After those ridiculous posters

I do not think that a minority can impose their views on the majority in a public place such as a London street.

If it was, as they claim, for safety reasons or that women should not be touched by men, what about ordinary members of the public who needed to walk along that street at that time.

btw, one can be religious but not understand the reasoning behind these posters displayed on a London street. They can do what they like in the privacy of the synagogue, I do not mind, but cannot impose their minority views on the rest of us.

memo to self, do not give the vicar a peck on the cheek any more.

There was nothing stopping ordinary members of the public walking along that street, as far as I can tell.

Tolerating others' beliefs, which I do, is not the same as tolerating having the consequences of those beliefs foisted into the public sphere. This is not a difficult concept to understand so it surprises me that so many people never do seem to get it.

Besides which, one cannot really respect beliefs, one can respect people who hold beliefs one doesn't respect. That's another concept people often seem to have difficulty grasping. And it still doesn't mean you have to tolerate behaviour that you wouldn't tolerate from anyone else. Beliefs and behaviour are not the same. This thread is about behaviour.

If most people have difficulty understanding a particular concept, could we say those who do understand are an elite?

Just asking

Aaaaghhh! [tears hair]

(that was re petallus's post)

Don't make this a thread about a thread.

And this isn't even in the philosophy forum!

why didn't the plane just go without him?

Because they were already on the aircraft:

''People stood in the aisles and refused to go forward," said Amit Ben-Natan, a passenger who was on board the plane.'

'Many passengers have reported that after takeoff a large portion of the travelers took to the aisles to pray which causing them to become crowded and flight attendants unable to serve drinks or distribute meals.'

There is a interesting item here all about the ultra-orthodox jews

They are certainly very different from the rest of the British population, but I see no reason why we should interfere.

So, jingl, if people have religious or cultural reasons for doing things, we should always make allowances, should we? For example, telling women that they must cover their hair because it drives men wild (and this is the women's fault for having outrageously provocative hair, not the men's for being unable to control themselves), not to mention cannibalism and female genital mutilation. I think that as a society we have developed some ways of dealing with the human condition which are regarded as generally acceptable to us, and we are entitled to complain about behaviour which is contrary to those ways. This includes telling women (not men, please note) on which side of a public road in London they can walk. You just try going out without a male companion in Saudi Arabia and see how far you get. That is their way, and if you are in their country you have to abide by it, whatever you may think of it.

I may have religious reasons for saying all that, in which case you, by what appear to be your own values, cannot object.

Why do you not regard holding up a flight and blocking the aeroplane aisles (if that's what happened) as "interfering", jings.

Why do you not regard putting up unnecessary notices in a London street as "interfering"?

Both are interfering with the usual and totally inoffensive way of doing things that just about everyone else save a small religious group just get along with perfectly well.

Basically they want privileges (different rules from everyone else) because of their particular interpretation of their religion. If what they want affects no-one else, they can do what they like but once they start disrupting things for others any religious privilege or allowance they claim should be nil.

I don't understand your post wheniwasyourage. I was simply talking about the ultra-orthodox Jewish community in this country. I thought the article was interesting. Didn't read it all mind you. Bit long!

I blame the airline for the other thing. They must have known their clientele.

I thought women in Saudi weren't allowed out without a male companion?

And holding up a plane in that way is an everyday occurrence? Not like being drunk, being stroppy, behaving in a threatening way....are those people also interfering with other people on religious grounds?

I still maintain that religious belief is no reason to impose or attempt to impose ones beliefs on other members of the public. If as jings says, we are to live and let live, and just let people get on with whatever they wish as part of their religious beliefs, then where does FGM come into the argument? What about child marriage? Or do you only object to Islamic practices and allow London living Orthodox Jews get on with their bigotry? And bigotry is what it is, the men on the flight were acting as if women re unclean and about to contaminate them in some way. As someone said earlier in the post, what is it about the Abrahimic religions and their fear/dislike/loathing of women? Can you imagine the uproar if a group of say white South Africans had refused to get on a flight because there were blacks near them? It would be an international incident and quite rightly too. Religion should never be allowed to be use as a cover for prejudice.

Good post GillT57

Excellent post GillT57

Can't you get your head round the fact that something that holds true for some subjects, does not necessarily hold true for other ones?

Muddled thinking? Or just some kind of hang-up over, or even hatred of, religion - any religion?

Worrying!

Why should opposition to the idea of a minority imposing their views and culture on a majority translate into a hatred of any religion?

If the group in the article would prefer to be segregated inside their religious meeting places that is up to them, but I do not agree with these rules being imposed in a public place in Great Britain.

I take exception to the idea that this would mean that I have a hatred of any religion, or have some sort of hang-up about religion.

I think we must all be very careful to avoid bigotry when we judge other people.

Indeed we must.

That point has already been answered in the thread rosequartz (about the posters being intended not for the general public (and agreeing that this should have been made clearer on the posters))

Going round in circles now.

I do not agree with these rules being imposed in a public place in Great Britain

No 'rules' were imposed on anyone. The posters were meant as guidance for members of the religion concerned, not as an order to the general public.