In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Fundamentalists Ruin Everything.

Basil, a restaurant in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, is a kosher joint that seeks to bridge the gap between the neighborhood’s very divided Jewish and black populations. And it sounds pretty great!

Danny Branover, Basil’s principal owner, was struck by that when in 2001 he moved from Jerusalem to Crown Heights, which he chose because he, his wife and their children — he has seven now — belong to the Lubavitch movement. He remembers thinking that its Jewish and black residents were more estranged than the Jews and Arabs in Israel, who, he notes, have profound political differences and much more reason to distrust one another. That confounded him.

“I talk to anybody,” Branover says. His father, a Russian physicist, joined the Lubavitch movement as an adult, while his mother, along with many other relatives, never embraced religion with quite the same fervor. “I like interacting with people. It was very annoying.”

Besides which, part of the distinctive philosophy and theology of the Lubavitch movement is to reach out to, educate and inspire others: only when the world is a more virtuous place, the thinking goes, will the messiah come. So why, Branover always wondered, did so many Lubavitchers in Crown Heights keep so steadfastly to themselves?

Branover started Basil to bring the diverse communities in Crown Heights together. He hired a Catholic Latina manager, who in turn hired a culturally diverse staff. There were some bumps in the road — waitresses singing “happy birthday” without realizing that Hasidic men aren’t allowed to listen to women sing — but generally things were going pretty well. Until:

Then, shortly after 8, a young man walked in with a young woman wearing a summery, skimpy dress — sleeveless and backless, so that you could detect some sort of elaborate tattoo between her shoulder blades — and they took two of the empty stools at the bar, leaning in close to each other to talk. About five minutes later, another young couple took two more stools; the woman, in a black tank top and gray denim miniskirt, was angled so that her knees almost touched the man’s. And there the four new arrivals sat, emblems of the way the neighborhood was changing, on prominent display. They drew several stares, though they didn’t seem conscious of that.

They were gone by 9, shortly after which the man in black appeared. Perez instantly recognized him as Rabbi Don Yoel Levy, a Hasid who heads OK Kosher Certification, which monitors and validates Basil’s advertised adherence to kosher dietary rules. He and his deputies are supposed to make unannounced kitchen inspections. But when Perez filled me in on the exchanges that she and other staff members at Basil had with him — I was in the restaurant then, as I had been all night long — she said that he expressed concern not about the food but about inappropriate attire and immoral behavior at the bar. Someone had apparently called to complain. Perez said that the rabbi was also requesting access, from this point forward, to Basil’s internal surveillance cameras.

Uh oh.

That’s unfortunately not the first time that a little bit of female leg has caused an uproar at the restaurant:

Early one evening in June, about a dozen conservative yeshiva students staged a protest of sorts in front of the restaurant. Perez says that they yelled at her for not having her ankles covered, called one of the black waitresses a “slut” and demanded that Basil be shut down. She told them that she was calling the cops — which she did — and the group dispersed.

It was an exceptional incident, but a reminder of how careful she needed to be. She makes sure that waitresses change into long sleeves and long skirts for the duration of their shifts and that waiters know not to touch female customers. She engineers an end to behavior by customers that would go unchallenged and maybe even unnoticed in restaurants outside Crown Heights. One night, she recalls, a young woman repeatedly kissed and nibbled on a male companion’s neck. When Perez asked her to stop, she responded by defiantly planting a kiss on the lips of another young woman in the group. Perez says she then forcefully escorted her to the back of the dining room, pointed to a picture of the Lubavitch spiritual leader that hangs there and admonished her: “You’re in their backyard. You have to respect their ways.”

Trying to strike an appropriate balance is tough, especially when you’re a private establishment trying to cater to a diversity of needs and beliefs. It seems like Basil is trying to draw the lines in the right places — having the waitstaff abide by certain reasonable rules, while not making every single female customer wear a floor-length dress. But apparently that’s not quite enough for the morality police:

WHEN I CALLED LEVY, he disputed a few aspects of Perez’s account. He said his primary objective that Sunday night was to see the kitchen. He hadn’t communicated any desire to regulate how customers dress, he said, nor had he been responding to any complaint. But he also said his kosher-certification agency had a contractual right and responsibility to monitor a restaurant’s entertainment — no crude comedians, no female singers — and to make sure, for example, that young men and women at Basil weren’t socializing “other than for matrimonial purposes.”

“If it became a hangout like that,” he said, referring to Basil, “not only would I take off the certification if needed, no one would go into it. They would shun it. Basil doesn’t want that.” He said that his request to see surveillance video was standard, and that similar requests have been readily met by other kosher restaurants under his watch.

A few days later, Branover received a fax from someone at Levy’s certification agency. It reiterated a demand for access to video feeds, which was necessary “due to the constant complaints from the community regarding the lingering youth in your establishment.”

Lingering youth?! The horror.

Look, Kosher certification has to mean something. I get that, and I’m not suggesting that kosher certification abandon its principles because I don’t like some of them. But really, no socializing for purposes other than matrimony? I wonder how that works with the kosher restaurants that I have gone to, in mixed company, for business lunches, which were definitely not for matrimonial purposes. It really is a shame that a restaurant with such a positive purpose is being targeted.


130 thoughts on Fundamentalists Ruin Everything.

  1. Can you imagine the uproar that would be caused if a halal restaurant in Brooklyn was being told by an imam that too much mixed-sex socializing was going on to maintain their sharia compliance?

  2. I don’t know about the video feed, the kosher certification hinging on social policing.

    But I wonder about instituting a dress code? Like, jacket and tie? Not sure of the language, but I know some clubs aim for a dress code that encourages less displayed flesh.
    No question, there’s a cultural squeeze going on here. I admire Basil for trying to navigate it thus far, and wonder if/how it can be reconciled so everyone’s peaceful about it.

  3. Right, Tom. Because one instance (or a thousand instances) of religious extremism is an indictment of all religion and religious practice, because every religious person is by definition ultra-conservative and oppressive, and because no atheist ever in the history of humankind ever oppressed anyone, and if everyone becomes atheist, misogyny and racism and other oppressions will just go *poof*.

  4. This isn’t about kashrus. This is about the Jews in crown heights, for one, not wanting outsiders taking business from the other “kosher eateries” in the neighborhood, as if you can call what the other places serve, food. I am a religious jew, who used to live in Crown Heights, and I’ve seen this game from these people. They don’t like or trust non jews or even Jews who aren’t “of the neighborhood.” I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s a shakedown from these wannabe mafiosos. It’s like a big street gang, with tax exempt status.

  5. I have a couple of problems with the whole thing.

    First – Does this restaurant have a dress code for patrons? Maybe it should, but if it doesn’t, then as long as the patrons meet the bare (haha) minimum of decency (I am thinking along the lines of the “no shoes, no shirt, no service” signs in fast food places) then it has no business trying to police what it’s patrons wear.

    Second – Kosher certification now includes social monitoring and free access to the surveillance videos? That seems really shady to me. Correct me if I am wrong, but Kosher certification is all about kitchen maintenance and food preparation, right? So unless the surveillance footage is of the kitchen area only, then I have trouble thinking of that as anything more then bullying.

    But this is what really steamed me:

    When Perez asked her to stop, she responded by defiantly planting a kiss on the lips of another young woman in the group. Perez says she then forcefully escorted her to the back of the dining room, pointed to a picture of the Lubavitch spiritual leader that hangs there and admonished her: “You’re in their backyard. You have to respect their ways.”

    Nuh-uh. No. If the patrons are being disruptive, you can tell them to leave, and you can call the police if necessary, but you don’t put your hands on them and treat them like that. Not unless you want to risk assault charges yourself.

    And really? This is NYC. This is everyone’s backyard. Not just the Lubavitch’s. And the Lubavitchs aren’t a street gang, to demand “respect” from everyone who sets foot on their “turf”.

    1. Yeah, Kara, I agree — the restaurant manager could have kicked the patron out if the patron was being disruptive, but definitely should not have touched her.

      I’m a big proponent of showing basic respect. Yes, NYC is everyone’s back yard, but if you go into a kosher restaurant that you know is frequented by religious people, then it’s a nice thing to do to not make out with your boyfriend. If you go to a quiet, romantic restaurant, it’s a nice thing to do to not scream into your cell phone. Etc etc. But at the same time, if someone isn’t being disruptive and you just don’t like the way they’re dressed, eh… unless they’re breaking a dress code (like coming into a restaurant without shoes or a shirt on or something), get over it.

  6. I wonder how that works with the kosher restaurants that I have gone to, in mixed company, for business lunches, which were definitely not for matrimonial purposes.

    These sort of statements strike me as terribly patronizing; you are essentializing and simplifying what is clearly a highly dynamic, complex institution. Fine, you went to a kosher restaurant in mixed company. What does that have anything to do with this company adhering to its principles on its view of kosher certification, no matter how “backward” you find them? I once went to a kosher steakhouse in Buenos Aires in which there were only Hasidim with families. I wouldn’t dream of walking in there with even my arms showing, when all other patrons were more or less covered head to toe. And if I got kicked out because I did, I would hardly consider this regressive or an insult. As Perez put it, when you voluntarily enter a private institution, you play by their rules. I don’t know if this restaurant is being targeted by this certificaiton company

    1. Fine, you went to a kosher restaurant in mixed company. What does that have anything to do with this company adhering to its principles on its view of kosher certification, no matter how “backward” you find them?

      Well, it has to do with the fact that a company is certifying restaurants as kosher or not-kosher, apparently partly based on regulating how men and women interact with each other and for what purpose. I’m saying that, having gone to kosher restaurants certified by that same company, it’s pretty clear that men and women go to these kosher-certified restaurants all the time for purposes other than matrimony. So I’m not sure why that’s a hang-up with this particular restaurant. It has everything to do with a company adhering to its principles on its views of kosher certification.

  7. The quote that men and women need to only social “for matrimonial purposes” at kosher restaurants is bizarre and I don’t think it’s what they mean anyways. If I went there with my husband and we started making out, while I can’t think of any better definition of “socializing for matrimonial purposes”, I’m sure they’d kick us out (or drag us to religious statues) just like any unmarried couple. But I can’t imagine any restaurant kicking out men and women in business suits for … being men and women in business suits. Either I’m not understanding what “socializing for matrimonial purposes” is, or they don’t.

  8. I’m just not comfortable with religions who police what women wear. We don’t allow private businesses to discriminate based on race based on what is admittedly a tortured reading of the commerce clause, so why should private businesses be able to apply religious standards to women, whether waitresses or patrons?

  9. Ismone: I’m just not comfortable with religions who police what women wear.

    I’m not comfortable with ANY institution that polices what women wear. I have found very few that genuinely don’t care. What irritates the fuck out of me if the “thou shalt not touch members of the opposite sex” thing.

  10. Thanks, ismone, I’m with you. This kind of policing of women’s bodies is discriminatory, period. Also, not everyone fits the gender binary so neatly. I can’t pass as male, but being put in a skirt for me involves massive gender issues. What if the waiters are trans, butch, or otherwise nonconforming so that strict, religious based, gendered, forced clothing involves making sure we aren’t there at all. As someone who is visibily queer (and becoming even more visibly queer with the addition of breast binding-which reduces the impact of a G cup but does not completely hide it), rules like this mean that I am not welcome in public business in general. How many public businesses should I be banned from because obeyed the sexist binary enforcement is apparantly mandatory upon customers and employees if the excuse is religious? How many businesses should I be thrown out of if I am there with another person on a date because our queerness offends others’ religions? Now public kissing between two women is grounds for banishment from public businesses? But the rights of the religious bigots always get to trump the rights of queers in this country, don’t they? The rights of bigots to discriminate trumps the rights of people of all genders and sexualities to freely exist in society? I suppose we shouldn’t even bother with employment nondiscrimination and with desegregation, because someone might go into a tiff about how their religion hates certain groups of people and that it just won’t do to allow those groups in public.

  11. Yea, sorry I’m with cat on this one. I don’t know why we should humor this kind of thing at all. Restaurants, bike lanes, what next? I’m sorry, but if you think the female body is that dirty and disgusting, if you need to police gender that rigidly, then you need to leave this hugely cosmopolitan and densely populated city and go off into the woods somewhere where you can control those people who ‘choose’ to believe these things. You cannot impose this shit on the rest of us. I have zero empathy for this kind of thing, because there are people out there like cat who are so much more deserving of outrage on their behalf.

  12. Ismone: I’m just not comfortable with religions who police what women wear.

    It’s not the religions that police what women wear, it’s the people in them.

  13. Eh. Let them isolate themselves. Atheism is on the way up, and stuff like this only helps.

    And how exactly is atheism, or even simple non-fundamentalist religion, going to gain a foothold in the community if our response is “bah, go isolate yourself, we don’t care.” Shouldn’t we care about the children in these communities?

    I think the French burkha ban is a great comparison. By banning wearing burkhas in public, they’re essentially saying “Eh. Let them isolate themselves.” You’re never going to convince the people at the top who are forcing others to obey their rules, but by walking away, you’re abandoning the youths who really need a differing opinion.

  14. By banning wearing burkhas in public, they’re essentially saying “Eh. Let them isolate themselves.”

    Well, except no. They’re saying, “Eh, let the men isolate the women.” If you consider Muslim (and Jewish) women to be people, rather than signifiers or national flags, things seem somewhat different. They aren’t children, but I take the liberty of caring about them just the same.

  15. And how exactly is atheism, or even simple non-fundamentalist religion, going to gain a foothold in the community if our response is “bah, go isolate yourself, we don’t care.”

    It is, currently. Irreligiousness is on the rise in the U.S. and all over the West.

    Shouldn’t we care about the children in these communities?

    I’d be interested to hear what you’d suggest in this vein, other than separating ultra-orthodox kids from their parents. If you ARE suggesting that, I’d be interested to hear how that squares with progressivism in general.

    You’re never going to convince the people at the top who are forcing others to obey their rules, but by walking away, you’re abandoning the youths who really need a differing opinion.

    The differing opinions offered by secularism are writ large and small all over Brooklyn. To embrace religious orthodoxy here, you need to actively choose to remain ignorant. Unless it’s my paid profession — which who knows, it one day might be — I’ll pass on trying to spread secularism to people who actively choose to remain ignorant.

  16. @ galling galla

    ya know it’s a thing i seem to have to bring up a lot on this blog, but how exactly does what tom said entail the inflammatory mess you translated it into ?

  17. Dan:
    And how exactly is atheism, or even simple non-fundamentalist religion, going to gain a foothold in the community if our response is “bah, go isolate yourself, we don’t care.” Shouldn’t we care about the children in these communities?I think the French burkha ban is a great comparison. By banning wearing burkhas in public, they’re essentially saying “Eh. Let them isolate themselves.” You’re never going to convince the people at the top who are forcing others to obey their rules, but by walking away, you’re abandoning the youths who really need a differing opinion.  

    Oh poppycock. Extremists have interest in compromise. Each concession from the other side feeds their delusion that they are winning the battle. We are a free society and includes the freedom to be a repressive, hidebound, zealot but I’m not going out of my way to indulge them.

  18. I don’t know if an outsider can truly grasp the segregation in the neighborhood. It not just a subtle matter of the Jews choosing to go to one supermarket and non-Jews to another.

    I remember being vocally confused as a kid when teachers would teach lessons saying that segregation was a thing of the past. Going to the bodega, Hasidic women would cross the street as I walked down the block and blatantly pull their children away if they tried to play with me.

    In my mind, there were areas in the neighborhood where no coloreds were allowed.

    And while things like that seemed unnatural as a child, eventually it just becomes a norm. You know who not to speak to and you know where you’re not welcomed. And the cycle of segregation continues for the next generation because they aren’t seeing anything different.

    Things aren’t as drastic as I remember as I child. I can walk down the block without clearing it. Once in a very very blue moon I’ve seen Hasidic children allowed to interact with black children in the playground.

    But it’s still a world where segregation lives strong.

    What I like is that this isn’t a library or a hospital that everyone has to use. It’s a restaurant. And not only are Hasidim and “goyim” eating together, but they are sometimes interacting! This makes me genuinely happy.

    Despite the problems that they are having, this is something.

    I’ll try to restrain myself from criticizing anything because I’m not too sure how many could do better with running such environment considering the circumstances.

  19. If you really want people to come around to your seemingly-superior way of life then socially isolating them seems like a bad tactic! And that’s not even addressing the question of whether it’s moral (hint: no).

  20. Gotta say- this comment thread is seeming pretty fucking hostile to anyone who does follow a religion/believe in something spiritual. It’s a derail to pull any story involving religious people down to “well atheism for everyone is on its way, why are we even talking about this.”

    This restaurant’s trying to do something good by blending communities that otherwise don’t really mix. Their faith’s what’s led them to do that: awesome. Less awesome, and actually fairly crap, is that there’s a religious body trying to stop them from doing it. I don’t like that there is such a body, that it’s seeing a genuine effort to make a better world as a threat to the borders of their faith, and that it’s clearly looking for a reason to say “This place is not of us, it’s not for us, and it’s not wanted” when it’s trying to improve things in a very concrete way.

    We can’t abandon every member of a religion as a lost cause. Many religious people are kind and compassionate, and finding ways to engage with that compassion about things like feminism and equality is enormously important. Otherwise we just get the awful thing where religious folk all seem buttoned down, defensive and bigoted, and non-religious folk seem mocking, aggressive and belittling.

  21. EH: Can you imagine the uproar that would be caused if a halal restaurant in Brooklyn was being told by an imam that too much mixed-sex socializing was going on to maintain their sharia compliance?  

    As far as Muslim-run cafes and restaurants are concerned, halaal certification simply means that the food they serve is halaal; I’ve not seen the certification on any venue other than a straight restaurant or cafe, mind you.

    A few years ago I was considering starting up a cafe business of my own, and I wrote to a (then) well-respected imam to ask a question about whether it was acceptable to buy coffee from a particular company that had strong links to the alcohol industry. His reply was that I shouldn’t be running a cafe at all, because I would be hosting “the half-naked people”, because men would sit in the cafe and look at women, and people would gossip. He didn’t answer my main question. Perhaps he meant that if I was that particular about my coffee supplier then I really shouldn’t be in that business, but on the other hand, if you’re as strict as he was in his answer, pretty much no business is acceptable.

  22. scrumby:
    Oh poppycock. Extremists have interest in compromise. Each concession from the other side feeds their delusion that they are winning the battle. We are a free society and includes the freedom to be a repressive, hidebound, zealot but I’m not going out of my way to indulge them.  

    A free society includes the right to be an oppressive bigot?

    The fundamental contradiction in that ideology… it’s fucking overpowering my mind.

    This is why I wish I could justify the French ban on burquas. But I can’t, its just fucking wrong, no matter how oppressive the core scripture, and hence (if you are prone to using logic), the whole thing is.

    But since when was the USA, or ANY western nation, actually free?

  23. tomoe gozen: @ galling gallaya know it’s a thing i seem to have to bring up a lot on this blog, but how exactly does what tom said entail the inflammatory mess you translated it into ?  

    If we want to talk about irrelevance, I saw no need to bring up whether atheism is so much more awesome, when the post isn’t about religion. It’s about fundamentalist. And you can be fundamentalist anything–including atheist. I’ve met atheists who believe religion should be illegal entirely! I’ve also met people who actually think half the problems of the world would be solved if religion was chucked out. You’d have to be a fool. Religion is used as an excuse. If you get rid of it, people will just find other things to use as an excuse. Most–actually, all, I can’t think any exception–“holy war” that has been made in the name of God has had a political or economic reason. If it’s the people, and not the religion, the world will continue its “holy wars,” its segregation, its racism, its sexism, its unnecessary policing, its ridiculous laws under even the most peaceful of philosophies.

  24. Andrea: Yea, sorry I’m with cat on this one.I don’t know why we should humor this kind of thing at all.Restaurants, bike lanes, what next?I’m sorry, but if you think the female body is that dirty and disgusting, if you need to police gender that rigidly, then you need to leave this hugely cosmopolitan and densely populated city and go off into the woods somewhere where you can control those people who ‘choose’ to believe these things.You cannot impose this shit on the rest of us.I have zero empathy for this kind of thing, because there are people out there like cat who are so much more deserving of outrage on their behalf.  

    Totally right . C’mon: the whole sect is misogynist to the core. Let’s not even get into the head-shaving thing…..

  25. I have neither patience nor tolerance for any “religion” that has as one of its cornerstones the inhumanity of women. And that’s pretty much every religion. As much as one might like to say it’s “the people” who make bad choices within an otherwise good religion, all religions, at their core (except Wicca), degrade and debase women and any other “non-man,” for that matter. Some are worse than others. But they all suck, frankly.

    And there’s no such thing as a “fundamentalist” atheist, because atheism isn’t a religion/

    1. Ok, we can agree or disagree about whether or not religion sucks generally, but that’s not really what this post is about, so let’s move it along.

  26. The info in the post was that the STAFF wears Lubavich acceptable clothing, not that all patrons are required to. In fact, the business owner appeared to be standing up against the kosher certification organization who was concerned about the less-covered young couples. It was the PDA that the restaurant owner drew the line at. You can certainly argue that the line was inappropriate, but there is no support in Jill’s post for the accusation/assumption that the restaurant was policing what female patrons were wearing. In fact, there is evidence that women in summer dresses and short skirts were allowed in the restaurant and served without incident.

  27. We can’t abandon every member of a religion as a lost cause. Many religious people are kind and compassionate, and finding ways to engage with that compassion about things like feminism and equality is enormously important.

    I wish you good luck trying to introduce progressivism to a sect that still recognizes the Book of Leviticus as a valuable source of information about how to live in the world. I simply don’t see the point.

    Religion is used as an excuse. If you get rid of it, people will just find other things to use as an excuse.

    I couldn’t disagree more. You’re right that religion isn’t the source of all the world’s ills, of course — no one said that it is. But the idea that one’s stated beliefs about how the moral world operates have no impact on how they act is just ridiculous. If what you say is the case, and people just have an insatiable desire to oppress one another and will invent excuses to do so, why didn’t the Ancient Greeks develop religious justifications to oppress homosexuals? Why haven’t there been any Jainist holy wars? Because those cultures had specific moral beliefs that helped them treat one another a little better than average.

  28. tinfoil hattie: I have neither patience nor tolerance for any “religion” that has as one of its cornerstones the inhumanity of women.And that’s pretty much every religion.As much as one might like to say it’s “the people” who make bad choices within an otherwise good religion, all religions, at their core (except Wicca) degrade and debase women and any other “non-man,”

    And what about Unitarian Universalism? They ordain female ministers, and a significant number of congregations (at least half in the U.S and Canada) are in fact led by women. (And the UU church will also marry same sex couples.) Liberal Quakers also come to mind, though truth be told I have no idea how widely practiced that faith is.

  29. Wow, so many of these comments make me want to throw things.

    I feel like one nuance of this article is really difficult to understand if you aren’t familiar with the current system of kosher certification. Restaurants that claim that they are kosher, generally need someone to go into their kitchen to ensure that they are adhering to various standards.

    Over the past decade or so, these standards have gotten stricter across the board. There are a bunch of theories for why this is, from “the rabbis who run these committees are corrupt and want more power and money” to “some Jewish communities are moving to the right and dragging us all with them, because no one wants to look less holy than thou.” It’s started getting pretty ridiculous, like people filtering their water to get out any microscopic crustaceans that might be in there. Or using light boxes to check vegetables for non-kosher insects.

    At the same time, there’s a lot of discussion in various Jewish communities about what obligation kosher certification boards have to ensure that other Jewish laws are being upheld. Most won’t certify a Jewish-owned restaurant that’s open on the Sabbath, because food cooked on the Sabbath by a Jew is considered unkosher. This discussion really came to a head a couple years ago, with the Agroproccessors scandal came out. This was a Hasidic owned business, and many Hasidim would only eat meat from this company. However, after a bunch of really horrific information came out, the bulk of the non-Hasidic Jewish communities that I’ve lived in stopped eating food from that company, on the grounds that it was not kosher. Even though the slaughter was likely OK, from the perspective of Jewish law. Then there’s the political issue of having multiple kosher certification boards in one city, and who follows them and who DOESN’T follow them. It’s more and less complicated in New York because of the large Jewish population.

    So there’s a very fine line when you’re talking about surrounding behavior of the owners, particularly Jewish ones, and kosher certification. Actually, in Seattle, where I live, I think it’s easier to get a restaurant certified as if you’re not Jewish, because there are fewer restrictions. It’s all very nuanced.

    Also, I’d really like to ask a few people to check themselves. There are many, many reasons why so many Jews ended up in New York and segregating themselves. Most of those reasons involve the nasty consequences of Jewish immigrants moving the US within the past century. Maybe the best move for these fundamentalists NOW is to get out of New York and move somewhere more isolated. But they’re there right now, and it’s not by accident. Also, having the fundamentalist Jewish sects in New York or other big cities means that it’s easier for people to escape from those communities, when they want to.

    Also, please stop the religion bashing. Tom Foolery, I’m looking at you. I know I’m totally ridiculous for looking at the book of Leviticus as a source of wisdom, what with tithing to the poor and loving my neighbor as myself and all.

  30. Tom Foolery: why didn’t the Ancient Greeks develop religious justifications to oppress homosexuals?
    Two of their gods, at least, were bi.

    Indigo Jo: Halal applies to grocery stores too. Just an FYI.

    Magpie_Seven: I have met some awesome religious people, but as a role, if one isn’t raised in a religious community, one’s main exposure to religion tends to be through the media coverage on stories like this, or televangelists. In real life, too, far too many religious people tend to live down to the stereotype of being judgy and conservative. And personally, I think a lot of the atheistic ‘mockery’ is premptive self-defense.

  31. Shoshie: Also, please stop the religion bashing. Tom Foolery, I’m looking at you. I know I’m totally ridiculous for looking at the book of Leviticus as a source of wisdom, what with tithing to the poor and loving my neighbor as myself and all. 

    …Are there no sources of wisdom that teach the golden rule without also being the source of the most quoted passage in religious gay bashing?

  32. A good part of this post is about problems with religions and whether or not they “suck.” The whole problem with Basil is that religious rules and regulations are being used to justify discrimination. If that’s not about religion, what is it about? The rules about a restaurant’s being kosher derive from religion. A woman-hating religion. How can you pretend to separate the problems with religion from this post? On a feminist blog?

    Also, I stand corrected re: UU church. Thank you.

  33. PoliticalguineapigIndigo Jo: Halal applies to grocery stores too. Just an FYI.

    Yes it does. But it applies to the food served and nothing else, that’s the point.

    Some kashrut certifiers, particularly those attached to the more closed Orthodox groupings or Haredim (such as exist in Stanford Hill in London, for example) use their certifications to police other aspects of what goes on in the venue, such as whether there is evidence of support for Israel (which many of the Haredis are against, but not all) and, in this case, the dress and behaviour of the customers and staff, and if they lose it, they will probably lose their main customer base.

    By contrast, I have been in halaal restaurants in England which are certified by the HMC (Halaal Monitoring Committee), considered a “hardline” certifier because they insist that the animals are not stunned before slaughter, and you can tell that there is no policing of staff dress or anything else besides the meat they sell.

  34. why didn’t the Ancient Greeks develop religious justifications to oppress homosexuals?

    The Ancient Greeks had plenty of prohibitions and stigmas against homosexuals. Granted none of those were religious but I think the rules about women, slaves, foreigners and anyone else that didn’t fall under the heading of citizen more than made up for not being as dickish about homosexuality as the Judeo-Christian folk. Moral of the story: People are bastards and will always find an excuse to treat other people like crap be it religion, or nationalism, or tribalism, or racism, or any other way you can imagine that separates them from us.

  35. Also, please stop the religion bashing. Tom Foolery, I’m looking at you.

    Religion is a set of ideas that people choose to adhere to, no different than Republicanism, feminism, libertarianism, or progressivism. It doesn’t get a pass from being assessed on its merits.

    Are there no sources of wisdom that teach the golden rule without also being the source of the most quoted passage in religious gay bashing?

    “”Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.”

    Mahavira

  36. PrettyAmiable-
    Sure there are. That’s not what I said. But I AM a religious Jew, so the Torah is part and parcel of my beliefs. Now, there are parts of it that I disagree with (y’know, like the part about homosexual sex), and parts that I flat out ignore (like the stuff about sacrifices, which aren’t ritually relevant these days). But I still see the Torah, including the book of Leviticus, as a “valuable source of information about how to live in the world.” That’s what I was responding to.

    Oh, and for the record, y’all, my brand of observant liberal Judaism is incredibly feminist. It is, in many ways, the source of my feminism. Which is why I’m getting pretty angry with people painting all observant Jews and Judaism and religions with one brush.

  37. Andy: No, religion is entirely the point.Have you ever seen a fundamentalist secular?Didn’t think so.  

    yes I have. Get far enough into the skeptics community and you will too. People invent the most ridiculous nonsense wrap it in a veil of science and logic and then proceed to bash everyone else over the head with it.

  38. I think the person above who said that religion functions as an excuse was right, but what ze missed is the fact that religious excuses are given a social privileging that other excuses are not. Would you honestly be defending this person’s excuses if they were because of his political party membership rather than his religion? Would you get defensive about criticisms towards the source of his behavior? That is the issue about religious based bigotry, the fact that it is religious means that it is often given a pass. If I get into an argument about the rights of queer people, my opponent pretty much always brings up religion. So, I attack their premises with the same gusto I would attack secular queerphobic excuses, but, when I do this, then I am the ‘bad guy’ for attacking the person’s religious beliefs and for daring to publically assert that I don’t believe their god exists and they have no right to force such absurd opinions on me.

    I also do not buy the ‘liberal religion fixes the problem’ line, because, while much better than fundamentalists, they still seek to make excuses for the notion that it is acceptable to push your religious beliefs on others and that irrational religious based excuses have some place in any kind of civilized discourse. By responding to ‘god hates fags’ with ‘god loves fags’, you are helping them take the discussion out of the realm of everyday realities of queer people and into a theological pissing match. The traditonal majority view always wins in these, because the popular irrational excuse beats the unpopular one every time, because you have given religion authority over ‘valuable ways to live in the world’ and most of it says evil shit. Religion is not a neutral excuse, it is an excuse that carries thousands of years of brutality anc cruelty as baggage and has massive social power.

  39. Women make up at least half (and often, the practicing majority) of a variety of communities of faith. I am of the belief that a part of feminism is taking women as they choose to present themselves, rather than arrogantly attempting to save the poor brainwashed dears from their patriarchical religious structures and their oppressive family situations and their ugly uncomfortable religious clothing.

    Yes, I have seen fundamentalist secularists and militant atheists. The religion or absence thereof does not change the fundamental nature of the unacceptable behavior: a patronizing, righteous, widely and loudly expressed belief in one’s superiority over others. Not cool in Christian fundies, not cool in militant Salafis, not cool in laicite secularists either.

    But to return to the author’s point, which is very interesting- how do you come to reasonable accommodations between people of various faith/no faith persuasions? I just spent a year in Saudi and the question is very much in my mind.

    I thought Shoshie had a very good point- in matters like this the strict/conservative tend to drag the community to the right because no one wants to be the one who stands up for the accommodation/innovation/reinterpretation and look irreligious.

    I think good intentions count for a lot in 80% of interactions- that even when there’s friction everyone’s stated and implicit willingness to give the benefit of the doubt counts for a lot (lots of smiling and a willingness to apologize helps too). The other 20% will never be happy- if you wear abaya then why aren’t you wearing hijab? And if you wear hijab then why don’t you wear ‘good’ hijab? becomes where is your niqab? becomes, put on some gloves.

    My difficulty is figuring out where my lines are with that last 20%. Because I know that any accommodation will only lead to demands for more, because the desired goal is not respect but submission. I don’t know how and where to draw my “lines.” I don’t want to provoke that other 80% who would receive a gesture of respect or accommodation in the spirit in which it was intended. On the other hand, someone needs to give the bigot in that 20% a smackdown, especially when we emerge from the grey area of requesting accommodation and move into the clear light of overbearing and overreaching woman-policing/slut shaming.

    I agree that the lines are hard to draw.

  40. Also, can we stop pretending that queer and religious are mutual exclusive? There are a lot of queer, religious people. And a lot of queer, religious Jews! Myself included.

  41. I’ve got to underscore something here. I’ll happily grant that religion can and is used as an excuse for whatever relevant bigotry someone might posses. A distaste or disdain for women is certainly a popular one. However, I think it’s worth noting that it isn’t purely an excuse, and is very often the source of that prejudice. People filter their opinions through religion, but they also come to those opinions through religion. Charity is great and all, but sexual violence, race/gender/orientation hatred, and general cruelty… not so much so. And when all four come heavily praised from the same source material, you can’t act as though some of it has influence, and other parts don’t.

    There certainly are some small-minded bigots who’d still feel the way they do even if they weren’t religious, but there are also those who would be better people if they didn’t think the creator of the universe wrote them a guidebook on the Right Way To Live.

  42. People invent the most ridiculous nonsense wrap it in a veil of science and logic and then proceed to bash everyone else over the head with it.

    It’s absurd to conflate this with “fundamentalist secularism.” There is on one “secular” point of view under which people gather and make rules, laws, and proclamations about how others should behave. What you’re describing is just people being assholes. There’s no such thing as “fundamentalist secularism.” It’s a contradiction in terms. Fundamentalist religions, however, are religions that subscribe to a precise set of hardline beliefs created by the founders of that religion. Secularism is the absence of religion.

  43. Am I wrong in thinking that the Hasidim and other Orthodox Jews police the appearance and clothing of men almost as much (if not as much) as they do with respect to women? Wouldn’t they object just as much to a man whom they saw as exposing too much flesh? You certainly don’t see Hasidic men going around in shorts and t-shirts and hatless themselves.

    Are Hasidism, and Orthodox Judaism in general, woman-hating? I can certainly understand that viewpoint; there’s a reason I’m not religiously observant myself (not that I’d be Orthodox anyway; I think the last Orthodox ancestor of mine died in 1887!). But I’ve met and talked to enough Hasidic and otherwise Orthodox women who are well aware of all the issues but see things differently, that I”m not necessarily willing to be quite so reflexively dismissive of how those women choose — and it can be a choice — to lead their lives.

  44. Who said they were mutually exclusive? I said the book is used to spread hatred of gay people pretty consistently. And it is. And endorsing it because it partially spreads a message that is good doesn’t eliminate the fact that it is the most used religious text for the support of discrimination against gay people. I’m not saying it’s not also discriminatory against gay Jews. It is.

    So.. what?

  45. Oh, on re-reading the thread, I think I realized that wasn’t for me.

    Sorry! I’m not trying to start internet wars 461531e^(1748).0

  46. When Perez asked her to stop, she responded by defiantly planting a kiss on the lips of another young woman in the group. Perez says she then forcefully escorted her to the back of the dining room, pointed to a picture of the Lubavitch spiritual leader that hangs there and admonished her: “You’re in their backyard. You have to respect their ways.”

    Quite simply, if this “forcefully escorting” (by a stranger in a public restaurant) bullshit is going on in response to 2 adults kissing, something is wrong. In this case, that “something” is fundamentalist assholes trying to control people that don’t buy into their crappy religionpression. Lovely. Thumbs down, restaurant, for putting your hands on women to try and appeal to people who hate women. There is really not a great reason to do that.

    And if “fundamentalist secular” is now a thing, I guess “fundamentalist” has officially lost all meaning as a term. I suppose that using the scientific method makes me a “fundamentalist scientist” or that holding men and women equal makes me a scary “fundamentalist feminist.” Ridiculous.

  47. BTW, even though I started this whole “policing sucks” business, I did want to get back to the other aspect of the article, which is the upside of having the different communities mix. That is what has me really torn about this. It seems like it is a really good thing to fight segregation, separation, all the things that keep various groups in the U.S. insular and apart. And frankly, in my own interactions with modern orthodox men, I don’t try to shake their hands. But I am very conflicted about it, in part for the reason that Cat hits upon, which is that it is kind of unfair to privilege religion over any other belief system/opinion.

  48. tinfoil hattie: A good part of this post is about problems with religions and whether or not they “suck.” The whole problem with Basil is that religious rules and regulations are being used to justify discrimination. If that’s not about religion, what is it about? The rules about a restaurant’s being kosher derive from religion. A woman-hating religion. How can you pretend to separate the problems with religion from this post? On a feminist blog?Also, I stand corrected re: UU church. Thank you.  (Quote this comment?)

    Great post and you are exactly right. Of course the issues being discussed cannot be separated from the root cause of discriminatory practices via religious doctrine.

  49. I once went to a kosher steakhouse in Buenos Aires in which there were only Hasidim with families. I wouldn’t dream of walking in there with even my arms showing, when all other patrons were more or less covered head to toe.

    The only reason to wear more modest clothing is to keep from feeling horribly uncomfortable from being stared at, not because the other group dictates it. I have traveled to Morocco several time. After the first time, I surrendered and wore longer skirts and long sleeves. Not because I respect their stupid misogynistic values but because I got sick and tired of being stared at.

  50. Call me a cynic, but it has been my experience that pretty much any philosophy, religious or secular, can fall prey to the human tendency to impose conformity of thought and action upon others. When it gets to that point, it’s called dogma, or if you prefer a term of secular origin, groupthink. The problem isn’t necessarily religion, but the fact that we are all human. After all, the groupthink/dogma of much (but not all) of religion had to come from somewhere in the first place. It didn’t spring fully formed from the Zeus’ forehead. It came from human nature. If we aren’t careful, those social patterns can pop up anywhere: even in atheism or feminism.

  51. Which is why I’m getting pretty angry with people painting all observant Jews and Judaism and religions with one brush. Shoshie

    Look, I’m pretty religious, but 99 times out of 100 I’m going to be on the side of even the most radical and poorly spoken of atheists. Why? Because I live in the west. The reality is that when people talk about religion in our society they’re talking about Judaic traditions virtually all of the time. In the west religion essentially boils down to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I’m sorry, but 5000 years of horror and refusing to learn from the mistakes of one’s ancestors and predecessors pretty much loses any monotheist I encounter any shred of sympathy.

    I’m glad you’ve found a way to manage the cognitive dissonance but, frankly, that doesn’t change much. Your deeply and sincerely held religious beliefs, however you tap dance around the ugly bits, are still the source of a tradition of oppression that goes back millennia and somehow manages to hurt and oppress every time it manages to get power. It doesn’t really matter if you call the oppressors elders, priests, rabbis, or imams, it all ends with one group of people telling others that they are in opposition to the natural order if they do not obey. That kind of logic leads to violence, cruelty, and oppression.

    People have a right to believe what they choose. I would argue that they even have a right to have their right to believe defended by others even at the cost of life and limb. They do not, however, have a right to exist unchallenged when their practices lead to unacceptable outcomes. If a Lubavicher wants to act like and asshole and whinge about cats and dogs under the same roof then they have every right to do so. At the same time, I have every right to call them out. You have every right to defend the portions of ground you share with them. The rest of us have every right to call out the inconsistencies we believe we see.

    Fundamentalists ruin everything because they put on display what us religious folks would like to not have to see. They put our worst faces forward. One of the drawbacks of being religious is that sometimes you have to be reminded of the fools who surround you. Thats just part of the package, no one said faith was supposed to be easy.

  52. Timberwraith,

    That’s true, but one unique feature of religion is that it has at its core the prescription of faith, of accepting its teachings based on pure belief. Do people accept other forms of philosophy on belief alone without proof? Sure. But religion mandates it.

    And Shoshone, you don’t get to tell me to check myself because I’m not interested in having my actions and movement through space inhibited by fundamentalists. I’m fully cognizant of the reasons many Jews ended up in NYC, but historical oppression doesn’t justify then perpetrating oppression on other groups. And my suggestion that they leave NY is because their belief system is not compatible with a modern society in which women have agency and autonomy. Are they free to hold that belief system? Sure. Do they get to restrict my movement through and access to public spaces because of it? I think not. So if being shielded from the modern woman is so important, they’re the ones that need to go somewhere where they can effectively shield themselves. They don’t get to tell me, well, anything.

  53. What the HELL is this? A feminist, supposedly sex-positive website is lauding patriarchal, closeminded control of loving and consensual behavior? So DOMA’s all right, then, because we ‘live in their backyard’? So not passing ENDA’s a good thing, because if it passed people might be offended that they had to treat people outside of ‘normal’ boundaries as people? So DADT should totally stay, because of the homophobic brass who should be respected for what they want in ‘their’ troops?

    News flash, we’re all in each other’s backyards. We’re human beings on the same planet, every decision we make affects someone else somewhere. You could just as easily say that man is in that woman’s backyard; she lives in the city as well, and might even live closer to the restaurant. He has no right to police consensual, innocuous behavior and I’m really horrified that many people in this thread have skipped right over that. So it’s okay that this manager enforces the wishes of a bigot because he’s religious? Why not start shaming gay people, then, because Fred Phelps doesn’t like them? How ’bout we start telling people of color that they’re not allowed to have positions of authority over white people, because the Mormons wouldn’t like it? How about we /all/ start hating trans people, because so many people are attached to the gender binary and don’t like people who don’t ‘fit’?

    Well, why not?

    Oh, right. Because using ideology to control non-harmful behavior IS WRONG, and no less so in this case.

  54. Gah, was trying to quote this part:

    ‘Perez says she then forcefully escorted her to the back of the dining room, pointed to a picture of the Lubavitch spiritual leader that hangs there and admonished her: “You’re in their backyard. You have to respect their ways.” ‘

    That’s what my post is mostly in reaction to.

  55. shoshie – Sorry, but there’s no defence of communities full of people that insist that non-Jews have no souls, communities that shun the victims of paedophile rabbis while praising criminals to the heights, and communities of people who see POC as less than human.

    There’s no defence of people who force newspapers to BAN wedding announcements for gay couples.
    Bashing the Torah Talibanis is not bashing Judaism as a whole. You know it isn’t. The frum world is riddled with corruption and abuse, look around the internet and you’ll find testimony from people who want, need, to leave their communities but can’t because they’ve never received a proper education, have no money or contacts etc. There are frum women who are fed up of the hatred/fear of females, who actively resent having to cover up their BABIES to avoid being accused of corrupting men and boys, who want to rear up against the increasing restrictions on women and girls in their communities, but essentially have no choice but to comply.

    Funny how when there’s a hint of this behaviour by practicers of Islam it’s decried as shameful, and they’re basically told to assimilate or GTFO, regardless of why they left their countries of origin. They’re told to stop closing their communities off, that their behaviour is grounds to investigate them for terrorism, that they need to ‘fit in’, or “When in Rome”. Shariah= evil, betai dinem = fine!

    It’s a disgrace. Minhag and chumra =/= halakah, and you know it. Nobody is bashing all Jews, they are merely angry at those who can use their past as a free pass to do whatever the hell they want. Start with ‘Defamation’ and work your way down.

  56. timberwraith: Call me a cynic, but it has been my experience that pretty much any philosophy, religious or secular, can fall prey to the human tendency to impose conformity of thought and action upon others. When it gets to that point, it’s called dogma, or if you prefer a term of secular origin, groupthink. The problem isn’t necessarily religion, but the fact that we are all human. After all, the groupthink/dogma of much (but not all) of religion had to come from somewhere in the first place. It didn’t spring fully formed from the Zeus’ forehead. It came from human nature. If we aren’t careful, those social patterns can pop up anywhere: even in atheism or feminism.  (Quote this comment?)

    Agree!!

  57. How about we /all/ start hating trans people, because so many people are attached to the gender binary and don’t like people who don’t ‘fit’?

    Many trans people DO fit “the gender binary.”

    Also, DADT and gay marriage are not the same level of priority for every gay person that they are for you. Personally I’m a little more concerned about the military going overseas to kill people than I am about who gets to do it. Also see: http://www.beyondmarriage.org/

  58. Just want to give huge props to Shoshie for speaking up. as a christian, my faith and radical politics are not mutually exclusive, and it’s frustrating when others on the left act treat me as if i’m ignorant and self-hating because of my spiritual beliefs. i already get more than enough sh*t from hostile conservatives who don’t think i’m a “real” christian.

    (btw, a couple of other denominations that are feminist and queer and trans friendly are the United Church of Christ and Metropolitan Community Church)

  59. What timberwraith said.

    But also: religion isn’t just something that oppressors use; it’s something that oppressed people use to survive. I don’t feel at all comfortable with a blanket religion-bad assertion, not when I know so many people who have used religion to hold onto their humanity in the face of overwhelming horror. I think it’s cavalier.

  60. But also: religion isn’t just something that oppressors use; it’s something that oppressed people use to survive. I don’t feel at all comfortable with a blanket religion-bad assertion, not when I know so many people who have used religion to hold onto their humanity in the face of overwhelming horror. I think it’s cavalier.

    That argument only holds so far as the oppressed person doesn’t turn around and use their religion to oppress someone weaker than themselves. Wiesel’s Night or Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning are about as far away from physically dragging a woman to look at a picture of an old man in order to scold her for daring to be physically affectionate as you can get. Conflating the two, regardless of the context, degrades the former and grants the latter a legitimacy it simply doesn’t deserve.

  61. Certainly–I’m guessing you weren’t responding to my comment per se, but to the argument that this was an appropriate response?

  62. RD:
    Many trans people DO fit “the gender binary.”Also, DADT and gay marriage are not the same level of priority for every gay person that they are for you.Personally I’m a little more concerned about the military going overseas to kill people than I am about who gets to do it.Also see:http://www.beyondmarriage.org/  

    Ultimately, yes, but try convincing a bigot that, for instance, a woman originally born with male genitalia should actually be able to arrange her life and physique to what’s best and right for her. She’ll always be a ‘freak’, a ‘she-man’ to certain parts of society, certain groups that are at least partly informed by religion. According the ‘backyard’ and ‘respect’ argument, though, we should be listening to said bigots.
    For your second point, I’m concerned about a lot of things with the military. I don’t like a lot about it, but I don’t think we should write off people who still need help and respect just because the military actually seemed like a good path to work and education. Write them off and you give them no reason to buck the system.
    And lastly, I mentioned more than just gay marriage or a narrow definition of partnership or any strawman of the sort. I am not prioritizing approval and convention, in fact I am specifically saying that conventions used to restrict meaningfully consensual and non-harmful behavior should not be given any weight, and I was under the impression that an ally website and supposedly ally commenters would agree. Dragging someone to the picture of an old white man and telling someone, ‘live by their rules,’ when said rules are bigoted and closeminded and almost everything this website and its adherents claim to dislike under any other umbrella until it comes under religion? How in the world is that right?

  63. William Said:

    That argument only holds so far as the oppressed person doesn’t turn around and use their religion to oppress someone weaker than themselves.

    Here I am playing the cynic, again: virtually any philosophy or institution can be used as a weapon of oppression. As much as I appreciate feminism as a force for good in the world, its philosophies have also been used in ways that have hurt people in other intersecting marginalized groups. For example, far too many cis feminists to have excluded and ostracized trans people across the decades. As another example, during the fight for women’s right to vote, white suffragettes actively employed racism as a means of garnering greater appeal for their cause. Welcome to the kyriarchy. It has a gift for turning marginalized peoples against each other.

  64. Welcome to the kyriarchy. It has a gift for turning marginalized peoples against each other.

    Sorry, but I feel like thats a dodge. Religion has, traditionally and generally, acted as a tool of oppression first and everything else second. It is a means to power. Some of us manage to push past that and find something ecstatic beyond the history of horror. That doesn’t change the history. Oppression is oppression. Thats our burden to bear, we have to live in a world where what brings us comfort has been used to bring so many people pain. We have to constantly stand up to it, we have to reconcile that history within ourselves.

    The kyriarchy is a nice way of organizing the way we think about power and oppression but it doesn’t change that oppression is something that must be stood up to. The parts of a system which actively oppress must be challenged, often at the expense of the system as a whole. Our faiths will survive even if our religions fall. Oppressed persons will not survive if we don’t take that risk.

    Besides, dragging your religion into public says everything that needs to be said about your motives.

  65. I find this story fascinating, because it gets right to the heart of the knotty problem of how to engage with religious intolerance. Leaving aside the larger conversation about religion and oppression, I seems safe to say that the sect of Judaism represented in this community (Lubavitch Judaism) is an intolerant and bigoted belief system. What is the benefit/cost of taking “baby steps” towards engagement and understanding?

    Basil is not offering to forge common ground between the Lubavitch community and the rest of the Brooklyn community. Basil is offering to forge common ground between the Lubavitch community and those Brooklynites who are “other” but not TOO “other”. Het, cis black folk who are willing to be completely asexual while in the restuarant? OK. Genderqueer folk, gay couples, people who believe they have a right to touch their dates in public spaces? Not OK.

    If I, as a non-religious het cis married woman, go to Basil and enjoy a nice dinner next to a booth full of local Lubavitch members, what have I accomplished? I may have helped forge a sense of understanding and community between myself and those Lubavitch folk. But I’ve also validated their hateful, bigoted attitudes and practices towards those who are just too outside their norms. Is the benefit worth the cost?

    This is a genuine question. Its unlikely that the progressive community in that neighborhood will get far with the Lubavitch group if they expect full acceptance of all genders/sexualities/sexual mores from the get-go. But if they accept some level of intolerance and bigotry as a stepping stone to a better place, they need to be really clear about the value of the greater goal.

    And here’s where I get really hung up: Is the Lubavitch community ever going to accept and acknowledge the humanity of queer folk, women, and people who choose to fuck without being married? If, as seems likely, that ain’t gonna happen, then why would I want to have community with these people? How do we engage people who promote bigotry without validating their bigotry?

  66. Ismone: I’m just not comfortable with religions who police what women wear

    Um, I not confortable with organizations and people that police women wear. This includes some feminist institutions /people, some governments, some companies, some religious groups and the list goes on. This targeting of only the “unfriendly” to my position people make our arguments look silly or less than sincere.

  67. I find it hard to believe that the case needs to be made that the content of people’s ideologies matters. To resurrect the quote I posted earlier, which comes from the founder of the Jain faith:

    “Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.”

    -Mahavira

    Now, it might be an interesting theoretical exorcise to envision the brutal dogmatic theocracy that might emerge from such a statement of faith, but I think it’s pretty safe to say that I’d prefer to live there than, say, Afghanistan under the Taliban or Spain under Isabel and Ferdinand.

    Now, I’m not a Jainist, and I’m sure there things in that faith that would be undesirable if implemented by a repressive state but it’s not that hard to identify specific things that religious ideologies contain that are problematic when it comes to living in a free and happy society. All ideologies are not equal when it comes to promoting human joy or causing human suffering.

  68. Religion has, traditionally and generally, acted as a tool of oppression first and everything else second. It is a means to power. Some of us manage to push past that and find something ecstatic beyond the history of horror. That doesn’t change the history. Oppression is oppression. Thats our burden to bear, we have to live in a world where what brings us comfort has been used to bring so many people pain. We have to constantly stand up to it, we have to reconcile that history within ourselves.

    I’m going to have to agree with timberwraith here, all philosophies have the ability to be used as tools of oppression. Religion is just one subcategory of philosophy. Sure, it’s been used to oppress people before, and it still is today, but so have other supposedly secular philosophies. Completely accurate statistics are hard to come by here, but something like 100,000,000 people died last century due to at least one of those philosophies.

    Religion and other types of philosophy may often be used as tools of oppression, but they don’t always have to be. The early Christians opposed infanticide, so religion doesn’t always have to be oppressive. The civil rights movement was based on a philosophy that was both religious and secular. Religion is not by its nature oppressive any more than philosophy is.

  69. 1) I’m honestly confused how people read my comments as supporting the fundamentalism. If someone could point that out, I would be grateful, as that was SO not my intention. My intention was to make the case for a) this situation being more complicated and broader than one could get directly from the NY Times article and b) not all religion, including Western religion, being awful and oppressive.

    2) I’ve got to agree with timberwraith as well. Religion is historically oppressive because it was historically in power. Give another philosophy the same amount of power, and it will become oppressive as well. And I don’t buy that there’s something inherent to religion that it will get more power than other philosophies.

    3) Also, 100% what piny said. My religion saved my life. Full stop. It gave me community and people to hold on to when I was deep into depression. I am fully convinced that if I had not had that community, I would not have survived.

    William-
    I don’t find it possible to separate my faith from my religion, because my religion is heavily community-based. It’s incredibly difficult to practice Judaism outside of a community, and a community generally means having community-standards. And, sometimes, those community standards can be oppressive. Is that a reason to throw up your arms and do away with communities? No, of course not. You fight oppression within that community. Or you leave, and form a new community. Hence, liberal religion. I find that having religious communities, if they are dedicated to supporting the group members and fighting oppression, can be incredibly sources for good. Fundamentalists ruin everything…but I’m not convinced that religion does. Even Western religion.

  70. William said:

    Besides, dragging your religion into public says everything that needs to be said about your motives.

    Huh? I don’t believe in deities. I’m also not a member of any organized religion. If you don’t believe that, go read my blog.

    If I were in the restaurant mention in the OP, and the waitstaff had chided me for being affectionate with my boyfriend, I might have kissed my female friend, too (if I had thought of it). So, what are my motives, again?

    I’m critical of religion, too, but I’m not part of the “religion sucks, lets get rid of it” crowd. I recognize that religion and religious people have used their faith in ways that have served a crucial role in actively challenging oppression. I also recognize that there are churches, denominations, and faith organizations who have anti-oppression incorporated into their philosophies. If you paint with the broad brush of “religion sucks,” you loose potential allies in whatever your anti-oppression cause might be. That’s a poor strategy, if you ask me.

    Just as I recognize that religion is actually capable of doing good things, I also recognize that movements that are designed to challenge oppression have been consciously and openly used to oppress others. That’s no dodge, William. I’m a trans woman. I’m one of those people who is all too familiar with feminism’s poor relationship with trans folk. As much as I like feminism, I’m familiar with it’s potential to harm others. So, if you are fishing for motives, there’s your source.

    My whole point is this: if you don’t recognize your own capacity to partake in the more harmful manifestations of conformity and in-group/out-group social patterns, you will eventually become part of the problem. The root problem isn’t religion: it’s conformity combined with groupthink, and the willingness to harm those who are different from you. Any, and I do mean any, group of people is capable of this. There are no saints. There are only human beings.

  71. These threads always turn into a Giant Referendum On Religion In General.

    I don’t know if that’s good or bad. I guess I’m just kinda tired of these discussions in general. I feel like they achieve nothing.

    I say that meaning no offense to anyone participating.

    Oh, and I’m also fairly religious. In case anyone is interested in knowing – or yelling at me about it. Or whatever.

  72. Shoshie – did you read my comment? (67)

    Your quote “sometimes, those community standards can be oppressive. Is that a reason to throw up your arms and do away with communities? No, of course not. You fight oppression within that community. Or you leave, and form a new community. “

    That statement completely disregards the lifestyles being lived in places like the Five Towns. If someone is uneducated, barely literate, saddled with kids and has no marketable skills – how do they escape, tell me please? I left behind a niece of 19 with three children. She can barely read or write, they live on welfare (her husband is a full-time kollel learner) and all of her kids are in Early Intervention due to developmental disabilities. All she ‘knows’ of the world outside Crown Heights is that it is evil, that all goyim want to kill her and her children, and that it will make her impure. How does she escape? I’ve had to change my identity completely to get away, I cannot contact any of them.

    You may defend them, but truthfully? You’re not a Jew to them at all, you’re a Chillul Hashem (sin against G_d) to them. These are people who claim that non-Jews exist only to serve Jews after Moshiach returns. Your ‘queerness’, your interaction with feminists, acceptance of gays (and mine too) make us tamei (not pure).

    One messageboard poster about this restaurant claimed that the owner was not a ‘real’ Jew, and that they were terrified because the restaurant was attracting a ‘certain type’. She later clarified that she meant “Schvartzes”. You want to defend that?

    The tragedy where Nechama Rothberger killed a chinese delivery man because she was too busy texting while driving – the community’s response to that? It was his fault for being on their territory, that chinese drive badly, and that Miss Rothberger should be spared punishment. I cannot defend that attitude. Her family should be saying tehillim for Tian Sheng-Lim’s family, not covering themselves. If the accident had been the other way round would he have escaped with a misdemeanor of reckless driving?

    I left my entire family, lifestyle and upbringing behind. The final straw for me was being reprimanded by my rebbetzin for the untzniusdik (not modest) way my daughter was dressed. She was not wearing tights, her collarbones could be seen, and her sleeves were too short. She was 13 months old. I was told “She’ll be refused at every gan (kindergarten) unless you change your ways”.

    But, that was not the only reason. I was tired of hearing that goyim have no souls, that we should stand by and watch them suffer. I donated money to a disaster appeal for a tragedy that happened in a country with no Jews, and was the subject of hurtful lashon hara (gossip) for months. I was sickened when female relatives were taken out of school, so that their brothers could continue, as money spent on girls was a ‘waste’. I was angry at community members decrying all non-Jews as evil, hateful animals who they wanted no part of – but who gladly accept food stamps and welfare, saying “Better out of their pocket than ours”.

    If you haven’t lived it and had the attitude forced in your throat that anyone not a frum Jew is wicked, then you have no idea how deeply trapped these people are. In the ‘goyishe velt’ (outside world) I’ve reacted with small amusement at the way Muslims are treated, because their customs honestly are virtually identical to those of the Chareidim & Chossids (orthodox Jews). Why then are they the ‘bad guys’, when the people of the Five Towns are ‘poor persecuted holy people’? by the media. They hold by similar dress standards (although they don’t inflict them on babies), their dietary laws are similar (and they will eat kosher if halal is not available), but the differences are that they will give charity to anyone who asks of it (myself included) and they will break bread with anyone. They don’t hold by the notion that they are a special nation, or that race is a barrier to being part of their tradition. Try even being Sefardi (eastern Jew) in the 5Ts and see how bad they’re treated, because their minhagim (customs) are seen as a result of being ignorant or ill-educated with regard to Halakah (Jewish law).

    Lastly – please look into the bigotry surrounding Chabad Lubavitch. I used to work at a 770 (Chabad House) and realised that things I was taught and had accepted as fact (gays are evil, crossdressing is wicked, black people are not the same as humans etc.) are the real Chillul Hashem (sin against G-d) because He created everyone, not just the white Jews with wives and children.

    I feel like a bad person for believing the things I was taught. A friend said to me “If you were born to Buddhists you’d have believed in that. If your parents were Christian you’d believe in that. You can’t help what you believed”. I realised then that I was not special, or chosen, just born to one set of parents and not another. The Yiddishe Velt (Jewish world) will always run through me. I will always miss my Ima and Tatti (mom and dad), but I am a person of a big wide world, who has seen that the laws of the desert cannot be used realistically in Galus (non-Jewish world), or to judge non-Jews.

    I wish the owner of Basil luck, but as so many in Crown Heights despise him already for wanting Jews to mix with non-Jews, he will have a hard road ahead. If only they realised he’s actually performing teshuva.

  73. Frei at last-
    Again, I don’t understand where you see me defending the frummer than thou! Please point it out to me where I am, because the part you quoted from me was not referring to this specific sect, but religious sects in general.

    Trust me, I know, just as well as you do, what the Ultra-Orthodox think of Jews like me.

  74. William, I re-read your comment again. I’m not sure if you were talking about the motives of the religious people in the OP or my motives. If you were talking about the folks in the OP, then my apologies for misunderstanding. Nevertheless, I stand by the basic content of my last comment.

  75. Religion is historically oppressive because it was historically in power. Give another philosophy the same amount of power, and it will become oppressive as well.

    This cute little “gotcha” argument is too damn annoying. It’s exactly the same as the people who try to argue with feminists that if there had been a matriarchy for the last few millennia then women would be the abusers now wouldn’t they! as if we were all playing pretend, and now that some guy has scored an obvious (and irrelevant) philosophical point we can all laugh and go home.

    Yes, in magical imaginary non-religious land other systems probably murder, oppress and mindless condemn millions of innocent human beings. But in reality? Religion has been, and still very much is, the problem. And religious fundamentalists are the ones wrecking havoc in the actual world — so please stop drawing false equivalences based on alternate universes to try and wave away the damage religion has done. Yeah, in fantasy land the Church of “Get Your Flu Vaccines” or the Book of “Use Macs Not PCs For PCs Are Unclean!” likely hold terrible sway over the suffering people… but that imaginary bullshit doesn’t excuse religion, and religious zealots, in any way.

    No one is saying only religion can be used to do terrible things. But in this world, and this example, religion is the system being used to hurt people. Stop dodging around that.

  76. Bagelsan-
    I’m not dodging anything. I’m saying that not all religion is the same. I’m saying that religions evolve (hah!) and you can’t look at one religion that is oppressive and in power, or was in power, and deduce that any and all religion is oppressive. Religion seems a lot like government. Governments can achieve a lot of good (not talking about just national governments here, but anything from town hall, upwards), and they have historically, and currently, oppress. But I don’t think we should get rid of all government. I DO think that we need to evaluate our governments and figure out ways to improve upon them, including eliminating their power to oppress. I feel the same way about religion. I don’t see religion as necessarily stagnant, but as something that can improve with time and effort.

    That said, I am done with this thread. All I have said is that we should look at the whole picture here, and that religion is not always evil. In response I’ve been accused of loving fundamentalism and making bad faith arguments. I’m just done.

  77. It’s downright freaky to be seeing an exchange about maaaaagical alternate worlds where ideologies that are not religious are used to oppress people on a thread about Jews.

  78. piny: It’s downright freaky to be seeing an exchange about maaaaagical alternate worlds where ideologies that are not religious are used to oppress people on a thread about Jews.  

    Seriously. I didn’t think 20th century history was such an obscure subject. Aside from the previously stated: Stalinist purges anyone? How about the Khmer Rouge? Or were they all the work of some nasty imams and rabbis?

  79. Tom Foolery, don’t get too excited about Jainism. I’m not saying that the ideas aren’t good, but the Jain kings of South India 1000ish years ago were no more enlightened, gentle or disinclined to burn and pillage than their Shaiva, Vaishnava or Buddhist (yeah, I said it) counterparts. Just because a philosophy can talk a good game doesn’t mean it’ll automatically be less oppressive in the hands of the powerful.

  80. I just have to say that I’m sorry there is so much frustration on this thread, because it strikes me that the conversations we’re having here are good ones.

    Bagelsan,

    I can understand why you are annoyed by what you identify as a gotcha argument–but I do think it is important, for the reasons timberwraith outlines–to realize that the ways that religions can hold sway and be used to oppress say something about human psychology, not just religion. Because if we don’t acknowledge that, other orthodoxies, other groupthink can infect our lives, and even if they aren’t as profound *right now* as religion is, it may not always remain that way. As the world becomes more explicable and predictable, coming up with rituals to control the uncontrollable and impose order on chaos (which is what I think the purpose of much ritual, religious or otherwise, is) may fall out of favor, but we still have to guard against us/them thinking.

  81. Ismone, I agree with you that it’s important to remember that groupthink can occur in non-religious ways. But in my opinion, on this particular topic that “big picture” kind of thinking is being used to distract from the actual issue, which is the harm religious fundamentalists are doing in a particular situation.

    It really does remind me of how many arguments about instances of sexism get derailed into questions of why all humans are so naturally cruel to everyone else — it takes a specific incident and then tries to generalize it to the point of meaninglessness. It’s absolutely a defense mechanism for oppressive systems that makes discussing instances of oppression impossible.

    (It’s also the kind of argument that demands a written history of the Holocaust, apparently, before any discussion involving Judaism can occur. 9.9)

  82. No one is saying only religion can be used to do terrible things. But in this world, and this example, religion is the system being used to hurt people. Stop dodging around that.

    No. You know what? CAPITALISM is the system being used to hurt people. Stop dodging around THAT.

    Capitalism is an incredibly oppressive economic system, causing incalculable harm throughout the world. It harms people who live in capitalist society – indigenous people, queer people, trans people, people of color, poor people, for the benefit of a few. Capitalism fuels imperialism enforced by wars, such as those the US is conducting in Iraq and Afganistan and has conducted in Vietnam and throughout the Americas. NAFTA / CAFTA is wrecking the economies of nearly every country in the Americas outside of US and Canada, disenfranchising hundreds of millions of people and driving them into desperate poverty.

    And yet: Capitalism is at heart a secular system. Sure, USians like to cloak it in a wrapper of religiosity, but it is a secular system.

    Using the actions of a small community of extremist Jews to paint all Jews as extremist is sickening and antisemitic. Similarly using the actions of extremists as an indictment of religion is sickening.

    Yeah, there’s lots of Jews who engage/d in oppressive acts. And lots of Christians. And lots of Muslims. And lots of atheists (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, need I go on?). That’s because lots of people engage in oppressive acts, using and twisting whatever philosophy – religious or not – is handy at the moment into a cover for their violence.

    And I have had far too many conversations with and been friends with Jews, Christians, and Muslims who for whom religion is source of strength, a means of *survival*, and the driving force behind their work for social justice to tar religious people with such an incredibly broad brush.

    Y’no? Cos in the US civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s, churches were PART AND PARCEL of the communities who fought for civil rights. It was in large part, their CHURCH-BASED communities that gave them the strength to stand up to the fire hoses, dogs, bombs, bullets, prisons, and oppressive laws that were wielded by racist white people.

  83. William, I re-read your comment again. I’m not sure if you were talking about the motives of the religious people in the OP or my motives.

    I reread my post too and I wasn’t half as clear as I thought I was. I was talking about the motives of the religious folks in the original post, I don’t have a clue as to what (if any) religion you hold or how public you make it. Sorry for the awkward phrasing.

    My whole point is this: if you don’t recognize your own capacity to partake in the more harmful manifestations of conformity and in-group/out-group social patterns, you will eventually become part of the problem. The root problem isn’t religion: it’s conformity combined with groupthink, and the willingness to harm those who are different from you. Any, and I do mean any, group of people is capable of this. There are no saints. There are only human beings. timberwraith

    I don’t disagree with you at all. Anything can (and generally does) become a means of oppression. Its a human tendency that we need to remain constantly vigilant both within ourselves and without in order to counter. I do, however, feel that religion is an especially efficient and virulent means of oppression not only because it has been used to oppress so often but because the ways in which religion makes and supports it’s arguments leads especially quickly to oppression. The doesn’t make other ideologies less oppressive, but it certainly does make (most western) religion especially concerning and less worthy of the benefit of the doubt.

  84. It really does remind me of how many arguments about instances of sexism get derailed into questions of why all humans are so naturally cruel to everyone else — it takes a specific incident and then tries to generalize it to the point of meaninglessness. It’s absolutely a defense mechanism for oppressive systems that makes discussing instances of oppression impossible.

    Well, sort of. To go back to the earlier example, you’re missing an intermediate step. It’s sort of like if some feminists looked at patriarchy and said, “Things would be so much better if women were in charge!” Then the people pointing out that women fuck it up too aren’t dismissing the oppressive nature of patriarchy, or the oppressive actions of men. They’re disputing a wrongheaded understanding of how oppressive systems function–without much dependence on any particular oppressive idea.

    There are comments in this thread that hate on religion qua religion–not religion thus far in human history, not religious fundamentalists or extremists, not theocracy. Religion. Religion as a practice, as a human tendency. If things were completely different, they would be exactly the same: shareware heretics would be roasting on stakes, and mumps would be ravaging our preschools. You can tell by looking around you at the way anti-vaccine campaigns gain popular support, and the way Microsoft increases its “mindshare.”

    I don’t say all of this because I think that religion is not responsible for a lot of evil. I say it because reflexive antipathy towards religion itself is shallow.

  85. @GallingGalla: Well, that does put it in perspective, now doesn’t it?

    @piny: Yes! I too was reacting to the common tendency of people immediately jumping from, “Religious fundamentalism is an oppressive pile of poo.” to, “All in all, religion is terrible. So, let’s set it on fire and push it off a cliff.” I have no problem with the sentiments expressed in the first statement. In fact, I embrace those sentiments with a smile on my face and song in my heart. The sentiments in the second statement? Um… No. Just, no.

  86. GallingGalla: Using the actions of a small community of extremist Jews to paint all Jews as extremist is sickening and antisemitic.Similarly using the actions of extremists as an indictment of religion is sickening.Yeah, there’s lots of Jews who engage/d in oppressive acts.And lots of Christians.And lots of Muslims.And lots of atheists (Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, need I go on?).That’s because lots of people engage in oppressive acts, using and twisting whatever philosophy – religious or not – is handy at the moment into a cover for their violence.

    I have to take issue with two points here, which aren’t as pedantic as they seem. First, Hitler, and most members of the Nazi party, were catholic. That said, they didn’t do bad things in the name of, or because of their adherence to, Catholicism. Just as Stalin, who was an atheist, did ghastly things, but not because of his atheism. But plenty plenty plenty adherents to a religious code do bad things exclusively because of that religious code. People don’t simply use religion as an excuse for persecution, but as a (quite often sole or principle) motive.

    Secondly, as a school of thought and system of belief, Judaism isn’t any more protected than Christianity or Marxism. Criticizing Judaism isn’t inherently anti-Semitic/racist. Using the actions of a small group of fundamentalists to stereotype all members of a religious group isn’t inherently racist, even if it is intellectually dishonest. There’s a big difference between generalizing a group of adherents to a belief system, and generalizing an ethnic group. This gets mixed up a lot when discussing Antisemitism because of the heavy crossover and dual meaning of what it is to be Jewish.

    This isn’t to say that most such intellectual dishonesty isn’t rooted in antisemitism, but I think we need to be mindful of when we accuse someone of being racist. And there is a very big divide between painting all religious people with the same brush as extremists, and saying “the faith that moderate religious people make a virtue of enables and normalizes the kind of extremism that is plaguing humanity today.”

  87. Strangely it all comes back the objectivity discussion from a few days ago…and timberwraith already touch on the heart of the issue, dogma. When any one or group purports to have superior access to the truth and values that truth above all other truths, it leads almost inevitably to oppression.

    Sometimes religion does it….sometimes governments do it…sometimes girl scouts do it…somehow it always seems to end up in our institutions…but I don’t think its an intrinsic feature of the institution…just an intrinsic feature of the humans who create them.

  88. gajashima-

    did the buddhist monarchs burn villages and execute subjects because they refused to convert, or because of some deviation from doctrine become secular law ? what was it predicated on ?

  89. PrettyAmiable:
    Yeah. Communist systems never hurt anyone.  

    Isn’t that the point? That no system has the monopoly on violence or oppression?

    For all we know, all of these systems are proportionately equal in terms of the harm they do, but some systems are simply more popular and widespread, and thus do more absolute damage (still a problem well worth talking about), but have equivalent potential for damage in a relative sense. I know some feel that certain systems are more prone to abuse than others, but I’ve found that opinions on which systems exactly are the most fraught (religion? science?) differ and contradict pretty much based on which groups one actually belongs to and feels some sense of attachment to. From an in-group perspective, we do absolutely have to be careful to avoid apologism and being too forgiving or hand-wavey toward the systems to which we are committed (however fervent or ambivalent or even vicarious* that commitment is, although the former is clearly a position of greater risk. Hey, it happens). From the out-group perspective though, there can be a tendency to reject things just because they are meaningless to us (for example, my inability to understand or empathize with sports fans), which can lead to dismissiveness, disrespect, condescension, and a failure to appreciate and celebrate glorious human difference.

    Systems should not be immune from criticism (GOD NO, and no one is arguing that at all as far as I can tell), and the sheer presence of religious systems makes critiques of them pretty damned important, but putting very broadly-defined systems into this kind of decontexualized hierarchy is also problematic. Recognizing that religious faith is an incredibly widespread ideology is sufficient to address its equally widespread potential for harm. It’s unnecessary (and potentially a serious misdirection) to assume that religious faith and practices are especially inherently bad, regardless of the scope of their sphere of influence. As was pointed out above, this line of thinking is analogous to the faulty (and ridiculously essentialist and problematic for a million reasons) idea that women are inherently better than men and a woman-dominated world would be free of equivalents to the problems that plague our man-dominated world.

    *I am not identified with any organized or recognized religious group, but I have many people in my life who are admirable practitioners of their respective faiths, and so my first mental association with “religion” is, just by the nature of human memory structure, fairly positive. I consider this a vicarious community attachment – I have no urge to believe in God personally, but I deeply appreciate my mother’s lived faith. That doesn’t mean I don’t make and listen to critiques of religion in general and specific religious practices and beliefs, but it does mean that I’m not going to be receptive to things like, “Well, religious belief is just silly, unevolved nonsense anyway. Totally pointless.” That’s insulting.

  90. I should say, I am open to evidence that religious systems are particularly nefarious, regardless of the breadth of their influence. I would find such evidence fascinating, (again, not actually religiously affiliated myself, so not that much to lose), provided that the evidence does account for the influence of scope.

    It doesn’t have to be conclusive or anything – I’m not trying to be sneaky and place the burden of proof on an opposing party. I’m genuinely interested in arguments that deal with the issues of relative vs. absolute harm in terms of religiosity in a way that might set it apart from other historically abused systems, like capitalism or positivist science (obviously those two have shorter histories than world religions, which also plays into the scope issue).

  91. Uh, comment above sounds strange because the comment I made preceding it is still in mod. Please bear with me.

  92. tomoe gozen —

    Depends. The idea that Buddhists didn’t kill each other because of doctrinal differences is pretty funny, though. Look at the sectarian history of Tibet, for one. How about the interactions between the Japanese sangha and those, say, Taiwan and Korea during the years of occupation?

    As for Buddhists killing/despising/oppressing non-Buddhists specifically because of their religion? In modern days, and off the top of my head, we’ve got Bhutan (Nepalese Hindus), Thailand (Patani Malays in my neck of the woods, animists in the north) and, of course, Sri Lanka (Hindu Tamils).

    Yeah yeah, derail, I know, but it’s always worth noting that humans have a terrible will to venality, no matter what noble thoughts their texts contain. The solution? Keep waiting for the zombie apocalypse, after which this’ll all be irrelevant.

  93. Oh, and unless anybody accuse me of having a vendetta or other dastardly motives, I’m 100% with GallingGalla on the workings of the system.

    There are people who use their philosophy of choice as a weapon against others, and there are those who use it as a balm to their souls. Sometimes it’s the same person doing both, depending on the circumstances. To assume that something as broad as a given religion is infallibly good is just as wrong as assuming it’s incorrigibly bad. (I’m sure there’s some sort of deep religious truth in there!)

  94. Jadey, I think one difference between the issue of government and religion is that in most arenas, the head of government is assumed fallible. This is not true in the most-practiced religions. god isn’t supposed to be fallible. Already, there’s a different kind of power.

    But I agree that secular systems can do harm as well. It’s still different, though.

  95. To assume that something as broad as a given religion is infallibly good is just as wrong as assuming it’s incorrigibly bad.

    Yes, exactly.

    Critiquing the practitioners of a religion for oppressive acts, and examining what aspects of a certain religion encourages said oppressive acts is valid. Doing the “ban religion because some of its practitioners oppress other people” dance is intellectually dishonest.

    prettyamiable: Yeah. Communist systems never hurt anyone.

    Wow, way to miss my point. Exactly where did I state that Communism is beyond critique? My *point* was that capitalism is a (not *the only*) secular system that is oppressive, and since capitalism’s reach is so broad and it is backed by so much military and economic power, its effects are as pervasive as the effects of any religion, including Christianity. And since most of the people here live in capitalist societies (regardless of the presence of a veneer of socialism-lite), I figured I’d use that as an example.

    Ok, so that people understand my standpoint: I was born and raised in a secular Jewish family. Despite that secular background, I believe in the existence of God. I’ve no idea what zie looks like, so don’t come at me with “so you need a sky daddy” talk, because that’s just silly.

  96. rice: Criticizing Judaism isn’t inherently anti-Semitic/racist.

    I never said it was, nor did I ever say that Jews or Judaism are somehow above reproach.

    *This* is what I said:

    Using the actions of a small community of extremist Jews to paint all Jews as extremist is sickening and antisemitic.

    How are you getting that I’m saying that critiquing Jews / Judaism is antisemitic? Because I’m not, and if you take a look at my comments elsewhere on Feministe, I’ve had some very harsh criticism for israel, and have stated that israel is an apartheid state.

    My quoted statement is addressing the tendency of the atheists on this thread to make the intellectually dishonest equation of “Some Jews are extremist = Judaism is an extremist religion”. Along with the related and more general but equally intellectually dishonest equation of “Some religious folk are extremist = all religion is inherently extremist”.

  97. gajasimha-

    being korean(father)/japanese (mother) american, i know quite a bit about the long and varied history of japan’s crimes against korea, but i wouldn’t say that any of those, committed by lay people or sangha were inspired or directly mandated by any part of buddhist teaching. none of japan’s designs for a ‘greater east asian sphere of prosperity’ came out of any sutra.

    i wouldn’t blame buddhism for any of these things, even if there were ostensible claims of that. rather i’d say that no religion has done a good or even adequate job of inoculating human beings against nationalism and racism.

    ps- the qualities of himalayan buddhism are something i’ll have to read up on; the only reason i haven’t yet is that even though i speak a lot of languages, i don’t know any of the relevant ones.

  98. Using the actions of a small community of extremist Jews to paint all Jews as extremist is sickening and antisemitic.

    Yet thats not what anyone here is doing. Given that pretty much everyone here has been careful to point out that its faith in general, not Judaism, that makes the uncomfortable I’m not so sure where you’re getting antisemitism.

    At most you have people who say they have a reflexive opposition to religion because of it’s status as a traditional, willing, violent tool of oppression. Does the kyriarchy ensure that pretty much any system becomes oppressive? Sure, but that doesn’t mean all systems are at equal risk.

    All of the big three Western religions are predicated upon myths, cultures, and histories of extreme and violent oppression portrayed as moral behavior. Numbers outlines acts of genocide, Solomon was a slaver, Revelations breathlessly calls “rapture” the murder and torture of most of the world’s population, Mohammad was a violent military expansionist with a child bride, and the number of passages one can find which suggest murder and torture as a punishment for deviance in any of the major holy texts of the Big Three western faiths is both terrifying and revolting. Religion in the west is born of blood. More than that it is predicated upon the idea that there is One Truth, that followers of that truth will be rewarded by an all powerful god, and then provides a legion of role models for the use of pretty much any kind of horror you would like to name in order to advance the cause of this divine lord. Extremism is a risk (and probably an inevitability) of any given system, but religion tends to get there a lot faster. Does that mean all jews are extremists? No.

    Put another way: not everyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh is a violent, racist, homophobe. Despite that, if someone mentions that they’re a “dittohead,” well, I’m going to be on guard.

    Oppressed persons don’t have a responsibility to give their oppressors the benefit of the doubt and be nice to them because anyone might have oppressed them. It doesn’t matter if the oppressor is Pope Innocent III, Pat Robertson, or a the guy who runs the local Kosher Certification Board. Oppression is oppression and it has to be challenged, religions don’t get a free pass. If anything, given it’s history, the running dogs of religion get to be held to a higher standard.

  99. GallingGalla: No. You know what? CAPITALISM is the system being used to hurt people. Stop dodging around THAT.

    “the system” not “a system.” Also, hi. Capitalism gets flagged as the demon economy in most liberal circles as compared to Communism. Don’t get pissed at me because you fucked up your articles.

  100. @gallinggalla

    I wasn’t suggesting the you were proposing that Judaism be beyond reproach; I was stating that premise to foreground what seemed troubling to me about applying the label “antisemitic” to a generalization made about a religious, rather than ethnic, community. A generalization which I happily granted was intellectually dishonest, but not inherently antisemitic. Also, presenting the point that there is a difference between broadly painting religious Jews/Christians/etc as extremist, and arguing that the beliefs and positions held by moderates normalizes and enables the extremism in a way they can’t swiftly wash their hands of.

  101. Ah, see, but where does religion end and nationalism/racism/prejudice begin? That’s the amazing (good, bad, etc.) thing about living texts — you can find bits to justify /anything/. The Sinhalese nationalists (including monks) took the historical proclamations about Sri Lanka being a lamp to the Buddhist world to mean that non Buddhists (most of whom conveniently belonged to a different ethnic group) deserved the boot. Same ol’, same ol’. Korean monks’ celibacy? Just another example of how backwards those people are. Good thing we Japanese have access to the true meanings of monastic law, and how nice that we have an opportunity to, ahem, assist.

    The sad thing is that it doesn’t have to be this way, despite what the ethnoreligious primordialists think. History is brimful of examples of inter-religious and inter-sect cooperation, just as it is of strife and killing in the name of philosophy. Heck, the classifications and divisions that now seem self-evident all have histories and motivations. Other days drew them in other ways. If we all work hard and outrun the zombie apocalypse, who’s to say what the future will look like?

    I was thinking about the OP last night. The actions of both sides made me cringe. You know what would be nice? Mutual respect and good faith. I tried to write a longer exposition on this, but I’m too tired to make it coherent. I think you all know what I mean, though.

  102. Ah, see, but where does religion end and nationalism/racism/prejudice begin? That’s the amazing (good, bad, etc.) thing about living texts — you can find bits to justify /anything/

    I think thats disingenuous. The living texts of the major western faiths don’t require any massaging to find justifications for horror because these aspects are amongst the plainest and most direct portions of these texts. You have passages like “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” (used, predictably, to justify the torture and murder of pretty much anyone who had the bad luck of being a pagan and, when they were all gone, women who stepped out of line), you have God turning Lot’s wife into salt and slaughtering two cities, you have Abraham willing to murder his son in an act of submission, you have Jesus associated with the imagery of war, and you have Mohammad’s violent conversion of the surrounding tribes portrayed as a holy act. The examples go on forever. Violence in western religion isn’t a biproduct of extremists, it’s a product of the oldest texts the faiths have to offer. I would argue that monotheistic faiths are also more prone to violent extremist because they’re built around binary thinking and an unquestioned theory of right and wrong.

    None of this is to say that these faiths are incapable of anything but violence (you don’t have to look much further than the Quakers for an excellent example of a long-term commitment to nonviolence) or incapable of positive social change (again, one can look at the role of churches in the civil rights movement). Still, it strikes me as foolishly conciliatory to not recognize that religion is especially prone, and some religions all but intrinsically based in, violence and oppression. When you think you have God on your side its a lot easier to justify the unjustifiable.

  103. I agree with the point that religion, given its history as a means to power/oppression, should be held to an exacting standard (I’m not sure about “higher,” higher than what? Why is religion deserving of more scrutiny than, say the State or Nation as a means to power?).

    However, to focus in on “the Western religions” as being somehow particularly prone to violence or to say that “Western” sacred texts (which are here being equated with the Abrahamic faiths) are worse than “Eastern”….well, it does smack a bit of exoticism and historical generalization.

    As far as the OP–I’m just not sure if dialogue with the ultra Ortho community in Brooklyn is even possible. But if it is going to be attempted, some compromises will have to be made. There are, of course, FAR better and more sensitive ways to do that than the incident described. And I am always, ALWAYS wary of the fact that such “compromises” tend to happen on the bodies and backs of women.

  104. chava: (I’m not sure about “higher,” higher than what? Why is religion deserving of more scrutiny than, say the State or Nation as a means to power?).

    A coup can overthrow a corrupt secular leader. A coup cannot overthrow a corrupt god. When the power you’re wielding over people has an intangible, infallible source that cannot be categorically disproven, you automatically have more power than any secular source. That’s why it is deserving of more scrutiny.

  105. “you can’t overthrow a corrupt god.”

    Really? Protestant Reformation, anyone? Religions/ideological systems can and do overthrow each other with some frequency. You’re hitting on the fact that they persist so powerfully *qua* idea, which is true–but not any more so than certain forms of nationalism, for example.

    “When the power you’re wielding over people has an intangible, infallible source that cannot be categorically disproven”

    Divine right/absolute monarchy? That would be the State using religion as a tool/means of oppression, true, but the distinction there isn’t nearly as bright a line as you seem to want to draw.

  106. Hey, I didn’t say /nuthin’/ about massaging. Folks find what they’re looking for. Look for the bad (whether to justify your own bad deeds or to point out others’) and you’ll see the bad. Look for the good (same deal) and you’ll see the good. What I meant is that stuff with staying power is broad and contradictory enough to be relevant to all sorts of people in all sorts of situations. That’s why discussions like these turn into discussions like this. And that’s why ‘But Philosophical Text X says THIS!’ turns into a citation war, with both sides rallying their favorite bits and nothing ever coming of it. (Add in commentaries and minor works and hooooboy does it get messy…)

    Yes, I’m an across-the-board cynic. YMMV.

  107. Oh, and I think it’s simplistic to say (or imply) that it’s all about specific injunctions to kill/drive away people who do or don’t do certain things. (William, I don’t know if you actually /are/ saying this, but it bears pointing out in general.) All it takes is the idea that incorrect belief or practice — meaning, belief or practice that’s not our own — poses a threat to proper belief or practice. To maintain our spiritual/social order, we need to either isolate ourselves or neutralize those who could corrupt our system (by example or intention).

    Sure, it’s easiest when there’s divine go-ahead to kill or subdue people, but it’s hardly necessary.

    chava, I agree that there’s a curious western exceptionalism here. I don’t mean this in the ‘but Mom, they’re doing it toooo!’ way, but in the sense that symptoms (that themselves do have negative consequences) are being taken as causes. Yes, the symptoms look different in other places, but no group is magically exempt from this fundamentalist (religious or otherwise) tendency. Are there groups who have, at different times, overcome or subdued (heh) it? Certainly. But it’s not as easy as pledging allegiance to a different banner and being automatically transformed.

  108. William: All religions, everywhere are founded on blood. The Abrahamic religions are not unique in this aspect. Go look up some information on the Aztecs, Incas and Egyptians.

  109. chava: Really? Protestant Reformation, anyone?

    And this marked the end of Catholicism. You got me! Only Catholicism is still around. So you didn’t. People can change their choice of the message, but it’s still ultimately rooted in the idea that they know best what their infallible god is saying, and that’s why religion needs to be held to a different standard than government. Government doesn’t condemn your eternal soul. It can only kill you. Most religious people agree the former is worse than the latter.

    chava: Divine right/absolute monarchy?

    Ah, because of all the “divine right” monarchies we see in the world today. Incidentally, the idea of “divine right” wouldn’t exist without the religions… where you have the infallible, intangible source. Also, you can still kill the monarch. You didn’t actually dispute a thing I said.

  110. Chava: “exacting” is a better word than “higher.” I suppose the concept I was trying to convey is that religion ought to get less benefit of the doubt and ought to be looked upon with more natural suspicion for the same reason three beers for me doesn’t mean the same thing as three beers for a recovering alcoholic.

    All religions, everywhere are founded on blood. The Abrahamic religions are not unique in this aspect. Go look up some information on the Aztecs, Incas and Egyptians.

    I can think of a handful of modern religious traditions with pretty clean hands and quite a few more world religions which don’t have the same tradition of adherence, rulership, and advocacy of conversion (and thats before we even consider the enormous numbers of people who claim Buddhist traditions which are not doctrinally, sometimes not even historically, steeped in violence). Most of the modern magical traditions come to mind, as do many of the pagan revivalist traditions (including many explicitly feminist traditions), secular humanists, Unitarians, and quite a few others. Granted, they tend to be small, but they’re there. Maybe you haven’t run into us, but when you aren’t spending your time evangelizing you tend to go unnoticed. I’ll forgive the erasure, but I think the fact that you’re not even aware of the existence of traditions that are legitimately bloodless tends to support my point that the Abrahamic religions are especially problematic.

    The Abrahamic religions might not be unique but they’re special in that they are the only faiths left in the world (with the exception of Hinduism, though that system becomes rather more complicated by issues of culture, the effects of polytheism on outlook, and the sheer volume of history involved) which are manage to be deeply violent, politically influential, and practiced by large numbers of people. You simply can’t make the argument that Zen Buddhists or Feminist Pagans have the same history of oppression and basis in blood as even the most progressive and peaceful of Abrahamic sects.

    As for the faiths of the Aztecs and the Incas, while there is no doubt that they were deeply oppressive and violent cultures, I’m always careful to remember that virtually everything we know about these cultures we learned from what was left over after the Christians wiped them from the map, killed off most of their adherents with disease and war, then consolidated their victory by raping what was left. Inquisitors do need to make monsters to justify their crimes.

  111. I feel obligated to point out that the original pagans practiced human sacrifice. I am aware of a few traditions that are doctrinally bloodless (Buddhism, Quakerism) but I always view those as running counter to the normal human instinct. You’re already aware of my views on pacificism, I think, so I won’t go into that.

  112. I feel obligated to point out that there is no more an “original pagan” than there is an “oriental culture” or an “aboriginal person.” Paganism is a catch-all term for whatever came before sexually repressed death cult swept in from the Mediterranean, changed the names of the local gods, and let whoever was in power enforce a faith which exalted submission and servility. Sure, some almost certainly practiced human sacrifice, most probably didn’t (although the blood libel stuck a bit better).

    Either way, we’re talking about faiths that were almost entirely stamped out by men in funny hats with indulgences to sell. They don’t exist anymore. Notice how I said “pagan revivalist traditions?” What is called “pagan” today has relatively little to do with whatever existed before the coming of Christendom overthrew one group of vile tyrants in favor of another group of vile tyrants. Instead we’re talking about groups of people who have decided to adapt a romantic view of their lost history in an attempt to make some meaning in a meaningless world. I suppose you could argue that they’re misguided (and I’d argue that that would be missing the point), but one thing you can’t argue is that modern folks who have claimed the “pagan” label have oppressed much of anyone (with the possible exception of a tiny white supremacist minority).

  113. And there’s no such thing as a “fundamentalist” atheist, because atheism isn’t a religion/  

    First of all, I never said it was. You don’t have to be part of a religion to be fundamentalist about something. And second, the way atheists have been trying to “convert” me lately, I’m beginning to disagree, and the fact that there were a few atheists who were participating in rituals like using a blowdryer with “REASON” (already insulting in implying that people who believe in God are all idiots) printed on it to “blow away” their baptisms is only proving this.

Comments are currently closed.