Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I wouldn't allow my wife or daughter to be moved over this issue. Yes, because you decide these things for them. Amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Equality rights generally trump religious ones. Yes, generally, but not absolutely. It doesn't give them the right to be a bigot. Religious freedom ends as soon as it impacts someone else's. No, that's wrong. I already gave an example of that. Here's another: openly gay ? Fine. Openly gay teacher in the Catholic board ? You could be fired legally. Really, this stuff is pretty elementary. There's not much to discuss is there ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 (edited) So ... are you going to take a whole plane load of people down with you? Or just the wackos? How will you manage that? . In this case when the religious Wacko loses it on me because I refuse to accommodate him and he attacks me, I'd be happy if all I could manage is make him blind before he kills me.I don't care about all the other wackos on the plan. Edited May 19, 2015 by Freddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I don't think it's about finding you repulsive. It's closer to the opposite, not wanting to be sexually aroused from having impure contact with you. I don't even care. They needn't worry though, religious fundamentalists are right between lepers and dead-people at the bottom of the list of people I'll have impure contact with. 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. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I'd tell him to go accommodate himself to a other seat I'd tell him to get off the plane and try walking by himself. That way he is sure to not be close to any women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I wouldn't allow my wife or daughter to be moved over this issue. If the Jews want to sit with men, then that should be arranged before people are already seated. How do you do that when you have an assigned seat? You may have a choice on the seat, but no choice of who sits next to you. Same like on a bus, a train, a boat, a trolly....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I don't think it's reasonable to 'make' somebody move. No way... I would move that person off the plane that is requesting the move. 'No problem we can accommodate you with a single chair located off to the side of the snack bar in the airport terminal'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Have you ever heard of a male haredim asking not to be seated next to men? No? Should one surmise from this that there are no gay haredim males or that impure contact is perfectly okay if you are hiding your sexuality from the world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 Where do female Haredi sit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 We've got one thread where the guys acting obnoxious are being sexist and now one thread where the men don't want to inadvertently touch a woman and they're sexist too. Is that helping you form a concept? . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 In this case when the religious Wacko loses it on me because I refuse to accommodate him and he attacks me, I'd be happy if all I could manage is make him blind before he kills me. I don't care about all the other wackos on the plan. Well you wouldn't have that problem if you're a man. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 I am arguing for the separation of church and state. Those who think religion deserves special protections are the ones arguing against it. Separation of church and state works both ways. The church shouldn't interfere with the state, nor should the state interfere with the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 19, 2015 Report Share Posted May 19, 2015 For the religious rights to be invoked, it seems to me that the accommodation should be coming from the airline, not the individual. The passenger has the right to make other arrangements if they don't like the airline's policies. That too can work both ways. An airline can invoke a secular policy that says it will not accommodate those who aren't happy with their seating based on the proximity of the other gender, but another airline could just as easily make it a policy to always make such accommodations, and allow potential passengers to decide what they want to do when booking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 You may think that way but the law disagrees with you. What we have hear is a classic case of conflicting rights. In those cases, religious rights are usually seen by the courts as being very low on the "rights ladder", with other rights such as equality rights (as smallc noted) often trumping religious rights when there's a conflict. This is how it should be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Separation of church and state works both ways. The church shouldn't interfere with the state, nor should the state interfere with the church. What does this mean in the preamble of our Constitution? What does a church or a religious belief really need protection from when the supreme position ceded to God at the very top of our Constitution gives them such a leg up over the godless and irreligious right from the get go? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 No, that's wrong. I already gave an example of that. Here's another: openly gay ? Fine. Openly gay teacher in the Catholic board ? You could be fired legally. That example doesn't work. What you're talking about is the state interfering in a religious institution - they can't and shouldn't. Religious institutions can't interfere with the state either, such as the plane example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 What does this mean in the preamble of our Constitution? What does a church or a religious belief really need protection from when the supreme position ceded to God at the very top of our Constitution gives them such a leg up over the godless and irreligious right from the get go? It's not so much "protection" as it is a recognition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 What we have hear is a classic case of conflicting rights. In those cases, religious rights are usually seen by the courts as being very low on the "rights ladder", with other rights such as equality rights (as smallc noted) often trumping religious rights when there's a conflict. This is how it should be. I guess so. Maybe that is evident in the fact that we speak about accommodating religious rights, not accommodating secular rights. But, thinking again, this probably comes from the demographics of the American population at the time these rights were designed. It was made up of various Christian religions that needed to be housed, or accommodated, side by side. It wasn't a question of a single dominant sect trying to create a space for others to live within it. As such, the state is seen as the overarching authority, or the "house", with each individual being a self-defined "room" in that house. If your religion can't reasonably be housed, then you have to make other arrangements. It's a pretty well-designed structure, it seems to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 That example doesn't work. What you're talking about is the state interfering in a religious institution - they can't and shouldn't. Religious institutions can't interfere with the state either, such as the plane example. Yes, it's separation of church and state, which has been pointed out goes both ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Yes, it's separation of church and state, which has been pointed out goes both ways. Yes, and? Your example doesn't fit and is in fact the exact opposite of the Jew plane case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 Yes, and? Your example doesn't fit and is in fact the exact opposite of the Jew plane case. You said yourself - religions can't interfere with the state either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Je suis Omar Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 This kind of behavior brings disrepute on us. Killing little children, not so much. The bad behavior of other Jews doesn't, in a thinking person's mind, bring disrepute on "us". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 You said yourself - religions can't interfere with the state either. So no one should have to move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted May 20, 2015 Report Share Posted May 20, 2015 So no one should have to move. I agree with that. Unless the airline decides to make that policy for its customers, which would be dumb IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.