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

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

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby krogoth » Fri May 15, 2015 2:17 am UTC

mosc wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:The short answer; I am a Chabad Lubavitch ba'al teshuva.

Well that should have explained everything to everyone right there.

from the school of thought of "Wisdom, Understanding, and Knowledge" and a "master of repentance"
is probably how I would word this translation It's not really surprising people don't have a detailed knowledge of every different version of every different religion is it? This is why I had to ask before "is this basically the old testament?"

mosc wrote:You're from a sect of Judaism, my religion, which is not mainstream and opposes many commonly held Jewish values let alone modern secular opinions on equality and tolerance. Your sect is deeply sexist on more levels than are being discussed on this thread.

The problem becomes, we know, to quote the brutality honest Dawkins “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
We know the writings are homophobic, at least in the way I've seen it translated and the associated meanings. Though I've also heard that these "meanings" were bigots twisting the story during the ages/translations and they have stuck. for Eg.

The story of Sodom has nothing to do with gang rape. It is a mistranslation from the Hebrew. The word is used in only two places in the Old Testament and is translated to mean “know” as sexual. The many other times it is used it always means to “get to know” or “learn about,” etc. The first time in when it is used to describe a young lady brought to the dying King David to keep him warm, “he did not know her.”

This is just from a random person on the internet so I can't know (hehe) if the translations are given intention or if they are left open/accurate, only the person who first took these notes would know, and either they left it easy to misconstrue, someone else deliberately changed it, or it's and excuse for why it's so bad.

The hard bit is getting someone of the faith to tell us exactly what questionable (re:terrible) bits they are following, why they know the intentional meanings so accurately, then we can look at the evidence of reality to see if this 'perfect word' is perfect or good.(it appears to be neither).

mosc wrote:That said when you attest beliefs like religious services are run by only by men and the sound of a women singing is slanderous I think the modern world would have larger complaints than seating.

Really? People took the women shouldn't be heard in the church as literally can't even sing? FFS. Of course the whole woman cannot teach men but should ask her husband in the home sort of thing is also very sexist. Though that's letters to Paul/timothy so new testament. It's would take me more time than I care to spend writing out a comprehensive list. Maybe if there was a detailing of a week in J_s shoes and how he interacted with women during this time and why, we could point out more sexist things, but I'm sure I would end up with a nice list of things to reflect on if someone did the same to me.
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.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby mosc » Fri May 15, 2015 7:07 pm UTC

dg61 wrote:EDIT: Also, my understanding is that it's not unusual for baalei teshuva to have more ties to the secular world than most "born frum" types both through their families and through pre-religious social circles. This can extend to having a larger internet presence. So a Chabad Lubavitch baal teshuva having a internet presence is unusual but not improbable or implausible.
Makes sense. I'm not familiar with all the different flavors, some are small cult-like circles, but it does seem JS here is from perhaps the most open minded flavor of Hasidism. I suppose I wouldn't want to be associated in ANY way with Haredi Jews just because I call myself a Jew so perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt as well. Like you said, if he followed more mainstream Hasidic beliefs he probably would be too shut off to talk to us.

For those of you who aren't following this, basically I'm saying there's as much difference between an average self-described Jew and a Haredi Jew as there is between an average self-described Christian and a Jahovah's witness. Both represent the lunatic fringe of their religions. Most Christians don't share hardly any beliefs with Jahovah's witnesses similar to most Jews not sharing hardly any beliefs with Haredi.

krogoth wrote:from the school of thought of "Wisdom, Understanding, and Knowledge" and a "master of repentance"
is probably how I would word this translation It's not really surprising people don't have a detailed knowledge of every different version of every different religion is it? This is why I had to ask before "is this basically the old testament?"

We know the writings are homophobic, at least in the way I've seen it translated and the associated meanings. Though I've also heard that these "meanings" were bigots twisting the story during the ages/translations and they have stuck. for Eg.

From a christian perspective, Judaism is basically the old testament without the new except that christians believe much of the old testament was invalidated by christ and his church. Not that Jews follow all of Leviticus (though following some of that is why Haredi Jews are considered so extreme) but there are basic tenants laid out in the old testament (and therefor Judaism) that Christians believe are no longer valid.

I guess you can count me as one of those who believes a lot of the meanings were bigots twisting the story, or just generally being too literalist about how a person thousands of years ago was expressing thought through a much more limited understanding of their physical existence. You can use the bible to defend any position so no, I don't think it is inherently bigoted, just obtuse.

krogoth wrote:
mosc wrote:That said when you attest beliefs like religious services are run by only by men and the sound of a women singing is slanderous I think the modern world would have larger complaints than seating.

Really? People took the women shouldn't be heard in the church as literally can't even sing? FFS. Of course the whole woman cannot teach men but should ask her husband in the home sort of thing is also very sexist. Though that's letters to Paul/timothy so new testament. It's would take me more time than I care to spend writing out a comprehensive list. Maybe if there was a detailing of a week in J_s shoes and how he interacted with women during this time and why, we could point out more sexist things, but I'm sure I would end up with a nice list of things to reflect on if someone did the same to me.

There are probably a million or so Haredi jews in the world that come in many flavors so it's somewhat unfair to generalize but the vast majority hold to almost a feudal social structure where women and men have very divergent roles. They value study and spirituality above almost all else but limit these pursuits almost exclusively to men. Women are excluded from any number of activities and are tasked with running families and more often than not in practice are the main income generators as well. The sound of a woman singing is so disruptive to the spiritual state of a Haredi male that it is completely banned except within the immediate family circle. Men singing? No such restrictions. They do not mirror the supposedly disruptive nature of casual inter-gender relations by restricting a man singing where a woman would hear.
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
krogoth
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby krogoth » Fri May 15, 2015 9:58 pm UTC

"You can use the bible to defend any position so no, I don't think it is inherently bigoted, just obtuse."

I'm drinking so i won't make this too long
Basically the bible has some good shit, but you need a moral compass from somewhere else, maybe society(including your own parents) to help you know how to treat this half shit half good book.

edit: you can't use it as "the good book" if it isn't
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.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby CorruptUser » Sat May 16, 2015 12:58 am UTC

Umm, "Haredi" are ultra-orthodox, "Chassid" are the messianics. To outsiders, the differences are minimal, but to them it's huge. Chabad/Lubavitch are the most friendly of all the Chassidim, but they still worship their founder as Jesus the Messiah. Both of them have dynasties within each that openly hate each other.

Most Jews harbor some animosity towards both groups as they are viewed as bickering over pilpul (Yiddish for 'esoteric bullshit') and causing divisions among Judaism in the worst possible times. Israeli Jews openly despise them, because they don't join the army and don't pay tax but they are such a powerful political group they still get benefits (this is the one thing the Haredim and Chassidim unite on).

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 May 16, 2015 3:15 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote: Israeli Jews openly despise them, because they don't join the army and don't pay tax
The last I heard on this, this was about to change. Any word on if the Haredi now have compulsory service?

Blech, every time I read about these people I get annoyed and angry. There was a Lubavitcher family down the street from me growing up, and I grew to loath Saturday mornings when they'd come knocking trying to get me to make a minyan.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby jewish_scientist » Fri May 22, 2015 6:06 am UTC

A lot of people have posted since I last visited this thread. I like to look at everything another person wrote and then write a response addressing all the points that person made. However, if I tried to do that here, this post would be so huge no one will read it, which is understandable. Instead, I am going to write a comment on a single point in each post since my last.

Izawwlgood: I have actually not been in packed subway car, but I have seen that Seinfeld episode about it. I could be wrong, but I think that the average person would tend to not have inappropriate thoughts in such a situation.

krogoth: On all of the trains that I have been on, a person can change their set whenever they wanted to. The same with the buses I have been on. I have not been an airplane, but I think that you would not be allowed to switch sets. If I am wrong, and experience has shown that I probably am, then the only time a problem would happen is when all the sets are full and no one wants to switch.

Copper Bezel: Imagine you are at a pool and decide to time how long a child spends under the water in total. In the end, you found that the child spent 5 minutes underwater (I am exaggerating, but it does not affect the core of the argument). If the child spent 5 minutes underwater in a single dive, they would be in serious trouble; but if a child dived 30 times, each one 10 seconds long, then they are alright. The total time spent underwater does not matter, only the amount of time per dive does. If a man (woman) is in the same room as a very physically attractive woman (man) for 1 minute, he (she) could probable keep his (her) mind focused on something else with ease. Doing the same thing for 3 hours is much harder (again, exaggerating, but it does not affect the core of the argument).

krogoth #2: I completely agree with the first part, but do not understand what the second part means.*

BattleMoose: Usually, (but not always) the laws are not based on mathematical formulas. They tend to be in the format of, 'If A will happen in about B minutes, then do C.'

Copper Bezel #2: I am really sorry, but I cannot figure out what you are saying. I tend to get confused when sentences start having more then 3 commas.*

mosc: Your entire post is basically a large ad hominem based on stereotypes. I will not dignify that post by giving a longer response.

dg61: What Chabad-Labavitch is renowned for is setting up Temples (Chabad Houses) all over the world and trying to encourage Jews to learn more about themselves. When I say 'all over the world', I am not exaggerating. http://www.chabad.org/centers/default_cdo/jewish/Centers.htm

krogoth #3: What is interesting is that in the story of Sodom, 'know' is used in the sense of sexual intercourse. The people of the city were planning on raping Lott's guests; but that is not what they received punishment for. Being rapists did not exactly help their case, but that was not their principle crime. Sodom and the neighboring cities were destroyed so violently for theft. To be clear, this is not ordinary theft. I know a few examples of what the people of those five cities did, but this one really captures all the people's horrible qualities.

Imagine a foreigner moves his family to one of these cities. The people in the city would begin to buy everything he has at incredible prices. What the foreigner paid a copper coin for; the locals would pay a silver or gold coin for. Soon the foreigner has few to no possessions left except a bag full of gold and silver. Thinking he is a very fortunate man, he goes to buy the things he needs to start his business, food for his family, a house to sleep in, etc. To his surprise, no one will accept his coins as payment. You see, the coins given to the foreigner as payment were marked differently than the coins everyone else used. Every vendor knows that only an outsider would try to pay with those coins, so they all refused to sell him anything. Slowly, the foreigner and his family die of starvation or exposure. Then the locals take the coins off the dead bodies and wait for the next family.

Just a few things to point out:
-If any single person had accepted the coins as currency, then the plan would not work.
-No single action was a crime by itself (the coins would be in a public domain so they could 'legally' be collected by anyone). This means that they did not even think what they were doing was wrong, which in turns means that they would never repent for their crimes.
-Death by starvation is one of the slowest and most painful ways to die, but everyone in the town had no problem hearing and seeing men, women and children as they cried out in pain as their body to digest itself.
-This did not happen on one special occasion. It was expected that the people living in the city would act this way to foreigners. Some of the elements needed for the plan were written up as laws.
-This is not the only sin the people of Sodom did. It is just one example of one way they committed theft. Think of any law needed for a just society and the people of those five cities violated it casually and probably made the opposite into a law.


mosc wrote:I'm not familiar with all the different flavors, some are small cult-like circles, but it does seem JS here is from perhaps the most open minded flavor of Hasidism.

No, simply no. A person cannot be deeply insulting and reinforce stereotypes and then say 'sorry.' To anyone who read mosc's first post, the one I said I would not respond to, Google 'what is chabad' and click the first link that is not to Wikipedia. Read what is there and reread what mosc wrote. Frankly, I understand and agree with what the moderators did to you. I bet a lot of J Witnesses will to.

krogoth #4: Do you remember the mouse over text for comic 1047? A very similar thing goes for interpreting the Bible. Anytime you think the Bible tells you to [horrible thing], put the book down and back away from your desk; something has gone horrible wrong.

CorruptUser: There is a few things wrong in your first paragraph. 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.

Izawwlgood: I do not have anything to say. Seems a little weird that I just wrote something for all the other posts and for the last one I have nothing.

This post is over 1,100 words long. I feel a mixture of pride and shame; but I do not know why I feel either one.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

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 » Fri May 22, 2015 12:52 pm UTC

Okay, I see a bit better where you're coming from in the argument that trains and buses don't present a greater risk than planes, and that does clarify a bit what the intended purpose of the prohibition is. Specifically, I got the sense that while avoiding physical contact was for the purpose of avoiding sexual thoughts, we were still looking at the main purpose of avoiding adjacent seats as avoiding physical contact.

In a certain frame of mind, yes, it does seem that a person might be more likely to have sexual thoughts about someone if they're sitting next to them for three hours vs. being packed against them in a subway car but actively thinking about not thinking about sex. Not for everyone, but perhaps for a majority. The difference does seem marginal, in the sense that declaring one acceptable and the other straight out is fairly questionable. But, eh.

I was actually raised by pentecostal protestant Christians, and I didn't reject the belief system until adulthood. There is an ostensible admonition against sexual thoughts there, too - people like to quote the bit from Matthew, "But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." This was a thing that I did, at one time, believe. So in a sense, I understand the perspective. If we were talking about that as a core issue, as opposed to specific practical prohibitions that do not seem to have much bearing on it, I think I would be slightly more sympathetic to the argument, and not just because I come from a Christian background, which of course favors intentions over observances.

At the same time, it actually makes it very difficult for me to continue discussing this issue as a matter of sexism per se. Of course the themes get used in a lot of sexist contexts - men effectively blaming women for their own foibles. But to me, those problems are enough on their own, before you bring sexism into it. It's very easy to get people to hate themselves for allowing themselves pleasure. The diet industry makes this one of its strongest marketing tactics. It's disgusting when they do it, and it's disgusting when religious leaders do, too.

The unhealthy attitudes toward sex and self can be an element of sexism, but I don't even think that's the main problem here. I think the attitudes on the surface look like very typical sexism, and enough that I don't think it's really possible to distinguish them from sexist motivations - a person could be forgiven for assuming as much. But I think that even the justification you're presenting isn't necessarily better, even if we assume a world of spherical cows in which this symmetric prohibition can't have sexist implications. It's still unhealthy, it's still insulting, and the person making the demands in the given scenario is still being very rude. It's more or less doing all of the same work that sexism does.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby CorruptUser » Fri May 22, 2015 5:09 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:CorruptUser: There is a few things wrong in your first paragraph. 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.


I'm an Orthodox Jew, who spent a lot of time around Chabad. Well, sort of. Conservadox/apatheist at this point. I don't need no stinkin sources. Yeah the Hasidim don't exactly worship their founders but every last one insists that their guy was the Messiah; he's born into every generation, and it's up to the generation to be "worthy", but the point still stands.

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

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby LaserGuy » Fri May 22, 2015 11:43 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:krogoth #3: What is interesting is that in the story of Sodom, 'know' is used in the sense of sexual intercourse. The people of the city were planning on raping Lott's guests; but that is not what they received punishment for. Being rapists did not exactly help their case, but that was not their principle crime. Sodom and the neighboring cities were destroyed so violently for theft. To be clear, this is not ordinary theft. I know a few examples of what the people of those five cities did, but this one really captures all the people's horrible qualities.

Imagine a foreigner moves his family to one of these cities. The people in the city would begin to buy everything he has at incredible prices. What the foreigner paid a copper coin for; the locals would pay a silver or gold coin for. Soon the foreigner has few to no possessions left except a bag full of gold and silver. Thinking he is a very fortunate man, he goes to buy the things he needs to start his business, food for his family, a house to sleep in, etc. To his surprise, no one will accept his coins as payment. You see, the coins given to the foreigner as payment were marked differently than the coins everyone else used. Every vendor knows that only an outsider would try to pay with those coins, so they all refused to sell him anything. Slowly, the foreigner and his family die of starvation or exposure. Then the locals take the coins off the dead bodies and wait for the next family.


This... doesn't really work in the real world. In fact, if this were the case, you would probably find these cities would be overrun by shrewd capitalists able to exploit the fact that the people of Sodom would buy garbage for gold coins, and then just leave with the gold afterward. Or, for that matter, someone within the city itself could easily accumulate all of these resources themselves (by selling stuff to the "foreigners" in exchange for it), and then just leave with all of the gold. Unless they were also physically preventing people from leaving, there's no way that this scam could ever work in practice.

-This is not the only sin the people of Sodom did. It is just one example of one way they committed theft. Think of any law needed for a just society and the people of those five cities violated it casually and probably made the opposite into a law.


Again, this doesn't work in the real world. There are certain kinds of rules that pretty much have to be in place for large numbers of people to be able to work and live together. If you had a city where murder was legal, what you'd find is that the city would either pretty quickly become empty as everyone left, or some sort of de facto law against murder would get set up and would be enforced at the community level.

krogoth #4: Do you remember the mouse over text for comic 1047? A very similar thing goes for interpreting the Bible. Anytime you think the Bible tells you to [horrible thing], put the book down and back away from your desk; something has gone horrible wrong.


Not necessarily. It could just be that the authors of the Bible were horrible people, at least by modern standards. There's no reason to apply some sort of principle of charity here--our understanding of morality (as well as our science and whatnot) has improved and evolved since Biblical times, and we are able to recognize the flaws in Bronze Age morality.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby jewish_scientist » Sat May 23, 2015 8:41 am UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:The difference does seem marginal, in the sense that declaring one acceptable and the other straight out is fairly questionable. But, eh.

I think that you misunderstand the law. It is allowed for a man and a woman to sit next to each other on public transport, even if they are strangers. The question is, 'if a person feels uncomfortable sitting next to someone of the opposite sex, to what extent should society accommodate them?'
For example; a subway car has all of the sits taken and several people standing. Half the car has only female passengers and half the car has only male passengers. I know that this is very unlikely to happen, but it simplifies the situation and does not change the argument. At a stop, no one gets off the train and 1 woman named Alice enters. Alice is not comfortable being at the end of the cart that has male passengers, so she goes to the other end. Her decision has made her more content, but made the women in the car less content. By choosing to stand on this side, Alice has made it more crowded. Is the amount of contentment Alice gains worth more than the than the burden placed on the women? We need to ask the same question regarding a similar situation that happens on a plane. To do so, we need to analyze several factors including, but not limited to, amount of contentment gained, amount of people accommodated, size of burden, amount of people burdened, morality accepted by society, established customs and norms of society, laws of the government etc. etc.

Copper Bezel wrote: It's very easy to get people to hate themselves for allowing themselves pleasure. The diet industry makes this one of its strongest marketing tactics. It's disgusting when they do it, and it's disgusting when religious leaders do, too.

I think the rest of this conversation will go better if I describe how Judaism views sexuality. First, Judaism does not see physical pleasure as being inherently evil. Because it allows humans to partner with the Creator, its misuse is a very severe transgression. I am not saying that the only purpose of intimacy is to produce children; I am showing that sexuality is an unparalleled entity. In the context of a marriage, it is responsible for the emotional and spiritual bond between a husband and wife. Sexuality is used to create pleasure, which in turn is used to strengthen a husband's and wife's relationship. When it is used by a man (or woman) for pleasure and recreation, it does nothing more than teaches him (or her) to view women as objects to derive gratification from. Sexuality is used to be a man (or woman) to dehumanize women (or men) in order to generate self-indulging ecstasy.

The second aspect you need to understand is that sin is not a binary. Actions are not simple labeled as good or bad and then counted by the Creator. Nearly infinite factors are considered when the Creator judges a person's actions. A 16 year old on the Las Vegas strip will be judged in a completely different way than a 65 year old in his rabbi's house. Also, if a thought 'pops' into a person's head, it is not a sin; it is a test. If he dwells and focuses on it, he loses merit; if he rejects it and diverts his attention, he gains merit. The youth from the example above would receive immeasurable rewards for passing the test while losing only a little if he fails. I am assuming he did not put himself in this situation just to be tested. The opposite is true for the elder, sort of. The test of rejecting immoral thoughts is always considered a great challenge; he would receive much merit, but not as much as the youth.

CorruptUser wrote:Umm, "Haredi" are ultra-orthodox, "Chassid" are the messianics. To outsiders, the differences are minimal, but to them it's huge. Chabad/Lubavitch are the most friendly of all the Chassidim, but they still worship their founder as Jesus the Messiah. Both of them have dynasties within each that openly hate each other.

Most Jews harbor some animosity towards both groups as they are viewed as bickering over pilpul (Yiddish for 'esoteric bullshit') and causing divisions among Judaism in the worst possible times. Israeli Jews openly despise them, because they don't join the army and don't pay tax but they are such a powerful political group they still get benefits (this is the one thing the Haredim and Chassidim unite on).

CorruptUser wrote:I'm an Orthodox Jew, who spent a lot of time around Chabad. Well, sort of. Conservadox/apatheist at this point.


I first though that you were not Jewish and had just been reading the wrong books and going to the wrong websites but now I am legitimately concerned. How can an Orthodox Jew think that two groups of Jews hate each other? That is not even considering the fact that every form of Chabad is based on the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov, whose entire philosophy is based on Jews loving and caring for fellow Jews unconditionally. You even suggested that Chassidim (people who follow Chabad) worship their rebbe (major rabbi) like what the Christians do (no offense to any Christians, we are just different religions)!

I don't need no stinkin sources


Have you ever read a page of Gemora (books on Jewish law)?! Almost every sentence starts with the phrase, 'Rabbi A said in the name of Rabbi B...' If you can find a single page of Gemora that does not have one citation in it, I will boil and eat the leather parts of my shoes, bli neder. Ethics of Our Fathers has 6 chapters, and 9/18 paragraphs of the first chapter about who was the teacher of whom. What kind of education did you receive that taught you that you do not need sources? Even in public school, we learned how to make citations every year in English. The fact than ANY Jew is so ill informed about Judaism that they would dare say what you said shocks me. I am not just referring to your last two posts; I am talking about every post on this thread. What disturbs me the most is that an Orthodox Jew would use the term 'Ultra-Orthodox.' I cannot understand what logic when through your head when you used that term. Please go here and start reading anything. What you read does not matter, I just want you to be better informed.http://www.chabad.org/

LaserGuy wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:krogoth #3: What is interesting is that in the story of Sodom, 'know' is used in the sense of sexual intercourse. The people of the city were planning on raping Lott's guests; but that is not what they received punishment for. Being rapists did not exactly help their case, but that was not their principle crime. Sodom and the neighboring cities were destroyed so violently for theft. To be clear, this is not ordinary theft. I know a few examples of what the people of those five cities did, but this one really captures all the people's horrible qualities.

Imagine a foreigner moves his family to one of these cities. The people in the city would begin to buy everything he has at incredible prices. What the foreigner paid a copper coin for; the locals would pay a silver or gold coin for. Soon the foreigner has few to no possessions left except a bag full of gold and silver. Thinking he is a very fortunate man, he goes to buy the things he needs to start his business, food for his family, a house to sleep in, etc. To his surprise, no one will accept his coins as payment. You see, the coins given to the foreigner as payment were marked differently than the coins everyone else used. Every vendor knows that only an outsider would try to pay with those coins, so they all refused to sell him anything. Slowly, the foreigner and his family die of starvation or exposure. Then the locals take the coins off the dead bodies and wait for the next family.


This... doesn't really work in the real world. In fact, if this were the case, you would probably find these cities would be overrun by shrewd capitalists able to exploit the fact that the people of Sodom would buy garbage for gold coins, and then just leave with the gold afterward.

If the traveler was a businessman, then they would probably have used one of their other plans. For example:

A particularly wealthy traveler arrives in the city. He is invited to spend the night as a guest by one of the locals. In the middle of that night, everyone (in the sense of 'everyone was at the graduation ceremony') would form a crowd around that house. Then the traveler, who is asleep and not expecting an attack, is dragged outside by the head of the household. The mob then rapes the traveler until he dies, leaving everything he had for the head of the household. (Citation: the story of the Lott and the angels in Sodom)

Or, for that matter, someone within the city itself could easily accumulate all of these resources themselves (by selling stuff to the "foreigners" in exchange for it), and then just leave with all of the gold.


No local would cheat everyone else like this. The land in that area was so fertile and rich in precious metals before it was destroyed that there would be no point. It would be common place for a man to pick a turnip from his garden and find a gold nugget in the hole. That is actually one of the reasons they were judged harshly; they stole and robbed even though the money gained was pennies compared to what they already had.

Unless they were also physically preventing people from leaving, there's no way that this scam could ever work in practice.


They probably did stop their victims from leaving. It was common for tolls to be required in order to leave a city. Unable to pay the toll, the victims were trapped.

LaserGuy wrote:
-This is not the only sin the people of Sodom did. It is just one example of one way they committed theft. Think of any law needed for a just society and the people of those five cities violated it casually and probably made the opposite into a law.


Again, this doesn't work in the real world. There are certain kinds of rules that pretty much have to be in place for large numbers of people to be able to work and live together. If you had a city where murder was legal, what you'd find is that the city would either pretty quickly become empty as everyone left, or some sort of de facto law against murder would get set up and would be enforced at the community level.


I did not mean that there were no laws at all. I meant that the laws were set up such that the people could do the most immoral things. Remember the trap to legally rape travelers. Here is another example;

A local speaking to a traveler:"You have a strong male donkey. I have a female donkey. She was strong, but now she is weak from age. If I do not have a donkey, I will not be able to run my business. If your donkey were to mate with my donkey, the offspring would be very strong and allow me to run my business with much success. It would only take a day or two for your donkey to impregnate my donkey. That is about how long you will need to do your business in the city. I could pay two gold coins in order to have your donkey mate with my donkey, while hosting you as a guest. Would you let me have your donkey for two silver coins (I am guessing that would be a more than fair deal for the traveler)?"

Reread that paragraph very closely, keeping formal logic in mind. Do you see the tricks? The statements have no connection to the question except that they are close temporally. The question by itself is asking to buy, not rent, the donkey. He says he could pay two silver coins to rent the traveler's donkey, meaning he has the ability to do so. He never said that he will. However, the context set up by the preceding statements makes the traveler thinks he is only renting his donkey. In addition, the local says he could host the traveler, not that he will. When the traveler wants to leave with his donkey, the local would refuse to let the traveler have him. Then the local would demand payment for the time spent in his inn. When taken to court, the judgment will obviously be in the local's favor, with the judge adding any extra charges he can find.

LaserGuy wrote:
krogoth #4: Do you remember the mouse over text for comic 1047? A very similar thing goes for interpreting the Bible. Anytime you think the Bible tells you to [horrible thing], put the book down and back away from your desk; something has gone horrible wrong.


Not necessarily. It could just be that the authors of the Bible were horrible people, at least by modern standards. There's no reason to apply some sort of principle of charity here--our understanding of morality (as well as our science and whatnot) has improved and evolved since Biblical times, and we are able to recognize the flaws in Bronze Age morality.

I am saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because you made a mistake when you were interpreting the Bible.

You are saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because the author(s) of the Bible were horrible people.

Is this correct?
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates

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 » Sat May 23, 2015 9:35 am UTC

I know I'm oversimplifying by saying that "all" sexual thoughts are "bad," as opposed to only those outside of a married couple. I still think it's a very unhealthy way of doing things and very difficult to feel sympathetic toward.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

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

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby krogoth » Sat May 23, 2015 12:04 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
krogoth #4: Do you remember the mouse over text for comic 1047? A very similar thing goes for interpreting the Bible. Anytime you think the Bible tells you to [horrible thing], put the book down and back away from your desk; something has gone horrible wrong.


Not necessarily. It could just be that the authors of the Bible were horrible people, at least by modern standards. There's no reason to apply some sort of principle of charity here--our understanding of morality (as well as our science and whatnot) has improved and evolved since Biblical times, and we are able to recognize the flaws in Bronze Age morality.

I am saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because you made a mistake when you were interpreting the Bible.

You are saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because the author(s) of the Bible were horrible people.

Is this correct?

I will try to reply to the rest tomorrow, I'm what I call a "functioning alcoholic" and I'm drinking tonight. (Yes I'm working on it, no I don't want help from fora. ect)

“And I can fight only for something that I love, love only what I respect, and respect only what I at least know.”
― Adolf Hitler

Even mein kampf has good quotes, but you need to stop at some point and realize, morals change, no book is 'good', if your god won't give new morals, and we know there is no current reason for the ones he gave, like slavery, should we keep enforcing those morals? The answer is obvious, No.

http://biblehub.com/exodus/21.htm
This is trash, pick a few bit's that are still good from it, but the message it sends is clear.
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.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby CorruptUser » Sat May 23, 2015 12:50 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Umm, "Haredi" are ultra-orthodox, "Chassid" are the messianics. To outsiders, the differences are minimal, but to them it's huge. Chabad/Lubavitch are the most friendly of all the Chassidim, but they still worship their founder as Jesus the Messiah. Both of them have dynasties within each that openly hate each other.

Most Jews harbor some animosity towards both groups as they are viewed as bickering over pilpul (Yiddish for 'esoteric bullshit') and causing divisions among Judaism in the worst possible times. Israeli Jews openly despise them, because they don't join the army and don't pay tax but they are such a powerful political group they still get benefits (this is the one thing the Haredim and Chassidim unite on).

CorruptUser wrote:I'm an Orthodox Jew, who spent a lot of time around Chabad. Well, sort of. Conservadox/apatheist at this point.


I first though that you were not Jewish and had just been reading the wrong books and going to the wrong websites but now I am legitimately concerned. How can an Orthodox Jew think that two groups of Jews hate each other? That is not even considering the fact that every form of Chabad is based on the teaching of the Baal Shem Tov, whose entire philosophy is based on Jews loving and caring for fellow Jews unconditionally. You even suggested that Chassidim (people who follow Chabad) worship their rebbe (major rabbi) like what the Christians do (no offense to any Christians, we are just different religions)!


Just look at the food; Satmars and Rubashkins refuse to accept the other's kashrut. While bullshit is this? 50 years ago, it was Kosher or it wasn't. There is a lot more infighting than you seem to think. If you stepped outside of your yeshiva for a moment...

Really it's not much different than the Galacid-Lidvuk feud from 150 years ago. (No sure about the spelling though). The Galacid were the integrated and civilized German Jews, who were reformers, thus the Reform movement. But when the Lidvuk Jews came to America from Lithuania/Russia, the Galacids saw living walking stereotypes; think Kyle versus his cousin Kyle in South Park. Poor, huge families, refusal to integrate, etc etc. The Lidvuks in turn saw the Galacids as being so assimilated that they were practically not Jews at all. The German Jews actually campaigned to restrict Galacid immigration for fear they would undo all the progress the Galacids had made in integrating into society. In turn, many rabbis back in the Pale refused to let their people emigrate to the US because it was such a tref land. So it's more or less parallel to the whole "House Nword vs Field Nword". But, the 1930's and 40's happened, and those people didn't give one shit about the difference between Galacid and Lidvuk, so that conflict is over.

There are plenty of Israelis in New York you can talk to. Talk to any of the non-Haredi ones, and ask them their opinion on the Haredis and exemption from the military.

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

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby LaserGuy » Sat May 23, 2015 10:50 pm UTC

jewish_scientist wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:krogoth #3: What is interesting is that in the story of Sodom, 'know' is used in the sense of sexual intercourse. The people of the city were planning on raping Lott's guests; but that is not what they received punishment for. Being rapists did not exactly help their case, but that was not their principle crime. Sodom and the neighboring cities were destroyed so violently for theft. To be clear, this is not ordinary theft. I know a few examples of what the people of those five cities did, but this one really captures all the people's horrible qualities.

Imagine a foreigner moves his family to one of these cities. The people in the city would begin to buy everything he has at incredible prices. What the foreigner paid a copper coin for; the locals would pay a silver or gold coin for. Soon the foreigner has few to no possessions left except a bag full of gold and silver. Thinking he is a very fortunate man, he goes to buy the things he needs to start his business, food for his family, a house to sleep in, etc. To his surprise, no one will accept his coins as payment. You see, the coins given to the foreigner as payment were marked differently than the coins everyone else used. Every vendor knows that only an outsider would try to pay with those coins, so they all refused to sell him anything. Slowly, the foreigner and his family die of starvation or exposure. Then the locals take the coins off the dead bodies and wait for the next family.


This... doesn't really work in the real world. In fact, if this were the case, you would probably find these cities would be overrun by shrewd capitalists able to exploit the fact that the people of Sodom would buy garbage for gold coins, and then just leave with the gold afterward.


If the traveler was a businessman, then they would probably have used one of their other plans. For example:

A particularly wealthy traveler arrives in the city. He is invited to spend the night as a guest by one of the locals. In the middle of that night, everyone (in the sense of 'everyone was at the graduation ceremony') would form a crowd around that house. Then the traveler, who is asleep and not expecting an attack, is dragged outside by the head of the household. The mob then rapes the traveler until he dies, leaving everything he had for the head of the household. (Citation: the story of the Lott and the angels in Sodom)


But he doesn't need to be wealthy. In your first story, you said that they would trade gold or silver for whatever junk the person happened to have on them. The traveler would certainly leave wealthy, but he needn't arrive wealthy. Again, this isn't the way the real world works. Societies like you are describing don't exist outside of fiction.

jewish_scientist wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
krogoth #4: Do you remember the mouse over text for comic 1047? A very similar thing goes for interpreting the Bible. Anytime you think the Bible tells you to [horrible thing], put the book down and back away from your desk; something has gone horrible wrong.


Not necessarily. It could just be that the authors of the Bible were horrible people, at least by modern standards. There's no reason to apply some sort of principle of charity here--our understanding of morality (as well as our science and whatnot) has improved and evolved since Biblical times, and we are able to recognize the flaws in Bronze Age morality.


I am saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because you made a mistake when you were interpreting the Bible.

You are saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because the author(s) of the Bible were horrible people.

Is this correct?


I'll repeat my "Not necessarily". It is possible that you are making a mistake in your interpretation, yes. It is also possible that you are correct in your interpretation, and the author of the text is a horrible person by modern standards. It is worth pointing out, however, that the onus is on the author to convey their message correctly to their audience. If a text is written in such a way that it is consistently misinterpreted, that probably means it is written poorly.

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

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby krogoth » Sun May 24, 2015 3:13 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
krogoth #4: Do you remember the mouse over text for comic 1047? A very similar thing goes for interpreting the Bible. Anytime you think the Bible tells you to [horrible thing], put the book down and back away from your desk; something has gone horrible wrong.


Not necessarily. It could just be that the authors of the Bible were horrible people, at least by modern standards. There's no reason to apply some sort of principle of charity here--our understanding of morality (as well as our science and whatnot) has improved and evolved since Biblical times, and we are able to recognize the flaws in Bronze Age morality.


I am saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because you made a mistake when you were interpreting the Bible.

You are saying that when you interpret the Bible as saying something horrible, it is because the author(s) of the Bible were horrible people.

Is this correct?


I'll repeat my "Not necessarily". It is possible that you are making a mistake in your interpretation, yes. It is also possible that you are correct in your interpretation, and the author of the text is a horrible person by modern standards. It is worth pointing out, however, that the onus is on the author to convey their message correctly to their audience. If a text is written in such a way that it is consistently misinterpreted, that probably means it is written poorly.


Yeah this is a problem, if you start with the axiom "book is perfectly good", then ask a question "is book sexist" the answer will always be 'no' to you no matter what evidence is provided. There is no point debating this way of thinking. This is the same stuff ken ham does. "If science and the bible conflict I believe the bible". Don't reject reality because it conflicts with thousands year old books written by people who didn't know the moon doesn't produce light.
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.

Cradarc
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Cradarc » Wed May 27, 2015 1:49 am UTC

I've only read a portion of the posts on this thread, but I have some thoughts.

Firstly, it is important to firmly establish exactly why one is going through so much trouble to avoid these sins. Is it because someone in authority said so? Is it to please God? Is it to avoid (divine or otherwise) punishment?
I think we can all agree that humans have free will. Free will implies the ability to choose. Choosing involves weighing options. Weighing options involves comparing possible outcomes with your own values and opinions. You always have to figure out how your values stand prior to making touch decisions.
Secondly, one must accept physical reality as something outside of one's control. You can't simply make people do something, just like you can't stop a wall from preventing you to cross a room (unless of course you wish to resort to violence and coercion). If you require special accommodation, simply ask. Do so in a way that will most likely get people to comply.
Finally, one must understand that there is no right to not be hated. Society looks down on the expression of hate, but there are always people who dislike you. Being hated/disliked is something you have to consider when you look at your values. Do you value social acceptance more than you value the avoidance of sinful situations? If so, then keep your mouth shut and hope for the best. If not, then follow your moral code and live with the social consequences.


At the end of the day, it's not about right or wrong, but about "Am I ready to accept the consequences?" Society isn't always right, but it certainly doesn't owe you anything. We can debate forever about whether or not the customs of Orthodox Judaisim is logical or warrants respect. It won't get us anywhere because clearly the people who adhere to it is not doing it for fun.
IMO, respect is in the eyes of the receiver. However, it is a privilege and not a right. It's up to the individual to decide when to withhold and when to grant this privilege.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 300 character limit.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby ucim » Wed May 27, 2015 2:40 am UTC

Cradarc wrote:If you require special accommodation, simply ask. Do so in a way that will most likely get people to comply.
... and do so in a way and at a time that does not inconvenience others excessively. For example, make this request at the time of reservation, with a backup of "you buy the two adjacent seats, or you silently sit next to a woman" if your request is not granted. Standing in the aisle of an airplane with a hundred other people waiting to take off is not the time to ask for this kind of accommodation.
Spoiler:
Ok, so this was El-Al - the Israeli airline. Puts a bit of a different spin on things, but only slightly if indeed this is an extreme splinter group, something I am not qualified to judge but which I presume the people of Israel are.
Also, the operative word is "ask", not "demand". The difference is that if the request is not granted, you simply accept this and move on. You don't keep standing in the aisle until somebody breaks down.

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.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 27, 2015 1:10 pm UTC

I still have not heard a compelling reason why the burden should be put on those who do not have this faith.

Leaving aside the scope of the burden entirely, why on earth should anyone else care?

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3071
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby PAstrychef » Wed May 27, 2015 1:29 pm UTC

Well, you could consider it something of a disability. I would probably relocate for someone in a wheelchair.
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
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby SDK » Wed May 27, 2015 2:30 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I still have not heard a compelling reason why the burden should be put on those who do not have this faith.

Leaving aside the scope of the burden entirely, why on earth should anyone else care?

To a certain extent, I care about anything that my fellow humans care about. If you are adamant about sitting in the window seat and I don't really care, sure, you can have it. If we both got a free ice cream cone and you really like chocolate, sure I'll trade you. If you accidentally got stuck in a construction lane, I'll stop briefly to let you in. It's common courtesy.

Of course that only extends so far and, of course, if you believe that their reason for asking something of you is immoral, you have every right to say no to stand up to your own beliefs. Personally, if someone said they needed something of me to help them follow their religious beliefs, I wouldn't feel any obligation to do so, but I'd be happy to do it anyway if it was just a small thing. I don't think it really counts as a burden so long as the people holding these beliefs remember that no one else is obligated to help them. They would be way out of line if they got mad at someone for not switching seats, for example. At that point, if no one was willing to switch, it's their choice between getting off the plane and compromising their religious beliefs. So long as they remember that, I have no problem at all with the "burden" being placed on others.

Just talking in general here, though. Whether or not this particular belief of being unable to sit next to a person of the opposite sex is moral... that's a completely different story. Seems to me that it likely does stem from sexism to a certain extent, but I'm both fairly uneducated on the topic and fairly tolerant of others' beliefs, so long as the people who are being discriminated against have a choice in the matter.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 27, 2015 2:42 pm UTC

PAstrychef wrote:Well, you could consider it something of a disability. I would probably relocate for someone in a wheelchair.


That's a stretch. It's a belief, not something they are unable to do.

And I'm all for religious freedom, but at the end of the day, your* faith does not mean you get to dictate my actions. Only your own. If you wish to boycott aircraft that allow women to sit next to you, cheers.

*A generic you, of course.

SDK wrote:Just talking in general here, though. Whether or not this particular belief of being unable to sit next to a person of the opposite sex is moral... that's a completely different story. Seems to me that it likely does stem from sexism to a certain extent, but I'm both fairly uneducated on the topic and fairly tolerant of others' beliefs, so long as the people who are being discriminated against have a choice in the matter.


Agreed. Sexist? Yes. But you can hold your odd belief, so long as you're not foisting it upon others. But, it appears that is what they wish to do. Polite request, fine. That's no worries. Demanding legal enforcement of your belief/obstructing travel when others do not agree to your request...too far. It isn't really a request unless you're willing to accept a "no".

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby SDK » Wed May 27, 2015 2:57 pm UTC

Whoa, whoa, who said anything about legal enforcement? Did I miss that part? If so, I definitely agree that's over the line.

The obstructing travel thing might just be overblown though - I can certainly see a Jewish person calling out to the plane for anyone to switch being a hassle, maybe even delaying take-off for a minute in an extreme case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were unwilling to get off if it came down to it.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby mosc » Wed May 27, 2015 3:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:And I'm all for religious freedom, but at the end of the day, your* faith does not mean you get to dictate my actions. Only your own. If you wish to boycott aircraft that allow women to sit next to you, cheers.

No, it's never that clean. Freedom is never limitless. If this actually were true and there were enough people where an airline stopped seating men and women together it would be sued and the practice would be found as discriminatory. Rightfully so. Freedoms are always limited by morality, there's no getting around the basic tenant. Telling people what they can and cannot do is a basic need for human survival just as much as freedom is. The rule of law enforces a common morality which supercedes individual freedom.

Dude's sexist, not because of a religious justification but because he's sexist. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with his beliefs being moronic. He's allowed to believe what he wants and we're allowed to point and laugh. He has the freedom to believe sexist things and we have the moral authority to enforce those beliefs are not respected.
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
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby SDK » Wed May 27, 2015 3:10 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Dude's sexist, not because of a religious justification but because he's sexist. Freedom of religion has nothing to do with his beliefs being moronic. He's allowed to believe what he wants and we're allowed to point and laugh. He has the freedom to believe sexist things and we have the moral authority to enforce those beliefs are not respected.

Morality is not black and white. You have morals and so does he. If they conflict it does not necessarily mean that you are correct.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby ucim » Wed May 27, 2015 3:38 pm UTC

SDK wrote:The obstructing travel thing might just be overblown though - I can certainly see a Jewish person calling out to the plane for anyone to switch being a hassle, maybe even delaying take-off for a minute in an extreme case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were unwilling to get off if it came down to it.
Getting off a commercial airliner is a Big Deal though. Luggage has to be unloaded, because terr*rsts. This takes time, and may cost a takeoff slot. It's not like a city bus.

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.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 27, 2015 4:59 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Whoa, whoa, who said anything about legal enforcement? Did I miss that part? If so, I definitely agree that's over the line.

The obstructing travel thing might just be overblown though - I can certainly see a Jewish person calling out to the plane for anyone to switch being a hassle, maybe even delaying take-off for a minute in an extreme case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were unwilling to get off if it came down to it.


The segregated transport falls into a legal battle, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/16/israel-buses-gender-segregation-orthodox (linked off the original article that the OP intended to "refute"). If you're segregating public transport, you're essentially foisting your religious belief on those who do not share it.

Now, in fairness, the pro-segregation viewpoint definitely appears to be a minority, but...still.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby SDK » Wed May 27, 2015 5:43 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Getting off a commercial airliner is a Big Deal though. Luggage has to be unloaded, because terr*rsts. This takes time, and may cost a takeoff slot. It's not like a city bus.

Jose

Well, I'm certainly not going to try to take away the right of any passenger to leave a plane when they want to. Before take-off at least. 8-)

Tyndmyr wrote:The segregated transport falls into a legal battle, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/16/israel-buses-gender-segregation-orthodox (linked off the original article that the OP intended to "refute"). If you're segregating public transport, you're essentially foisting your religious belief on those who do not share it.

Now, in fairness, the pro-segregation viewpoint definitely appears to be a minority, but...still.

Wow. I read the original article, but not the articles that it references, so I missed that one. I guess I'd be okay with the compromise solution there, having three sections to a bus, but yeah. That's over the line. If your religion requires that I sit apart from my own wife, common courtesy be damned!
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

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

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed May 27, 2015 5:45 pm UTC

Do airlines count as public transport, though?

Hypothetically, could the OP set up an "Orthodox Air" corporation that flew planes that were gender segregated, without it being a legal issue? Sure, it would be an immense cost, but what's the value of lucre compared to your immortal soul?

About the article, though:
The campaign being run by those opposed to the separation of the sexes draws heavily on references to Rosa Parks's struggle for equality during America's period of racial segregation, but the comparison is flawed in several ways. First and foremost, Haredi demands for men and women to occupy separate areas of public buses is based on religious law designed to benefit both male and female passengers, rather than simply trampling on the rights of one group in favour of another.

...

At the same time, ultra-Orthodox passengers have taken the law into their own hands on countless occasions on Egged routes used by both secular and religious Israelis. Regular reports surface of Haredi men using violence and intimidation to force reluctant women to move towards the back of the bus in order to comply with their religious rules – policies which the New Israel Fund has dubbed part of the "increasing Talibanisation of Israeli public life".

The article seems to make the same base claim that OP does, that "this is not sexism because it's enforced equally" -- but just like with Jim Crow, reality does not seem to bear this out in the least. All of the examples given in this thread have also been of men putting a burden on those around them by insisting on this segregation. Can the OP provide any examples of women insisting on the segregation, so that his claim of "symmetry" has even the smallest bit of credibility?

That's not to say, at all, that demonstrating that symmetry might exist would actually prove that the arrangement isn't still sexist -- it would just demonstrate that a very non-evident claim being made has backing.

But he doesn't need to be wealthy. In your first story, you said that they would trade gold or silver for whatever junk the person happened to have on them. The traveler would certainly leave wealthy, but he needn't arrive wealthy. Again, this isn't the way the real world works. Societies like you are describing don't exist outside of fiction.

I honestly think the discussion over what Sodom was destroyed for is a red herring. For the purposes of our discussion, what determines the "righteousness" of the story about Sodom is what lesson is being taught. If, for JS's sect, the lesson is about not doing something that we can all agree would be a bad thing to do, even if it seems to some the situation would never come up in the first place, then it doesn't make sense to say it reflects badly on JS's sect. Since different sects interpret the lesson of the story differently, the "righteousness" of the story would differ from sect to sect.

Discussion about whether the person who destroyed the historical Sodom was justified would have to rely on actual historical evidence of what went down there, rather than the assumptions made by morality tales given millennia after the fact.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 27, 2015 6:04 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Do airlines count as public transport, though?

Hypothetically, could the OP set up an "Orthodox Air" corporation that flew planes that were gender segregated, without it being a legal issue? Sure, it would be an immense cost, but what's the value of lucre compared to your immortal soul?


I'm okay with that solution. I do not think I would wish to patronize such a company, but I suppose it's fair for those who wish it.

It's broader than just the airline squabble too. I mean, I guess if people want to self-segregate, I can't really expect to stop them, but I don't really WANT segregation to be government enforced in any way. Even the three-section solution to the bus doesn't seem terribly good. On busy routes, that would still seem to be enforcing segregation on a goodly chunk of people, anyway. You wanna build your own bus system, fine. But don't go pissing in everyone else's cheerios.

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 May 27, 2015 6:13 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:But don't go pissing in everyone else's cheerios.

And sig'd
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby mosc » Wed May 27, 2015 8:47 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Morality is not black and white. You have morals and so does he. If they conflict it does not necessarily mean that you are correct.

The law is more black and white. My morality is more black and white. His morality is not any more or less relevant than my own. If you want to live in a civil society than you must follow it's rules. See women's suffrage and equality movements. Women are a "protected class" and discrimination against them is illegal, our morals be damned.

Tyndmyr wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Do airlines count as public transport, though?

Hypothetically, could the OP set up an "Orthodox Air" corporation that flew planes that were gender segregated, without it being a legal issue? Sure, it would be an immense cost, but what's the value of lucre compared to your immortal soul?
I'm okay with that solution. I do not think I would wish to patronize such a company, but I suppose it's fair for those who wish it.
I'm not ok with it! If you own a restaurant and don't want to serve blacks/women/old people/gays/build a damn ramp so someone with a wheel chair can get through your front door, we call that discriminatory. A business exists to serve the public need and not it's own. If you want to own an airline and you enforce gender based segregation on your customers, we call that discriminatory.

Haredi Jews have no place in modern society.
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.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 27, 2015 8:56 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:Do airlines count as public transport, though?

Hypothetically, could the OP set up an "Orthodox Air" corporation that flew planes that were gender segregated, without it being a legal issue? Sure, it would be an immense cost, but what's the value of lucre compared to your immortal soul?
I'm okay with that solution. I do not think I would wish to patronize such a company, but I suppose it's fair for those who wish it.
I'm not ok with it! If you own a restaurant and don't want to serve blacks/women/old people/gays/build a damn ramp so someone with a wheel chair can get through your front door, we call that discriminatory. A business exists to serve the public need and not it's own. If you want to own an airline and you enforce gender based segregation on your customers, we call that discriminatory.

Haredi Jews have no place in modern society.


If they want to segregate themselves off somewhere and be weird, meh. I'm not going to go support their strange system, but I don't demand everyone be just like me.

As long as people have the option to not deal with them, I'm pretty okay with it. I suspect in this case, they'd only likely appeal to others within their subculture. I'm much less okay with it displacing existing systems.

And...no, businesses do not exist to serve some all encompassing ideal of "the public". Huge quantities of them are tailored to serve a given market in some way. That's not a problem in itself.

But when you're talking about legislative stuff, or government run transport, then yes, that should serve everyone. After all, everyone is paying for it, more or less. It's only fair that it exist for the use of all, not just a few. With a business, if it's not helping you, you can choose to not patronize it, but government is different, and should be held to a higher bar as a result.

dg61
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby dg61 » Wed May 27, 2015 10:53 pm UTC

How far back does this level of segregation actually go? Do we have evidence of it(responsa, rabbinic discussions, etc) going back terribly far? I know that the Haredi world of today is very different in a lot of ways from the Haredi world of say 1940 or so and certainly different than say Hassidic practice in the 1830s or so simply by force of circumstance and shifts in social structure so it seems like we're circling around inherent properties of orthodox Judaism when we might do better to look at it as a product of a very specific set of circumstances(haredim who are actually affluent enough to travel by airline, anxieties about shomer negiah that might not have been as pronounced ten or twenty years ago, more haredim who are financially obligated to take up work outside of the haredi community, etc(.

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 May 28, 2015 5:21 am UTC

I think I recall Timothy having a few things to say about segregation, though the reasons why very depending on who you ask. So that's 40-50 AD?
I know it's not the same group, but I don't find it hard to believe after all the other sexist content of the old testament, that Jews followed those same ideas.
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.

dg61
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby dg61 » Fri May 29, 2015 2:55 am UTC

krogoth wrote:I think I recall Timothy having a few things to say about segregation, though the reasons why very depending on who you ask. So that's 40-50 AD?
I know it's not the same group, but I don't find it hard to believe after all the other sexist content of the old testament, that Jews followed those same ideas.


General opinionating about how terribly backwards the Old Testament is(whatever my own feelings about the deeply patriarchal nature of late Bronze Age and early Iron Age society) and a vague appeal to a statement from a sort of related group that is vastly predating any of the issues even theoretically being raised is not in the slightest bit "evidence" that shows anything about how attitudes towards public and mass transit have developed in Haredi communities. Responsa on shomer negiah and public transit or sources on communal attitudes towards public transit over the course of the past, say 50-100 years are far more useful.

dg61
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby dg61 » Fri May 29, 2015 2:56 pm UTC

(In the interest of laying out all my cards; I do think it is possible to be Orthodox and reject sexism, and even to be an Orthodox feminist, I do think that in many ways Haredi society and to a somewhat lesser extent modern orthodox culture can be fairly to extremely patriarchal simply because it grew out of an extremely patriarchal society in 19th century Europe and this should change, I am not comfortable with the tenor of a lot of this discussion that just handwaves away Haredim since that doesn't actually improve the situation for Haredi women who wish to remain religiously committed and in some cases skirts on invoking fairly nasty antisemitic tropes.)

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

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby KrytenKoro » Sat May 30, 2015 6:53 pm UTC

dg61 wrote:(In the interest of laying out all my cards; I do think it is possible to be Orthodox and reject sexism, and even to be an Orthodox feminist,

Can you clarify?

I am not comfortable with the tenor of a lot of this discussion that just handwaves away Haredim since that doesn't actually improve the situation for Haredi women who wish to remain religiously committed and in some cases skirts on invoking fairly nasty antisemitic tropes.)

Can you point out something that's actually approaching an antisemitic trope, rather than a bog-standard anti-religious/anti-bigotry trope? The most extreme criticism I've seen is from mosc, who (1) is Jewish himself, (2) has clearly stated that the "freedom of religion" argument is bunk and that the issue is sexism, not religion, and (3) at his worst criticism of Haredi has likened it to extremists from other religions. I'm honestly having a very difficult time trying to find where anyone has objected to the OP or Haredim on any grounds vaguely similar to "It's Jewish", so I think this accusation is a red herring.

...doesn't actually improve the situation for Haredi women who wish to remain religiously committed...

This is something I'd still like answered. The articles cited by the OP, and even his examples, don't lend any credence to the claim that this isn't just men enforcing segregation on women, and yet multiple people have claimed that there's symmetry in these laws. You seem to be saying that there are Haredi women seeking this paradigm as well -- can you provide any evidence for that?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

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

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby elasto » Sun May 31, 2015 12:37 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:This is something I'd still like answered. The articles cited by the OP, and even his examples, don't lend any credence to the claim that this isn't just men enforcing segregation on women, and yet multiple people have claimed that there's symmetry in these laws. You seem to be saying that there are Haredi women seeking this paradigm as well -- can you provide any evidence for that?

There doesn't seem to be an awful lot of gender-symmetry in a Haredi edict just announced in the UK:

The Belz, who originated in Ukraine in the early 19th Century, are an ultra-Orthodox sect who follow Haredi Judaism.

The letter [sent to the parents of children attending a North London school], which was signed from the "spiritual management" of Belz institutions, said: "There has been an increase in incidences of mothers of our students who have begun driving cars, something that goes against the laws of modesty within our society."

This had led to "a lot of exasperation among other parents", it said.

The group's leader in Israel, Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, had advised that "if a woman is driving a car, she cannot send her children to be educated in Belz institutions", it said.

It added that women with a "specific reason" to drive could submit a request to a special committee.


The Jewish Chronicle, which first reported the story, said that while many Hasidic women do not drive, this is thought to be the first formal declaration against the practice in the UK.

Dina Brawer, UK Ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, said the rule was "stupid and impractical" and could not work.

Responding to the letter, Education Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, Nicky Morgan, said: "This is completely unacceptable in modern Britain. If schools do not actively promote the principle of respect for other people they are breaching the independent school standards. Where we are made aware of such breaches we will investigate and take any necessary action to address the situation."


In a statement to Mrs Morgan from the Belz community, a spokesman said it never intended to "stigmatise or discriminate against children or their parents".

It said: "We are proud of what we stand for and we do not feel the need to excuse ourselves for our deeply held beliefs and staunchly maintained way of life. It has withstood the test of time and is not prone to the vagaries of passing fads."


Maybe there's an equivalent edict saying men can't drive either and the media has just missed it?

link

dg61
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby dg61 » Sun May 31, 2015 12:57 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
dg61 wrote:(In the interest of laying out all my cards; I do think it is possible to be Orthodox and reject sexism, and even to be an Orthodox feminist,

Can you clarify?

I am not comfortable with the tenor of a lot of this discussion that just handwaves away Haredim since that doesn't actually improve the situation for Haredi women who wish to remain religiously committed and in some cases skirts on invoking fairly nasty antisemitic tropes.)

Can you point out something that's actually approaching an antisemitic trope, rather than a bog-standard anti-religious/anti-bigotry trope? The most extreme criticism I've seen is from mosc, who (1) is Jewish himself, (2) has clearly stated that the "freedom of religion" argument is bunk and that the issue is sexism, not religion, and (3) at his worst criticism of Haredi has likened it to extremists from other religions. I'm honestly having a very difficult time trying to find where anyone has objected to the OP or Haredim on any grounds vaguely similar to "It's Jewish", so I think this accusation is a red herring.

...doesn't actually improve the situation for Haredi women who wish to remain religiously committed...

This is something I'd still like answered. The articles cited by the OP, and even his examples, don't lend any credence to the claim that this isn't just men enforcing segregation on women, and yet multiple people have claimed that there's symmetry in these laws. You seem to be saying that there are Haredi women seeking this paradigm as well -- can you provide any evidence for that?


On your first point-I was thinking mostly of comments along the lines of "bronze age religion". Which is even more annoying since even literalist biblical chronology places the united monarchy in the early/mid Iron Age and modern Rabbinic Judaism largely becomes normative after the Second Temple is destroyed.
On your second point-Ooi, sorry I wasn't clearer! I meant more that a lot of discourse around these practices suggest that you can't both be feminist and against sexism(including sexism in halakhic practice) and still be a "good" orthodox Jewish woman or man either by implicitly stating that the most stringent people are the most authentic or blanket declaring that it is impossible to not be sexist if you're religious as opposed to focusing on where people allow sexist norms rather than careful reasoning to set law. You're right that this is mostly men enforcing segregation on women, and on extremely shaky grounds. If anything, this is a pretty transparent example of where highly unfortunate social norms tend to drive absurd strictures that go against more sensible halakhic rulings(I am fairly sure there are less sexist examples out there, but I am a bit too tired to dig them out). Tznius is another good example of this-on paper it's gender-neutral in the sense that both men and women are expected to dress modestly(if I walk around without a shirt it's just as non-tznius as if a woman does it, and if I walk around with a shirt that bares my midriff it might well be more non-tznius) but it nearly always gets talked about with respect to women because it is more socially acceptable to police what women wear than it is to police what men wear.

jewish_scientist
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2014 3:15 pm UTC

Re: Orthodox Judaism & Sexism [Title Change]

Postby jewish_scientist » Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:15 pm UTC

Copper Bezel wrote:I know I'm oversimplifying by saying that "all" sexual thoughts are "bad," as opposed to only those outside of a married couple. I still think it's a very unhealthy way of doing things and very difficult to feel sympathetic toward.

I am confused now. I thought that you thought that Jews thought that sexuality should be suppressed at all times, which is very unhealthy. However, that appears to not be the case. What exactly do you believe is unhealthy and why it is unhealthy? I really have no idea.

krogoth wrote:Even mein kampf has good quotes, but you need to stop at some point and realize, morals change, no book is 'good', if your god won't give new morals, and we know there is no current reason for the ones he gave, like slavery, should we keep enforcing those morals? The answer is obvious, No.

http://biblehub.com/exodus/21.htm
This is trash, pick a few bit's that are still good from it, but the message it sends is clear.

What a second. You just said that morals change; which means that morality is relative, not absolute. That is a fairly big claim to make. You simple cannot casually drop something like that into a conversation. If you want to discuss how morality does or does not change, fine; I would be happy to talk to you about it (preferably on another thread).Because this is such a major claim, I would have introduced that concept into a discussion with one large or two average sized paragraphs. Then I would talk about how a moral-relativist would view the situation being studied.

CorruptUser wrote:Really it's not much different than the Galacid-Lidvuk feud from 150 years ago. (No sure about the spelling though). The Galacid were the integrated and civilized German Jews, who were reformers, thus the Reform movement. But when the Lidvuk Jews came to America from Lithuania/Russia, the Galacids saw living walking stereotypes; think Kyle versus his cousin Kyle in South Park. Poor, huge families, refusal to integrate, etc etc. The Lidvuks in turn saw the Galacids as being so assimilated that they were practically not Jews at all. The German Jews actually campaigned to restrict Galacid immigration for fear they would undo all the progress the Galacids had made in integrating into society. In turn, many rabbis back in the Pale refused to let their people emigrate to the US because it was such a tref land. So it's more or less parallel to the whole "House Nword vs Field Nword". But, the 1930's and 40's happened, and those people didn't give one shit about the difference between Galacid and Lidvuk, so that conflict is over.

They disagreed on whether cultural assimilation is a good thing or not. When Hitler came into power, the situation changed from a cultural threat to a physical threat. Neither side wished genocide on the other, so they worked together to get the European Jews to America. When dogs like Hitler and Stalin appear, things change for everyone.

Spoiler:
LaserGuy wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:
LaserGuy wrote:
jewish_scientist wrote:krogoth #3: What is interesting is that in the story of Sodom, 'know' is used in the sense of sexual intercourse. The people of the city were planning on raping Lott's guests; but that is not what they received punishment for. Being rapists did not exactly help their case, but that was not their principle crime. Sodom and the neighboring cities were destroyed so violently for theft. To be clear, this is not ordinary theft. I know a few examples of what the people of those five cities did, but this one really captures all the people's horrible qualities.

Imagine a foreigner moves his family to one of these cities. The people in the city would begin to buy everything he has at incredible prices. What the foreigner paid a copper coin for; the locals would pay a silver or gold coin for. Soon the foreigner has few to no possessions left except a bag full of gold and silver. Thinking he is a very fortunate man, he goes to buy the things he needs to start his business, food for his family, a house to sleep in, etc. To his surprise, no one will accept his coins as payment. You see, the coins given to the foreigner as payment were marked differently than the coins everyone else used. Every vendor knows that only an outsider would try to pay with those coins, so they all refused to sell him anything. Slowly, the foreigner and his family die of starvation or exposure. Then the locals take the coins off the dead bodies and wait for the next family.


This... doesn't really work in the real world. In fact, if this were the case, you would probably find these cities would be overrun by shrewd capitalists able to exploit the fact that the people of Sodom would buy garbage for gold coins, and then just leave with the gold afterward.


If the traveler was a businessman, then they would probably have used one of their other plans. For example:

A particularly wealthy traveler arrives in the city. He is invited to spend the night as a guest by one of the locals. In the middle of that night, everyone (in the sense of 'everyone was at the graduation ceremony') would form a crowd around that house. Then the traveler, who is asleep and not expecting an attack, is dragged outside by the head of the household. The mob then rapes the traveler until he dies, leaving everything he had for the head of the household. (Citation: the story of the Lott and the angels in Sodom)


But he doesn't need to be wealthy. In your first story, you said that they would trade gold or silver for whatever junk the person happened to have on them. The traveler would certainly leave wealthy, but he needn't arrive wealthy. Again, this isn't the way the real world works. Societies like you are describing don't exist outside of fiction.

Think about it this way. Plan A is centered on marked coins. Plan B is centered on rape. Plan C is centered on contracts. If a stranger was planning on staying in the area, they would use plan A because it requires that the victim does not leave. If a traveler was a business man, the Sodomites would know that plan A and C would not work on him, so they would use plan B. If a traveler was just passing through the cities on his way somewhere else, they would use plan C; because that deprives him of transportation, the locals will be able to torture him as they like. Whatever plan would work best, they would use.
LaserGuy wrote:It is worth pointing out, however, that the onus is on the author to convey their message correctly to their audience. If a text is written in such a way that it is consistently misinterpreted, that probably means it is written poorly.

You are right; an author must write in a way that [bold]their intended audience[/bold] would understand. When a person outside that audience cannot understand the work, it is not reflection on the author. If a person who cannot read biblical Hebrew, as never study philosophy, has no knowledge of ancient civilizations and is unaware of the cultural context the Torah (Jewish Bible) was written in interprets the Torah incorrectly, that is not because the Author or His work are flawed (G-d forbid).

krogoth wrote:Yeah this is a problem, if you start with the axiom "book is perfectly good", then ask a question "is book sexist" the answer will always be 'no' to you no matter what evidence is provided. There is no point debating this way of thinking.

1: Adam accepts several axioms.
2: Ben points out several contradictions that are created by accepting those axioms.
3: Adam analyzes Ben's questions and attempts to resolve them.
4: Adam and Ben debate over these contradictions; Adam trying to resolve them and Ben trying to defend them.
The above situation looks like a reasonable way for a logical debate to start. I accepted the axioms that 'the Torah is perfect' and 'sexism is bad'. It is quite easy to derive from this 'the Torah is not sexist'. You (I am speaking about any particular person) are trying to find evidence that contradicts this conclusion; which is followed by me trying to resolve your objections.


Cradarc wrote:Firstly, it is important to firmly establish exactly why one is going through so much trouble to avoid these sins. Is it because someone in authority said so? Is it to please God? Is it to avoid (divine or otherwise) punishment?

There can be, and usually are, multiple reasons for any actions that a person takes. For example, a person may refuse to break the speed limit because they respect the law, fear momentary punishment, wish to keep a clean driving record, do not want to hurt anyone and are afraid of high speeds at the same time. For the purposes of this conversation, let's say that the reason why men and women should not touch is to protect the dignity of women (simple staring at a woman is enough to, rightfully, unset them), prevent men from developing a distorted view of sexuality (abusing the pleasure granted by sexual experiences teaches people to be hedonistic), and to stop the dehumanization of women (woman become the means used to reach gratification).
Cradarc wrote:I think we can all agree that humans have free will. Free will implies the ability to choose. Choosing involves weighing options. Weighing options involves comparing possible outcomes with your own values and opinions. You always have to figure out how your values stand prior to making touch decisions


This is a very good argument. Not only is the logic solid, but the way it is presented allows the reader to clearly follow each step you take.

Cradarc wrote:Finally, one must understand that there is no right to not be hated. Society looks down on the expression of hate, but there are always people who dislike you. Being hated/disliked is something you have to consider when you look at your values. Do you value social acceptance more than you value the avoidance of sinful situations? If so, then keep your mouth shut and hope for the best. If not, then follow your moral code and live with the social consequences.

The argument I am trying to make is that for an Orthodox Jew (or anyone) to request they change seats because they feel uncomfortable sitting next to people of the opposite sex is consistent with the rules and morals of modern, Western society. For society to lower someone's social standing even though they violate no standards set by itself is hypocritical. Therefore, society must admit it is being hypocritical or have neutral, or positive, reactions to a person requesting to change seats. The people on this thread (not talking about anyone in particular) are arguing that requests of this nature are sexist; therefore, they violate a rule set by society. This gives society the right to punish people who make such requests.

SDK wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I still have not heard a compelling reason why the burden should be put on those who do not have this faith.

Leaving aside the scope of the burden entirely, why on earth should anyone else care?

To a certain extent, I care about anything that my fellow humans care about. If you are adamant about sitting in the window seat and I don't really care, sure, you can have it. If we both got a free ice cream cone and you really like chocolate, sure I'll trade you. If you accidentally got stuck in a construction lane, I'll stop briefly to let you in. It's common courtesy.

Of course that only extends so far and, of course, if you believe that their reason for asking something of you is immoral, you have every right to say no to stand up to your own beliefs. Personally, if someone said they needed something of me to help them follow their religious beliefs, I wouldn't feel any obligation to do so, but I'd be happy to do it anyway if it was just a small thing.

I completely agree with this.

Tyndmyr wrote:It isn't really a request unless you're willing to accept a "no".

I disagree. If a person requests a lawyer when they are arrested and are denied, their rights have been violated. They do not have to accept this. At the trial, they can demand various things because the request was answered in the negative. Another example: If someone buys a car requesting that it be painted purple and is given a car painted green, they can declare the deal null and void.

Tyndmyr wrote:
SDK wrote:Whoa, whoa, who said anything about legal enforcement? Did I miss that part? If so, I definitely agree that's over the line.

The obstructing travel thing might just be overblown though - I can certainly see a Jewish person calling out to the plane for anyone to switch being a hassle, maybe even delaying take-off for a minute in an extreme case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were unwilling to get off if it came down to it.


The segregated transport falls into a legal battle, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/dec/16/israel-buses-gender-segregation-orthodox (linked off the original article that the OP intended to "refute"). If you're segregating public transport, you're essentially foisting your religious belief on those who do not share it.

Now, in fairness, the pro-segregation viewpoint definitely appears to be a minority, but...still.

After Shabbat services in my Orthodox temple, everyone joins around three tables to have a nice meal. There is no particular reason (that I am aware of) that every group of people that share room are required to be split into two groups.

KrytenKoro wrote:Hypothetically, could the OP set up an "Orthodox Air" corporation that flew planes that were gender segregated

There is actually a petition to do something very similar to this. The petition asks airlines to offer tickets that costs a little extra, but will not be placed next to someone of the opposite sex. IMO that would solve the problem perfectly. The petition actually says that two separate sections, one for each gender, be made for passengers who pay to sit there. I think that a better idea is that the computer that assigns seats be programmed so that passengers who buy these special tickets are not next to passengers of the opposite sex.
KrytenKoro wrote:Can the OP provide any examples of women insisting on the segregation, so that his claim of "symmetry" has even the smallest bit of credibility?

We actually had a discussion earlier about why all the reports are about men who wish to change seats. It started about ¾ of the way down on page 2.

dg61 wrote:How far back does this level of segregation actually go? Do we have evidence of it(responsa, rabbinic discussions, etc) going back terribly far?

The idea that people of the opposite sex should not touch goes back to Moses's time. If you want, I can look an example up.

Spoiler:
elasto wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote:This is something I'd still like answered. The articles cited by the OP, and even his examples, don't lend any credence to the claim that this isn't just men enforcing segregation on women, and yet multiple people have claimed that there's symmetry in these laws. You seem to be saying that there are Haredi women seeking this paradigm as well -- can you provide any evidence for that?

There doesn't seem to be an awful lot of gender-symmetry in a Haredi edict just announced in the UK:

The Belz, who originated in Ukraine in the early 19th Century, are an ultra-Orthodox sect who follow Haredi Judaism.

The letter [sent to the parents of children attending a North London school], which was signed from the "spiritual management" of Belz institutions, said: "There has been an increase in incidences of mothers of our students who have begun driving cars, something that goes against the laws of modesty within our society."

This had led to "a lot of exasperation among other parents", it said.

The group's leader in Israel, Rabbi Yissachar Dov Rokeach, had advised that "if a woman is driving a car, she cannot send her children to be educated in Belz institutions", it said.

It added that women with a "specific reason" to drive could submit a request to a special committee.


The Jewish Chronicle, which first reported the story, said that while many Hasidic women do not drive, this is thought to be the first formal declaration against the practice in the UK.

Dina Brawer, UK Ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, said the rule was "stupid and impractical" and could not work.

Responding to the letter, Education Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, Nicky Morgan, said: "This is completely unacceptable in modern Britain. If schools do not actively promote the principle of respect for other people they are breaching the independent school standards. Where we are made aware of such breaches we will investigate and take any necessary action to address the situation."


In a statement to Mrs Morgan from the Belz community, a spokesman said it never intended to "stigmatise or discriminate against children or their parents".

It said: "We are proud of what we stand for and we do not feel the need to excuse ourselves for our deeply held beliefs and staunchly maintained way of life. It has withstood the test of time and is not prone to the vagaries of passing fads."


Maybe there's an equivalent edict saying men can't drive either and the media has just missed it?

link

That is strange and definitely sexist; but read it carefully. It is talking about a Belz community. Just because what they did was sexist does not mean Orthodox Judaism as a whole is sexist; to do that you would need to prove that something much more fundamental sexist.
Last edited by jewish_scientist on Mon Jun 01, 2015 7:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"You are not running off with Cow-Skull Man Dracula Skeletor!"
-Socrates


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests