Nothing like a rant to get my blood moving

[madbaker]

Ultra-Orthodox Jews riot in Jerusalem

Here's what bothers me the most about the situation:

"In recent weeks, ultra-Orthodox Jews and authorities have clashed repeatedly over the Jerusalem mayor's plan to open a municipal parking lot on the Sabbath. Ultra-Orthodox Jews oppose the idea because driving is forbidden on the Sabbath, saying the move would violate the city's religious status quo."

This offends me for the same reason imposing any religious restrictions offends me. Driving is forbidden on the Sabbath? Great - don't drive. But don't tell me, a non-adherent of your faith, that I am forbidden (or compelled) to do so. The same goes for eating fish on Fridays, wearing a niqab or burqa, displaying images of Mohammed, having an abortion, and so forth.

Don't tell me what to think or what to believe. Especially don't tell me how to behave based on your morality. I am capable of making my own choices.

What I'm reading: Brandon Sanderson, Warbreaker

Comments

[fionnbharro.livejournal.com]

No-one is saying it's offensive or forbidden or blasphemous.

This isn't a matter of personal offense; this is public policy -- a city ordinance -- we're dealing with. The ultra-Orthodox community sees it as minimizing their concerns -- not 'offensive' in a moral sense -- and disrupting the admittedly delicate social and cultural constructs that everyone in the city has worked so hard to put together over the last half-century. At no time are the u-O members saying it's 'immoral' for non-Jews to use the parking structure (or drive) on the Sabbath.

It's perfectly acceptable for the non-Jew to drive -- it's the status quo, and it's not a moral issue. The mere act of *changing* the situation regarding a parking structure... *that* is the issue for them; they're not saying it's immoral for others at all.

*Inconvenience*, yes; a moral imperative, no.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

If it's not immoral for others, why are they rioting? The observant u-os will not be driving or working there on the Sabbath, so it will only be patronized by non-believers. How is that not imposing their morality?

The urge to control others' behavior is a deep-seated universal human one. That doesn't make it "right".

[fionnbharro.livejournal.com]

It's imposing not on their morality, it's imposing on the status-quo: the hard-wrought balance that is civil life in Jerusalem. The fact that there's *rioting* shows just how tenuous the civility in day-to-day life is in that city.

Granted, the Sabbath-related laws are the basis for their position, but having carved-out an understanding with their non-Orthodox neighbors on how life is to be undertaken in the city -- with inconveniences for everyone, not just the non-Jew -- it now matters not where the impetus for the position comes from, but rather that the caveats and understandings *everyone* has been living under are maintained.

It's just a fact of life in that place that these legal things must be done -- even when it makes no sense. Look at Alberta in Canada, and the requirement that official documents be also published in French; it makes no sense for those citizens, but it smooths things over for others; it's their system, and it's not a matter of 'morality'.

Even if the Quebecois would riot if the city of Edmonton stopped using French.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

It's only a "fact of life in that place that these legal things must be done" because some people are imposing their beliefs on everyone's behavior, and using violence if they don't get their way.

Again: that doesn't make it right.

[fionnbharro.livejournal.com]

No, it doesn't 'make it right'; that wasn't my point.

I was differentiating civil law and adherence to it (even when inconvenient, regardless of the original intent) *as a means of civility and cooperation between members of society*, against being told how to behave based on someone else's 'morality'.