Oh, assuredly, I agree with you, here. Completely.
But ...
... We're *Here*. Not *There*.
If you think back to your college 'Moral Philosophy' classes (tell me your ed-u-ma-cay-shun wasn't all just math, right?), you'll remember that cultural actions (such as this case) must be taken in cultural context.
Yes, Jerusalem is a secular city; but remember it's secular -- but just barely. The history is well-known, and is most definitely *not* secular: The ultra-Orthodox community is present, active, and most-importantly *integral* to the city and the way it functions.
As an example: My 'morality' demands kindness to others; and one natural expression of that kindness means not playing loud music at 4AM. I expect the same in return from my neighbors -- but not out of imposing my morality on them; I may do it out of a moral sense, they may do it out of adherence to local norms. They may find it *inconvenient* to not be able to listen to loud music whenever they want, but do they find it 'offensive'? I doubt anyone would think so.
Similarly, there are two tracks to understanding the parking issue -- for one group, it's a moral argument; for the other, not parking is merely an *inconvenience* regarding local norms, not a moral issue -- nor would it be 'offensive'.
In the context of the integral role the ultra-Orthodox community plays in Jerusalem, from a cultural perspective -- and this includes the secular perspective -- and, importantly, the context of 'keeping the city's religious status quo' (about which whole books have been written for the modern context) some consideration must be given to that group's concerns.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-16 07:53 pm (UTC)But ...
... We're *Here*. Not *There*.
If you think back to your college 'Moral Philosophy' classes (tell me your ed-u-ma-cay-shun wasn't all just math, right?), you'll remember that cultural actions (such as this case) must be taken in cultural context.
Yes, Jerusalem is a secular city; but remember it's secular -- but just barely. The history is well-known, and is most definitely *not* secular: The ultra-Orthodox community is present, active, and most-importantly *integral* to the city and the way it functions.
As an example: My 'morality' demands kindness to others; and one natural expression of that kindness means not playing loud music at 4AM. I expect the same in return from my neighbors -- but not out of imposing my morality on them; I may do it out of a moral sense, they may do it out of adherence to local norms. They may find it *inconvenient* to not be able to listen to loud music whenever they want, but do they find it 'offensive'? I doubt anyone would think so.
Similarly, there are two tracks to understanding the parking issue -- for one group, it's a moral argument; for the other, not parking is merely an *inconvenience* regarding local norms, not a moral issue -- nor would it be 'offensive'.
In the context of the integral role the ultra-Orthodox community plays in Jerusalem, from a cultural perspective -- and this includes the secular perspective -- and, importantly, the context of 'keeping the city's religious status quo' (about which whole books have been written for the modern context) some consideration must be given to that group's concerns.