Doctor Fate wrote:

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.

Why would a London-based Orthodox Jew talk to a US newspaper, when the Jewish Chronicle is a London-based newspaper that caters for Jews (including the Orthodox)?

"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.

So they should bring the law into this, now? because it looks like blackmail to me.

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?

My preference is not the issue. The preferences of the parents is. I would prefer that they get an education, and not be stigmatised because their mother has the audacity to shame herself by driving them to school.

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.

Or, they could go to the press, make it public and then have the school back down without the need to invoke legal charges.

Doctor Fate wrote:

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.

Firstly, there are many different strands of Orthodox Judaism. Secondly, some religious people believe in the concept of being "lapsed". If they do, no amount of your logic will sway them.

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.

[/quote]While they accept converts (although the Chasidic do so only in a limited way), that just means you don't have to be born a Jew to be a Jew. It doesn't mean that people in many sects don't also believe that if you are born to a Jewish mother, you are born a Jew and that is that.

Just because you and I think that's crazy does not mean it is not their religious belief. And there lies the rub: religious freedom means the freedom to believe in crazy. It's only when it translates into acts that affect the rights of people that it becomes a problem.

danivon wrote:Why would a London-based Orthodox Jew talk to a US newspaper, when the Jewish Chronicle is a London-based newspaper that caters for Jews (including the Orthodox)?

I'm still laughing.

Sometimes, the funniest jokes are the ones that miss . . . because the response to them is hilarious.

So they should bring the law into this, now? because it looks like blackmail to me.

If they can make the case, sure. I've been consistent: illegal means illegal.

My preference is not the issue. The preferences of the parents is. I would prefer that they get an education, and not be stigmatised because their mother has the audacity to shame herself by driving them to school.

The wife/mother makes that choice. She can change her mind anytime.

This is like complaining about the hijab. What forces a woman to wear it?

Or, they could go to the press, make it public and then have the school back down without the need to invoke legal charges.

If that was the desire, I think my humorous choice was better than the one they picked. Choose a media outlet more than 20 people read.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Why would a London-based Orthodox Jew talk to a US newspaper, when the Jewish Chronicle is a London-based newspaper that caters for Jews (including the Orthodox)?

I'm still laughing.

Sometimes, the funniest jokes are the ones that miss . . . because the response to them is hilarious.

I'm not familiar enough with US newspapers to get the joke, sorry. I never read it either (apart from one-off linked articles)

So they should bring the law into this, now? because it looks like blackmail to me.

If they can make the case, sure. I've been consistent: illegal means illegal.

And in this country, it would appear to be against the law. So all is well.

My preference is not the issue. The preferences of the parents is. I would prefer that they get an education, and not be stigmatised because their mother has the audacity to shame herself by driving them to school.

The wife/mother makes that choice. She can change her mind anytime.

This is like complaining about the hijab. What forces a woman to wear it?

Sometimes it is free choice (sometimes not driving is an Orthodox woman's free choice). Sometimes it is coerced.

When it is coerced, it is an attack on that woman's freedom.

Or, they could go to the press, make it public and then have the school back down without the need to invoke legal charges.

If that was the desire, I think my humorous choice was better than the one they picked. Choose a media outlet more than 20 people read.

Well, your US-centric idiocy aside, it worked, because the JC is a more local paper and they didn't need anyone in New York to do anything, only people here.

And by "worked", if you actually read the first link I posted, you'd see that the school has rescinded the ban. Which is what I assumed that people wanted.

I am trying to find the humour in your joke. A google search gave me this: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Erdoga ... mes-405202

Nope. over my head I'm afraid.

danivon wrote:I am trying to find the humour in your joke. A google search gave me this: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Erdoga ... mes-405202

Nope. over my head I'm afraid.

Oh brother. Of course you go to the "he must hate Jews" space in your head.

Let's see . . . circulation of the Jewish Chronicle: approximately 23K.

Circulation of the NYT?

If you want public pressure, you go to the bigger paper. Did going to the Chronicle work? Maybe. Did the school say it was the Chronicle that changed its mind?

In any event, since it's resolved, thanks for bringing it up as if it was ongoing.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I am trying to find the humour in your joke. A google search gave me this: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Erdoga ... mes-405202

Nope. over my head I'm afraid.

Oh brother. Of course you go to the "he must hate Jews" space in your head.

Nope. I googled New York Times and Jewish

Let's see . . . circulation of the Jewish Chronicle: approximately 23K.

mainly British Jews. They claim a readership of several times that

Circulation of the NYT?[/quote]Among North London Jews? No idea. If they wanted Americans to worry about it, perhaps they'd go to the NYT. but they wanted their fellow Jews in London and the UK (most of whom also appear to disagree with the school's policy) to worry about it.

If you want public pressure, you go to the bigger paper. Did going to the Chronicle work? Maybe. Did the school say it was the Chronicle that changed its mind?

No. But going to the Chronicle was enough to bring it to local and national attention, and that certainly worked.

They didn't really need everyone to know (and in the UK, the NYT would be a far less worthy paper to go to than the real Times, the one based here).

In any event, since it's resolved, thanks for bringing it up as if it was ongoing.

When I brought it up, it still was (the change of stance came out a couple of hours later), and it was brought up as a real world example of a clash between religious freedom and individual freedom, in which the state was taking an interest.

danivon wrote:When I brought it up, it still was (the change of stance came out a couple of hours later), and it was brought up as a real world example of a clash between religious freedom and individual freedom, in which the state was taking an interest.

Okay, well, it's over. I'll miss it.

Just saw this. Yes, sweet freedom.

Patrick Stewart was talking about human rights Thursday on BBC's Newsnight, when he made an interesting revelation.
The journalist asked him to weigh in on a case where the Irish owners of a bakery refused to bake a cake that said "Support Gay Marriage" on it, with a picture of Sesame Street's Bert and Ernie. They were found guilty of discrimination and fined about $760.
"I found myself on the side of the bakers," said Stewart.
"It was not because this was a gay couple that they objected, it was not because they were going to be celebrating some sort of marriage or an agreement between them," the actor continued. "It was the actual words on the cake they objected to. Because they find the words offensive."
He added, "I would support their rights to say no, this is personally offensive to my beliefs, I will not do it."
The MacArthur family, who owns Ashers Bakery in Northern Ireland, are appealing the guilty verdict.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/pa ... Reporter11

Good on Patrick Stewart!

Doctor Fate wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/patrick-stewart-supports-christian-bakers-in-gay-cake-court-case/ar-BBkKddI?ocid=ansHollywoodReporter11

Good on Patrick Stewart!

Because movie stars are well known legal and constitutional experts...

We already did that one. Sass agrees with Stewart, I am not convinced either way (partly because the bakery did not advertise any limits and because they took three days to retrospectively refuse), and we both think that the appeal has a good chance.

Does this mean we can now quote Hollywood stars whenever they agree with us as if that is a significant new piece of evidence?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:http://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/patrick-stewart-supports-christian-bakers-in-gay-cake-court-case/ar-BBkKddI?ocid=ansHollywoodReporter11

Good on Patrick Stewart!

Because movie stars are well known legal and constitutional experts...

We already did that one. Sass agrees with Stewart, I am not convinced either way (partly because the bakery did not advertise any limits and because they took three days to retrospectively refuse), and we both think that the appeal has a good chance.

Does this mean we can now quote Hollywood stars whenever they agree with us as if that is a significant new piece of evidence?

No, it means Patrick Stewart has some common sense, which is not abundant amongst those of the liberal persuasion here.

NB: I never claimed it was "evidence." I was rather encouraged by the fact that someone of note has the guts to point out what should be obvious.

Gee whiz. I think I already mentioned human sacrifice.

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

You misunderstood my purpose in mentioning that. I was just pointing out an example of our proud record of religious intolerance over the years

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

What I said was that the children are not consenting adults and that the school is using them as a tool to control the private behaviour of the parents. Some of us are uncomfortable with that. Muslim schools have been known to force girls to sit at the back of the class, which is also something that I don't feel comfortable with.

The issue here, to my mind at least, is not simply a question of parental choice. The values of our society are such that we do not support the concept of treating women and girls as second class citizens. Should we therefore permit religious schools to openly flout those social values ? If parents wish to indoctrinate their children into a medieval mindset in the home then there's probably not a lot that can be done about that, but we do have some ability to control the kind of indoctrination which takes place in schools, even private ones. Your view is obviously that this is a power which should never be exercised, but I disagree.

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

I was referring to Islamic communities right here in Britain, where no such penalties apply.

"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.

Please try and keep up with the point I was making. You could have saved yourself writing this diatribe because I already stated quite clearly that I wasn't making a direct comparison between this issue and the more serious examples of FGM and suttee. I was referring to an attitude of mind which is prevalent particularly in the Muslim community but obviously also to some extent among certain ultra-orthodox Jews and others that sees women as inferior to men and curtails their freedoms in all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle ways. There's a spectrum of course, and the incident that we're discussing here is towards the milder end of it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a part of the same pattern of beliefs.

Sassenach wrote:

Gee whiz. I think I already mentioned human sacrifice.

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

You misunderstood my purpose in mentioning that. I was just pointing out an example of our proud record of religious intolerance over the years

Indeed. As before, we can all agree that there are some practices that have a basis in a religion (even if we don't think it should be, people believe it to be so) that the State does not tolerate. The question is not whether to completely tolerate religious practice or not, it is where to draw the line.

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

What I said was that the children are not consenting adults and that the school is using them as a tool to control the private behaviour of the parents. Some of us are uncomfortable with that. Muslim schools have been known to force girls to sit at the back of the class, which is also something that I don't feel comfortable with.

And the state did (I believe the Islamic free school in Derby was the main case raised on this one), step in and say "no, that is discriminatory". So contrary to DF's assertion elsewhere, it did not give Islam a singular exemption of tolerance.

Sassenach wrote:What I said was that the children are not consenting adults and that the school is using them as a tool to control the private behaviour of the parents. Some of us are uncomfortable with that. Muslim schools have been known to force girls to sit at the back of the class, which is also something that I don't feel comfortable with.

The issue here, to my mind at least, is not simply a question of parental choice. The values of our society are such that we do not support the concept of treating women and girls as second class citizens. Should we therefore permit religious schools to openly flout those social values ? If parents wish to indoctrinate their children into a medieval mindset in the home then there's probably not a lot that can be done about that, but we do have some ability to control the kind of indoctrination which takes place in schools, even private ones. Your view is obviously that this is a power which should never be exercised, but I disagree.

There are a few issues here.

First, who raises children? Is it their parents or "society." If it is "society," then "society" should probably be paying for food, clothing, shelter, education, etc.

And, I'd say this: "society" can raise my kids after it kills me.

Second, who defines what is "second-class citizenship?" What may be appalling to you may not be quite enough for others to feel a "societal need" to impose the same standard universally. It's interesting: you would, I'm sure, resist the notion of a religious majority imposing its standards upon you, but you seem to have zero problem in imposing your standards on everyone. After all, yours are "right."

Third, is it really "medieval" to have girls sit in the back of the classroom? I don't approve of it, but when I think of genital mutilation, honor killings, girls being prevented from gaining an education at all, somehow this seems a bit less than "medieval." Was that merely hyperbole or are you serious? If the former, I apologize. I deal with so many foolish people (those who see racism behind every single ill of society for example) that I may have misunderstood your intent.

Fourth, if it is not directly injurious to the State or individuals, what right would the State have to intervene in a private school?

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

I was referring to Islamic communities right here in Britain, where no such penalties apply.

Yet.

I was referring to an attitude of mind which is prevalent particularly in the Muslim community but obviously also to some extent among certain ultra-orthodox Jews and others that sees women as inferior to men and curtails their freedoms in all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle ways. There's a spectrum of course, and the incident that we're discussing here is towards the milder end of it, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a part of the same pattern of beliefs.

Well then, maybe Britain should be more of a melting pot and less a collection of cultures?

I think that families should have broad discretion on how to raise their kids within certain limits. At the end of the day, society is a group of families and why should we care how other families raise their kids/conduct themselves unless they do something like female circumcision or suttee. (It doesn't have to be that bad but it has to be significant) There should be a barrier between the government and the family, only broken when the family goes beyond limits of civilized behavior. There are always laudable goals when the government intervenes in families (stopping domestic violence, taking aways kids from parents who are abusive) and many times the government needs to stop in, but there are also times in minor cases where intervention causes a lot of damage. So I am loath to tell families that they must raise their kids according to our beliefs about gender roles. I see the family as a bulwark against potential government oppression--it's not an accident that totalitarian countries tend to subvert it.

Yet.

I've chosen to quote this rather than your more lengthy post above it because I find it interesting. You clearly seem to feel that modern Britain has been too tolerant of the Islamic community in our midst and that we grant far too much leeway to those who have values which are in many ways antithetical to those of the host culture. That's a lot to read into a three letter word, but you've spoken about this many times in the past so I have a pretty decent handle on your views.

What I find interesting is that I agree to a large extent. The lack of assimilation amongst our Islamic minorities is a huge problem, and one that I don't believe is being helped by multiculturalism. One of the ways in which I think we should be trying to tackle this problem is by being more rigorous in our insistence that certain cultural practices that are normal in the Islamic world are not acceptable in our society, and treatment of women would be right up there near the top of my list. I think it's extraordinarily dangerous to allow Islamic schools to become cultural ghettos, reinforcing parental attitudes that are not acceptable to wider British society. Doing that is never going to encourage assimilation, quite the reverse in fact.