstitutional for the US government to interfere with the running of airports ;) ).

Why not let the owners of the airports decide which religions (if any) they want to offer special amenities?

@ 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:

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. 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 -
the rights of others not to be bothered or subjected to that showI 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. :lol: 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! :D

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:
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance.

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

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... :rolleyes:

You crazy Americans... :heh:

I have nothing againced Religion, but the problems this would create would be enormous, and verging on descrimination. People should just learn to live with other cultures.

I think its fine if an airport wishes to provide such a room but there should be no law requiring them to do so. There is no law stating that people are legally entitled to smoke but airports don't allow smoking in the building proper and they provide smoking rooms.

My answer is no. It would be discriminatory and other Religions could demand equal accomodation. RC and Anglican religious would need to be accomodated as they are required to pray at certain times of the day.

Also, what about train and bus stations?

Too complicated.

Yes, provide prayer rooms/chapels but not only for Muslims.
The UK had a bit of a hoo-ha about chapels in Prisons recently as some Christians were objecting to them being used by Muslims as well.