Women and Jews on a plane

[jbg]

I believe Muslims have equally strict thoughts about contact with women who aren't related to them, yet I haven't heard of Muslims freaking out on planes over this issue the way these Haredi have been. I suspect the difference is that Muslims know that if they start acting up on planes, they're going to get tazered.

Muslims have forced gender-segregated swimming pool hours in UK and Calgary.

[Michael Hardner]

Muslims have forced gender-segregated swimming pool hours in UK and Calgary.

Depending on whether forced is an adjective or a verb, I agree or disagree with this action. I do want a cite though.

[Big Guy]

Wow - what a disappointment! I just finished watching "Snakes On A Plane" on a DVD and reading the OP, thought that this was a sequel. I liked the movie better.

[Hal 9000]

Muslims have forced gender-segregated swimming pool hours in UK and Calgary.

Oh, those kooky Muslims - we love 'em anyway. Right girls?

[Guest]

Luckily this issue has a very clear-cut obvious answer...

They should handle the situation exactly as they would have, if a women didnt want to sit next to a jew.

Can't say fairer than that.

[Argus]

Why not ? It's the airline's business, not yours.

So if say, a KKK member got on the plane and found he was sitting next to a Black man you'd support accommodating his desire not to have to sit next to any Black people? What about if someone religious went into a restaurant and didn't want to be served by a gay man? Accommodation time again?

Edited May 21, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

No Argus, that's not religious expression

[Hal 9000]

OK - A Priest, Rabbi and KKK member get on a plane...Aw forget it!

[poochy]

No Argus, that's not religious expression

Why not, who gets to determine what religious expression is? There isn't racism in any of the holy books? Ultimately we supposedly don't allow this sort of discrimination for any reason, if it was my religious belief to pay female employees half that of the men because they are only half as human would that be ok. It's nonsense to even imagine it.

[Michael Hardner]

Why not, who gets to determine what religious expression is?

The courts do.

Do we really have to have stupid discussions like "my cat is a religion, can I marry my cat" etc. etc. etc. ?

This stuff was set up in 18th century America, guys, it's not new.

There isn't racism in any of the holy books?

I didn't say that.

Jesus didn't tell any stories about a KKK and a Black Man flying on a jet, at least none that were written down.

Ultimately we supposedly don't allow this sort of discrimination for any reason, if it was my religious belief to pay female employees half that of the men because they are only half as human would that be ok.

I don't know what you're arguing against here. Religious discrimination is allowed, and it's elementary. Whether or not you *like* it doesn't matter. Religious accommodation works quite well, thanks to the American Founding Fathers being smart, and it will likely continue.

It's nonsense to even imagine it.

So why are you imagining it ?

You don't seem to know about how the constitution works, so talking here about how the constitution would change is quite far off on the conversational horizon I'd say. What do you think ?

[Argus]

No Argus, that's not religious expression

Fundamentalist Christian dislike and discomfort for being near gays would be every bit as religiously based on Fundamentalist Jewish dislike and discomfort at being near a woman.

[Michael Hardner]

Fundamentalist Christian dislike and discomfort for being near gays would be every bit as religiously based on Fundamentalist Jewish dislike and discomfort at being near a woman.

Yes, but which of your KKK and Black person on plane is a Christian ? Also... where did Jesus preach that Christians should be comfortable ? The Parable of the Sofa Cushions ?

As for allowing religious tolerance, where it infringes on rights of "gays" as you call them, I've already indicated that discrimination in hiring in religious institutions, or regulation of personal behavior as with Trinity Western Law School is acceptable as reasonable accommodation. Keep trying, though.

[dre]

Religious accommodation works quite well, thanks to the American Founding Fathers being smart, and it will likely continue.

Religious accommodation has nothing to do with the American founding fathers. All thats in the constitution is the establishment clause.. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It simply says the government cannot establish a religion.

The canadian charter mentions "freedom of religion" which means people have the right to decide which religion they want to practice. But it says nothing at all about OTHER people having to accommodate ANYTHING.

GOD knows how we ended up with that one line with three words in the charter being used as a justification for religious people to treat each other and other people bad. That was certainly never the intent.

[Michael Hardner]

I trust the judges to interpret the intent. Your interpretation about treating people "bad" isnt a good one, IMO.

[Argus]

Yes, but which of your KKK and Black person on plane is a Christian ?

Also... where did Jesus preach that Christians should be comfortable ? The Parable of the Sofa Cushions ?

I don't understand your reply. If you are in favour of accommodating a Fundamentalist Jew uncomfortable with sitting next to a woman, why do you feel the similar discomfort of a Fundamentalist Christian is worthy only of mockery?

Why do you feel the Jew's intolerance is more acceptable than that of the Christian?

As for allowing religious tolerance, where it infringes on rights of "gays" as you call them,

As "I" call them? Is there some other word one is supposed to use? Help me out here for I haven't read the latest edition of the Politically Correct Newspeak dictionary.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

I don't understand your reply. If you are in favour of accommodating a Fundamentalist Jew uncomfortable with sitting next to a woman, why do you feel the similar discomfort of a Fundamentalist Christian is worthy only of mockery?

I mock your use of the word 'comfort'. I'm not sure why you're dancing around like you are, with disparate examples, KKK and Black people flying on planes. They're ridiculous examples. Maybe you're trying to get me to make a misstep ?

Why do you feel the Jew's intolerance is more acceptable than that of the Christian?

The Jew is not being intolerant, he's expressing his religious freedom. The Christian... I don't know... something about uncomfortable. Pose me a question I can answer - I already gave you examples of how I support exclusions of gays by Christians but you're still poking around....

As "I" call them? Is there some other word one is supposed to use? Help me out here for I haven't read the latest edition of the Politically Correct Newspeak dictionary.

...and bingo you cut out the part of the sentence that is relevant.

Did you not call them "gays" ? Do you want me to be argumentative about nothing ? Your posture in this post is ridiculous, like a fake kung-fu action pose, waiting to pounce on a misstatement...

[kimmy]

Muslims have forced gender-segregated swimming pool hours in UK and Calgary.

As I said, Muslims seem big on this notion of gender segregation, yet I have never heard of Muslims disrupting a flight by refusing to sit next to women.

I think that when Muslims get on a plane in North America, they're just happy if they made it through security without a body cavity search. Whereas these Haredi seem to have an enormous sense of entitlement.

As for Calgary swimming pools... maybe the lifeguards there should be equipped with tazers too.

-k

[Big Guy]

The idea of men and women being segregated from each other. That is a definite indicator of a philosophy foreign to our values, dangerous to our society and definitely should be viewed with suspect and caution - like the Amish and Mennonites.

[GostHacked]

Fundamentalist Christian dislike and discomfort for being near gays would be every bit as religiously based on Fundamentalist Jewish dislike and discomfort at being near a woman.

How would you know you are sitting next to a gay man?

[Guest]

It could be Elton John.

Of course, if it was, I'd ask for him to be moved because he hasn't had a decent song since 1973.

[GostHacked]

It could be Elton John.

Of course, if it was, I'd ask for him to be moved because he hasn't had a decent song since 1973.

Don't let your son go down on me ... wait ...

[dre]

I trust the judges to interpret the intent.

The point was this has nothing to do with any founding fathers.

And the intent is clear. These documents in both Canada and the US have very clear statements in them that are totally unambigous. Can you show me language in either of them that can even VAGUELY be construed as anything beyond giving people the right to choose which religion they practice?

And the Canadian charter despite popular belief does not assign ANY special rights or status to religion WHAT-SO-EVER.

The charter mentions the following as a fundamental right...

"Freedom of conscience and religion".

Note the word conscience... The authors did not intent religious belief or expression to be any more protected than any other expression of conscience. And absolutely nowhere in EITHER the US constitution or the Charter is there any language that even vaguely touches on the kind of "reasonable accommodation", that has been codified into law by judicial scope creep. It would have been extremely easy for them to write this language into the documents... but they didnt.

Anyways, you are right about the law as it is now... unfortunately. But trying to claim that its something that the "founders" thought up is just patently and objectively false.

Your interpretation about treating people "bad" isnt a good one, IMO.

Yes it is. When you descriminate against someone for an attribute they have no control over like being gay, black, irish, jewish, or female... even though they are otherwise completely capable and qualified you are treating them bad.

This stuff was set up in 18th century America, guys, it's not new.

No... it really wasnt. Laws extended the right to religious freedom were made in various British colonies as early as the 1600's. An early example in North America was in 1649 in the colony of Maryland was founded. It said... No person or persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof. Colonies like New Jersey and Plymouth had similar laws even earlier.

These things came about because a significant number people got sick of being dominated and persecuted by catholics, and because baptists and presbyterians demanded the disestablishment of the anglican church.

Put quite simply these laws were not about sitting next to women or denying jobs to fags. They were put in place to prevent the anglicans and catholics from being assholes to pretty much everyone. Jews, baptists, presbyterians, puritans, pilgrims, calvinists, etc etc. The purpose and spirit was to stop anglicans and catholics from using government as a hammer to smash everyone over the head with.

I dont think it would be even possible for you to mischaracterise this any worse than you have. The intent of these laws is exactly the opposite of what you have described. They were not made to allow religious people from discriminating against others they were SPECIFICALLY made to prevent that.

Edited May 22, 2015 by dre

[bush_cheney2004]

The "founders" provided Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and supporting Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 29 say quite otherwise for religious schools, affirming special rights for Catholics and Protestants

[Michael Hardner]

Anyways, you are right about the law as it is now... unfortunately. But trying to claim that its something that the "founders" thought up is just patently and objectively false.

Well, ok but you're framing this as fact... when judges and you yourself are just interpreting things. Your interpretation differs from that of many judges. That's all to be said about that.

Yes it is. When you descriminate against someone for an attribute they have no control over like being gay, black, irish, jewish, or female... even though they are otherwise completely capable and qualified you are treating them bad.

You insist on using the adjective "bad", I think, because you're unable to be objective about such things. I don't agree with religious discrimination, or actually even with absolute freedom of religion but I see value in keeping the state out of the private moral codes of groups of people, as that could go in some pretty unbalanced directions.

Put quite simply these laws were not about sitting next to women or denying jobs to fags. They were put in place to prevent the anglicans and catholics from being assholes to pretty much everyone. Jews, baptists, presbyterians, puritans, pilgrims, calvinists, etc etc. The purpose and spirit was to stop anglicans and catholics from using government as a hammer to smash everyone over the head with.

I dont think it would be even possible for you to mischaracterise this any worse than you have. The intent of these laws is exactly the opposite of what you have described. They were not made to allow religious people from discriminating against others they were SPECIFICALLY made to prevent that.

Conceptually, I see no difference between a government forcing people to follow some Anglican or Catholic tradition, versus forcing religious people to follow some secular tradition. It's about religions being allowed to follow their own moral code, as much as reasonably possible.

An airline allowing Orthodox Jews to discriminate is a manifestation of that pluralistic concept - it's a recognition that a secular, humanist worldview does not and should not dominate all others just because it's more popular.

Edited to add: I just said a prayer for you out loud: "God please help Dre understand people who are not like him." Fortunately, I was in my own home so there was no humanist around to complain to security that I was infringing on their rights. Unfortunately, I'm a Christian Atheist so for sure nobody heard my prayer.

[Argus]

An airline allowing Orthodox Jews to discriminate is a manifestation of that pluralistic concept -

But allowing Fundamentalist Christians to discriminate would still be completely wrong?