Grammy-nominated gospel singer Bobbi Storm tried to sing for the plane. A Delta crewmember threated to kick her off if she wouldn’t sit down and shut up. She took to social media to complain about the incident, says Delta reached out to apologize. But they should apologize to the rest of the passengers… and the crewmember who was doing the right thing, that they aren’t standing behind.
She declared she “sing[s] for the Lord” and therefore, apparently, isn’t subject to the laws of man.. or Delta Air Lines when asked by the airline to “be quiet.” Her response? “I’m doing what the Lord is telling me to do.”
The flight attendant made clear to her that if she’s not going to be able to follow instructions, she’s not going to be able to fly. Even if she doesn’t have to follow all instructions, a concern that she’s going to be disruptive and not follow instructions could lead to concerns she’ll be a threat to safety later in the flight – and refused carriage. Storm appears to comply but when the flight attendant walks off she says she is going to keep “sing[ing] it on the low.”
What do you think? Bobbi Storm is a Christian Musician who was just nominated for a Grammy and wanted to share her great news with the plane. The flight attendant was not having it. I understand her excitement, but I understand his desire for order. But I think he was mean.… pic.twitter.com/yrIdBXaEsb
— Miss Understanding (@VeganCheat92403) November 11, 2023
She got up in the aisle and started singing. She may be talented, but people want to rest, to work, to pay attention to entertainment more to their liking. People are stuck in a metal tube. It’s bad enough when they’re subjected to credit card announcements they can’t simple ignore. This is worse.
Claiming that the seat belt sign is off so she can sing in the aisles is absurd. She may be allowed out of her seat to go to the lavatory, but the “please don’t sing at the whole cabin” light wasn’t turned off.
The right way to do this is to ask the crew whether they’d mind if she sang to everyone? And then the crew might look around the cabin to see whether it’s situationally appropriate. But don’t have the hubris to impose yourself on everyone else when they can’t opt out.
She can utilize social media just like anyone else. Get on the plane, sit down, shut up, because not everyone cares about you, what you stand for, what you’re doing in your personal or professional life. You can’t make the plane your platform or audience just because you feel like it.
Gary – you sound like a lot of fun (not)! Let loose and live for a while. Jesus
Crazy people. Sigh.
I’m not Christian. I don’t want to hear Christian music. People should just sit down and mind their own business on a plane.
It’s not a stage
Another crazed narcissist. Thank God I have noise canceling headphones so i wouldn’t be subject to this a-hole.
Delta is right. She is a GOSPEL SINGER. Not everyone wants to hear or believes in HER GOSPEL. Forcing others in a confined space to be subject to her GOOD NEWS and PREACHING is wrong.
Would you want Jehovah Witness to jump up on the plane and give their message? Mormons? How about radical Muslims?
Passengers that are using planes as a forum to entertain a captive audience are wrong no matter your talents or beliefs
The FA is correct. I’ll all for the FA. It’s not the singer’s stage to showcase.
Actually its “Shut Up, Sit Down, I told you not to be stupid you moron…”
What is with this crap? Concerts, singing, wedding proposals.
It’s a plane, not Vegas
I don’t mind someone with a voice as good as hers is singing. It certainly beats flight attendants coming around trying to get you to sign up for a credit card.
@jns When was the last time an FA actually had a conversation with you about signing up for a credit card? At most there’s a very, VERY brief announcement with maybe an FA walking down the isle…again, NOT asking anyone.
Stop reaching.
The flight attendant should get a reward. He handled this mess very well. If she wants to sing, she can sing on the street where people can run away. In an aircraft, she has a captive audience. She is a self absorbed Karen who simply needs to go away..
Good. Fsck that entitled attention seeking b!tch.
Retired Gambler – GFYS. Jns, you too. It’s a plane not a damn stage.
I’m puzzled as to the exact “rule” being broken here. Is there an actual rule against noise? I, too, have sat near someone running audio along with their video. I too hated it. But what if John Legend or Taylor Swift were on board and burst out in song? Guess I’m wondering if these arguments are about content, rather than process. I there a defined rule to enforce here? I’m anti- the Irish musicians, but it doesn’t seem fair to pick and choose rules based on song content, and not just song.
Was she on shrooms too? If not, she should be. I know a guy at Alaska Airlines…
If she was on American or United, she would have broken ribs and still be laying on the tarmac.
It is clear that Delta trains its people in de-escalation.
Inside an airplane or elevator is not the place for anyone to do anything more than talking to the person next to you.
There is no shortage of narcissistic behavior in humanity with people of all religions. There are also people of all religions that understand social norms.
A different outcome if she had flown on Southwest Airlines!
@jns we already have that. It’s called Spotify. With headphones please.
@cr I think most reasonable people would find it to be a disturbance. The FA makes that judgment call. And Taylor Swift doesn’t fly commercial, so this is not happening.
At least planes don’t have karaoke machines.
The issue is that it’s religious singing. How eould it go down if someone is dinging Prsise Allah?
@Tim Dunn “it is clear”…from a sample size of one. You’re a data champion, why are you stating unverifiable opinion, presumably from bias, as though it is an inarguable fact? If it had been, in fact, a different airline, would you have made the same comment?
Just trying to hold you to your own stated standards.
the video itself shows it and even one of the other sites recognizes it.
to be fair, Delta AND Southwest know how to de-escalate while a couple of airlines, AA and UA included, have a knack for turning everything into front page power struggle headlines.
It would have been perfect if someone else had started belting out “Respect” by Aretha Franklin.
Another Grammy winner is the band Slayer. I wouldn’t want them to burst out in song on my flight either.
I would love to hear some great live music on a plane, or subway, or wherever. But “great” is a matter of taste–and faith. Why do Christians, uniquely, believe they are above the law? Imagine a Hindu or Muslim singer trying to monopolize the aisle.
Glad my airpods have improved noise cancellation.
Now if it was Taylor Swift that might be different, but I don’t think she flies Delta
I’m glad they did. The last thing I need is someone singing on a plane – even if I like a particular style of Music I’d much rather fly in peace.
I’m not religious, but seems like she was more interested in her glory, not his.
A similar situation happened to me a couple of times as well. I am a male porn star from East-Germany. Whenever I am trying to entertain my fellow travelers on the plane with a small show of my skills, the crew does not seem to be happy about it
@Gary, keep your eye on this. Apparently her followers are trying to get the FA fired or reprimanded.
Bitch gives her whole Grammy acceptance speech on the plane and provides links to all her socials. Time and place. Check yourself.
49 U.S. Code § 46504, the federal charge of interfering with a flight crew occurs if a person on an aircraft in flight assaults or intimidates any member of the flight’s crew, including pilots and flight attendants. This includes interfering with or preventing the ability of the crew member to perform their job in any way. The aircraft is considered by law to be in flight once all external doors are closed and until one external door is opened. The key point is that the plane does not have to be in the air for an offense to occur. It’s important to point out that the offense doesn’t have to include a physical assault or threat of assault to affect a crew. Can you ignore a flight attendant’s instruct-ions? Not even a little bit. Disobeying the instructions of a crew member brings the potential risk of violating federal law. If you’re asked to move your chair into the upright position and ignore the attendant, you could be arrested by officials when the flight lands. Most of the incidents that end up in an arrest, however, involve a passenger arguing, repeatedly ignoring, or disobeying a crew member or act out in a way that is dangerous for crew or passengers. The safest thing to do is comply and, if one feels that the order/request was unjust, then file a formal complaint with the proper authority. Now, there will be some “Karen/Ken” that will toss out some drivel to argue with me but this is the way the law reads…not my opinion!
@Mets Fan in NC:
-While I certainly agree with the crux of your comment, why did you have to add “How about radical Muslims?”? Why not just “Muslims” or why not “radical Morons” or “radical Jehovah Witness”?
It seems you have some sort of bias towards Muslims.
@cr:
” But what if John Legend or Taylor Swift were on board and burst out in song?”
-They shouldn’t be allowed either.
@Andrew:
“Another Grammy winner is the band Slayer. I wouldn’t want them to burst out in song on my flight either.”
-I’ll take that..LOL. Actually, as a fan of Slayer, I wouldn’t want Tom Araya (vocalist) to sing any Slayer songs either. Also, Slayer have retired/disbanded.
@Alan Young:
Exactly!
@Win Whitmire:
Thanks for the update on the law!
@Jacobin777
You don’t have a bias? How stupid are you? What is the only religion that demands everyone convert or die? What is the only religion that advocates for the destruction of another race of people? The rest of the world stopped this animalistic behavior hundreds of years ago, it’s only Muslims now that are the backwards death cult. The Muslim world has earned their reputation, don’t blame people for seeing them for what they are.
So yes, if some radical Muslim, or just a regular Muslim, got up on a plane and started preaching, not only would I disagree, but I would also tackle and restrain them, as they are likely trying to kill everyone on board
@Mantis:
“How stupid are you?”
-OBVIOUSLY not stupid like you.
Time for you to turn off Fox News and get an education.
Bunch of sad haters in the comments. Great voice and a fun surprise on a flight. Just enjoy the moment–it’s not like she’s singing the whole flight!
@Paul,
Again, the point is she’s forcing her religious views onto others. What if someone started doing Hindu chants or saying “prayers” from works published by Anton Lavey?
She showed lack of respect to others..full stop.
LOCK the ignorant reckless unChristian piece of $@#T UP! BAN for Life for flying!
@Mantis – Wow! I’m sorry for anyone that has to interact with you on a regular basis. I’m a Muslim and we certainly don’t believe in killing people that don’t want to convert. We don’t even try to get anyone to convert. We also don’t believe in ethnic cleansing. Learn the difference between Quran and Hadith. Not everyone in a religion believes the same things. You are cherry picking propaganda and making it a belief. Islam is not a death cult and it’s sad to see the ignorance of people that will judge someone for their religious beliefs. Why don’t you get to know some actual Muslims and see how twisted and hateful your perception is?
Also to the writer: why make the thumbnail art a much darker woman with big, curly hair when this singer was lighter and had very short bleached blonde hair? Why the change in her appearance for the article?
As for the singer, I think she’s rude and attention-seeking.
It’s not her church or her concert, she should sit down and shut up like everybody else. Additionally, as a “Christian Gospel singer“, there’s a statistical 88% probability of being anti-Semitic, and probably anti – every other religion on the planet, another reason many people don’t want to be forced to listen to her.
Paramedic – BS. Your ‘religion of peace’ literally calls for killing infidels in the Koran.
You are the problem.
@Walter
The Bible talks about killing of others (such as homosexuals, unmarried couples, etc. – Book of Deuteronomy ). I guess one could say the same about Christianity as well then. Oh wait, that’s taken out of context when its spoken about non-Islamic religions.
The Quran specifically states there is “no compulsion in religion” so I fail to see how one calls for killing of infidels.
Small-minded people with small-minded thoughts.
The ego of some people. If I was on the flight I would have asked the Flight attendant to stop it too. Have no desire to listen to someone spew forth gospel. Very inconsiderate of her to assume the entire plane wanted to hear her. Glad the flight attendant put an end to this type of intrusive and inconsiderate behavior.
Jacobin – I didn’t say the bible didn’t. Especially in the Old Testament if you want to be specific. But the korans sura’s are cumulative with later ones overruling earlier ones. So yea, it calls for the death of infidels, and paramedic is a liar. So, take your tiny little mind and shove it. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
Agree with FA and Delta crew, Gary, and most of above. What’s gotten into people in post-Covid?
I mean the ’70’s AA coach class piano bar didn’t have guests singing either, just piano playing. At least in the TV commercial. DL is so cheap that guests have to provide their own social entertainment. Domestic airlinrs aren’t even demanding tiktok revenue sharing from their silly passengers. So, I’m undecided on this.
Just some attention needy loser
I’d probably enjoy it in the right setting. But not on a plane. Definitely not everyone wants to hear. Just like when Southwest happily encourages singing, game playing, and all their usual “let’s all be friends y’all…” type of party they want to throw on planes. No place for this on a plane.
Good, I don’t care who you are, the plane is t the time or place for that. I’m on a flight to get to where I’m going, not to be your captive audience for you to stroke your ego to.
” But the korans sura’s are cumulative with later ones overruling earlier ones. ”
-LOL..that’s a new one. Never heard of that one.
“You don’t know what you’re talking about.”
-Sounds like a tu quoque argument if I ever seen one.
https://www.npr.org/2010/03/18/124494788/is-the-bible-more-violent-than-the-quran
“By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says. “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”
It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: “And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them,” God says through the prophet Samuel. “But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.
“In other words,” Jenkins says, “Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God’s law if you do not.”Jenkins notes that the history of Christianity is strewn with herem. During the Crusades in the Middle Ages, the Catholic popes declared the Muslims Amalekites. In the great religious wars in the 16th, 17th and 19th centuries, Protestants and Catholics each believed the other side were the Amalekites and should be utterly destroyed.
‘Holy Amnesia’
But Jenkins says, even though the Bible is violent, Christianity and Judaism today are not for the most part.
“What happens in all religions as they grow and mature and expand, they go through a process of forgetting of the original violence, and I call this a process of holy amnesia,” Jenkins says. ut Of Context’
That may be the popular notion of jihad, says Waleed El-Ansary, but it’s the wrong one. El-Ansary, who teaches Islamic studies at the University of South Carolina, says the Quran explicitly condemns religious aggression and the killing of civilians. And it makes the distinction between jihad — legal warfare with the proper rules of engagement — and irjaf, or terrorism.
“All of those types of incidences — [Sept. 11], Maj. Nidal Hasan and so forth — those are all examples of irjaf, not jihad,” he says. According to the Quran, he says, those who practice irjaf “are going to hell.”
So what’s going on here? After all, we all have images of Muslim radicals flying planes into buildings, shooting up soldiers at Fort Hood, trying to detonate a bomb on an airplane on Christmas Day. How to reconcile a peaceful Quran with these violent acts?
El-Ansary says that in the past 30 years, there’s been a perfect storm that has created a violent strain of Islam. The first is political: frustration at Western intervention in the Muslim world. The second is intellectual: the rise of Wahhabi Islam, a more fundamentalist interpretation of Islam subscribed to by Osama bin Laden. El-Ansary says fundamentalists have distorted Islam for political purposes.
“Basically what they do is they take verses out of context and then use that to justify these egregious actions,” he says.
El-Ansary says we are seeing more religious violence from Muslims now because the Islamic world is far more religious than is the West. Still, Jenkins says Judeo-Christian cultures shouldn’t be smug. The Bible has plenty of violence.
“The scriptures are still there, dormant, but not dead,” he says, “and they can be resurrected at any time. Witness the white supremacists who cite the murderous Phineas when calling for racial purity, or an anti-abortion activist when shooting a doctor who performs abortions.
https://www.justaskislam.com/32/does-islam-say-kill-the-infidels/
Today, the most quoted — and the most misinterpreted — Quranic passage (2:190-192) is the one giving permission to fight the unbelievers. What many don’t know is that it speaks only to a specific time, and only at the city of Mecca, when the idol worshippers of Mecca had broken a truce with the Muslims and did horrible injustices.
The passage speaks to the Muslims with numerous conditions, including that fighting in self-defense was a last resort.
I am most impressed with an analysis of this passage by Lesley Hazleton, of Seattle, an agnostic Jew and an award-winning British-American writer.
Over a period of three months, she read in their entirety four well-known translations and a transliteration of the Quran, along with the Arabic text, then offered an interpretation of this disputed verse.
She describes the conditions of this verse as: not that you must kill, but that to do so at that time was allowed only under many conditions: including only after a defined grace period had passed; only if no other pact was in place; only if the idol worshippers stopped you from going to the Kaba (in Mecca); and only if they attacked you first — and even then, God is merciful, forgiveness is supreme.
Her findings reveal that the verse is allowing Muslims to defend themselves only with peace as their ultimate goal, which mirrors the interpretation of Islamic scholars today.
Scholars of Quran tell us the verses dealing with this topic are specific and not intended to imply a general meaning for just anyone to decide to go around combating non-Muslims. The early Muslims had been driven out of their homes and turned out into the desert to starve. After finally, relocating in Medina, verses came in Quran instructing them to make hajj (pilgrimage) back to Makkah. Finding their way blocked and after several years of making agreements and treaties that the others continually broke, the Muslims were at last, told they could now fight in combat against the tyrants who had so horribly mistreated and abused them in the past. However, this would only be acceptable to Allah if they remained within very specific limitations. The word “Qital” in Arabic in this instance refers to “combat” rather than what some have used “kill” because the word “kill” is far to general, while the word “combat” appropriately describes what is intended by the usage in this passage. Allah Knows Best.
It should also be noted the usage of the word “Fitnah” in the same verse denotes a horrible condition, not unlike what we find today when there is terrorism and tyranny against the moral and just society at large. It would be easy to properly understand the meaning as, “Engage them in combat, even killing them, until the state of “Fitnah” (terrorism) no longer exists in the society and people are free to worship Allah by their choice.”
The verse of the Holy Quran is often mentioned to malign Islam. The verse does not say infidels it says idolaters. (9:5) And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.
This verse, chapter 9 verse 5, is often used as evidence that Islam allows killing of non-Muslims, but what is not recognized is the context and history behind these verses. The history of this verse is that when Prophet Muhammad(sa) began preaching the unity of God he was persecuted for 13 years, much as Prophets Abraham and Jesus were. Since Muslims who are being persecuted are encouraged to leave for safer areas, rather than create disorder, Muhammad(sa) and his followers migrated to Medina. After they left, the Meccans attacked them in Medina on and off for a period of nine years until Chapter 9 was revealed.
Looking at the context of the verses, it becomes obvious that the commandment of this verse only relates to those tribes who continued hostilities against the Muslims even after they had migrated. In particular, reference is made to 5 tribes (‘Banu Khuza’ah, Banu Mudlij, Banu Bakr, Banu Damrah, and Banu Sulaiim) that did not honor the treaties they made with Muslims. It is also important to remember that the preceding verses give these people respite for 4 months to reconsider their behavior and cease hostilities. Sadly after 4 months passed, the enemies of Islam continued their hostilities against the Muslims. Only then was Prophet Muhammad(sa) commanded by God to meet them in battle to defend Muslims and the religion of Islam.
Even in this situation the Quran states that if the enemies repent of their behavior and promise to fulfill their treaties, it becomes incumbent on Muslims to cease military action and forgive them. Unfortunately those who take this specific verse out of context fail to see that as the title Al-Taubah suggests, the main subject matter of the chapter is forgiveness and repentance.
Jacobin – don’t you have a goat waiting in your bed for you?
The Quran has 123 verses that call for fighting and killing anyone who does not agree with the statement, “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.” Jews and Christians are specifically included among such “infidels.”
The Quran’s Sura 5:33 says about infidels, “They shall be slain or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off.” Sura 9:5 says, “Slay the infidels wherever you find them … and lie in wait for them … and establish every stratagem (of war against them).” Sura 47:4-9 promises paradise to whoever cuts off the head of an infidel.
Have respect for other passengers. Would she appreciate someone else standing up and reading loudly from a book, playing a musical instrument, chanting a team cheer, or any other way of forcing their own entertainment on others?
https://www.justaskislam.com/32/does-islam-say-kill-the-infidels/
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/death-to-unbelievers-qurans-most-misread-words/
https://www.npr.org/2010/03/18/124494788/is-the-bible-more-violent-than-the-quran
Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.
“By the standards of the time, which is the 7th century A.D., the laws of war that are laid down by the Quran are actually reasonably humane,” he says. “Then we turn to the Bible, and we actually find something that is for many people a real surprise. There is a specific kind of warfare laid down in the Bible which we can only call genocide.”
It is called herem, and it means total annihilation. Consider the Book of 1 Samuel, when God instructs King Saul to attack the Amalekites: “And utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them,” God says through the prophet Samuel. “But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”
When Saul failed to do that, God took away his kingdom.
“In other words,” Jenkins says, “Saul has committed a dreadful sin by failing to complete genocide. And that passage echoes through Christian history. It is often used, for example, in American stories of the confrontation with Indians — not just is it legitimate to kill Indians, but you are violating God’s law if you do not.”
“Jacobin – don’t you have a goat waiting in your bed for you?”
Not even worth responding to such asinine drivel.