…and this is a 
More bigotry masquerading as religion
Category: Religion
Posted on: April 28, 2007 1:52 PM, by PZ Myers
Read Ophelia's take on the Israeli 'modesty buses'. Would you believe certain buses in Jerusalem are set aside to make special accommodation for orthodox Jews?
Women are compelled to sit in the back of the bus.
In the back of the bus. I think they need a Jewish Rosa Parks.
The most disingenuous argument in favor of this discriminatory policy is the excuse that not all the buses are 'modesty buses' — that all you have to do is wait a little longer at the bus stop and take a different bus that doesn't enforce the idea that women must be segregated. As a former commuter on an overcrowded bus and subway system, I know how ridiculous that suggestion is. "Separate but equal" is a policy that always emphasizes "separate", not equality.
Comments
Uh oh. Sounds like you're an anti-semite, PZ, what with your outrageous suggestion that the teachings of Orthodox Judaism conflict with basic human rights.
Next thing you know, you'll be shoveling corpses into furnaces.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 1:56 PM
They had one, and she got her ass kicked: http://haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=801449&contrassID=19 and http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258611.htm
Posted by: Toby J | April 28, 2007 2:02 PM
Isn't that telling? She refuses to sit in the back because it's NOT a holy house of worship.
When entering a synagogue, where do you think she sits? In the back.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 2:07 PM
I'm not an expert in the Torah by any means, but I would have to assume four men beating a woman is far more of a problem than a seating chart for a bus line. It never ceases to astound me how indignities (great and small) are brushed aside so long as the G-man is involved. Although, it does make you proud to see an American standing up for basic human dignity even if it is in another country.
Posted by: MR | April 28, 2007 2:13 PM
Yeah, I saw this a while back over at RD.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | April 28, 2007 2:20 PM
My religion expressly forbids me to defibrillate neoconservative Republicans. If one should go into ventricular vibrillation in my presence I would be required by my stringent beliefs to leave them to die, unless maybe somebody else came along who happened to be handy with the paddles. Then I could watch.
This whole thing about bus seating is ridiculous though.
Posted by: shrimplate | April 28, 2007 2:22 PM
What astronomy belief did Thales disprove?
Posted by: chad | April 28, 2007 2:24 PM
What idea of Napier was a great breakthrough in simplifying computation, and is still used in mathematics?
Posted by: chad | April 28, 2007 2:27 PM
It astonishes me how some men can want to make women sit away from them. What kind of warped thinking's going on with these bozos? And before some smartass wise-cracks about women's chatter, that just doesn't cut the mustard.
These religious bozos believe that morality comes from the revelations of their holy books, when in reality, it's bigotry that's in the texts. And worse.
I admire this woman. I deplore those apologies for men.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | April 28, 2007 2:27 PM
The link to "Israeli 'modesty buses'" is broken.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 28, 2007 2:29 PM
Then the bigots are free to stay at home, if public contact between men and women is offensive to them. Why should they have the right to enforce their religious precepts upon others?
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 2:35 PM
In fairness, I know that whenever I try to do someone a favor, I have to beat them until they accept it.
Posted by: kmarissa | April 28, 2007 2:39 PM
I remember hearing about a woman who did refuse to move and was beaten pretty badly. I think that there are a good number of Rosa Parkses over there, but the Orthodox Jews aren't going to change.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | April 28, 2007 2:41 PM
I have a hard time drawing the lines between preserving culture and condoning prejudices. I don't have a lot of problem with this one.
One of the more interesting (at least for me) recent events, which I feel falls into a grey area, is the Richard Gere incident.
But as far as religion goes, I don't know that radical christians in the US wouldn't go to the same sort of extremes if given the chance.
Posted by: dorid | April 28, 2007 2:47 PM
As long as you consider "black" and "white" to be shades of gray, I wholeheartedly agree.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | April 28, 2007 3:10 PM
zionism is a racist ideology. Israel is a racist apartheid terrorist state. Just ask the Palestinians, the only legitimate inhabitants of the region.
So some fanatics decide to discriminate against half of their own. Big Deal. That is nothing compared to Israeli crimes against humanity in Palestine.
Posted by: bernarda | April 28, 2007 3:13 PM
I don't know a lot about the orthodox jew's world, only from a friend that converted to it. When catholic,she wanted to become consecrated, which I was against, and I was relieved when she went on to work for a cruise line for 2 years.
After that she met a guy, and she was to get married. Great, I thought. She was always telling me about him (via IM), and I found out that he was jewish. Then when she told me she was converting to orthodox judaism and moving to Israel, I started to worry again. I didn't realize orthodox judaism was as bad as this article here makes it to be, but the things that she told me were a bit retrograde, to say the least.
I stopped IM'ing with her after she got married. She ended the last IM session between us with something like: "my husband just came home, I have to go cook" or something like that. I only remember it sounded very submissive, and she used to be such an honest, friendly, open-minded and extroverted person. Now she strikes me as self-repressed, and it's been a long time since I don't talk to her. Truly sad, she's one of the very few personalities that I liked a lot and felt comfortable with. She's the only one that has pointed out my character flaws to my face and made me correct them. I wish I could do the same for her. She just changed one drug for another. And it's not even a real drug, just a placebo.
Posted by: andyo | April 28, 2007 3:17 PM
I'm not sure that equality is something aimed for, in this instance. I mean, I always think of this phrase as referring to, say, different schools for kids of different races--but with schools nominally intended to teach the same subjects. In the case of orthodox religions, the point seems to be that the entire substance of the thing is different for men and women; equality isn't an aim at all. But I could be entirely wrong about both points (wasn't raised in a religion, and it still kind of befuddles me).
Posted by: Melanie S. | April 28, 2007 3:19 PM
And do you actually think equality was of concern in the segregated South? "...but equal" is just a legal smokescreen.
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 28, 2007 3:30 PM
Interesting. "Religious bozos," "fanatics," "racists," "self-repressed," "bigots..." Someone does something that doesn't fit with your view of the world, and so they automatically must be wrong and bigoted. Rather than try to understand their perspective and see if there might be any value in it, you instantly resort to name-calling and try to force your views on them. I'm confused... who are the bigots?
Posted by: Luke R. | April 28, 2007 3:45 PM
The biggest problem is that the 'modesty' buses aren't marked, and they're run by Egged, the same bus cooperative that runs the regular bus service, which basically amounts to a public subsidy of Orthodox misogyny. (I know that Egged isn't a publicly-owned company, but it is the company that has the public transit charter, hence "public subsidy.") So people who have no intention of getting mixed up in that can't necessarily tell that they should avoid those buses right off the bat.
Which goes right to the heart of the Israeli problem -- they're simultaneously trying to run a secular democracy as a religious state, with an official, pervasive state religion (not a sort of token one like you see with a lot of European countries, where it doesn't really matter if you belong to the state church or not), since it actually does matter in many cases if you subscribe to the governmentally correct version of the religion or not. (That would be a form of Orthodox Judaism, which is different in particulars to the ultra-Orthodox aka Hassidic or Haredi Judaism described here.)
For instance, if you aren't Jewish and you live in Israel (not all that uncommon, given the number of former Soviet Union people and Central/South American economic migrants who live there), and you want to convert, you must convert to Orthodox Judaism. If you convert outside Israel, you can claim Israeli citizenship no matter which movement of Judaism you convert in. If you want to get married in Israel, you must get married by an Orthodox rabbi, as far as I know (this changes periodically), but Israel recognises Jewish marriages from outside Israel from all movements. So there's a definite double standard going on.
There's an Israeli joke about this, that goes, "How is the Knesset like a computer? Both are full of bugs [jukim, also used as a slang term for politicians], and controlled by one dos [religious man]."
Posted by: Interrobang | April 28, 2007 3:52 PM
"Bigotry masquerading as religion"... Um, aren't they the same thing?
Posted by: No More Mr. Nice Guy! | April 28, 2007 4:06 PM
Luke R, I'm guessing you're not Jewish, but I assure you, the Torah does not require that the menfolk act like @ssholes. It's like any other religion; some members simply are @ssholes, and therefore choose to interprete their religion in the way that best allows their @ssholelichkeit expression, scope and acceptability.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 28, 2007 4:16 PM
What the Torah does and does not require is up to whoever is interpreting it at the time. One site's cursory examination of gender and [deleted] in Judaism
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 4:24 PM
Luke R. If a bunch of muslim men ganged up on a woman and beat the crap out of her for not covering herself from head to toe (i.e. not being modest - and it probably happens often), you'd probably have no problem with our complaints. But when it's a "western" religion - we hear crap like, "we should see if there's any value in it." There is nothing of value that involves segregation and assault.
Posted by: DrBadger | April 28, 2007 4:34 PM
Umm.. Bullshit! The Palestinians don't have a leg to stand on when claiming that the only terrorist state over their is Israel, to start. But that isn't the only problem with your statement. Genetic evidence indicated that, prior to them calling themselves Jews, their genetics showed up in just about every part of the region, just like the people claiming they are invaders. The whole, "Promised land", story is BS, since archeology (and those genetic tests) show that they where in the area centuries before any Exodus. Finally, the state of Israel was formed after WWII as a response to interference by one arab that was a huge fan of Hitler and liked to hand out copies of Mein Kaumf to every ME leader he could find in his travels, while promoting the idea that the Jews really where some horrible evil enemy. Prior to his interference, Palestine was considering a sort of split state, one where the Jewish community existed in it own territory, but never the less existed. After the Hitler fan got through they had decided to simply drive them all out and the West had to *create* a completely independent state to keep them from being either permanently exiled or slaughtered.
Simple fact is, the only difference between a Palestinian and a Jew is that the Palestinians insist they are not Jews and *maybe* have only 1-2 of the genetic markers from the old tribes, instead of all of them. Its like if Fracking Scotland suddenly decided to get pissed off at the Irish. Completely meaningless, unless you are a damned religious fanatic.
Posted by: Kagehi | April 28, 2007 4:40 PM
Molly, it's partly true what you say, assholes will be assholes. But the thing about religion is that it shields the assholes from criticism. Religion, as long as it pretends to be sacred, will always enable for bad things to go unpunished. Good things may be done by it, but those don't require religion in the first place. And as long as religion pretends to be a moral guide and spout truths about the universe, it should be criticized and/or ripped apart as much as any other set of ideas, including scientific ideas.
Posted by: andyo | April 28, 2007 4:48 PM
Luke R, you said, "Rather than try to understand their perspective and see if there might be any value in it, you instantly resort to name-calling and try to force your views on them. I'm confused... who are the bigots?"
These religious bozos assaulted a women, over a social construct fabricated out of their religion. I can understand that it might be right to assault someone who threatens you, & that's what happened here. But how can that be right? You really must be confused, buddy.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD | April 28, 2007 4:57 PM
Moral relativism is not only wrong, it's pretty shortsighted and shallow. I would say "New-Agey". Modern morals are always changing, aided with our better and better (hopefully) understanding of the world. What we as rational beings have accumulated during millenia is what counts, not what some culture dogmatically and/or traditionally takes as good. Our ancestors have suffered and been happy, tried and erred, and what we have now is a better universal moral than others in the past, and others who are stuck in tradition.
And it can be measured. Just look at the level of unnecessary suffering from different cultures, and you will have the one with better and worse morals. It's that simple, and it's that hard to get to. It requires time and knowledge. In the West there is still many injustices being done and with the current folks in charge, it seems to be moving backward, but religious dogma is playing a great part on that. It's not liberal values and free scientific knowledge and reason what it's doing it. If anything, liberals and scientists are the ones now protesting to all this backward thinking.
That no culture is morally perfect does not mean that all are equal. Not by a long shot.
Posted by: andyo | April 28, 2007 5:01 PM
Richard and Dr. Badger, thank you for proving my point. If you'd actually taken the time to understand what I was saying, you would have noticed that I nowhere condoned any of the actions of the Orthodox Jews in question. Of course it's a horrible crime that a woman was attacked, and I don't agree with segregation, and I never suggested otherwise. But in this forum alone I have seen people who think differently than you attacked with such blanket vehemence that I find it hard to believe that you're interested in anything other than your own agenda. My point is that you don't give a wet slap about the woman who was attacked; you're just upset because religious people did it and you don't like religious people.
Posted by: Luke R. | April 28, 2007 5:07 PM
@30: We get upset because religious people did it and used religion as a justification. And because when people use religion as a justification, they so often get away with it. Case in point: you rushing in here to say that oh no, you don't condone this at all, but we meanie atheists should shut up about it because we're not religious and therefore can't critize without being "bigoted".
Posted by: kmarissa | April 28, 2007 5:16 PM
One irrationality leads to another. Most of the Zionists that founded the state of Israel weren't religious, but all these years later we find the State of Israel giving special privileges to the Ultra-Orthodox because some sort of non-racial justification is needed to explain Israel's peculiar status as an ethnic enclave carved out of other people's land by force.
Thing is, a majority of Americans would be perfectly happy to support a Jewish state despite its dubious origins. Countries aren't founded nicely, and we have a thousand time more in common with the Israelis than the despised Arabs. We just wish Israeli policy didn't constantly remind us of what we are otherwise quite happy to ignore, namely its fundamental illegitimacy. Forcing women to the back of the bus is the least of it.
Posted by: Jim Harrison | April 28, 2007 5:38 PM
Andyo - Absolutely. I'd hesitate to say that religion-free people are nicer than religionists (although overall, that's been my experience),
However, if you were the sort of man who got his jollies by flipping sh|t to some group (women in particular, but also other religions or ethnicities), you'd find it nearly impossible to justify your shtick with secular reasons. But it's a cinch to do it with scripture. So religion, with its completely fungible rationalizations, has a real attraction for bigots and sociopaths.
Posted by: Molly, NYC | April 28, 2007 5:41 PM
Why mince words? Obviously we're upset because Jewish people did something bad, and we don't like Jewish people.
What other explanation could there be?
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 5:58 PM
On the other hand, the Orthodox also beat up men who refuse to grant divorces to their wives. So there's beatings all around!
Posted by: Mark Borok | April 28, 2007 6:11 PM
Luke R, your point is dead wrong.
The people of this blog are angry that there are people in Israel who are curtailing the rights and privileges of other people in Israel solely for the sake of appeasing God. Something tells me that you're not aware that the alleged appeasement of God has been among the most popular, if not the most popular excuse anyone has used in order to curtail the rights and privileges of other people.
If you're not actually a Jesus-troll, please enlighten us.
Posted by: Stanton | April 28, 2007 7:33 PM
Caledonian, I'm a little surprised with you. What happened to all that stuff about swinging and noses staying where they belonged?
Or was that just for gay people?
Or are you just a hypocrite?
Posted by: Dustin | April 28, 2007 7:33 PM
On the contrary, I am a firm believer in the principle that fists and noses each need their own space in which to operate. Noses must not be able to be stuck in other people's fist-swinging space, and fists must not be swung in other people's nose-putting space.
Guess what I think of people, on a public bus, declaring that passengers on the bus must sit according to the people's religious beliefs, with no indication that that bus would be given over to such beliefs.
And then guess what I think of beating passengers who don't go along with the people's views.
Quite frankly, I don't understand your objection. I'm willing to listen to any explanation you might offer, but I don't see hypocrisy in my actions or responses.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 7:39 PM
I think the question to ask about any "separate but equal" scheme, is why it's never the men/white people/etc. who have to sit in the back.
Posted by: Matthew | April 28, 2007 7:45 PM
I think the question to ask about any "separate but equal" scheme, is why it's never the men/white people/etc. who have to sit in the back.
That always occurs to me, too -- if they're doing this to show their great respect for women, shouldn't it be the men who are sitting at the back of the bus?
And yet that never happens. Huh.
Posted by: Mnemosyne | April 28, 2007 8:05 PM
Silly Matthew and Mnemosyne, modest women don't want to put themselves, uh, forward like that. So you'd actually be insulting the women to imply that they want to sit in front of the men.
Or something.
Posted by: kmarissa | April 28, 2007 8:08 PM
Luke R:
It's interesting that you'd talk about a woman who was attacked by god-bothered patriarchs with the phrase "wet slap." It sounds to me like you've got a bit of a misogyny problem to work on, too. That could be why you're so desperate to apologize for a bunch of hard-line god-bothered misogynists.
Also, please don't pretend that everyone else is as petty, shallow and superficial as you are. The fact that you can't think of any reason why someone might dislike religious people other than "RULIGIZ PPPLS SUXX0RZ" is not proof that there aren't any.
Posted by: Dan | April 28, 2007 9:05 PM
No? That's odd since, based on prior posts of yours on subjects like these, anyone could have reasonably expected to come down here into the comments to find you gibbering away like this:
That would probably have been followed with something about the bus being an area in which the woman shouldn't have stuck her nose.
Anyway, you've consistently put arguments like that forward which makes me think that you're either a little confused on which stance to take, or you think that the sanctity of social convention and necessity of space for bigotry only apply when homosexuals are involved.
You're either a hypocrite or a bigot.
Posted by: Dustin | April 28, 2007 9:07 PM
Maybe Luke R. thinks that "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO" is a valid excuse for those men to have beaten the living crap out of that uppity woman. After all, everyone loves to be treated like crap if they're told "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO."
BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO makes anything right, right?
Posted by: Stanton | April 28, 2007 9:09 PM
It's always been interesting to me that the jews manage to fly under the radar screen of religious ridiculousness in the US. While everyone in their right mind is comfortable poking fun at a pompadour-haired televangelist idiot nobody dares laugh at a guy with sidelocks and tassels. Why not?
See?? I catch myself tensing up as I write this.. I wonder why?
Judaism is, in many ways, more ridiculous, even, than Christianity. They have all these goofy nonsensical laws that are based on interpretations of the divine will, yet they constantly struggle to come up with clever ways of circumventing the laws - following the letter but not the spirit. It's just laughable! I know a lot of jews who are, basically, atheists except that they cling to a few bits of goofiness as part of their "cultural heritage" as if genital mutilation is, what, cute?
I'm a big fan of Sam Harris' work but I think he cuts judaism waaaaaay too much slack. But that's probably because he knows that if he had written "Letter to the Jews of the Nation" he could have just as easily entitled it "The last book I'll ever get published."
mjr.
Posted by: Mar | April 28, 2007 9:10 PM
Ah, I believe I've placed your position, now.
You don't seem to understand the difference between a private institution and a public one. Private groups ought to be free to refuse to offer their services to anyone, at any time, for any reason - and no one ought to be obligated to render them support of any kind.
This was a public bus, obliged to serve the public. Also, this isn't denial of service, but assault - and assault carried out by passengers, not bus employees, although the driver is culpable if he did nothing to stop it and culpable if he lied about the incident. So arguments about whether service can be denied aren't even relevant.
I think you've become a bit confused about the ethical principles involved in this discussion. Maybe you should sit this one out for a while until you gain a better understanding.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 9:15 PM
The Holocaust, and the publicity surrounding the Holocaust.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 9:17 PM
Wow. After trying to raise some questions, I've been called misogynist, petty, shallow, superficial, Jesus-troll, dead wrong, confused, shortsighted, and "New Agey."
Clearly I have stumbled across an enlightened, open-minded forum where people are willing to honestly and humbly engage in intellectual debate.
It's been fun, folks. Have a good night.
Posted by: Luke R. | April 28, 2007 9:17 PM
But women like to be in the back, where no one looks at them. Much like gorillas, women consider a direct gaze to be a sign of aggression and often react violently.
Posted by: Anton Mates | April 28, 2007 9:18 PM
>The Holocaust, and the publicity surrounding the Holocaust.
Yeah. When I was in high school we went through very heavy indoctrination about the horrors of The Holocaust. And, like any smart kid, I thought long and hard about it and concluded:
1) People suck
2) Religion drives people mad
It has amazed me to no end that The Holocaust is treated as anything other than a bunch of Christians ganging up on another religion and trying to wipe its members out. It wasn't about "race" at all and Hitler and his cronies spouted about as much Christian rhetoric as Bush and his.
We actually had Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel come to our high school and do readings from "Nacht Unt Nebel" - powerful stuff. He wrapped up by accusing us all of being partly responsible for The Holocaust (tough trick that, I was born in 1962) and accused the US of complicity for failing to direct war efforts toward impeding the train-lines carrying Jews to the camps. Being an avid wargamer and child strategist, I had the temerity to stand up and argue with him - as teenage boys do - and was sent home early with a note for my parents to discuss my "Nazi sympathies."
Again, the lesson all this drove home to me was:
1) People suck
2) Religion drives people mad
mjr.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | April 28, 2007 9:27 PM
Luke R.: But in this forum alone I have seen people who think differently than you attacked with such blanket vehemence that I find it hard to believe that you're interested in anything other than your own agenda.
What do you call it when somebody puts people in hell when they think differently than they do? Do you call it "blanket vehemence that I find it hard to believe that you're interested in anything other than your own agenda?"
Luke R.: If you'd actually taken the time to understand what I was saying, you would have noticed that I nowhere condoned any of the actions of the Orthodox Jews in question.
Oh yeah, I forgot that you nowhere condoned any of the actions of the "god" in question. Okay, nevermind then. Have a nice day.
Posted by: 386sx | April 28, 2007 9:28 PM
Sorry you got offended at "New Agey", but a debate needs arguments on both sides. All you have done is complain. What is your argument against what we are saying? Not that I agree with everything the others have said and the names called, it's just that you haven't responded properly, and yet insinuated we are the things we are arguing against.
Posted by: andyo | April 28, 2007 9:30 PM
There are a couple of rational reasons. For one thing, the pompadour-haired televangelist generally has more power, at least in this country--he influences a larger voting bloc and is more likely to number influential politicians among his flock. So it's probably more important that he be laughed to scorn.
For another, lots of people have mocked, assaulted and occasionally killed guys with sidelocks and tassels for a couple thousand years now, for very poor reasons. It's natural to worry about whether you've been influenced by antisemitism, or at least whether people will think you have, given its historical popularity.
Which doesn't mean that Judaism doesn't involve some spectacularly stupid and inconsistent ideas, or that you shouldn't point them out--but sure, there's nothing wrong with hesitating for a moment to check whether dumping on an oft-marginalized group is wise.
Posted by: Anton Mates | April 28, 2007 9:33 PM
No, we've already been over this. You're the one who doesn't understand the distinction. At least, you'd like the distinction to be so simple as a distinction between something funded with public monies and something that isn't, rather than a distinction between an institution which, with the sanction of the government, provides a service to the general public, and one which doesn't. A rather convenient position to take when you'd like to have a veneer of thoughtfulness shrouding something vile.
By the way... you never answered my question.
Posted by: Dustin | April 28, 2007 9:34 PM
But in this forum alone I have seen people who think differently than you attacked with such blanket vehemence that I find it hard to believe that you're interested in anything other than your own agenda.
Do you find it hard to believe that god is interested in anything other than god's own agenda when god attacks people with blanket vehemence and puts them straight to hell when they pass on, right at the moment when they finally find out for sure that there really is a god who indeed will put them in hell? Do you condone the actions of such gods? I didn't think so.
Posted by: 386sx | April 28, 2007 9:37 PM
In your first post on this thread, you called the other posters bigots. You now proceed to ignore all the answers they returned to your questions.
Now you've been called a hypocrite as well.
Posted by: Anton Mates | April 28, 2007 9:39 PM
Does the public bus run on (I forget all the goofy rules) the times when Jews aren't supposed to be out and about? Are the drivers non-Jewish in order to bypass the word of God's law regarding these matters? I forget how that works but isn't it OK if someone drives you around and you don't drive yourself, or some such load of bollocks?
Richard Feynman used to tell this hysterical story of a bunch of seminary students who came to one of his talks - not to try to learn anything from one of the greatest physics teachers alive - but to ask him "is electricity fire"? Because, if it was, there was going to be big trouble. What a crock.
Anyhow, if public money was being spent to provide public transportation for people who are so stupid that they think God cares when they drive a car, I'd be unhappy about that, too. Not as unhappy as at the idea that God wants women to sit on separate buses, though. Or that God wants them to wear a bedsheet over their head. God sounds like a frickin' idiot, no? Helooooooo? People?
mjr.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | April 28, 2007 9:42 PM
Other than ensuring that a restaurant meets hygenic requirements (a part which we can at least make a reasonable case for), what sanction need a government grant? Do you think governments ought to be able to decide who can offer services, the nature of those services, and those to which they are offered? Do you think that private establishments ought not to have the power to refuse service to potential patrons without governmental permission?
A more revealing question: what parts of life, if any, do you think the government ought have no power over?
If this act of yours is a veneer of stupid to conceal something else, it's a very good disguise. Very good.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 10:18 PM
Insults are a stupid way of evading a question. Why don't you just answer it. I'll answer your question if you answer mine.
No. I think what you mean to ask is: Do I think that private establishments which provide a service to the general public (which, in the case of IHOP, they need a permit to do) should not have the power to refuse service to segments of the population based on segregatory attitudes or prejudice? Yes, I do.
Posted by: Dustin | April 28, 2007 10:29 PM
Jews can be intensely stupid...
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 10:32 PM
Do realize that anyone and everyone can become intensely stupid when they use BECAUSE GOD SAID SO to excuse their every action.
Posted by: Stanton | April 28, 2007 10:51 PM
The Israelis are dying (and killing) for the continued ability to live there, in a place where they're surrounded by people who want them dead. All because of a make-believe deity. I wouldn't expect too much from these people in the way of rational thinking.
Besides, why does it matter where you sit on a bus when someone's just going to come along and blow it up for god anyway?
Posted by: DaveX | April 28, 2007 11:04 PM
Luke R:
For someone who started the day by calling all of us bigots for not getting off on a bunch of religious assholes beating up a woman for the crime of thinking she was fully human, you certainly have a lot of nerve getting all huffy because nobody feels like being nice to you.
You know, I had you pegged as a self-absorbed, sanctimonious asshat from the get-go. Obviously, I was right.
Posted by: Dan | April 28, 2007 11:05 PM
What the hell? What kind of calloused disaffected bullshit is that? I hope that was just a half-cocked throwaway line.
Posted by: Dustin | April 28, 2007 11:12 PM
There's nothing throwaway about it. I just can't get over the fact that anyone gives a shit where they SIT on a bus when they're living with such other enormous problems-- especially ones caused by some "butter side up, butter side down" nonsense.
Posted by: DaveX | April 28, 2007 11:37 PM
Because they think that by engaging in petty social dominance exercises, they can make all the really bad stuff go away.
Poof.
Controlling someone else means you control yourself.
It doesn't work that way, of course, but that's why they do it.
Posted by: Dan | April 29, 2007 1:21 AM
Any woman who doesnt want to sit in the back of the bus can take the next bus. There is no compulsion to take the orthodox sect's special buses.
Posted by: jaim klein | April 29, 2007 1:24 AM
Uh, Jaim, if you were actually reading the articles, you'd realize that the "special" buses are not marked, and they run in the same routes as the "normal" buses.
I strongly doubt that people would find waiting for the next secular bus to be very practical.
Would you, yourself, want to wait for a half hour, hour for the next bus?
Posted by: Stanton | April 29, 2007 1:54 AM
Caledonian:
It is not always clear where the distinction between public and private power even is. Suppose you lived in a small town where the businessmen, clergy, teachers, doctors, anyone of influence, had come together in some "private" organization to coordinate their activities. Even though that organization wouldn't be "the government", and though it wouldn't be using public monies, how they exercise their power has most of the ethical questions of how the government does. They could accomplish the same sorts of things we don't want government to try, such as forcibly excluding people of some race or class or gender, or infringing on various freedoms (this is not an unrealistic example, in America many aspects of Jim Crow were upheld by businesses, churches, etc. without formal legal sanction).
Ultimately, I think it is wrong to discuss institutions like government or private groups as things in their own right; the discussion must be anchored in the rights of individuals. Government can be a threat to those rights, of course, but it is also intended to be a way to protect individuals from other individuals infringing those rights. There is no way to answer the question "what parts of life, if any, do you think the government ought have no power over" in a simple, list-like form, because the answer is "whatever parts of life should best be under its power to maximize liberty".
Posted by: Matthew | April 29, 2007 2:00 AM
jaim klein, are you serious? There is no reason for a woman to take the orthodox busses? What if she needs to GET SOMEWHERE ON PUBLIC FUCKING TRANSPORTATION? I'll tell you what, I'll get a government contract to provide transportation, except all of the whiney, god-fearing assholes will be required to get on their knees and provide oral services to the rational passengers. If you don't want to blow me, take the next fucking bus.
Posted by: autumn | April 29, 2007 2:09 AM
A way back up there in #9, Richard Harris asked why the men objected to sitting with the women. The bible tells them so. Leviticus 15:19-24
To touch a woman who is menstruating will make them unclean, because she is unclean. Thus they must avoid the proximity of such women. Since they cannot know if this is the case for any particular woman who is a stranger to them, all women must be kept at a safe distance.
Once they are unclean, they will remain so for the rest of the day and will need to wash their clothes and bathe with water. Its not clear to me if other men are now at risk of becoming unclean if they touch this unfortunate one. Presumably, then he loses the rest of his day in quarantine in his home, touching no-one (and cursing the woman who did this to him).
The last thread described how, on a bus they will typically motion any other man looking for a seat to sit with them, filling up the empty seat and removing the risk of a woman's using it.
It all seems to have come about because their god does not like to watch them having sex if there is any blood involved.
It occurs to me that not many bible-literalist Christians take Leviticus literally. It doesn't get much mention in most pulpits these days. Go take a look, you'll get a few chuckles.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/lev/15.html#19
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | April 29, 2007 2:12 AM
That is exactly what I told her. She'll just tell you that you're wrong, won't support that statement with anything other than her own bloated sense of self-importance, and then she'll say something like:
And that's why she'll tell you that you're wrong about the Jim Crow thing. It's because she thinks the arguments used to prop the Jim Crow system up were just peachy.
I guess I shouldn't be too hard on her. This thread is the first time I've ever seen her take the moral stance on something of consequence, and that has to count for something. I doubt it will last.
Posted by: Dustin | April 29, 2007 3:06 AM
"Both the noses and the fists require boundaries which may not be transgressed"? I was going to say that this was unbelievably silly, but actually, I think it's a depressing view of the world. Where I come from, it's not like we divide the world up into "fistspace" and "nosespace"; instead, you can generally swing your fists around anywhere there aren't noses, put your nose anywhere there aren't swinging fists, and everyone is expected to take some precautions and make accommodations when the two might come into conflict. All seems much more civilized.
It's the same sort of hyperlegalistic thinking that seems to be causing the whole segregated bus thing in the first place. Rules in Leviticus like that take perfectly natural values like cleanliness (let's face it, people generally dislike anything that comes out of bodies), and in the effort to codify them, create a huge mass of rules and regulations, put moral and supernatural weight behind the rules, and so on, until what could be solved with a bit of give and take requires restructuring daily life around it instead.
Posted by: Matthew | April 29, 2007 3:39 AM
"I just can't get over the fact that anyone gives a shit where they SIT on a bus when they're living with such other enormous problems -- especially ones caused by some "butter side up, butter side down" nonsense."
Shorter DaveX: Whiny bitches should shut up and take their oppression like men. We've got bigger things to worry about.
I sure hope you never ever worry about anything that isn't priority #1. For instance, what the hell are you doing commenting on a blog? There's a war on. For or against, there's better shit you could be doing -- git on down to the recruitment office, or start planning your peace protest -- either way, you've got no business multi-tasking, mister.
Posted by: Mandolin | April 29, 2007 3:42 AM
Matthew, I like the reasonable tone of your comment #73.
About the only thing missing is that the men who did the codifying weren't much interested in placing women in an equal position at the bargaining table.
The edifice that they created pretty much sets it up that men do the taking, and women the giving.
Posted by: JohnnieCanuck | April 29, 2007 3:55 AM
Dustin: I seem to recall Caledonian having identified themselves as male in at least one point in a previous thread; I may be mistaken. I assume you are actually under the impression Cal is female, rather than using the feminine appellation as an insult?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 29, 2007 4:15 AM
Luke R, you say, "My point is that you don't give a wet slap about the woman who was attacked; you're just upset because religious people did it and you don't like religious people."
Now, what I said (in # 9) was, "I admire this woman. I deplore those apologies for men." I thought about this - do I really admire her when she's so religious? I decided, on balance, I'd let it stay. So you're almost correct. It's not that I don't like religious people, more that I don't admire religious people, as a general rule. I have contempt for that aspect of their mentality. Because people can only believe in that religious crap if they want to believe whatever makes them happy, etc., rather than what is true according to the evidence.
But you must be able to see that I had some feelings for the woman to have said that I admired her. You are still very confused.
Posted by: Richard Harris, FCD |