Paul Sims on the Harry Taylor question
I don’t disagree with Paul Sims on all points, but I do on some.
If Taylor had been convicted for publishing the images in a magazine, or on a website, where members of the public have the choice not to buy or visit, I would strongly oppose his conviction. But this isn’t what Taylor did – he placed the images in a room provided for the religious to quietly practise their faith, away from public space.
But why is a room provided in an airport for the religious to quietly practise their faith? Rooms aren’t provided for the religious to quietly practise their faith in supermarkets and bookshops and bus terminals and parks, so why in airports? And if such rooms are provided in airports, do they thereby become the equivalents of churches and mosques? If they are, then, again, what are they doing in airports? Why is part of a public space provided for the religious to quietly practise their faith at all? Why is part of a public space turned into a mini-mosque or church?
Either the “prayer room” isn’t really a quasi-church or mosque, in which case Harry Taylor was just expressing his views in public, or it is, in which case Harry Taylor was making what seems to me to be a valid objection to religious encroachment on public space.
But given the confrontational nature of the material, isn’t it entirely plausible that his aim was in fact to “harass, alarm or distress” religious believers by making them feel uncomfortable using a room provided precisely to allow them to feel comfortable practising their faith in a busy public building?
But there again – why are rooms being provided to allow people to feel comfortable practising their faith in a busy public building? Why is this seen as desirable or necessary? Why can’t people just “practice their faith” internally until they get home or to a mosque or church?
And it follows that the Chaplain was right to inform the police once she discovered that someone who clearly had no business in the prayer room was leaving this material in public view with a deliberateness that certainly warranted investigation.
But there again, again – how can you have a room in a public facility where someone “has no business”? – apart from obvious exceptions like rest rooms and nursing rooms. And what are airports doing having “chaplains”? And if religious believers get to have chaplains, can we have the atheist or secular equivalent to speak for us and protect our delicate feelings and keep people out of our room?
Having said all that – I don’t entirely disagree that what Taylor did was obnoxious. On the other hand, I don’t think being obnoxious should be illegal, much less subject to the ferocious punishment he got.
I’m sometimes quietly practising my atheism,at home, when some religious salesperson arrives at my front door inviting me to share in his/her particular delusion,that’s annoying. We’re never safe from them ,why should they be safe from us? It’s the usual case of double standards and special pleading.
UK airports are not public spaces. They are commercial operations. The big ones are shopping malls with a side-line in handling aircraft. The airport owners must have taken a commercial decision that chapels and ‘prayer rooms’ are good for their image, and please some of the punters. Supermarkets too would have chapels if they thought they would increase profits. Some say that Harrods food hall is a temple where people go to worship gluttony, but not buy anything.
UK hospitals are, still, just, public spaces (expensively leased from private builders). They usually have chapels. When my wife was seriously ill, I was outraged by this institutional endorsement of the absurd idea that there is a supernatural entity benevolent to humans.
My understanding is that Muslims, if they aspire to being devout ones in their own and others’ estimation, are obliged to pray 5 times each day. This involves them each rolling out a personal prayer mat, kneeling down on it, assuming what the yogis call the ‘down dog position’, saying their required prayer (at whatever dB level required), then packing up and going about their business.
This can conceivably conflict with requirements of air travel and its timetables. So depending on the flexibility possible in the daily prayer requirements (can one say the 5 prayers in a bunch one after the other, or must they be spaced out?) I would assume that devout Muslims with time to kill at airports would use it to get some of their prayer obligations over and done with.
It has its rational aspect, particularly when one considers that without the prayer rooms, getting to one’s plane via the main concourse would probably require negotiating an obstacle course of the prostrate devout. For those running late, this could turn into a hurdle race; particularly if Mecca was 90 degrees off the line to the departure gate.
Be thankful for small mercies.
Public-commercial – which makes them subject to the equality legislation that the Catholic church considers such an outrage. Doesn’t it? Vendors and the like can’t exclude people for invidious reasons? Shops can’t exclude atheists, one assumes. If prayer rooms in commercial emporia can…well that looks like thin ice, to me. But I ain’t no lawyer.
Ophelia –
Why is part of a public space provided for the religious to quietly practise their faith at all? Why is part of a public space turned into a mini-mosque or church?
Well, airports are commercial spaces, so I guess it reaps in profit! Presumably, atheists don’t have ’em because they haven’t asked for ’em.
RussellW,
We’re never safe from them ,why should they be safe from us?
Surely the correct response is to, well – leave eachother alone. Besides, who’s “they“: you might find all religious folk equally delusional, but they’re not conspiring!
Every Saturday for several weeks, a fundamentalist church sent evangelists down to one of our local beaches where they would harass and criticise people as they passed. One middle-aged woman even told my daughter, aged 8, as we walked past that she was going to hell. This led to me having heated words with the evangelist. But at no stage did we (or apparently anyone else) think to involve the police, let alone seek a prosecution with an injunction that they not be allowed to carry their religious pamphlets anywhere in public. Double standards at work, eh?
As you say, the problem is not that Harry Taylor was found to be obnoxious — he was, and I think his actions were socially inappropriate. The problem is the criminalising of mild anti-religious activity and the extraordinary decision by the judge that Mr Taylor should not be allowed to carry anti-religious material in public. Criminalising Taylor’s behaviour is about as reasonable as criminalising the wearing of a Man U scarf in Liverpool.
I know, about the 5 prayers a day. I was trying to ignore all that. I was hoping the whole thing wasn’t just about that…while suspecting that it probably was.
Public-commercial – which makes them subject to the equality legislation that the Catholic church considers such an outrage. Doesn’t it? Vendors and the like can’t exclude people for invidious reasons?Hah! Good response. Were non-prayers actually excluded, though? They might have left them open, but with rules against disruption (as one would have in the mysterious “quiet carriage”).
Sorry, forgot to re-assure you, Russell, that the ‘prayer room’ at Liverpool airport, which appears to be of unbearable yukkiness, does advertise that ‘Resources [spittoons, I can only assume] are provided for those who would say that they do not profess a faith as such.’ For more on this vision of hell, proceed to
http://www.liverpoolairport.com/airport-information/prayer-room.html
Ben, that’s not an answer, because churches and mosques aren’t taken to be commercial entities like postcard shops and similar. Just saying there’s a market doesn’t explain it.
Why prayer rooms in an airport? I had been assuming this was obvious–because lots of people are afraid of flying. They want to do something reassuring before hand. Isn’t that it? Imagine we lived in a very “Freudian” society. Then there might be “Freudian” room at airports, for the people who like to calm themselves down with psychoanalytic ideas. I think this fellow is about as reprehensible as someone showing up at the Freudian room with anti-Freudian tracts and cartoons. Not nice, when people are in the throes of flying fear! (But no need to make it illegal.) I don’t see anything worse about having religion rooms at airports than having Freudian rooms–you have to give the people what they want. Why is it worse than letting McDonalds in with their crummy, bad for you food?
Oh, and I’ve only just noticed that the airport’s motto is ‘above us only sky’. A religiously aggravated insult to all those nutters who believe that, on the contrary, there are gods, heavens, a bodily virgin Mary, angels and archangels; and below us a hell where they can witness the torments of the damned unbelievers.
Oh I see. But what if I would say, or even just (brazenly) do say, that I do not profess a faith not as such?
Dear god, what is it with some people and the allure of periphrasis?
Meanwhile I’ve just been listening to the BBC talking to a Nigerian senator, Grace Bent, who is up in arms about a male colleague who just threw out one of his four wives in order to marry a thirteen-year-old Egyptian girl. The Beeb also talked to an Islamic scholar called Hussein Zakaria who said that Nigerian law is blah blah but it is superseded by sharia, and the girl is Muslim, the senator is Muslim so for them sharia is binding. Apparently that means that the senator must throw out one wife in order to marry a child and the child must marry the senator whether she wants to or not. He didn’t say that, but he certainly didn’t say it means that if the girl doesn’t want to she of course doesn’t have to.
Because McDonald’s just wants your money.
If only the girl, somehow, could get to Liverpool airport.
Central to the [Chaplaincy] logo is a kneeling figure which represents human spirituality. The many colours of the rainbow serve to remind us that while all human beings may be different from one another, when we stand side by side in peace and harmony, every hue enriches the whole and plays its part in creating something truly beautiful.
The Airport Chaplain is Nicky Lees and her office can be found on level 3. Although she is often out in the terminal building, Nicky can easily be contacted at any time via the Information Desk. The greater part of our Chaplain’s role is to be there for all passengers, staff or visitors whatever their need may be. Over the years, many have welcomed Nicky’s support, care and listening ear with the assurance of complete confidentiality.
The Prayer Room and Chaplaincy are the initiative of Liverpool John Lennon Airport and Mission in the Economy. They acknowledge that human beings are body, mind and spirit and are committed to addressing issues of wholeness in all aspects of their work with people.
@BenSix,
We could of course argue what ‘correct’ means ,however I’d rather not.
‘Leaving each other alone’ is the negation of free speech,if we left each other alone society would be rather intellectually impoverished wouldn’t it.I’ve nothing against an amicable discussion,my point is that many religious people don’t accept atheists promoting their lack of belief,they become…’offended’.
The meaning of ‘They’ is obvious in context.
There should be more of this-
http://www.break.com/index/door_to_door_atheists_bother_mormons.html
I want to thank this blog for its “subscribe without commenting” option, an option which all discussion blogs should include, just as all prayer centers should be open 24 hours a day for those of us who seek a silent space in the midst of the cellphone chatter and airport chaos. Really, it’s nice that there is a place, unfortunately called a prayer center, where one can sit down in silence without having to watch a giant TV screen, listen to the cellphone conversations of one’s neighbors or tolerate some self-consciously cute brat’s self-propelled war toy.
Jean Kazez: ‘I don’t see anything worse about having religion rooms at airports than having Freudian rooms–you have to give the people what they want.’
If Liverpool Airport had Freudian rooms I’d be hanging around them smoking cigars and grinning mischievously. Psychoanalysis is as silly as any religion.
And how come airlines can’t afford to pay their catering staff a living wage but have enough money to pay for a prayer room and a chaplain?
amos:
Good point. The only ‘prayer room’ labelled as such that I have encountered is the one in the airport at Dubai, which I took at the time to be for Muslims only. (God help Harry Taylor if he ever takes his leaflets in there.)
I gather from what other commenters here have said that the chaplain’s job at Liverpool Airport is multi-faith: dealing with Christians, Muslims and all others.
If that is the case then I suggest that the room be called The Prayer and Meditation Room, with only two rules for users being required:
1. Silence at all times (as in libraries).
2. No proselytising of any kind.
Most if not all religions practice some form of meditation, as distinct from prayer. Many atheists likewise. Thus I think the space can play a socially uniting rather than the divisive role that appears to be emerging from this Taylor case.
The motto of Liverpool John Lennon airport is ‘Above us only Sky’, which comes, of course, from Lennon’s song ‘Imagine’, which starts with these two verses,
Imagine there’s no heavenIt’s easy if you tryNo hell below usAbove us only skyImagine all the peopleLiving for today…Imagine there’s no countriesIt isn’t hard to doNothing to kill or die forAnd no religion tooImagine all the peopleLiving life in peace…
So there’s a bit of a conflict behind the motto and the provision of a prayer room and I smell the work of a marketing person trying to seize all the available opprtunities.
Perhaps they could take a look at how Schiphol airport in Amsterdam handles this. They have a meditation centre, in which ‘All are welcome regardless of their religious or non-religious background’.
Ophelia,
I don’t think we’re in disagreement on all points. In general, I agree that criticism of religion, especially in the form of insult and ridicule, is increasingly being seen as unacceptable, and that is something we have to resist. But I really don’t think the case of Harry Taylor moves us further down the road to censorship.
It seems you take issue in general with the existence of prayer rooms in places such as airports, and with the employment of “chaplains” in those places. On that issue, I’m afraid I completely disagree. Personally I just really don’t see a problem with an airport having a prayer room. If there are people who find such a room useful, then why not have one, if there is the spare space (they’re only usually small rooms, as I understand it)? It really doesn’t bother me. And if we do have them, then it follows that you shouldn’t be allowed to do what Harry Taylor was doing, as that undermines the whole point of having the prayer room, which is to provide a peaceful, quiet area for prayer away from the madness of the rest of the airport. I think you can argue that he was trying to harass the prayer room users into feeling that the room wasn’t a quiet place to practise their religion. No one is trying to stop non-believers using the prayer room – if you want to go and spend a few quiet moments thinking about Dawkins in one, that’s fine. But don’t harass the other users.
I agree that the punishment handed out to him was excessive, but at the same time, what were the police supposed to do? He’d been caught doing the same thing in the past in churches, so clearly a quiet word or a caution wasn’t going to do it. So it follows, should he be allowed to just carry on doing it, or should he be stopped? At which point, the only means to stop him is to prosecute him for a crime. To me, the crime of “causing religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress” seems very harsh, but I feel I’d need a better understanding of the law in order to say that he should have been prosecuted for something else.
I do think there is a debate to be had over prayer rooms, but personally I don’t have a problem with them. I think it comes down to how we view secularism, and how as atheists/humanists etc we wish to approach religion. Are we trying to marginalise it to the greatest extent possible, in which case prayer rooms are a bad idea. Or are we aiming for a society where the religious and the non-religious aren’t trying to stop each other doing anything, and neither receives special privilege? For me, secularism is about the latter, and in my view prayer rooms don’t amount to special privilege. No one’s trying to stop atheists from going in them (though why they would want to is beyond me), but if they do then they should us them for quiet reflection, as they are provided for.
Anyway, those are some additional thoughts. This really is a fascinating debate. I’m by no means fixed in my opinion on this but, all things considered, I just can’t really see prayer rooms as a problem in a secular society, and I struggle with the idea that Harry Taylor was exercising his fundamental right to free speech by doing what he did.
Best
Paul Sims, New Humanist
Hi Paul,
Right, I don’t think we do disagree on much. The prayer room is one such item though! I would have no problem with a quiet room open to all airport-users who wanted some quiet, but I do have a problem with a prayer room, especially one with a chaplain attached. It’s a somewhat expensive resource, and it’s just not obvious to me that it’s something all airport users should have to fund. People at large aren’t expected to fund churches and mosques, so why should we be expected to fund prayer rooms and chaplains in airports?
I think the expectation is itself the problem – it’s a form of de-secularization, or anti-secularism. Should there be prayer rooms everywhere? In every Waterstone’s and Waitrose, every train station and post office?
Ian
Why not just the quiet room? Why specify an activity? And as for “as in libraries” – have you been in a public library lately? Noise is mandatory there! It’s official library policy to avoid silence because library boffins think it is more “inclusive” that way.
But a simple quiet room would be even more uniting and even less divisive. I have absolutely no use for a Meditation Room in an airport – it would repel me rather than attracting me – whereas I have every use for a quiet room. A quiet room can easily include people who want to pray or meditate, but a Pray & Meditate room cannot easily include people who just want to read or write or think or stare into space in a secular manner.
“why are rooms being provided to allow people to feel comfortable practising their faith in a busy public building? Why is this seen as desirable or necessary? Why can’t people just “practice their faith” internally until they get home or to a mosque or church?”
Two weeks ago, I was stuck in Denver airport for 7 hours due to miscellaneous screwups by United. There were people there whose bags with diapers and medicine for their kids had been sent on ahead, and they needed help. While I don’t turn to a chaplain for such help, others do. Some people also have to travel on their day of worship, or get stuck in the airport when they planned to be in church. Or when they’re on their way to a funeral or other religious ceremony. If passengers can’t leave the airport, the airport has to provide resources people need.
But, you might reply, people don’t really need a chaplain. And I’d respond that whether you or I think they need it, the people think they do, and it isn’t the airport’s job to tell them they don’t.
In a way, it’s like designated smoking areas in an airport. People can’t just step outside, and praying in the waiting area would offend other people. So they create a special area where people can practice their religious faith without interfering with other passengers.
I think there is a rather obvious objection to Paul’s argument, namely the ‘religiously aggravated’ part of the charge Taylor has been convicted with. Even if you think he has committed a harassment offence, the law still has provision to punish him more harshly than if religion were not involved (e.g. if he’d left anti-tory cartoons pinned to the door of his local conservative association). That is surely, in the words of the moment, ‘divisive, capricious and arbitrary.’
Paul,
“Or are we aiming for a society where the religious and the non-religious aren’t trying to stop each other doing anything, and neither receives special privilege? For me, secularism is about the latter”
Great quote!
But I would like you to address Richard’s comment #25. Which is equally great. I think the religious have been granted special rights which conflict with your statement.
Ophelia, whilst I share your distaste for prayers rooms I would repeat a comment I saw on one of these threads – if a prayer room was not available then presumably there would be many more Muslims (since they pray frequently and in a particularly visible manner) and others conducting their worship at various random places around the airport.
Since the airport is a private space, I am entirely happy for the management to provide a prayer room if they so choose.
Of course, I also should be be able to go in there for some quite reflection and maybe to read Hitchens.
Ophelia: I would have no problems with a Quiet Room, but would suggest that if it turned into a pomo library where a policy was in place to end the privileging of the quiet, then what the airport could finish up with would be that and a prayer room.
If one wishes to feel saintly while reading one’s copy of the Bible, Koran, Karma Sutra etc, then a Quiet Room is preferable to a coffee bar.
My experience of modern libraries is mainly still confined to to the National Library of Australia and the specialist libraries of the Australian National University, where I am happy to say, traditionalism still reigns. However, I spend a lot of my time on the western plains of NSW, chasing cattle, mending fences and doing other routine rural work. In our quiet little local library in our quiet little town, a great pomo victory has been achieved, I suspect unconsciously. A decisive end has been put to the privileging of the interior environment over the exterior. They are both pretty much the same. ;-)
I have to agree that there is a legitimate reason to have a prayer room in an airport. Prayer is a common human need (not universal, probably not biologically inevitable, but common), and an airport (unlike a supermarket) is a place where people are likely to be stuck for a long time and will require fulfillment of various physical and emotional needs. No, not everyone will use it–but not everyone will use telephones, or nursing rooms, or rooms for children to play in. I don’t see why it’s such an injustice to fund a “prayer room” any more than it is for a childless woman to fund a nursing room, or a healthy person to fund aids for the elderly or disabled. On the contrary, it’s a simple kindness for people who are stranded and vulnerable. In that regard it’s very different from funding a church in the middle of the city or something.