Sassenach wrote:My view almost certainly doesn't need to be stated, but I'll do it anyway.

My view is that it's high time we stopped pandering to grotesquely backwards belief systems that impose medieval standards of behaviour upon women, and to hell with 'tolerance' if it means we have to put up with that.

Precisely the sort of "tolerance" the British have employed for centuries. We would have poorer if you were more tolerant, so thanks for that, I guess.

I don't actually know what faith Dan is obliquely referring to here. The kneejerk assumption would be that it has to be an Islamic school, . . .

Oh, he was praying to his non-god that I would say that! He wanted a bit of "Islamaphobia" release, I suspect.

but I seem to recall seeing some headlines recently about women being banned from driving by certain ultra-orthodox Jewish sects and I suspect this story may have been what prompted them (I didn't read into it unfortunately, so I can't say for sure). Either way, I'll be damned if I'm willing to tolerate such backwards and repressive policies whether they're enacted in the name of Allah or Yahweh. We live in a society which permits women to drive and the school governors need to accommodate themselves to this fact, not try to hold children to ransom in a doomed attempt to impose their backwards ideology.

Again, nothing forces the women to agree with this. They are "prisoners" of their own wills. If they seek to be released from these strictures, they need only leave the non-State-supported school. I suspect there are worse things in life--like not being able to drive.

I'm just not sure why you think YOU (and the State) have the right to tell consenting adults what to do.

Should I be expected to tolerate the quaint tradition of female genital mutilation in the Somali community ? I realise that the two situations are not directly comparable, but nevertheless tolerance has its limits.

Yeah, not a good comparison.

Please though, how does this school existing change your life?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... rs-driving

Yes, you got the right story, Sass. It could have been Islamic. There are even some odd Christian sects out there.

Not that it matters which religion it is, because they are fringe within it, but still want to assert religious freedom - but in this case that freedom would be to be able to try to deny people freedoms.

danivon wrote:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/05/ultra-orthodox-jewish-schools-drop-ban-on-mothers-driving

Yes, you got the right story, Sass. It could have been Islamic. There are even some odd Christian sects out there.

Not that it matters which religion it is, because they are fringe within it, but still want to assert religious freedom - but in this case that freedom would be to be able to try to deny people freedoms.

So, how would you and Sass seem to favor not be the government preventing consenting adults from what they want to do? How are the children directly harmed? Is this standard something you would be willing to apply across the board?

Doctor Fate wrote:That is not a religion; it is a social construct. You can call it Benedict Cumberbatch, but it won't be any more accurate

So they would not have any religious freedoms if (according to you) it is not a religion?

Doctor Fate wrote:So, how would you and Sass seem to favor not be the government preventing consenting adults from what they want to do? How are the children directly harmed? Is this standard something you would be willing to apply across the board?

If they were fully consenting, why did they complain to the Jewish Chronicle?

"consenting" adults.would just accept the ban and we would never know it existed.

And it does harm the children as the means to employ the ban was to stop them from entering the school if that day their mother had driven them in.

I would apply across the board that a school (public or private) should not attempt to apply such "moral" rules by what seems to be blackmail.

Precisely the sort of "tolerance" the British have employed for centuries.

General Sir Robert Napier once came across a group of Hindus about to partake in the charming local custom of suttee (a prominent and long-established tradition India up until the day's of the Raj when those awfully intolerant British came along) in which a widow is burned alive upon her recently deceased husband's funeral pyre. He immediately ordered his men to put a stop to it, prompting angry complaints from the locals who protested that they were merely following their custom. He's said to have responded: "We British also have a custom, that any man who should burn a woman on a bonfire be hanged by the neck until dead. So go ahead and let us erect the fire and the gallows side by side, that we may both follow our customs together...".

Suttee died out in India thanks to British intolerance of the practice, religious freedom bedamned. It's a shame we never got round to a few more barbaric practices if you ask me.

I'm just not sure why you think YOU (and the State) have the right to tell consenting adults what to do.

Well firstly, the children are not consenting adults but the school head was trying to use them as a tool of social control to enforce their religious beliefs upon the parents.

Secondly, to what extent can we class this kind of thing as being freely-given consent ? It's obvious that this would be consent given under duress. The mothers of these children were firstly subject to the immediate threat of having their children excluded from school unless they agreed to toe the line and then more generally were and are subject to intense social pressure from within their community to conform. Muslim girls in the west are also victims of this kind of thing, much moreso in fact. You could argue that the shocking way that women are treated in Islamic communities is just something that they freely enter into but surely it ought to be recognised that it isn't an easy step to renounce your entire family, community and upbringing.

The question is to what extent the rest of us should be willing to tolerate cultural and religious practices which are antithetical to our values. Yes, banning a child from school if his mother drove him there is not in the same category as FGM or suttee, I know that, but it is part of the same subset of religious values which treat women like property and which are no longer acceptable in our society. Personally I tend not to be especially tolerant of these things.

Sassenach wrote:
The question is to what extent the rest of us should be willing to tolerate cultural and religious practices which are antithetical to our values. Yes, banning a child from school if his mother drove him there is not in the same category as FGM or suttee, I know that, but it is part of the same subset of religious values which treat women like property and which are no longer acceptable in our society. Personally I tend not to be especially tolerant of these things.

Exactly. There clearly are practices that some justify by their religious beliefs that even the US outlaws. The question is where and how to draw the line - I would say it is when religious "freedom" for one starts to impact upon the liberties of another.

http://www.thejc.com/comment-and-debate ... r-children

An interesting piece.

fate

How do I know that? Our country was founded by people fleeing Britain for religious reasons

And yet Roger Williams who did preach freedom of religion and tolerance for other beliefs was forced out of the puritan colonies. And Anne Hutchison was charged with heresy and banished...

The puritans left England because they refused to comply with C of E rituals and then went on to enforce their narrow beliefs on any non-conforming people.
So they left for religious reasons, but not for freedom of religious choice.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/3e.asp

Sorry for being picky here. But the myth that the US was founded by people seeking genuine freedom is irksome. All the Puritans sought was the ability to enforce their restrictive religion on any within their community. They were no different then their oppressors in England.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:That is not a religion; it is a social construct. You can call it Benedict Cumberbatch, but it won't be any more accurate

So they would not have any religious freedoms if (according to you) it is not a religion?

You're so busy putting words in my keyboard. Would you like my password?

No one can inherit a religion. You inherit genes. No one can force you to accept the tenets of a religion. Period.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:So, how would you and Sass seem to favor not be the government preventing consenting adults from what they want to do? How are the children directly harmed? Is this standard something you would be willing to apply across the board?

If they were fully consenting, why did they complain to the Jewish Chronicle?

I'm not sure. After all, the NYT would have been a better pick.

"consenting" adults.would just accept the ban and we would never know it existed.

If they don't leave and are not being physically harmed or blackmailed in some meaningful way, they are consenting. If the former conditions apply, they should contact the police.

And it does harm the children as the means to employ the ban was to stop them from entering the school if that day their mother had driven them in.

Rubbish. You would prefer they stay in the religious school rather than a secular school? If that is not your preference, then what is the harm?

I would apply across the board that a school (public or private) should not attempt to apply such "moral" rules by what seems to be blackmail.

This is not a mandated school. If they believe it is blackmail, they should go to the police. Period.

Sassenach wrote:

Precisely the sort of "tolerance" the British have employed for centuries.

General Sir Robert Napier once came across a group of Hindus about to partake in the charming local custom of suttee (a prominent and long-established tradition India up until the day's of the Raj when those awfully intolerant British came along) in which a widow is burned alive upon her recently deceased husband's funeral pyre. He immediately ordered his men to put a stop to it, prompting angry complaints from the locals who protested that they were merely following their custom. He's said to have responded: "We British also have a custom, that any man who should burn a woman on a bonfire be hanged by the neck until dead. So go ahead and let us erect the fire and the gallows side by side, that we may both follow our customs together...".

Suttee died out in India thanks to British intolerance of the practice, religious freedom bedamned. It's a shame we never got round to a few more barbaric practices if you ask me.

Gee whiz. I think I already mentioned human sacrifice.

Please do try to find something on par with the situation, won't you?

I'm just not sure why you think YOU (and the State) have the right to tell consenting adults what to do.

Well firstly, the children are not consenting adults but the school head was trying to use them as a tool of social control to enforce their religious beliefs upon the parents.

More nonsense. If the parents don't subscribe to what the school teaches, why are they sending their kids there?

Secondly, to what extent can we class this kind of thing as being freely-given consent ? It's obvious that this would be consent given under duress. The mothers of these children were firstly subject to the immediate threat of having their children excluded from school unless they agreed to toe the line and then more generally were and are subject to intense social pressure from within their community to conform. Muslim girls in the west are also victims of this kind of thing, much moreso in fact. You could argue that the shocking way that women are treated in Islamic communities is just something that they freely enter into but surely it ought to be recognised that it isn't an easy step to renounce your entire family, community and upbringing.

Except in many Muslim communities, the penalty for disobedience is death. Again, we're not even on the same moral level here.

The question is to what extent the rest of us should be willing to tolerate cultural and religious practices which are antithetical to our values. Yes, banning a child from school if his mother drove him there is not in the same category as FGM or suttee, I know that, but it is part of the same subset of religious values which treat women like property and which are no longer acceptable in our society. Personally I tend not to be especially tolerant of these things.

"Women as property" . . . why, yes, they are being sold here, aren't they?

#hyperboletotherescue

I'm not supporting the practice. I would not send my kids to such a school. I am simply saying you all are comparing weeds in the lawn to a nuclear weapon. It's ridiculous.

rickyp wrote:Sorry for being picky here.

Eh, I think you mean "ricky."

Did I say every early American modeled religious freedom? Please cite that.

That, in some cases, an "Animal Farm" mentality took over does not change what the British did. In other words, you can't justify bad behavior by pointing to subsequent bad behavior by others.

But the myth that the US was founded by people seeking genuine freedom is irksome. All the Puritans sought was the ability to enforce their restrictive religion on any within their community. They were no different then their oppressors in England.

Meh. Not a myth. It's reflected in the First Amendment.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:That is not a religion; it is a social construct. You can call it Benedict Cumberbatch, but it won't be any more accurate

So they would not have any religious freedoms if (according to you) it is not a religion?

You're so busy putting words in my keyboard. Would you like my password?

I was asking a question, based on your actual words. You said "That is not a religion". So, if it's not a religion, does that mean religious freedom should not apply?

[quoet]No one can inherit a religion. You inherit genes. No one can force you to accept the tenets of a religion. Period.[/quote]I agree with you, in theory. In practice, Orthodox Jews believe that they are Jewish by dint of their heredity, and that they have a responsibility to bring their offspring up in the faith. Yes, someone can "choose" to abandon such a sect, but it tends not to be easy.

danivon wrote: In practice, Orthodox Jews believe that they are Jewish by dint of their heredity, and that they have a responsibility to bring their offspring up in the faith. Yes, someone can "choose" to abandon such a sect, but it tends not to be easy.

But, again, it's not true. An Orthodox Jew who believes in the religion acts in a certain way. Those who do not are not Orthodox Jews.

Furthermore, there were proselytes in the OT. I'm confident one can still convert to Orthodox Judaism--unless they have abandoned the Pentateuch. In that event, they are not Orthodox.