Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby elasto » Tue Jun 16, 2015 1:59 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Which views? I think his desire to interpret the tenets of Orthodox Judaism as modernly morally appropriate may be... not 'wrong', but demonstrative or at least similar to the justification used by just about every extreme religious group to justify extreme views.

Sure. Extremist Judaism seems to be somewhere in between extremist Islam and extremist Christianity in using literalist fundamentalism to justify outright sexism, but so what? This thread was started to justify how Orthodox Judaism is not sexist, and people are perfectly entitled to rebut that view.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jun 16, 2015 3:04 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Which views? I think his desire to interpret the tenets of Orthodox Judaism as modernly morally appropriate may be... not 'wrong', but demonstrative or at least similar to the justification used by just about every extreme religious group to justify extreme views.

Sure. Extremist Judaism seems to be somewhere in between extremist Islam and extremist Christianity in using literalist fundamentalism to justify outright sexism, but so what? This thread was started to justify how Orthodox Judaism is not sexist, and people are perfectly entitled to rebut that view.
You'll notice I said nothing of JC's right to argue the point, just that I concur with people who have underlined why his attempts to do so are not convincing.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Twistar
Posts: 445
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:39 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Twistar » Tue Jun 16, 2015 3:23 pm UTC

Not all Orthodox jews take a literal interpretation of the Torah in the strict sense that we have been defining it here. In fact, I don't think jewish_scientist has explicitly claimed to take an orthodox view of the Torah. He has assumed that "The Torah is perfect" but that doesn't mean he's necessarily taking a literal view of it. To him perfect might mean something like "When interpretted 'correctly,' the Torah always gives truth." I think this is probably the point he should address now because others in this thread have handily demonstrated that a literal interpretation of the Torah is entirely incompatible with modern values including the value that sexism is bad. Therefore the following two premises are inconsistent:
1) A literal interpretation of the Torah is correct
2) The Torah is not sexist.

The tacit assumption being made on the last page or so is that
3) The Torah is perfect
IMPLIES
1) A literal interpretation of the Torah is correct.

jewish_scientist should now address this implication because this is the line of argument people are going down now. The problem here becomes, in my opinion, very interesting. A lot of people probably turn away from religion because they aren't able to refute the above implication so they conclude that the Torah is imperfect which really undercuts a lot of the ideas of religion, especially if you want to believe in an objective, literal, powerful God. Alternatively, you can make some concession and say that "under some interpretation, which we as humans and individuals may or may not have full grasp of, the Torah is perfect". But where does that argument leave us? The probably non-Jewish woman on the airplane can not be expected to know the thousands of years and pages of rabbinic theory which justify in some very muddled* way why his request is not sexist and is actually in line with all modern values.

I only half don't mean the use of the word muddled to be a dig into orthodox Judaism. I am Jewish and in my experience Jews (and I think this applies to all of at least the Abrahamic religions) go through this process of making some pretty wild sounding interpretations to reconcile the issues raised in this thread. To me they sound wild but to an orthodox Jew maybe they sound genius. The reason I say they sound wild is it just seems painfully obvious that it is the result of someone trying to reconcile the ancient (read anachronistic) world views expressed in a more literal interpretation of the Torah with modern values as opposed to something that seems like should have come directly from God.

Sorry if this is harsh jewish_scientist, but you are in fact butting up against the problem of why an interpretation of the Torah as strict as yours is fundamentally incompatible with modern values. This is precisely why many people in the modern world eschew all forms of religion. They see the modern values such as anti-sexism produce better results than the values expressed in religious canon and furthermore, they don't see further worth in that canon to warrant hopping through these non-intuitive hoops to reconcile the two world views. They and I would say that this is why religion has become obsolete.

I wish I could make my argument without having to make it such as "secular versus orthodox" thing but unfortunately that is directly the apex to which these arguments lead.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby mosc » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:27 pm UTC

The Haredi (best term I know to describe it) Judaism being discussed in this thread is not what is espoused by most people who call themselves "Orthodox" Jews. Most Orthodox Jews are not literalists and do interpret the Torah. I would go so far as to say there is a central value across all major forms of Judaism of interpretation and debate. Haredi Jews are much more literalist holding to a particular codex of interpretation they consider true which for all intensive purposes is "outdated", "archaic", and "morally corrupt" even by Orthodox Jew standards.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:31 pm UTC

So maybe the thread title could be changed, but as already pointed out this isn't quite as fringe as you seem to be trying to suggest.

CorruptUser wrote:
mosc wrote:Please try to refer to this nonsense as "Haredi Judaism" or "strict orthodoxy judaism" or some other form of the phrase that truly captures how fringe these beliefs are to the vast majority of people who call themselves "Jewish". Even what I would call "Modern Orthodox" is not anything like this and not structurally bigoted and intolerant.

Thanks


Haredim make up 13% of the total Jewish population, and that doesn't include the Chassidim. They are not "fringe".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jun 17, 2015 6:33 pm UTC

That's fine and true, but many sexist views are still held (and indeed, are being discussed in this thread) by and within Orthodox Judaism. I agree that some/many/most (>0 in any case) Orthodox Jews are not as extreme in their sexism as most/many/some (definitely >0) Haredi Jews, but I feel like your distinction here is a bit like saying "But not all Amish eschew ALL technology, and some Amish clades are far more extreme than others!" in a discussion about luddite views in the Amish.

gmalivuk wrote:So maybe the thread title could be changed, but as already pointed out this isn't quite as fringe as you seem to be trying to suggest.
Maybe we should let an Israeli chime in on this, but it is my impression that the Haredi are on... rocky terms... with the rest of Israel.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Jun 17, 2015 8:30 pm UTC

Israel is less than half of the Jewish population, right?
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Jun 17, 2015 9:12 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:Israel is less than half of the Jewish population, right?

Huh, I had thought Haredi were specifically the ultra-Orthodox Jews who lived in Israel, but it turns out only about half of them do.

So, that. My point though was that the Haredi have a difficult relationship with other Israelis, and represent approximately 10% of the total population of Israel. I think the estimate posted of Haredim being ~13% of the Jewish population is slightly high (1.3m Haredi Jews worldwide, approximately 13.8M Jews worldwide), but close enough.

Anyway, mosc, I don't think this discussion is misrepresenting the views of modern Orthodox Jews, as it need not focus solely on the views of the Haredi to make it's point.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 17, 2015 10:38 pm UTC

Brother in law is Israeli, Sephardi. He hates the Haredi; they don't pay tax and they don't join the army yet they think they should have a right to dictate how all the other Israelis have to behave. Really, the Israeli-Arabs are more supportive of Israel than the Haredi and Hassidim are.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1034
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby jewish_scientist » Thu Jun 18, 2015 3:17 am UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:I do not know where you got that information from, but I would double-check anything that source tells you with a second source from now on.

This applies to almost everything that has been said about slavery since my last post. I just wanted to get that out of the way.


KrytenKoro, I do not like your post. It seems to me that instead of addressing my counter arguments, you are just restating your original point. Some of what you said does not even make sense. If I request a window seat, then the airlines computer will give me a window seat; it does not randomly pick a seat. You also skipped my mathematical proof that if there is one man and one woman who have no preference, then there is a configuration where everyone is satisfied. If you said you had no idea what that section was supposed to be, then I would explain it to you again. You did not even acknowledge it. I expect more from someone on this forum.


LaserGuy wrote: …the evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of slaves owned by the ancient Israelites were non-Jews captured in times of war, or foreigners...

Do you have a citation for this?

44 stone lions wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~To a Couple of People about Slavery~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember, 'slave' is a translated word and therefore inherently less accurate. Servant or contracted worker is a better translation. If a man is found guilty of theft and does not have enough money to pay the victim of the crime for what was stolen, he is required to work for the victim. The maximum amount of time he is required to be a servant is 6 years. There are requirements about how a master and his family may treat the servant and his family.

-The servant may not perform demining work, such as carrying items for the master in the bathhouse or tying the master's shoes on.
-If the servant is hit and suffers a significant injury, he may sue for his freedom. The example usually given is that a tooth is knocked out.
-His master may not assign cruel work to him. If the master said, "Dig some holes while I go get the seeds from the storage area," then the servant could sue for his freedom. When someone has a goal, they have an objective to work towards. This motivates them and gives them hope that soon the work will be finished. It is cruel to deny a worker this. Because the servant does not know if he will be digging for 5 minutes or 5 hours, he has no goal to work towards. Therefore, the servant may sue for his freedom.
-If only white bread (high quality) and black bread (low quality) are available to eat, the master must give the white bread to the servant.
-If there are only two beds available, one made with a mattress (high quality) and one made with straw (low quality), the master must sleep on the straw while the servant sleeps on the mattress.
-During meals, the servant eats at the same table as the master and his family.
-The servant must rest on Shabbat and holidays.
-The last four also apply to the servant's family.
-At anytime, the servant or his family can pay off the rest of the dept. If they do, the servant is granted his freedom.
-If the servant had a profession before he committed the crime, he should continue to do that form of work.
-When the servant's term has ended, he is given gifts and supplies. I do not know how much is required to be given, but it is enough that the servant can start a business and make an honest living.

I light of this information, do you still wish to hold the position that the 'slavery' described in the Torah is immoral.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Whilst not exactly the same this does sound quite a lot like Indentured Servitude, which is generally handled by the same laws as slavery and human trafficking by international law and the laws of most countries, and, at least in my opinion is as immoral as slavery. You can add what ever benefits and niceties to it that you want, the scope for exploitation is still present and at a level that I would deem to be immoral.

Let’s compare this system to another system which had been approved of by the U.S. government, and by the UN (they are doing anything to try and stop it, so they must approve of it); Namely the contracts between the NCAA and the football players.

-It is common for players to not have enough to eat, even though the NCAA makes $80.5 million in gross interest
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/07/us/ncaa-b ... er-hungry/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co ... /70161386/

-Brain damage to players is a common accordance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987636/

-Universities have no obligation to pay for medical costs once the player leaves the team.
-Players can have their scholarships revoked because they suffered an injury while playing.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainmen ... es/275407/

None of these happen under the Torah’s system of servitude.


Izawwlgood wrote:The argument that 'slave' only applies to indentured laborers is a very tenuous one, given how frequently the ancient Israelites go to war with other peoples, win, and enslave them all.

Many of the rules for dealing with your slaves were also hilariously lacking - whilst you were encouraged to not damage a slaves eyes or teeth, the prohibition of beating your slaves was only such that you couldn't incapacitate them for more than days (Exodus 21:20)

Slaves were only emancipated after 6 years of servitude if they were Jewish.

Women slaves, irrespective of their religion, if sold by their fathers, were slaves forever. Male Jewish Slaves could be bought back at the Jubilee year, which occurred every 50 years.

Here's some gems, trigger warning -

Spoiler:
Female slaves could be raped with impunity, though if the rapist was engaged or wed, he had to sacrifice an animal as penance.

Any female prisoners of war were considered slaves, and the only prohibition on how to treat them is that they cannot be resold as a slave


So.. Yeah.

Everything wrong with your post I underlined above. You may notice that almost the whole post is underlined.

Before any war and the attack on any city a Jewish army is required to offer a peace treaty. Also, a city can only be attacked on three sides because people who want to flee the city must be allowed to do so. As far as I know, even when the Jewish army captures the city, the POWs do not automatically become servants. Individuals that surrender are considered as ordinary people, they do not receive any special status because they used to support the enemy (I am not sure that this is law). The example that comes to mind is about a general that was part of a siege of Jerusalem. He disagreed with his superiors and said that they should stop the attack. He was punished by being forced out of the camp and towards Jerusalem. They expected the Jews to torture and kill him; instead he was received as an honored guest. Even though supplies were low, he was treated very well. To say that everyone is automatically turned into a servant when a Jewish army wins a war is clearly wrong. The enemy, as a whole or as individuals, has plenty of options that end without them becoming a POW.

That verse is about a master who kills a goyish (non-Jewish) servant. If the servant died within 24 hours after being hit (with an object that is normally considered capable of killing) then the master is put on trial for murder. If the servant dies from his injuries later, then the master is not tried for murder; he is tried for a different crime, which is not punished with death by the sword (I would need to do a lot more research than I want to do in order to find exactly what he is tried for and the modern equivalent). It is interesting to note that if the servant does not die, then he may sue the master for the damage caused to him by the assault.

That is simple not true in anyway. A Jewish servant, regardless of their gender, is freed after 7 years. If they are a minor, then they are freed when they reach maturity; which is 12 years old for girls and 13 years old for boys. All servants, regardless of religion, gender or master, in Israel are freed every 50 years (a Jubilee year). A ‘permanent’ servant is really just someone who agrees* to a contract that is 50 – time since last Jubilee years long.
A servant, or someone on the servant’s behalf, can buy their own freedom at any time. On a Jubilee year, servants gain their freedom automatically; it is not purchased.

A female slave could not be raped in any way, shape or form. I do not know what to argue against, because I have no idea what verse or law you, or your source, misinterpreted that lead to that conclusion.

What you are referring to is if a soldier meets a goyish woman while away on war (think about American soldiers and Korean women during the Korean war). The law is that he is forced to marry her and he may not divorce her (although she may divorce him)**. Alternatively, you are referring to the law that allows a Jewish maid-servant may force her master or one of his sons to marry. Again, SHE forces him. If she does not want to marry her master or one of his sons, then they cannot marry her. This is a little off topic, but worth mentioning: the master(s) must consent to a marriage between two servants, but so must the servants. Under no conditions can any maid-servant be forced to marry her master.

Do me a favor and check your source. These kinds of mistakes can be avoided by using better sources and using some common sense.

* goyish servants can choose to not be a servant to a Jewish master. If they do, then they are sold to a goy (non-Jew)
**I can already picture someone bringing up the law that a husband gives the bill of divorce to his wife. She can sue him and the court may then force him to give her a bill of divorce. There, objection settled before it could be raised.


Ucim, there are perfectly good reasons for what those practices. The exception is B because men and women are not separated at all times. The ketubah is a marriage contract that details the husband's and wife's obligations to each other. You can read about the ketubah here. Unless you have a more specific objection, there is not much a can reply to.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_c ... ntract.htm
A man must give a get (bill of divorce) to his wife, but she can force him to give it to her. The whole point is that the wife leaves the marriage with the 'get'; this way, if she moves to another town that may not have heard about the divorce she can prove that she is single.
A husband and wife are not separated for a biological reason. The point is that for half of each month, the couple cannot be sexual in anyway. They are forced to see each other as people with personalities, dreams and ideas. If there is also a medical benefit, it is only secondary.
ucim wrote:However, if things are actually as depicted, then perhaps it's not so immoral as I had thought. For the Jewish slaves. But (and it's a big "but" - perhaps I should say "however") while you give a list of what is prohibited, I don't know what sorts of things (which I would consider immoral) are still permitted, and thus condoned by the Torah. While there are certainly abuses in the modern capitalistic workplace, these are not sanctioned by a book deemed "perfect". This "slervitude" is, thus has a higher bar.

That is simple an unfair request. If you will not tell me what actions you consider wrong, how am I supposed to prove that the Torah forbids them.


44 stone lions, that verse does not refer to a skin condition. 'Flesh' is an euphemism. There is section about a skin disease and it is immediately before this part. That is probably why you made that mistake.


Izawwlgood wrote:Can we step back a moment and remember that we're claiming that a woman, while she menstruates, is to be kept away from men... the exact definition of 'unclean' is actually quite irrelevant here... This whole argument smacks of 'separate but equal', and is a load of theological horse shit.
I told you this before near the end of page two, but I will say it again. This prohibition only applies to a woman's husband.


ucim wrote:In this discussion, the defense of the Torah as non-sexist focuses on very fine points of these rules. It misses the point that sexism isn't in the fine points. It's in the broad strokes. The fine points don't erase it.

And the fine points miss very broad big points, as pointed out above.

Adam and Ben are walking through a park. They spot a bird near the water. Adam says that the bird is a duck. Ben disagrees. Adam says that the bird looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck; the bird must be a duck. Ben picks up the bird and brings it closer to Adam. Now that the details of the bird are easier to see, Ben points out that is looks like a goose, walks like a goose and sounds like a goose; the bird cannot be a duck. Fine points are important.

P.S. I noticed that mosc has posted a lot since my last post. This is not because I have no response to what he has said; it is because I am not reading his/her posts anymore. What mosc was saying was so ignorant and offensive, I realized that my life would simple be easier if I ignored him. I completely understand why a moderator punished him with that title.

This is the second time you've said that underlined bit. It's still not true. You can stop saying it any damn time.

- Az
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby ucim » Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:08 am UTC

Sexism is the treatment of one sex differently from the other, simply because of their sex. From the link (about the ketubah) that you provided,
The ketubah document is reminiscent of the wedding between G‑d and Israel when Moses took the Torah, the "Book of the Covenant," and read it to the Jews prior to the "chupah ceremony" at Mount Sinai. In the Torah, G‑d, the groom, undertakes to provide for all the physical and spiritual needs of His beloved bride.

So, the groom stands in the place of G-d, and the bride stands in the place of Israel, a small group of mortals.

This is sexist to the core.

jewish_scientist wrote:A man must give a get (bill of divorce) to his wife, but she can force him to give it to her.
A non-sexist version of this would say that (to get a divorce) a married person must give a get to his spouse, but in the case that the get is refused, it can be forced. It is sexist that only the woman must get a get. I'm not arguing about fairness, I'm arguing about sexism. It matters not a whit that the sexist version is seen as "fair" by some.

jewish_scientist wrote:if she moves to another town that may not have heard about the divorce she can prove that she is single
What of the man that moves to another town that may not have heard of the divorce?

jewish_scientist wrote:A husband and wife are not separated for a biological reason. The point is that for half of each month, the couple cannot be sexual in anyway. They are forced to see each other as people with personalities, dreams and ideas.
This should always be the case. Always. And for all people. The more that sexual differences are emphasized and ritualized, the harder this becomes. It's a flaw in the Torah.

jewish_scientist wrote:
ucim wrote:However, if things are actually as depicted, then perhaps it's not so immoral as I had thought. For the Jewish slaves. But (and it's a big "but" - perhaps I should say "however") while you give a list of what is prohibited, I don't know what sorts of things (which I would consider immoral) are still permitted, and thus condoned by the Torah. While there are certainly abuses in the modern capitalistic workplace, these are not sanctioned by a book deemed "perfect". This "slervitude" is, thus has a higher bar.
That is simple an unfair request. If you will not tell me what actions you consider wrong, how am I supposed to prove that the Torah forbids them.
It is unfair to request this of the Torah, a "perfect" document? I'm not sure what you are saying. In any case, a short list of prohibited actions against "slervants" (of a certain class), while better I suppose than nothing, does not credibly advance the Torah as a "perfect" document. Progressive, maybe. Better than what might have been? Maybe. But perfect? Nope.

Let me ask you then, at the risk of going Off Topic: What is it that convinces you that this collection of ancient writings is to be considered "perfect" (by which I assume you mean flawless, complete, and timeless)?

Jose
edit: fix quote mustard
Last edited by ucim on Mon Jul 13, 2015 2:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby LaserGuy » Thu Jun 18, 2015 6:38 am UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:
LaserGuy wrote: …the evidence strongly suggests that the vast majority of slaves owned by the ancient Israelites were non-Jews captured in times of war, or foreigners...


Do you have a citation for this?


This would be a good place to start. It is well-sourced if you want to go deeper.

Let’s compare this system to another system which had been approved of by the U.S. government, and by the UN (they are doing anything to try and stop it, so they must approve of it); Namely the contracts between the NCAA and the football players.

-It is common for players to not have enough to eat, even though the NCAA makes $80.5 million in gross interest
http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/07/us/ncaa-b ... er-hungry/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/co ... /70161386/

-Brain damage to players is a common accordance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987636/

-Universities have no obligation to pay for medical costs once the player leaves the team.
-Players can have their scholarships revoked because they suffered an injury while playing.
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainmen ... es/275407/

None of these happen under the Torah’s system of servitude.


Players join the NCAA voluntarily and are free to leave at any time.

That is simple not true in anyway. A Jewish servant, regardless of their gender, is freed after 7 years.


This was only true in the pre-Talmudic era, and even then, it is not clear how well it was enforced--in fact, it is clear from Jeremiah 34 that at least in certain periods it was definitely not enforced.

All servants, regardless of religion, gender or master, in Israel are freed every 50 years (a Jubilee year). A ‘permanent’ servant is really just someone who agrees* to a contract that is 50 – time since last Jubilee years long.


This is not true of foreign slaves. Foreign slaves are explicitly permanent.

A servant, or someone on the servant’s behalf, can buy their own freedom at any time. On a Jubilee year, servants gain their freedom automatically; it is not purchased.


This is not true of foreign slaves. See Leviticius 25:44-47.

A female slave could not be raped in any way, shape or form. I do not know what to argue against, because I have no idea what verse or law you, or your source, misinterpreted that lead to that conclusion.


Presumably Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

I'll ask again, however: Does your particular sect of Judaism currently practice this form of servitude/slavery/whatever? If not, why not?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Jun 18, 2015 1:46 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:Everything wrong with your post I underlined above. You may notice that almost the whole post is underlined.
Listen, I just included quotes from the Torah that are basically in disagreement with the latter claims you make about how well slaves, particularly female slaves are making. For someone who so often claims [Citation Needed], frankly, I'm going to take the writing in the Torah at higher face value than your assertion that that's not actually how Judaism works.

You're asking me to check my sources - those were biblical quotes. All the citations and places where I got those claims from were found in my next post which you did not respond to.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
krogoth
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby krogoth » Thu Jun 18, 2015 4:47 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
A female slave could not be raped in any way, shape or form. I do not know what to argue against, because I have no idea what verse or law you, or your source, misinterpreted that lead to that conclusion.


Presumably Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

As well as this one


Exodus 21:7
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to leave as the male slaves do.
8 If she is displeasing to her master, who chose her for himself, then he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners because he has acted treacherously toward her.
9 Or if he chooses her for his son, he must deal with her according to the customary treatment of daughters.
10 If he takes an additional wife, he must not reduce the food, clothing, or marital rights of the first wife.
11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she may leave free of charge, without any exchange of money.

Trigger spoiler
Spoiler:
Buy slave, force her to marry, then as far as I'm aware the reason it's not called rape, is because it wasn't considered rape if she was your wife.


Izawwlgood, has linked the sources, J_S hasn't linked rebuttal sources. It feels like J_S is just using mental gymnastics to get out of accepting the literal words that are written down.
R3sistance - I don't care at all for the ignorance spreading done by many and to the best of my abilities I try to correct this as much as I can, but I know and understand that even I can not be completely honest, truthful and factual all of the time.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:17 pm UTC

KrytenKoro, I do not like your post. It seems to me that instead of addressing my counter arguments, you are just restating your original point. Some of what you said does not even make sense. If I request a window seat, then the airlines computer will give me a window seat; it does not randomly pick a seat. You also skipped my mathematical proof that if there is one man and one woman who have no preference, then there is a configuration where everyone is satisfied. If you said you had no idea what that section was supposed to be, then I would explain it to you again. You did not even acknowledge it. I expect more from someone on this forum.

I really wish this was an argument about something trivial like marvel's canon so that I could find this JVC DLA-X700R-level response merely funny.

You should seriously learn more about airline seating, if only so that you don't inconvenience fellow passengers.

I had enough of this "lalala i can't hear you" defense of crankery with watermann. I'm out.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5939
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Angua » Fri Jun 19, 2015 1:43 pm UTC

Most of the flights I've been on allow you to choose your seats 24 hours in advance (or more, if you pay extra). If you don't like the pre-assigned seats, you just move to the next best unoccupied ones.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

44 stone lions
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:57 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby 44 stone lions » Fri Jun 19, 2015 8:01 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:Let’s compare this system to another system which had been approved of by the U.S. government, and by the UN (they are doing anything to try and stop it, so they must approve of it); Namely the contracts between the NCAA and the football players.


Sorry but that is completely wrong. In addition to what Laserguy wrote (that the football players join voluntarily), your assertion that an organisation with finite resources not doing anything to stop something is the same as them approving of it is just not correct.

The United Nations wrote:The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 4

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.


I think that makes the UN's position on the practices you described quite clear, note that there exists no caveat about quality of mattresses and bread that would make these practices acceptable.

jewish_scientist wrote:44 stone lions, that verse does not refer to a skin condition. 'Flesh' is an euphemism.


What is it a euphemism for?

As for the airline seating, a private company has no obligation to offer you special treatment based on your religious beliefs. Society does, however, offer you the option of boycotting any private company for not doing so.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jun 19, 2015 9:38 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Most of the flights I've been on allow you to choose your seats 24 hours in advance (or more, if you pay extra). If you don't like the pre-assigned seats, you just move to the next best unoccupied ones.

Which flights are those? If they're cheap, I'd definitely be interested in switching to those.

Like was said earlier, yeah, the model would work if the segregationists were willing to pay for the "border" seats. However, I have no knowledge of an airline that lets you know who you're sitting next to beforehand (unless you know the person personally and can ask them), or that allows you to make decisions about that beyond buying the whole row just to be safe. That's my larger point here -- the issue is not that it's impossible to seat customers in segragationary arrangements, it's that the infrastructure required to accept preferences and arrange customers accordingly (and what would happen if someone inputs the "wrong gender" when buying a ticket? Not to mention getting into how Haredi would class transgender individuals) is a lot more involved and expensive, in both time and money, than JS was claiming. It's very much not so simple as just saying it's possible to arrange people that way -- just because there is a mathematical solution doesn't mean it's quick to calculate or enact.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5939
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Angua » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:13 pm UTC

Generally the transatlantic flights.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jun 19, 2015 10:31 pm UTC

Angua wrote:Generally the transatlantic flights.

Aaaaahh, yeah, would explain why I've never seen one.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby PAstrychef » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:42 am UTC

Most flights in the U.S. will let you check in online in advance, and choose a seat at that time. I've been doing it for years, and I tend to fly on the very cheap flights.
Still, that tells you nothing about the characteristics of the people sitting next to you.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5939
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Angua » Sat Jun 20, 2015 9:23 am UTC

Yeah, exactly my point being that even if the computer originally puts you next to someone of the desired gender, they could move out (if they, too, wanted a window seat) and then the person of the undesired gender can move in. Which means if you want to have this system, then you'd need to have specific rows of seats of the designated gender, which then lessens choice for everyone else (as well as feeling pretty discriminatory).
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

44 stone lions
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:57 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby 44 stone lions » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:36 pm UTC

The expense of creating a program that could integrate into existing systems whilst also being robust and reliable enough would be large, plus the additional and ongoing expense of computational time (which may be small and trivial for a single flight but would be absolutely huge in total, considering the number of flights that occur globally every day). Considering the number of people who care enough to want this service compared to the expense of implementing it just makes it inpractical, and, if passed into law making it a requirement, it would be unfair on everyone else as the money would have to come from somewhere and it would undoubtedly come from higher ticket prices for everyone. Charging only the people who use the service may not be enough to cover the initial expenses, plus this would also probably face criticism as some form of religion tax.

Also your mathematical model only includes either people who don't want to sit next to people of the opposite gender or people who have no preference where they sit. The point of pre booking seats is not just based around window and aisle, but what about groups of people who want to sit next to each other (or not sit next to each other) for other reasons? Who takes preference in that situation? To me, being told that I can't sit next to my friends or loved ones on a 12 hour flight and instead will have to sit next to a stranger because there is someone who doesn't want to sit next to a member of the opposite gender is unacceptable.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby ucim » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:12 pm UTC

44 stone lions wrote:The expense of creating a program that could integrate into existing systems whilst also being robust and reliable enough would be large
We're not thinking this through. The expense could be shared by others with seating preferences, such as "I want to sit next to a hot chick". How much of a premium would that cost? It could become an airline profit center, like paying for a pillow, extra leg room, or the privilege of bringing a tote bag on board.
Spoiler:
Reminds me of a joke:
Three guys die together and go to heaven.... St. Peter says, "We only have one rule...don't step on the ducks as they are God's favorite creation."

They enter heaven and see ducks everywhere, and it's almost impossible to not step on a duck. The first guy accidentally steps on one, and soon here comes St. Peter with the biggest, ugliest woman he'd ever seen...

St. Peter chains them together and says, "Your punishment is to be chained to this ugly woman forever."

The next day the second guy steps on a duck...Sure enough, St. Peter comes with another ugly woman and chains them together.

Seeing this, the third guy is very, very careful. He goes for months and doesn't step on any ducks. One day, St. Peter comes along with this beautiful woman: Blonde, blue-eyed, very young and very sexy. He chains them together and leaves without a word.

The man remarks, "I wonder what I did to deserve this good fortune?" And the Blonde says, "I don't know about you, but I stepped on a duck.
Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

44 stone lions
Posts: 90
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 5:57 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby 44 stone lions » Sat Jun 20, 2015 3:36 pm UTC

Actually yeah it reminds me of a long haul fight I once took on my own were I ended up seated next to a guy who was a model railway enthusiast, he must have spent at least 6 hours of the flight telling me about every intricate detail of every model railway layout he had ever made (turns out he'd made A LOT), I'm sure he would have talked for longer but I pretended to fall asleep. I would gladly pay extra never to experience that again.

User avatar
BlackSails
Posts: 5315
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 5:48 am UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby BlackSails » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:51 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Brother in law is Israeli, Sephardi. He hates the Haredi; they don't pay tax and they don't join the army yet they think they should have a right to dictate how all the other Israelis have to behave. Really, the Israeli-Arabs are more supportive of Israel than the Haredi and Hassidim are.


Most israelis hate them. The general feeling is that they dont do their part. At some point in the last 500 years, ultra orthodox jews came up with the idea that studying torah should be a full time job, to the exclusion of all else. The rabbis before this time often had day jobs, like winemaker or doctor. They were involved with the surrounding non-jews, often being involved in local or national politics. They wouldnt scam or cheat non-jews just because they were non-jews. The current situation is very strange.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Izawwlgood » Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:24 pm UTC

BlackSails wrote:They were involved with the surrounding non-jews, often being involved in local or national politics. They wouldnt scam or cheat non-jews just because they were non-jews. The current situation is very strange.
Wait... wat?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5403
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby mosc » Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:04 pm UTC

he means would, not wouldn't.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 24, 2015 5:37 pm UTC

I read it as saying that back when they were so involved, they wouldn't cheat goyim, with the implication being that now they do cheat goyim.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: How can I express my vary logical arguments?

Postby Sableagle » Wed Aug 05, 2015 10:05 pm UTC

What happens when you respond to stuff from 6 pages ago?

This happens.

Be current before you chime in, please.

- Az


Spoiler:
Replies to page 1 (so far):

The Washington Post? Isn't that owned by Rupert Murdoch? *Google check* Oh. Bought out in 2013, apparently, so no it's not. In that case it may actually be worth refuting something in it. If it was the Sun here I'd advise you not to bother because people either believe everything in it with religious loyalty or know it's a load of crap.

jewish_scientist wrote:... Jewish law that a man and women should not touch each other casually, ...
"A man and women," eh? Lucky guy. :roll:


jewish_scientist wrote:It is not the term orthodox that I find offensive, its the prefix ultra-. If the articles got rid of that prefix then I would have no problem.

What I am trying to say is that people at the furthest ends of a spectrum are extremists. People at the furthest ends of the religious spectrum are horrible people. Therefor, Orthodox Jews are not extremest. We may be more to the left or right on the spectrum, depending on how you define it, but we are not at the ends.
Unstated assumption: Orthodox Jews are never horrible people.

The reason that I keep writing 'and' in bold is because the prohibitions go both ways. A woman should not shake hands with or sit next to a man. Reread the above paragraph but replace the words 'man' with 'woman' and 'woman' with 'man'. The logic still holds.
This was what reminded me to check who owned the paper. It was a really obvious flaw in her argument.

If the actions taken by men and women are identical and the logic behind the actions identical, the actions are not sexist. Therefor, society does not tolerate Judaism's bias against women. Therefor, Berrett's conclusion is wrong.

Women are not just powerful sexual stimulants, the are THE sexual stimulant.


Your rebuttal rebutted itself there.

Having said something about Murdoch papers, I find it ironic that the first search result for "rotten meat flies mullah" is the Daily Mail, aka the Daily Hate Mail, the paper that hates everyone who isn't white, British, middle-class, married with children, Church of England, heterosexual, xenophobic, Europhobic, homophobic, ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -meat.html

His name yields a slightly more respectable result:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 21803.html

You reminded me of him. That's not a good sign.

You want to know what else is a source of sexual arousal? There's a Facebook page for that. I'm not going to count them for you.

You asserted that all sexual attraction is due to women, and that implies that all unclean thoughts, all unmarried sex, all sexual assaults and everything else are due to women. That's the argument for making women wear black circus tents in some places.

If you want a real-world illustrative example of Orthodox Judaism leading men to act in a particular way with clearly-expressed prejudice against women,

http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/12/09/bic ... odox-jews/

... there you go. Women on bicycles are Too Damn Sexy and cause Jewish men to think unclean thoughts. I'm not sure whether that's "cause Jewish men to notice them, which is more attention than a Jewish man should have to give any woman," or "cause Jewish men to think they're attractive, which a Jewish man should never think about a Gentile woman." I hope it's not as bad as the old problem some priests used to have when they were on crowded subway trains after all those years in seclusion and found out that just being that close to that many people gave them raging boners, but I suppose it could be. I've seen a ridiculous number of near-collisions on one road junction caused by three female tourists being near it for a few minutes in Syria.

The article doesn't make explicit that they'd have been fine with male-only cycle lanes, but there's nothing in there about Jewish women being distracted and led astray by lean, sexy, young Gentile men with tidy hair riding bikes. Lanes put in there for cyclists' safety have been blasted off the roads by men wanting to prevent women from cycling at all because the men can't help thinking lustful thoughts when women cycle.

I note that nobody was charged with anything. Under UK law, if no arrestable offence has been committed, a Citizen's Arrest turns into illegal detention. If the lane-repainting crew were prevented from leaving, they could have made a legal complaint. If they were compelled to move away, they could have filed a complaint for abduction. Whether they did make complaints is also not clear.

jewish_scientist wrote:The point is not that touching always causes lustful thought, but that it can. Can you honestly say that physical contact, of any kind, between a man and a woman has 0% chance of causing lustful thought in one of them?
Better never have sex in the shower once you do get married. All that moving, while standing up together? That might lead you to think about dancing.

What is very interesting though, is that when a man's wife becomes ritually clean, he is required to 'know' her.
What if she doesn't want to?

jewish_scientist wrote:Do you agree with me that in terms of mental health, men and women are different? E.g. a therapist should take the patient's gender into account when deciding what techniques and therapies are appropriate.
Do you agree that, in terms of mental health, Andrea, Beatrice, Claudia, Deborah, Eleanora, Felicity, Gabrielle, Henrietta, Isobel, Juliet, Katherine, Louise, Melissa, Natalia, Olivia, Penelope, Quiana, Rachel, Sarah, Tabitha, Ursula, Victoria, Whitney, Xanthe, Yasmin and Zendaya are all different, and a therapist should take the patient into account when deciding what techniques and therapies are appropriate?

If you come up with 30 personality variables, assess 2000 men and 2000 women to give each person one score for each variable and plot a 30-dimensional scatter-graph of them, you'll get one blob. The pastel-blue "girl" dots and the blood-red "boy" dots won't have the same densities in many parts, there'll be clumping and gradients and so on and there may be some generalisations you can draw from the results for those 4000 people, but there'll be male subjects who are off in the "female" direction from the densest part of the female cloud and female subjects who are off in the "male" direction from the densest part of the male cloud, and if you repeated that test for Oslo, rural Norway, Stockholm, rural Sweden, Dopenhagen, rural Denmark, Berlin, rural Germany, the Schwarzwald, Paris, rural France, rural Brittany, rural Languedoc, London, Kent, Penzance, Devon, Manchester, Cumbria, York, the Dales, Glasgow, the Western Highlands, Cardiff and Pembrokeshire you'd get different clouds. You may well find that the "male to female" vector for one region is beyond perpendicular to that in another, and that's just a very few white European and Scandinavian groups. Add places as diverse, genetically and culturally, as Tibet, Viet Nam, Tasmania, Namibia, Peru, Arizona and Iran and you won't get "men are like this and women are like that" to be consistent from place to place.

jewish_scientist wrote:That phrase suggest that if the benefits are greater than the cost, then society should look down upon the touching of men and women. You said that you would argue on this, so let's argue. Tell me why you think allowing men and women to touch each other causally will benefit society.
Nothing has only one effect. It's not about the world is made a better place by a man and woman being allowed to shake hands or use the same grab-hold on a rattly bus. It's whether the world is made better by them being allowed to do that than it would be made by prohibiting it[/u]. By kicking up a fuss, the man with the poor self-control is creating stress, expense and delay for a lot of people. All he has to do is siddown and shaddup, and 500 other people could simply travel on the flight they've booked and boarded. This religious insistence that the world must rearrange itself to spare him the knowledge that a woman's thigh is separated from his sweaty hand by a mere 12 inches of air and 3 layers of cloth is causing problems on a vastly greater scale than it can possibly be solving them. If it bothers him that much, he should meet up with other men like him in advance and they should block-book seats so they can all sit together in a pork-free sausage-fest.

jewish_scientist wrote:I am sorry that I did not clearly state my question.

You believe that there are inherent physical and physiological differences between men and women. Is it so much of a stretch then to say that there are spiritual differences between men and women. You sill see how this all connects.


Please define "spiritual" in terms of molecular biology.

jewish_scientist wrote:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Translation of "Unclean"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Imagine trying to explain what the word 'right' means to a man who only speaks Russian. Depending on the context, 'right' can be a direction (Turn right at the stop sing), a philosophical principle (The rights of a citizen must be valued), or a moral evaluation (Lying is not the right thing to do). In addition, in different philosophies 'right' has different definitions. There is simple no way to explain the word to him without a lengthy discourse.

The same is for 'unclean', 'stoning', and 'Supreme Court of Israel' (it is going to come up below). Without writing several papers that are worthy of being published in a respected journal, I simple cannot explain the word. This is what is meant when people say, "Lost in translation."
We can substitute "clockwise about your vertical axis" for the first, "legal entitlements" for the second and "correct" for the third. We can use "left," "prohibitions" and "wrong" for their opposites. "Wrong" can be a verb and a noun as well as an adjective, but "wrong" as a noun means "a thing that is wrong," and "wrong" as a verb means "to do a wrong thing to," so we're not using three different meanings of "wrong." They're all based on the adjective. We also have multiple words for things like "sinful," "immoral," "criminal" and so on, but they're all bad things to call someone just for a natural part of life. I know someone whose breath STINKS because of his unhealthy diet, but I don't say he's sinful, immoral or criminal just because he exhales.

As for "stoning," come off it. Just come off it. There is [b]one
way you can kill someone by throwing stones at them, and that's to throw stones at them until they consequently die. Leave McGyver out of it. Leave fist sizes and wrist sizes and distances out of it. Stoning someone to death is stoning someone to death.

... how the idea of a woman separating from her husband because she is 'unclean' effects their marriage.
"Affects," with an "a." We have two words, "affect" and "effect," each with more than one meaning. What you just wrote makes no bloody sense whatsoever. If you're going to argue about different meanings of "stoning" and "unclean" you ought to try to get things like that right. https://xkcd.com/326/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Capital Crime~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When the 'Supreme Court of Israel' is not in existence, capital punishment may not be executed by any court. 'Supreme Court of Israel' refers to the court as established by the Torah, meaning that no modern court of the State of Israel qualifies.
They probably ought to knock it off the statute books, then, eh?

This is a super, super small detail that in no way affect anything else on this tread; Jews believe that Shabbat is on Saturdays.
A rather larger issue: do you believe people should be prevented from doing anything even remotely like work between pre-sunset Friday and post-sunset Saturday? There was a case recently of a Jewish family suing the neighbours for having security lighting. One of the PIR sensors could see the Jewish family's side door, meaning if they used that door during Friday night the light would come on, and that's symbolically lighting a fire, which is prohibited, so they demanded that their neighbours disable their home security to allow them to use their side door on Friday nights. Do you believe they should have won that case?

The current code of ethics that American society uses in sexual matter was created by the Sexual Revolution. The Sexual Revolution had one axiom at its center: Anything sexual that all immediately effected parties consent to is moral. This was used to argue that the restrictions of the past should not be followed; but this is a two way street. Just as the Sexual Revolution says that society should respect the decision of people who choose to experience certain forms of sexuality, society must also respect the decision of people who choose not to experience certain forms of sexuality. The motivation for the decision is irrelevant; societies that follow the morals set by the Sexual Revolution must respect the decisions of people who take opposite approaches to sexuality. That is why I am allowed to putting an burden on society; society has already said that it will accept such burdens.
There's already a freedom from sexuality. We do have laws against rape, sexual assault, indecent assault, molestation and so on.
If you want to class "being in an adjacent seat" as a sexual act ...

... you have deeper problems than I am qualified to address.

A side-note: searching for references to religious laws concerning rape in the Bible (and thus, presumably, in the Torah), I found one (1) such ruling. It said that rape victims shouldn't be stoned to death for adultery because it wasn't their fault that they committed adultery. Presumably, there was no need to stone the rapist to death for rape if he was already being stoned to death for adultery, but there was nothing about compensation, her child being entitled to inherit his wealth or marital rape. Whoever wrote that book may just possibly have not given a damn about rape victims' wellbeing.

The only man/woman who may 'know' a woman/man is a spouse who has a deep emotional connection with their spouse. There is no way for this to be a commodity because simply cannot be traded.
Oh, wow. Maybe that wasn't a side-note after all. Do spouses have a right to refuse sexual intercourse in your religion? If that religious position clashes with the law of the land, which position do you choose to follow?

If you consider the physical unity of marriage an incentive that is destructive to society, then you must say that all other forms of unity in a marriage is an incentive that is destructive to society because all of these the same purpose.
Wow. Incantation, puff of smoke, 50ft strawman. That was FAST.

It is required that a Jew transgress any commandment if there is even a remote chance that doing so could save someone's life. The only exceptions to this is the prohibition to idolatry, adultery, and murder.
I was aware of the "nothing to eat but bacon-and-cheddar sandwiches" exception, but ... murder? http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/21/yassin/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 148548.stm

Not included in the above: lots of "Well said, elasto," "Well said, Copper Bezel," "Well said, krogoth" and so on.
Last edited by Sableagle on Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:03 pm UTC

Sableagle, I don't wish to be rude or anything but you keep popping up in threads and responding to posts that happened a few pages ago. In the Srs Bsns Rules Thread under Number 9, it's requested that you read the thread before you comment on it.
Rule 9 - Reading Threads is Serious Business
Knowing what is currently happening in a thread is the most basic of courtesies. Before posting, be sure that you're read the entirety of a thread. In the case where that is significantly long (5 pages or more) be sure to have read the first post and at the very least the most recent two pages. Egregious violators will be warned and their posts removed.

We're all interested in what you're here to say, but with this thread and a couple of others, you're pretty late to the party (esp. after we re-purposed the Ethics In Research that Sabredog had started). Also Jewish_Scientist appears to not be replying to comments here anymore so I'm filing this one under 'Lost Cause'.
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Aug 05, 2015 11:19 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Please define "spiritual" in terms of molecular biology.
Also, please don't use my field to bludgeon people with your point, kthx. If you want religion to stay out of science, you should afford religion the same courtesy. 'Spiritual' is distinctly not a scientific term, so this point you're trying to make is no different than someone saying 'define morality without God'.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
EMTP
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 7:39 pm UTC
Location: Elbow deep in (mostly) other people's blood.

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby EMTP » Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:54 am UTC

BlackSails wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Brother in law is Israeli, Sephardi. He hates the Haredi; they don't pay tax and they don't join the army yet they think they should have a right to dictate how all the other Israelis have to behave. Really, the Israeli-Arabs are more supportive of Israel than the Haredi and Hassidim are.


Most israelis hate them. The general feeling is that they dont do their part. At some point in the last 500 years, ultra orthodox jews came up with the idea that studying torah should be a full time job, to the exclusion of all else. The rabbis before this time often had day jobs, like winemaker or doctor. They were involved with the surrounding non-jews, often being involved in local or national politics. They wouldnt scam or cheat non-jews just because they were non-jews. The current situation is very strange.


Indeed it is strange, but not inexplicable. The Haredi are heavily subsidized by the state. At the outset, this was fairly explicitly related to their higher birth rate and the demographic advantage to the the Jewish majority/minority (of voters/of people). Now, it probably has quite a bit to do with the power of the Haredi as a cohesive voting bloc:

The government before the current one included no ultra-Orthodox parties. So the secular Yesh Atid party, part of that coalition, was able to push through a law criminalising draft-avoiders and cutting benefits. The new coalition formed last month by Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister includes two Haredi parties. These have been promised a repeal of that law and the restoration of benefits to their previous level. The economics ministry, which runs employment policy, and the Knesset finance committee, which has the final say on benefits, are controlled by senior Haredi politicians.


Going back to the original question: is society making a mistake in the degree to which it accommodates the ultra-orthodox?

I think this is actually leading to a fairly profound issue with multiculturalism, namely, what does it mean to be tolerant? Should we be tolerant of intolerance? Can we really even aspire to a viewpoint according to which my neighbor's culture (or nation, or faith) is just as valid and legitimate as mine, given that our morality is rooted in our culture, and that we can't really make our morality -- opposition to sexism, racism, cruelty, enslavement, what have you -- completely subjective and binding only upon those who agree with us?

Moving for someone is an accommodation of their religious beliefs. And we can say we aren't obligated to accommodate someone's religious practice, but we know from history that majoritarian rules that ignore minority beliefs can be fairly brutal in their effects. We've learned that, and so we don't schedule college admissions interviews exclusively on Saturdays, just as we don't (and wouldn't think to) schedule them exclusively on Sundays.

In practice, as well as (I would argue) in principle, we make these decision based on the balance between the burden on the religious person and the burden placed on society to accommodate them. I think few of us would have a problem exchanging seats to accommodate someone whose faith forbid sitting on the right side of an airplane. But to participate in upholding a regulation that we see as sexist in intent and in effect, to participate in a set of rituals that are inspired by a Weltanschauung that fairly obviously views female sexuality as a menacing threat to be controlled, is a much heavier burden, because it offends our deeply held beliefs.

For a progressive, in other words, changing seats to enforce gender segregation is participating in something we view as immoral.

It seems to me that in this specific case, the tiny minority who won't sit next to someone of the opposite sex should politely ask one or two people if they will switch seats, and then leave the plane. But there is no final answer. The multiculturalists are right that you can't completely separate tolerance of people from tolerance of their cultural beliefs and practices. Reasonable accommodation should be offered where practical, bearing in mind that "good manners consist of petty sacrifices."

But the majority also has a right to live their lives according to their own values, including the values of tolerance and non-discrimination. Minorities have to respect the majority as well.
"Reasonable – that is, human – men will always be capable of compromise, but men who have dehumanized themselves by becoming the blind worshipers of an idea or an ideal are fanatics whose devotion to abstractions makes them the enemies of life."
-- Alan Watts, "The Way of Zen"

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:08 am UTC

Wow. Breathtakingly eloquent.

+5 internets!


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests