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

I Can’t Believe It’s Not The Taliban

I strongly urge you to read this piece by the terrific Shmarya Rosenberg of the blog FailedMessiah. Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel are doing terrible things to women—beating them for sitting in the “wrong section” of officially section-less buses, breaking into their homes and beating them for suspicion of seeing married men—and getting away scot-free because the religious and political establishments do not want to touch these issues with a long stick.

This hyper-segregation has now spilled over into Israel’s system of public transport. The ultra-Orthodox are demanding – and getting – separate seating on public buses. And, even though compliance with this segregation is supposed to be voluntary, increasingly the ultra-Orthodox choose to act as if it were mandatory, and as if they have the legal right to use coercion and brute force to achieve it. …

But most often, violence works. Rabbis are not willing to confront it, and so they tailor their public rulings to placate thugs. They remain silent as women are beaten and harassed, sometimes condemning in private what they fear to confront publicly.

These “modesty patrols” are not sent by the Taliban in Afghanistan. They’re sent by lawless, vigilante ultra-Orthodox Jews who know that they can get their way and enforce their own perverted variant of “Torah-true” law through intimidation and violence.

And, of course, it’s not just women—it’s also the homosexuals (and worse!):

When the target is homosexuals, however, ultra-Orthodox rabbis have been in the forefront of inciting violence. Israel’s chief rabbis called homosexuals “the lowest of people” during the violence-filled run-up to Jerusalem’s 2006 Gay Pride parade, and leading ultra-Orthodox rabbis signed a notice calling gays an “evil mob seeking to defile the holy city of Jerusalem.

Yeshiva heads sent their students to the streets to riot. They burned the contents of the large city-owned plastic trash dumpsters – and they burned the dumpsters themselves. The fumes and smoke sent scores of ultra-Orthodox elderly and children to hospitals with breathing and cardiac trouble. Even so, the riots and the dumpster-burning continued night after night. Weak and defenseless victims of the acrid smoke became collateral damage in a holy war fought by unruly mobs to defend the “purity” of Jerusalem. It was as if these victims were viewed by the mobs as sacrifices offered to appease the angry, vengeful, ultra-Orthodox God – the God of “modesty patrols” and segregated buses; a God of ultra-Orthodox invention, not of history.

Again, let me point out that this is not Afghanistan under the Taliban: this is Israel under a theoretically democratic government. The myths that non-Israeli modern Jews are being fed about Israel—that it’s an enlightened society where all Jews live in harmony, where ancient and modern ways of life are blended seamlessly, where secular coexists with religious—are just that: myths. These rabbis, especially those at the top of the religious establishment, should be ashamed of themselves. What they represent, as Shmarya so eloquently points out, is not toleration but fundamentalism, not love for their fellow human beings but disgusting gynophobia and homophobia.

The fast day of Tisha B’Av is coming up on Sunday, in commemoration of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Talmud teaches that the Temple was destroyed because of sin’at hinam, baseless hatred. People who engage in the kind of hatred running amok among the Israeli ultra-Orthodox would argue that their hatred is not baseless, since they target people violating “Torah law” and “Torah-true Judaism”. Yet it’s really these people who carry this baseless hatred within their hearts: hatred of women, homosexuals, and anyone else who doesn’t wear the same kind of black hat that they do—simply on the basis of their perversion of Jewish law and Jewish values and morals.

This is anti-Semitism, pure and simple—except this time the anti-Semites are ourselves.


84 thoughts on I Can’t Believe It’s Not The Taliban

  1. Thank you for blogging about this. I’d heard that there was sporadic violence on bus lines – but I had no idea the problem had gotten so bad.

    (By the way, some ultra-Orthodox women who support segregation are comparing themselves to Rosa Parks. Unbelievable.)

  2. It’s amazing, really, to think about how similar these guys, the Taliban, and our own clinic-bombing fundies really are. They claim to hate each other passionately, of course, since they each worship their patriarchal male god differently, but sit them down over a roast turkey and they’d find plenty to agree about.

  3. (By the way, some ultra-Orthodox women who support segregation are comparing themselves to Rosa Parks. Unbelievable.)

    My first response to this was “what’s wrong with that? It’s a similar struggle and a similar icon. Then I looked again.

    women who support segregation are comparing themselves to Rosa Parks.

    women who support segregation

    support segregation

    Wow.

  4. My first response to this was “what’s wrong with that? It’s a similar struggle and a similar icon. Then I looked again.

    YES! That’s exactly what happened to me. It’s so absurd that your brain rejects it.

  5. I have really been enjoying these posts about Judaism and the Bible and whatnot. I’m going to Israel for the first time in a couple weeks, and I feel that the education this post has given me will be pretty valuable.

  6. Well, let’s not neglect the socio-political aspects of this sort of thing…

    Tho’ to be frank, it’s not much disimilar to anywheres else. Iran’s business and military elite tolerate the religious guys because they keep the rural proles in line. Pretty much everywhere, there are violent and reactionary organizations that are cultivated by elites because they prevent the coalescing of opinion for downward income redistribution.

    The Klan was a thoroughly acceptable facet of American life for a long time–for anti-catholic violence almost as much as anti-black. They just grew impressively ugly and hit their jump-the-shark-moment when the leader of the Indiana branch was caught raping little white girls. It will be the same for anywheres else. Those Yeshiva students will do their riot thing until the ugly gets shoved down so many throats that the number of people who are dispeptic at the same time reaches a critical mass.

  7. As a secular jew, I dislike being reminded of the fact that, at its core, Judaism is just as supportive of vile little cultists as most every other religion. How depressing. I can only hope that the rule of law will one day crush these people.

  8. Ignotus, I’m not sure that this is an indication that “at its core” Judaism is supportive of “vile little cultists”. To me, it read more like that at the fringe some followers of some forms of Judaism are willing to be complete assholes for reasons they justify as religious, and that some members of some branches of Jewish clergy are willing, under the threat of violence, to placate the “vile little cultists”. If Judaism supported the “vile little cultists” “at its core”, they wouldn’t be vile little cultists. They would just be religious Jews.

  9. ignotus, as a convert to humanistic judaism, i can only offer you this, which is all aspects of patriarchal culture can support these types of behaviors, be they religious or secular. hell, my family background is catholic and despite hating the pope and the church, i still enjoy reading about the saints and proudly wear my medal of saint dymphna. in short, dont kick yourself for the way patriarchy works, just continue attempts to dismantle it.

  10. This is anti-Semitism, pure and simple—except this time the anti-Semites are ourselves.

    If this is anti-Semitism, then sexism by white men against white women, and homophobia by white straights against white gays, is racism.

    This is not to detract from the rest of your post, which I think is really important and I wish this were all taken more seriously than it is…

    … and, I can also see a way and a time and a place in which we might possibly want to define intra-‘race’ bigotry as racism. But is that really what you mean? Because if so, please expand, and if not, I think it’s worrisome and problematic.

  11. It’s amazing, really, to think about how similar these guys, the Taliban, and our own clinic-bombing fundies really are.

    Well, they are all the same religion. The little, teensy tiny differences on top that allow them to hate each other and consider each other sub-human aren’t visible to the naked eye of the atheist.

  12. I read this kind of stuff, and it burns me up, but I also get frustrated because I don’t feel like there’s much American Jews can actually do about it. I have heard of reform organizations encouraging secular/reform jews to move to Israel, but that’s pretty extreme and there’s no way I’m personally going to. Perhaps someone has links for organizations who are working on these issues?

  13. I’m not sure who’s working on this, sadly – I kind of feel like these sorts of things wouldn’t be gotten away with were there a government in charge that was more effectual than Ehud Olmert, or at least there’d be something.

  14. I don’t feel like there’s much American Jews can actually do about it.

    In my experience, American Jews are the ones most likely to call me out on criticizing Israel in any way. People who have literally seen me grow up (my brother included!) have told me that I’m not a “real” Jew if I challenge the conventional knowledge that Israel is a flaming sword of righteousness or something. Changing that attitude is important. It’s a touchy subject because, often, any public criticism of Israel is automatically decried as anti-Semitism, but if you’re Jewish, don’t be afraid to speak up about what policies need to be changed. We’re allowed to have our own opinions. We’re Jews, not the Borg.

  15. “These “modesty patrols” are not sent by the Taliban in Afghanistan. They’re sent by lawless, vigilante ultra-Orthodox Jews Jewish men who know that they can get their way and enforce their own perverted variant of “Torah-true” law through intimidation and violence.”

    There. Fixed that for everyone.

  16. This is what happens when you give people whose lives are still ruled by fear of a mountain god a seat at the secular table and the sense that they belong in the political discussion. Israel asked for this by mixing up faith and politics. It ALWAYS goes badly, everywhere it’s ever been tried. The comparisons between these ultra-orthodox thugs, the taliban, and our own clinic bombers is dead on. At the core, we’re talking about people who believe that there exists no higher law than the laws of their god, thats simply not an attitude compatible with a free society.

  17. Uch. This is what happens when misogynists and homophobes know way too much halakhah and how it works, and can use religious legal apparatuses to back up their cracked out emotions. It deeply, deeply sucks that Torah familiarity isn’t more evenly distributed, or the ultra-Orthodox wouldn’t be able to claim with any authority that they are the most true and hardcore simply because they are also the most hate-filled.

    I really like your connection to Tisha B’Av.

  18. William is correct. And that’s why I don’t find the behavior of these Jews at all surprising.

  19. Oh, this quote from the article bears repeating.

    Violence also has a long ultra-Orthodox pedigree, especially considering ultra-Orthodoxy itself is only about 200 years old.

  20. The Talmud teaches that the Temple was destroyed because of sin’at hinam, baseless hatred.

    IIRC, it’s even more pointed than that. According to the Talmud (Gittin 55), the Second Temple was destroyed as a series of events (involving sin’at hinam) starting with a bit of confusion between someone named Kamtza and someone else named Bar Kamtza — Kamtza was invited to a banquet, Bar Kamtza got the invitation by mistake … showed up, nobody wanted him there, Bar Kamtza even offered to pay, but they kicked him out anyway, which made Bar Kamtza mad. At one key step, the destruction of the Temple could have been avoided if the High Priest would have ignored a blemish in an animal offered (actually Bar Kamtza secretly switched the flawless animal with a blemished one) by the Caesar for a sacrifice. But the Priests were so obsessed with the religious stringency they missed the bigger picture and ended up destroying the sacrificial system itself.

    So it is with Israel. While secular Israelis are hurt by the domination of Israel by a reactionary religious establishment (that doesn’t even really accept the legitimacy of Israel in the first place … it’s a common mistake amongst non-Jews and relatively secular, liberal Jews to assume that the “ultra-Orthodox” are also ultra-Zionists), liberal Judaism is hurt even more … the ultra-Orthodox, whose attitude is “if Israel must exist, it at least should be Jewish”, ultimately undermine their stated goals by driving people away from Judaism.

    I find it ironic, therefore, that we liberal Jews (especially in the Conservative/Masorti movement) are so obsessed with support for Israel that, to the detriment of Judaism qua Judaism, doesn’t even view our Judaism as Jewishness. I know people who insist that we, as Jews, ought to vote in the next election based on which candidate would allow Israel to be the most militant (as if “being a friend to Israel” means subtly encouraging Israel to destroy itself because that’s what the fundies want) … when Israel itself, due to its devil’s pact with the religious establishment, barely recognizes us as Jews. What kind of masochists are we?

    If anyone should be boycotting Israel, it’s we liberal Jews: you don’t recognize our conversions, our Rabbis, etc? Well, we won’t recognize you as the Jewish state, so no more synagogue trips, no more “Birthright” … no more tourist $$$. Of course, that would make us like Bar Kamtza — un-invited, willing to pay, but ultimately embittered. But who was really at fault for destroying the Temple? Bar Kamtza or the people who couldn’t stand him at all? Who really had the baseless hatred? Bar Kamtza who switched the sacrificial animal (and who had a reason to be mad)? Or those who wouldn’t let him eat at their table? Or the Priests themselves?

    As to the destruction of the first Temple … again we see that it’s the fault of the self-proclaimed guardians of morality. Jewish tradition teaches that moral threats are more severe than physical threats … and that we should be very careful with whom we get into bed with (politically speaking). If Israel, Hashem forbid, falls … it won’t be because of Arab armies or terrorism but because of those who claim to be guarding Israel’s morality and security but who undermine the very Jewish faith and state they claim to love by their exclusive version of morality and by their getting into bed politically with non-Jewish reactionaries who have their own agenda.

  21. Yeah, I’ve got to agree with Tara – they’re not attacking people for being Jewish, but for not being “sufficiently” Jewish. It’s crazy fundamentalism, sure, but I don’t think it’s anti-Semitism.

    Also…not Rosa Parks, wtf.

  22. This is what happens when you give people whose lives are still ruled by fear of a mountain god – William

    This is what the Prophets said. Who was Baal? The “Master” … the storm god, c.f. Hosea 2:16 or 1 Kings 19:11-12.

    In last week’s Haftarah, we read that the Priests and Prophets worshipped Baal. And they didn’t ask “where is the Lord?” Looking at today’s fundies and self-proclaimed “guardians of the Torah”, the religious establishment of Jeremiah’s day may very well have thought they too were worshipping the Lord, even though they were worshipping Baal instead. They were too busy enforcing mores that they didn’t bother to stop to ask “where is the Lord?” … and if they would have bothered to stop and ask they would have realized they were not following The Path (Halacha) at all.

    Instead they just assumed they were right to worship The Master and you know what it does to “U” and “Me” to ASSume, right?

  23. This is what happens when you give people whose lives are still ruled by fear of a mountain god a seat at the secular table and the sense that they belong in the political discussion.

    Oh, here we go. Look, I do believe in separation of church and state, but are you saying people who believe in God don’t deserve a voice in the political discussion? Maybe we shouldn’t be allowed to vote either, hmm?

  24. roses, I took “lives are still ruled by the fear of a mountain god” to mean people who let religious beliefs override secular law and concern for basic human decency, but I could be wrong.

  25. Who’s working on this? What can American Jews do?

    Support IRAC – the Israeli Religious Action Center. IRAC is one of the loudest and strongest challengers to the control that the ultra-right wing religious have over Israeli politics. They argue legal cases and provide support networks for progressive Jews (including fighting for the recognition of Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist Rabbis), advocate and fight for human rights in Israel and the Palestinian territories, and are very active and vocal advocates of women’s rights. The Executive Director, Anat Hoffman, is a crazy awesome feminist and activist.

    “The Center’s mission is to advance religious freedom and pluralism, tolerance, social justice and civil liberties in Israel. The Center fights for the rights of the disenfranchised and to create a diverse society in which all individuals and groups will be able to express their uniqueness.”

    They are aligned and associated with the IMPJ (Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism), the WUPJ (World Union for Progressive Judaism), the RAC (U.S. Religious Action Center – affiliated with the Reform Movement), and the the URJ (Union for Reform Judaism) – but they aren’t about advocating a particular stream of Judaism or particular practices, rather they fight for what they (and I) believe are fundamental Jewish values.

    And really, if this is something you care about, they could use a lot of support right now. Because so many of their donations come in US dollars, and because the value of the dollar has plummeted, they’re experiencing a budget shortfall (their budget is in shekels).

    Here are links:
    IRAC.org (Hebrew, with links to Arabic page)
    English site and info, on the RAC website

    I also just wanted to add that DAS is right, not all ultra-Orthodox are ultra-Zionist, however some are. Religious Zionism is a strong movement in Israel and the diaspora, and an ideology that rationalizes and perpetuates a lot of civil liberties and human rights abuses. There are those ultra-Orthodox who ascribe to the belief DAS described, “if Israel exists at all, it should be Jewish,” those who reject Israel altogether, “Israel can not exist until the Messianic age,” those who justify the control and domination of people and land by their religious convictions, and those who want to follow Halacha, be a light unto the nations “Or l’goyim,” pursue justice, avoid treif, and keep Shabbat in a strongly Jewish community. There are always a multiplicity of opinions and practices amongst Jews (just read the Talmud if you don’t believe me), and the ultra-Orthodox, for all the condemning and violence and fear mongering some of them engage in, also see dissent within the ranks.

  26. Oh, here we go. Look, I do believe in separation of church and state, but are you saying people who believe in God don’t deserve a voice in the political discussion? Maybe we shouldn’t be allowed to vote either, hmm?

    Interesting how you jumped to that conclusion. I never said that religious folks ought not to have a voice in the political discussion. I said that when you bring religious taboos to the secular table, trouble starts. If you want to be a Christian/Jew/Muslim/Scientologist/Atheist, thats fine with me. Thats not a problem. The problem comes when someone forgets that their faith is a personal path, not the foundation of public policy. Any individual deserves just as much voice as any other, but a church doesn’t get to be a member of a secular community.

    In other words, when we’re talking politics you’re a citizen. When we’re talking faith you’re a follower. If you mix those two up you end up with assholes who bomb clinics and beat women for sitting in the wrong part of the bus. The separation of church and state is about just that, these two institutions do not mix well, marrying them ALWAYS ends in trouble.

    And incidentally, before you start in with the “oh here we goes” and the hyperbole about not being allowed a vote, take a moment to consider that perhaps the lines aren’t drawn in quite the way you imagine them to be. I’m not an atheist who hates people of faith. I am a person of faith. I just recognize that imposing my faith on others is monstrous.

  27. I apologise for overreacting, I’m a little defensive on the topic because it seems like whenever a religious topic comes up on a progressive site, people of faith end up getting insulted. My problem was the way you phrased it – you said the problem is “people who are ruled by a mountain God” being at the table at all, not that the problem is that they don’t know how to check their beliefs at the door when coming to the table.

  28. All over it is WOMYN who suffer on the front lines to protect all kinds of cultures and religions that never cared about us. All over, womyn are forced to wear clothing and cut up their bodies- this comes in many forms and all kinds of excuses – but it’s the same shitty deal the world over- fuck the patriarchy and fuck all their horrible religions.

  29. All over it is WOMYN who suffer on the front lines to protect all kinds of cultures and religions that never cared about us. All over, womyn are forced to wear clothing and cut up their bodies- this comes in many forms and all kinds of excuses – but it’s the same shitty deal the world over- fuck the patriarchy and fuck all their horrible religions. It doesn’t matter what they call themselves (Jews, Muslims, Christians)- it is about patriarchal control over others.

  30. it seems like whenever a religious topic comes up on a progressive site, people of faith end up getting insulted.

    If ‘people of faith’ didn’t do things like slap women around they wouldn’t need to be insulted.

  31. Extremism is wider than racism, antisemitism, sexism, or religious fundamentalism; it’s violent passion directed against anything the participants feel is justified. The difficulty is that, like many maligned groups, Jews don’t want to speak out against “our own”; united front and all that. Same reason we are having such a hard time getting domestic violence out of the closet. Most Jews I know spend plenty of time speaking out against Muslim and Fundamentalist extremists. Maybe if we eliminate the secondary labels and focus on the scourge of extremism itself, we can address it even amongst our own. Glad to see info about IRAC posted here.

  32. If ‘people of faith’ didn’t do things like slap women around they wouldn’t need to be insulted.

    Holy shit, listen to yourself.

  33. If ‘people of faith’ didn’t do things like slap women around they wouldn’t need to be insulted.

    See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Of course we need to call out the hateful extremists who use religion as an excuse to oppress women. But we don’t need to assume that all religious people, including religious feminists (yes, we exist!) are like that and start putting down faith instead of hateful behaviour.

    Now, I know in this case I started it, so to speak, based on a misinterpretation of William’s words, and I am sorry for that because I really didn’t mean to derail Sam’s important thread.

  34. I should really have said, hateful extremists who use religion to oppress women and other groups, because of course religious based oppression isn’t restricted to women.

  35. Farhat, I have to second you- ‘people of faith’ are subjugating, abusing and killing womyn ALL IN THE NAME OF THEIR PATRIARCHAL FAITH! Religion allows men to not only justify their place at the top of the hierarchy, but commit the most disgusting and horrible acts in the name of that fatherfaith.

  36. yep, there’s always mysogynistic assholes in every religion, not just Islam… *gasp*

    I’m a Muslim and I’m really sick how the media always focuses on mysogyny in Islam, when surprise!!! it’s just the same in every religion.

    i HATE religious extremists.

  37. Watch it, Farhat. Not all religious people are patriarchal bastards.

    I apologize. That 98% fringe of the religious people gives a bad name to the rest of them.

  38. Well, DFP, I’m a Jew- but right now I’m wondering…why the hell are any of us bothering with these patriarchal religions? why am i trying to read between the lines to find evidence that my gender was considered by G-d as something other than a baby machine SOMEWHERE in those ancient books? Why do I remind people that G-d is not “he” but genderless? Why try so hard when all evidence points to patriarchy and subjection of womyn as the central tenant? Islam, Judaism, Christianity- they are really all the same religion in the end- the same sick worship of a ManGod by men.

  39. Holy shit, listen to yourself.

    What makes a shit holy? Does it have to be consecrated or something? Anyway, personally I am not against religious people, they come in many stripes, but when someone demands automatic respect for their fairy tales because they believe in them it gets on my nerves. We are complaining here about here religious people are creating problems and suddenly all these people come out making justifications for them.

  40. Entomologista, the ones that are get the most press, but there are plenty of religious people who are fine and normal and don’t oppress women/LGBT folk/etc.

  41. Hey. No more broad generalizations about “most religious people,” please. If you don’t like misogynist assholes who use religion as their weapon, and you think there are too many of them out there in influential positions, then say so without shotgun-blasting people of faith in general. I don’t care if you think they’re fairy tales; if your beliefs are based on rationality and logic, then use some instead of gross over-generalizations, and show a little respect to the non-misogynistic religious people in the world who are promoting and practicing more tolerant and less patriarchal forms of their faiths.

    That means Farhat, Entomologista, emfole.

    Holly (moderator, blogger, atheist)

  42. One of the corollary issues to what you so eloquently describe, Sam, is the fact that the sick-fuck neocon right-wing in the United States has completely distorted support for Israel among American Jews into a scenario where to criticize even the most extreme outlandish sick-fuck shit that goes on in Israel is characterized as anti-Semitic and anti-Israel.

  43. Pingback: The Debate Link
  44. Thanks Holly. I’m getting pretty tired of hearing statements (in a progressive space!) about “religion” that completely ignore the existence of many, many world religions, particularly and not coincidentally those religions practiced by colonized people of color.

    What it comes down to is that, because of imperialism and their privilege, most Americans don’t know jack about any religions other than Christianity and possibly Judaism.

    If you’re not interested in learning about various religions, I guess that’s fine, but it pretty much reeks of privilege to go around making pronouncements about them without having any information on the subject.

    Get back to me when you have your Hopi cosmology down.

  45. show a little respect to the non-misogynistic religious people in the world who are promoting and practicing more tolerant and less patriarchal forms of their faiths.

    Good on you that you are trying to do that. Personally I see it as trying to make botox less poisonous.

  46. I apologise for overreacting, I’m a little defensive on the topic because it seems like whenever a religious topic comes up on a progressive site, people of faith end up getting insulted.

    Don’t worry about it. You responded to what you saw, no shame there. To be perfectly honest some of the blame is mine as I have a tendency to overreact and start throwing off barbs any time the big three monotheists come up.

    My problem was the way you phrased it – you said the problem is “people who are ruled by a mountain God” being at the table at all, not that the problem is that they don’t know how to check their beliefs at the door when coming to the table.

    Yeah, I phrased it aggressively, and that was out of line. Still, I meant what I said. The problem with religious communities, especially fundamentalist/orthodox ones, is that they refuse to check their beliefs at the door. They come to the table with their beliefs on their sleeves, argue from a basic stance of disingenuity and deception, and then cry bias when those of us who don’t want to be brought to heel in the name of their gods tell them they’re out of line.

    What I meant when I said that religious groups shouldn’t get a seat at the table was not that people of faith shouldn’t get to participate in the political process, but rather that implicitly religious organizations should be denied access and attention. More specifically, I believe that politicians and lobbyists who believe in expanding the values of their faith to others through the coercive power of government ought to be voted out, laughed at, ignored, snubbed, maligned, and generally treated the same way we’d treat any other bigot group.

    I know, thats a hostile view to a lot of religious people, and I know that it feels alienating, but honestly I’m past caring. After 8 years of Bush and 6 years of an explicitly Christianized Republican congress before him (preceded by 12 years of Bush/Reagan) it has become abundantly clear that people of faith who can check their religion at the door are either unwilling, unable, or afraid to keep their fascist wing in check. Abortion, gay marriage, right to die, HIV+/AIDS policy, medical marijuana, obscenity prosecutions, creationism in schools, hate crimes, all of the “moral” issues that have held this country back because of five thousand year old taboos…

  47. particularly and not coincidentally those religions practiced by colonized people of color.

    Like what? Islam, where people get told they are racist when they say anything bad about things like honor killings and invoke culture, but when culture is criticized they bring out relativism and how you cannot criticize them from a western point of view. Like Hinduism? with among the highest female infanticide and selective abortion rate in the world. Like Buddhism? where people like Dalai Lama are ardent homophobes and criticize even relatively harmless things like sex during daytime. Like the animist tribes of Africa? which practice things like FGM. Maybe I forgot the B’ahais, they are relatively enlightened. And the Zoroastrians too. Maybe you could name a few others.

  48. *sigh* Farhat, it’s one thing to criticize the patriarchal tenets of a religion. It is quite another to say that 98% of religious people are evil.

    Also, you’re way off on Hinduism and African animism – you seem to have a problem separating religion and non-religious culture.

  49. I’ll chime in on Buddhism, which would be the religion I’m most familiar with. First, the Dalai Lama is not what I would call an “ardent homophobe.” He initially held some traditional Tibetan (not Buddhist) homophobic ideas, but his stance has softened over time. Other lamas, like Lama Surya Das, oppose homophobia.

    Unlike Catholicism’s Pope, the Dalai Lama is not “in charge” of Buddhists, and he doesn’t get to say what the appropriate “Buddhist” stance on homosexuality is. The Buddha said that his followers shouldn’t believe anything, even if he himself said it, unless it made sense to them personally. There’s no “divine representative” to tell Buddhists what to do.

    Shorter version: Tibetan culture =/= Buddhist tenets.

    Infanticide is not promoted by Hinduism. That is simply not an aspect of that religion. The only religions I know of that included infanticide were cults in prehistory.

    I’ll also point out that it could be argued that since colonization, all culture is now patriarchal. Do you oppose the existence of culture itself, or just the patriarchal aspects of culture?

  50. I agree, it’s disturbing to see that so much of the vocal readership of progressive blogs seem to feel that those who have faith in the tenets of an “organized” religion that those professing those faiths should either just feel thankfully enlightened or SFTU when the “real” religion of Atheism is holding the podium.

    As with the lack of vision that a “conservative” has when they sit in a home that has been inspected for safety by mandate of a government decree, eating food that has been inspected for wholesomeness by mandate of a government decree, have some recourse to the courts if they are wronged by a corporation, and have the ability to profess their not-the-mainstream-version of one of the “big three” without being harassed and murdered, and rail about how the “liberals” are why the country is in the state it is.

    All too many “progressives” forget that a huge part of the backbone of the the civil rights movement was Christian Churches.

    That the U.S. Jewish community gave money, shelter and organizing expertise to the black communities that were trying for a piece of the American dream. (And who certainly did not forget from what tradition the word ‘ghetto’ came from and for whom it was coined)

    That the bulk of the members of the RC church in America, ignoring their “appointed leaders” have worked to equality of women in all segments of society.

    That the Episcopal Church in the United States and Canada are fighting the reactionary bigots in Asia, Africa and South America, and, yes, in the US and Canada, who want to relegate women and gays to permanent 2nd-class status.

    I guess that all those poeple should just STFU and be grateful that the Official Progressive Religion of Atheism allows that we might be allowed to vote, and just be glad of it, thank-you-very-much.

    Ghods, now I think I need a rest to quiet my palpitations.

  51. Way to rephrase my words, Rebecca. I didn’t say religious people are evil.

    And as a born Indian who spent 22 years in India before coming to the US, Hinduism is arguably the religion I am most familiar with. No, Hinduism doesn’t ask for female infanticide, it just says that unless you are cremated by a son, you won’t go to heaven. It also legitimizes dowry to the extent that decades of anti-dowry legislation has had little effect on actual rates. The dowry system coupled with desire for males is largely the reason female infanticide and abortion is high enough that in some Indian states for every 4 boys only 3 girls are born. The caste system is also an inseparable part of Hinduism which is racism by another name.

    To see what Manu smriti (which is the law given by Hinduism) <a href=”http://hinduriau.wordpress.com/2008/06/page/2/” says about women, it basically says they are worthy of regular beatings (like untouchables, drums, and cattle). Ignore all the apologetics on that page to make it a tiny bit more sensible to modern sensibilities. It is kind of like how some Muslims argue Koran is kind because it instructs a man that you cannot beat your wife hard enough to leave marks.

    As for Buddhism, I was sure people will argue that Dalai Lama isn’t like the pope and that. The problem is most countries with significant Buddhist populations like China, Japan, and East Asia are deeply patriarchal.

    Interestingly, I did point out two religions, B’ahais and Zoroastrianism, that I believe are largely harmless. No one added to the list despite my requests to do so.

  52. Screwedup the link in the previous post:

    To see what Manu smriti (which is the law given by Hinduism) says about women, it basically says they are worthy of regular beatings (like untouchables, drums, and cattle).

  53. Damn, screwed it up again.

    To see what Manu smriti (which is the law given by Hinduism) says about women, it basically says they are worthy of regular beatings (like untouchables, drums, and cattle).

  54. Also, colonization actually improved the status of Hindu women. Previously it wasn’t uncommon for widows to be consigned to the funeral pyre of her husband. Britishers, for all their faults, were responsible for eradicating that practice.

  55. I guess that all those poeple should just STFU and be grateful that the Official Progressive Religion of Atheism allows that we might be allowed to vote, and just be glad of it, thank-you-very-much.

    Look, I’m not an atheist, but I always have to raise an eyebrow when I hear religious folk (particularly members of the dominant western 3) pull the victim card. Lets not forget where we are and the society in which we live. Historically, and currently, Christians in the west are not being discriminated against. They’re still the majority, they still occupy the seats of high power, they still have their safe little in group in which to network and quietly play the good ol’ boy game. Hell, the Bush administration has done quite a good job making sure that only people from sufficiently Christian law schools got hired into the justice department. Sure, we’re talking mostly about rabid evangelicals there, but the point is that even the most extreme branches of religious sentiment in this country are well protected and rewarded for their fervor.

    No, every single time I hear a religious person in the west scream bias it tends to revolve around either their privilege being checked or someone challenging their attempts to restrict the liberty of others. See, heres my yard stick. Oppression is when your rights are violated, discrimination is when you are treated differently because of some area of difference. Christians in the west don’t really face that, and on the rare occasions that they have it’s been other Christians doing the oppressing, not atheists.

    Atheists are a minority, they do not wield power at the highest levels, they do not oppress people of faith. Sure, they may mock them, but that mockery doesn’t exactly mean a whole hell of a lot when it isn’t backed by anything even vaguely resembling political power. Your feigned outrage smells a bit, perhaps you should rest up until your palpitations pass and you find a more convincing windmill to call a dragon.

  56. This has been going on for some time with the events that got a lot of press in the Orthodox Jewish Community occurring a year ago if not more.

    Sadly, the snippet Sam wrote, and even more so some of the comments I glanced at, seem almost eager to paint every religious Jew as a fanatic who is evil in every sense of the word. The irony is painfully obvious.

    For the record, if you’re actually interested in the complete picture, you can search for yourself and find that the vast majority of Orthodox Jews (including the fervently religious ones) were disgusted by these acts of violence. There were several noted rabbis who did not speak out against this as harshly as many felt they ought to have, but the vast majority condemned the violence in the strongest possible terms.

    So it is a very serious problem, but the picture portrayed by Sam and the article he linked to is quite distorted. Unfortunately, the portrayal of aberrant behavior in the Orthodox Jewish community as the norm for the community is quite common.

    Below are a few points on the original post itself:

    The original post quotes from the Talmud the idea that the Temple (specifically the second temple) was destroyed because of senseless hatred. The idea being that “it’s really these people who carry this baseless hatred within their hearts: hatred of women, homosexuals, and anyone else who doesn’t wear the same kind of black hat that they do—simply on the basis of their perversion of Jewish law and Jewish values and morals.”

    However, the very same passage says that the First Temple was destroyed due to, among other sins, perversive sexual behavior (this includes homosexuality).

    Obviously I know how the readership here feels about that. My point is just that if you try to use that line from the Talmud to ‘make your case’ it will backfire since you’ve completely twisted the point of the statement in the Talmud.

    In general, most people who try to borrow an idea from the Talmud would be better off not to unless they’ve thoroughly studied at least that section of the Talmud.

    Otherwise, you sound like someone confidently striding up to a tax partner and proudly telling them you know the answer to the issue they have and then you paraphrase for them the one relevant phrase you recall from a fifty page statute.

    The only other statement I take issue with is the one that “this is anti-Semitism, pure and simple—except this time the anti-Semites are ourselves.”

    Anti-semitism means hatred against Jews as a group due to their being Jewish. That’s how it was used when invented by W. Marr and W. Scherer. To be sure, variances have developed, but Jews attacking other Jews due to their perceived lack of observance is not anti-semitism.

    The bottom line is that it is better to lay off the unnecessary and inaccurate hyperbole.

  57. William —
    If, as you claim, “No, every single time I hear a religious person in the west scream bias it tends to revolve around either their privilege being checked or someone challenging their attempts to restrict the liberty of others.” you have not been reading the thread here.

    Neither I nor the other professed “persons of religion” in this thread have been either complaining about privilege being checked or advocating restriction of liberty.

    What we are looking at is that, for many of us, the precepts of our religion is what informs our drive to work towards a progressive society, and the denigration and sneering at the believers in the “sky spirit” and the “mountain god” get wearing after a while and truly do grate.

    And if you don’t like that I’m not afraid to call your sneering and insults such, then you can either think about what you are saying or you can, yourself, STFU and be polite unless you want to hear us tell you off again.

    Yes, those of “us” who are adherents of the “big 3” are aware that we operate in a matrix that gives us privilege not afforded to others. That same awareness of that inequity is, for many, what drives us to work for progressive causes.

    And I think I can tell the difference between a windmill and a dragon all on my own.

  58. This has been going on for some time with the events that got a lot of press in the Orthodox Jewish Community occurring a year ago if not more.

    Sadly, the snippet Sam wrote, and even more so some of the comments I glanced at, seem almost eager to paint every religious Jew (every religious person?) as a fanatic who is evil in every sense of the word. The irony is painfully obvious.

    For the record, if you’re actually interested in the complete picture, you can search for yourself and find that the vast majority of Orthodox Jews (including the fervently religious ones) were disgusted by these acts of violence. There were several noted rabbis who did not speak out against this as harshly as many felt they ought to have, but the vast majority condemned the violence as strongly as possible.

    So it is a very serious problem, but the picture portrayed by Sam and the article he linked to is quite distorted. Unfortunately, the portrayal of aberrant behavior in the Orthodox Jewish community as the norm for the community is quite common. religious fanatics definitely do not have a monopoly on xenophobia as atheists and agnostics are often too eager to denigrate and mock what they don’t understand.

    As a separate matter I’d like to point out a few glaring errors in the original post itself.

    The original post quotes from the Talmud the idea that the Temple (specifically the second temple) was destroyed because of senseless hatred. The idea being that “it’s really these people who carry this baseless hatred within their hearts: hatred of women, homosexuals, and anyone else who doesn’t wear the same kind of black hat that they do—simply on the basis of their perversion of Jewish law and Jewish values and morals.”

    However, the very same passage says that the First Temple was destroyed due to, among other sins, perversive sexual behavior (this includes homosexuality).

    Obviously I know how the readership here feels about that. My point is just that if you try to use that line from the Talmud to ‘make your case’ it will backfire since you’ve completely twisted the point of the statement in the Talmud.

    In general, most people who try to borrow an idea from the Talmud would be better off not to unless they’ve thoroughly studied at least that section of the Talmud.

    Otherwise, you sound like someone confidently striding up to a tax partner and proudly telling them you know the answer to the issue they have and then you paraphrase for them the one relevant phrase you recall from a fifty page statute.

    The other error is the poor word choice of anti-semitism. “this is anti-Semitism, pure and simple—except this time the anti-Semites are ourselves.” People love to throw around the words anti-semitism and nazis in these discussions. Please just don’t use either unless they really are the perfect fit and even then it’s probably better not to use them.

    Anti-semitism means hatred against Jews as a group due to their being Jewish. That’s how it was used when invented by W. Marr and W. Scherer. To be sure, variances have developed, but Jews attacking other Jews due to their perceived lack of observance is not anti-semitism. It might be awful, but it is not anti-semitism.

    The bottom line is that it is better to lay off the unnecessary and inaccurate hyperbole.

  59. Farhat, in my world, “patriarchal bastard” tends to equal “evil.”

    Thanks for the clarification on Hinduism; since you mentioned infanticide, that was what I addressed. China is officially atheist and still has a higher rate of abortion and infanticide for females; it’s got to do with a society that devalues women.

    I repeat, criticizing the patriarchal tenets of a religion is all right. Saying that 98% of religious people are patriarchal bastards is not. I think we can agree that wife beating is not OK; however, that does not mean that Hindus and Muslims who do not practice it and do not condone it are patriarchal bastards just for following that religion.

  60. Neither I nor the other professed “persons of religion” in this thread have been either complaining about privilege being checked or advocating restriction of liberty.

    What we are looking at is that, for many of us, the precepts of our religion is what informs our drive to work towards a progressive society, and the denigration and sneering at the believers in the “sky spirit” and the “mountain god” get wearing after a while and truly do grate.

    But thats exactly the kind of privilege I’m talking about. You’re saying that hearing your god denigrated starts to grate, but what you point to as “denigration” isn’t. Calling the Judaic god a sky spirit or a mountain god isn’t denigration, its a lack of reverence. He’s your god, not everyone’s, and really you’re the only person who needs to show a certain level of respect. Just as I’m sure you aren’t going to say “praise be upon him” any time you mention Mohammad, I feel no obligation to treat the god you worship any differently than I would treat any other mystical figure in which I don’t believe. The reason you find that denigrating is because you’re used to your god holding a special place in western society, you’re used to there being a default respect given because most of the people around you share your faith. You’re used to hearing other people’s creation stories called myths, seeing references to their gods with little g’s, you’re used to all the little things most people who are members of a dominant class don’t notice. Thats privilege.

    And if you don’t like that I’m not afraid to call your sneering and insults such, then you can either think about what you are saying or you can, yourself, STFU and be polite unless you want to hear us tell you off again.

    So you’re not advocating a restriction on liberty or complaining that your privilege is being checked, but if I’m not sufficiently respectful to your myth structure my choices are to “shut the fuck up” (looks like verbal aggression to me) or face retribution? Surely you don’t mean to say that I ought to be intimidated by by the faithful who wield the implicit threat of force into conforming to the rules of a god I don’t worship, do you?

    Yes, those of “us” who are adherents of the “big 3″ are aware that we operate in a matrix that gives us privilege not afforded to others. That same awareness of that inequity is, for many, what drives us to work for progressive causes.

    I think I’ve been pretty clear that I’ve been talking about the problems that come from religion entering politics, not people of faith. Being driven by faith is not a bad thing (just take a look at how Obama’s faith influences his behavior and politics), the problem comes when faith is being used as a justification for policy. The original post here was talking about fundamentalists in Israel assaulting women and breaking into their homes for not following the tenets of their faith and the tepid/craven/cowardly responses of the government.

    I’m glad your faith has lead you to be involved in progressive causes, but we need to face reality. While there have been several important times in the history of this country that religion and progressive policy have moved together, that simply isn’t the norm. Usually when religion starts to creep into politics it is a coercive force. Prohibition, the KKK, anti-Catholic sentiment, manifest destiny, at least one of the major justifications for slavery, opposition to hate crimes legislation, the Christianization of the military, Bush’s “crusade,” the Justice Department hiring scandal, DADT, HIV+ travel bans, dragging feet on AIDS research, creationism in school, the abuse of early Mormons, abstinence only education, sodomy laws, bans on sex toys, opposition to abortion and contraceptive rights, censorship if the media, restrictions on unusual religious practices, all of these things are the product of attempts to legally coerce individuals into behaving in a manner proscribed by dogma. I know there are Christians who work towards progressive causes, but they aren’t exactly the dominant expression of religion in the political sphere.

  61. Thanks for the clarification on Hinduism; since you mentioned infanticide, that was what I addressed. China is officially atheist and still has a higher rate of abortion and infanticide for females; it’s got to do with a society that devalues women.

    See, that’s what makes this so frustrating. China might be “officially” atheist but is largely taoist and buddhist. Where does society get the justification for devaluing women? Also, China has only been atheist since the 50s or so, it was practicing female infanticide in large numbers for centuries before that along with other wonderful institutions like foot-binding.

  62. [quote] Being driven by faith is not a bad thing (just take a look at how Obama’s faith influences his behavior and politics), the problem comes when faith is being used as a justification for policy[/quote].

    How does the fact that Obama is influenced by faith prove being driven by faith is not a bad thing? Doubt you’d find it convincing if a Republican tried that approach with Bush (and rightly so).

    If Obama’s faith influencing his politics is not a bad thing, then how can the very next phrase be “the problem comes with faith is being used as a justification for policy?”

    [quote]Calling the Judaic god a sky spirit or a mountain god isn’t denigration, its a lack of reverence. He’s your god, not everyone’s, and really you’re the only person who needs to show a certain level of respect [/quote].

    I understand your point, but you appear to be trying to claim there is an objective line that, until crossed, is not denigrating and then when crossed is denigrating. Yet you subjectively determine where to place that line.

    My problem is that everyone is going to draw their lines for different groups at different places.

    For example, if you make a comment like that and it offends every religious Jew in the room are you going to say ‘they should get over it’ or will you think you crossed the line?

    If the former, then will you react the same way if someone makes a joke about homosexuals, agnostics, or an underprivileged minority group and that group is offended but the person making the crack honestly thinks it wasn’t offensive, but instead just not showing the respect to their respective lifestyles or cultures that they themselves want?

    Most people I meet fail this consistency test miserably.

    [quote]Usually when religion starts to creep into politics it is a coercive force. [/quote].

    Wow. Talk about a generalization. Change usually to often and I take no issue with that line, but your sweeping statement has been used to justify too much bigotry. I’m sure you didn’t mean it like that but the statement stands on its own.

    And lots of your examples are hardly coercive force. Or, if that’s how you define coercive force then virtually any legislation passed and many of the laws made by the courts are coercive (forcing parents to permit children to get abortions without consent, forcing communities to accept behavior and activities they find highly offensive, forcing religious students to pay exorbitant costs for education while everyone else gets free education etc.).

    None of what I listed is coercive in my mind, but instead part of the democratic process. But given many of the examples you listed they would be considered coercive.

    You use Obama as proof of what is and is not proper.
    You define lines for denigration as though they are objective based on your subjective standard.
    You define laws created which you disagree with as coercive but don’t realize that other laws created by agnostics or atheists are just as, if not more, coercive.

    Many of your points are fair, but you fail to realize just how subconsciously biased you are and the degree to which that clouds your ability to accurately analyze the issues.

  63. How does the fact that Obama is influenced by faith prove being driven by faith is not a bad thing? Doubt you’d find it convincing if a Republican tried that approach with Bush (and rightly so).

    If Obama’s faith influencing his politics is not a bad thing, then how can the very next phrase be “the problem comes with faith is being used as a justification for policy?”

    Not very good at compartmentalization, are you? Ok, I’ll outline it. Obama believes that his god encourages charity and love for your neighbor, so Obama supports policy which is likely to help the poor. Helping the poor might be informed by his faith, but few could argue that his faith is the sole justification for that policy. Beyond that, Obama’s hypothetical aid to the poor is part of a larger platform which does not require faith to convince people. People of many different faiths, or no faith at all, can support helping the poor (depending on the particular framework suggested). Perhaps most importantly, barring a significant tax hike, changing the distribution of federal expenditure to help the poor doesn’t restrict anyone’s liberty. Contrast that with the Justice Department’s stance in Lawrence v. Texas.

    I understand your point, but you appear to be trying to claim there is an objective line that, until crossed, is not denigrating and then when crossed is denigrating. Yet you subjectively determine where to place that line.

    My problem is that everyone is going to draw their lines for different groups at different places.

    When did I say anything about an objective line? I don’t believe that people ought to be expected to show reverence or acceptance of beliefs they do not hold. I’m not going to show respect for Jesus, Mithras, or Xenu because I do not worship them. Neither will I stop myself from drawing a picture of Mohammad or calling L. Ron Hubbard a mental patient.

    If the former, then will you react the same way if someone makes a joke about homosexuals, agnostics, or an underprivileged minority group and that group is offended but the person making the crack honestly thinks it wasn’t offensive, but instead just not showing the respect to their respective lifestyles or cultures that they themselves want?

    Religions are not people. Heres the difference. I can’t really not agree with being black because theres nothing to agree or disagree with, its a skin color. Its just the way someone is and it gives me absolutely no information about who they are as a person. Religion is different, its closer to being a member of a political party. A religion has a group of stances, beliefs, dogma. One can attack a religion, or a particular sect within a religion, in a way that one cannot attack skin color. I can make an argument against communism, one that is not necessarily reverent to communist ideals or Marx, without hurting a friend who is a communist.

    You’re also missing a pretty important point, Christianity hasn’t exactly been oppressed in the west for well over 1000 years. If someone calls me a cracker it isn’t exactly the same thing as if I used the N word.

    Wow. Talk about a generalization. Change usually to often and I take no issue with that line, but your sweeping statement has been used to justify too much bigotry. I’m sure you didn’t mean it like that but the statement stands on its own.

    My sweeping statement has been used to justify too much bigotry? Care to expand on that? Care to show me where in the US Christians have faced discrimination or bigotry from anyone other than other Christians to any appreciable degree? Also, how does changing “usually” to “often” magically change the nature of the statement? I do believe that more often then not (the definition of usually) attempts to legislate issues of faith has lead to tyranny. You can’t prohibit behavior without the use of coercive force, thats the nature of government.

    And lots of your examples are hardly coercive force.

    Umm, really? Care to explain how an attempt to prevent someone from doing something with the law isn’t an example of coercive force? What happens when people break laws?

    forcing parents to permit children to get abortions without consent,

    At least pretend not to be disingenuous. Everyone who has paid even passing attention to the debate on abortion can see that measures designed to restrict the access of minors to abortion is an attempt to create a precedent that would prohibit adults from obtaining abortions. Even if it weren’t parents do not own their children’s bodies and, once the children have reached a certain age, do not have a right to know details about their treatment beyond what they need to do for after care.

    forcing communities to accept behavior and activities they find highly offensive,

    Hey, take it up with the founders. Communities aren’t the basic unit of our society, individuals are. As long as someone isn’t doing material harm to another the rule of law says that you let them be. I’d like to remind you that the Texas sodomy law was stricken down by the most conservative court this country has seen in generations. If you don’t like our social focus on the individual, I hear Venezuela is nice this time of year.

    forcing religious students to pay exorbitant costs for education while everyone else gets free education etc.

    How exactly are they forced? Are they prohibited from attending public school? And who exactly is charging “exorbitant” costs for religious education? Wouldn’t that be the churches that run the schools? Religious students have the option of getting the same education everyone else gets, one that is based upon the best data available and paid for with the funds allotted. Honestly, I’m a big fan of voucher systems (because choice in a market is usually a good thing). Still, a school would be crushed if it had to teach each fantastic belief someone lobbied for. How much would you like it if during sex ed your kid were taught about sex magic because there was a Thelemite somewhere in the school? What if the reference were as vague as most intelligent design proposals are and just said “some people believe that all consensual sexual behavior between any number of people of any number of sexes is the right choice to make”? Are you positive you want to march down this road?

    None of what I listed is coercive in my mind, but instead part of the democratic process.

    The democratic process is extremely coercive, its pure mob rule with dissenters being crushed, thats why we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a constitutional republic, where we elect leaders to make laws and have certain rules that simply cannot be broken (at least, when its working). At the bottom any law boils down to “do this or we’ll stick you in a cage, if you don’t go quietly you’ll be beaten, shot, or otherwise harmed until you submit.” Thats why I, and the founders, believed that governments should be as to what laws they should make. It doesn’t matter how much someone might like an idea, or even if 99.999% of the people in the country want it, if something is constitutionally prohibited it isn’t allowed to happen. Go ahead and read the constitution. In the Bill of Rights, those first 10 amendments, theres around 27 individual rights (depending on how you count). Thats 27 things that the government is simply forbidden from doing, regardless of the will of the people. Interestingly, all 27 of those rights that the government is not allowed to encroach upon are individual, not a single group or communal right in the bunch.

    You define laws created which you disagree with as coercive but don’t realize that other laws created by agnostics or atheists are just as, if not more, coercive.

    Explain to me how. Explain to me how a single individual is forced to choose (with no other possible options) between obedience or imprisonment by any “atheistic” or “agnostic” law. And before you go listing off examples of people being offended, being forced to tolerate someone else doing something that doesn’t materially harm them doesn’t count.

  64. being forced to tolerate someone else doing something that doesn’t materially harm them doesn’t count.
    Thanks William, you said it better than I could.
    Some religious types argue their opposition to same-sex marriage by saying that it’ll mean that kids will have to learn acceptance of homosexuality in school. Which is kind of silly, because if you oppose people having equal rights, the burden is on you to homeschool your kids or send them to private school.

  65. William can has internet? Yes he can. ^^

    That was a very nice breakdown of the arguments. I absolutely agree that people don’t have a “right” to make everyone else behave with reverence toward the stuff they happen to like.

  66. Some religious types argue their opposition to same-sex marriage by saying that it’ll mean that kids will have to learn acceptance of homosexuality in school. Which is kind of silly, because if you oppose people having equal rights, the burden is on you to homeschool your kids or send them to private school.

    Isn’t that the definition of privilege, having experienced circumstances in a way that conforms to you (to the detriment of others) your entire life and not realizing because you’ve never known different? I mean, I’m extrapolating here from my experience of trying to understand my male privilege, so maybe I’m a bit off (and hey, theres people here who know more about this than me, so if I am off I’m more than willing to listen to why), but it seems like the same thing. Moral majority types are used to the world reflecting Christian values, they’re used to the default being their cultural mores, but in order for the world to exist in that way other people needed to be significantly oppressed.

    I mean, what fakert was arguing is that the discomfort caused by the mere existence of another’s private behavior is so severe and damaging that those others should, ultimately by force of arms, be required to cease the discomfiting behavior. Further, the discomfiting behavior need not directly effect or harm anyone, it can be banished with violence if it merely shocks, offends, or disgusts. Finally, the cognitive source of the discomfort can wholly subjective and consist merely of a religious prohibition applying to one’s own life in order to justify the use of force in the lives of others. Thats a pretty profound, and terrifying, stance to take.

  67. What you write about is true but rings a little too hysterical….These modesty-patrol nutcases are very much the minority. The Rabbinate does control our lives, but we haven’t become Afghanistan – yet.

  68. William,

    I would note that in America, Jews and especially Muslims certainly do face oppression. In monotheistic countries where Christians are the minority, they are often oppressed.

    I would also distinguish between progressives within the big 3 and conservatives within the big 3. Speaking as someone who isn’t a big 3er and doesn’t have anything to gain on that score, I would say that progressives within those religions are marginalized on many fronts. First, by the conservatives within their tradition (who often have the most access to power). Second, by an apathetic and consumerist society that, regardless of what it may SAY about its “faith,” doesn’t have much… It is still very much a countercultural move to truly try to live the tenets of your religion in ways that set you apart from the mainstream love of war, malls and NASCAR.

    Finally, progressives within the big 3 are marginalized by the progressives who should be their allies, but who refuse to work respectfully with people of faith.

    I am not a Christian, but I don’t mock Christians. That seems like a way to create a lot of unnecessary conflict between progressives. Don’t we have better things to fight about, like porn or haircuts or something?

  69. Religion and State in Israel

    One great way to keep up-to-date with all these issues is checking out Religion and State in Israel

    It’s the only comprehensive review of media coverage on issues of religion and state in Israel and it’s not affiliated with any organization or movement.

  70. Been said a couple of times before, but have to add my voice: this is so NOT anti-Semitic, it is anti-woman. That it’s an element of a (fringe) Semitic religious sect does not make it anti-Semitic.

    I also want to point out, just in case those who are less informed might have inferred this from the original article, but ultra-Orthodox Judaism and Hassidism (which are not actually the same thing) consist of about a bajillion different sub-sub-sects, the vast majority of which, although definitely sexist, in no way promote violence against women–or indeed, violence in general. And when you think about the overwhelming majority of secular Jews in Israel, and then of the Orthodox minority the overwhelming majority of non-violent sects, these are again one of those angry misogynistic fringe fanatics who get more press and make everyone else look bad.

    As for representation in the Israeli government: radical Zionism, absolutely. Ultra-Orthodoxy, yes. These ideologies are terribly harmful when associated with the state, and there could be, and are, long and sobering conversations of how to eliminate them and better pursue peace.

    But fringe ultra-Orthodox SEXISM? Not as far as I can tell present in the Israeli government.

Comments are currently closed.