Not picking on this post in particular, as it’s a sentiment that’s come up a couple of times on the thread. But is this really always the case?
In this instance I’m with the Gay Pride marchers, an easy win given that the oppo are religious nutters. But if someone were planning a modern version of the B.U.F. march through the east-end I’d like to think I’d be there on the barricades.
Should people still ‘suck it the fuck up’ if it’s the bad guys marching?
There’s also a lot less on Saturday. That’s because the normal workweek for most folks is Monday through Friday, not because the authorities ramp back transportation levels to placate some religious group.
No, you counterprotest, of course. You don’t riot, or try to make them marching illegal. When you decide that it’s OK to ban the “bad guys” from marching or protesting or whatever, sooner or later it’s people like these Haredim who get to define “bad guy”.
We do it here in Skokie, IL any time the KKK or the Narzis want to get in the predominantly jewish residents’ faces. I defend their right to march every time.
The Haredrim do not seem to be making much of an effort to maintain that distinction.
And as has been stated over and over, the gay pride parade is showing tolerance towards the haredrim. You have a very skewed idea of what constitutes “tolerance.” Are the gays trying to prevent the haredrim from practicing their religion? Are they stopping them from participating in government? Are they trying to deny them rights and government services available to other Israelis? Are they trying to keep them from making their presence in Jerusalem visible? If the answers to all those questions is “No,” then they are not being intolerant. Are they being particularly respectful? No, but then, the homophobic element of the Haredrim’s religion does not deserve respect. I don’t care how holy you are, no one has a right to immunity from criticism of their beliefs. That is, ultimatly, all this parade is about: refuting the beliefs of those who think that homosexuality is shameful or abominable. If the Haredrim can’t handle that sort of disagreement, then they have no place in Israeli society.
Are you trying to argue that there is less bus traffic in the US because of religious restrictions?
Correct me if I’m misreading you, here, but are you trying to say that it’s impossible for a Jew to be both religious and gay?
Nice double standard you’ve got there, Chaim. When a gay pride parade happens to be planned in the same city as the Haredrim, it’s intolerance. When the leader of a Haredrim organization calls gays an abomination and calls for gay pride to be banned throughout the entire nation, it’s just “political grandstanding.”
What a load of horseshit. The Haredrim do not have a special or unique claim to Jerusalem. It is a living, growing city, and the needs of the people living there right now are far more important than the sentimental value placed on it by one minority religious sect. The Haredrim do not own Jerusalem. They do not get to dictate what the people who live there believe in, or how they act, or when and where they may gather. You don’t like that? Too fucking bad. Your sentimental religious attachment to the city is not my problem, nor is it the responsibility of the gays who live in Jerusalem to tip-toe around as if they’re guests in someone else’s home, or visitors to a museum. That’s their home, to exactly the same degree as it is the home of the Haredrim, and the religious importance placed on the city by that group does not automatically trump the importance placed on it by any other minority group that lives there.
But you’re demanding that only one aspect of that cultural importance be recognized, and that any other cultural consideration take a back seat to your pet special interest group. And then you accuse the gays of being intolerant? Your hypocrisy is staggering.
Then I’d be criticizing you as strongly as I’m criticizing cmkeller and the Jerusalem rioters. The freedom to speak is more important than the content of the speech. This is especially true when the speech in question is hateful or intolerant. Quashing such speech only serves to legitimize it.
Well, as others have noted, you can always counter-protest. But demanding that the state step in to prevent you from having to hear ideas you don’t like is never a good idea. Sooner or later, it’ll be you trying to state a minority opinion, and someone else sending in the riot cops to beat you down for being different. Everyone is part of one minority or another. If we want to protect the ones we agree with, we have to protect the ones we disagree with, too. This is fundamental to the operation of a free and open society.
What scares me most about Chaim’s position is this:
WTF? If Jews peaceably assemble wearing traditional Jewish dress in the locality of an anti-Semitic group, that’s being “intolerant”? How about if the group consists of anti-Semitic Muslims in the Middle East? Jews should just stay home and shut up and refrain from deliberately exposing their Jewishness to people who don’t approve of Judaism, right? Sheesh, Chaim, I hope you never walk around looking like an Orthodox Jew in any New York black neighborhoods where some of the inhabitants are anti-Semitic. That would be intolerant, you know.
By this reasoning, it was “intolerant” for black people to have civil rights marches in neighborhoods populated by segregationist racists; “intolerant” for suffragettes to march for the vote in the presence of sexists who considered women inferior; “intolerant” for illegal immigrants to hold protests in the presence of people who hate illegal immigrants.
I understand that parading one’s identity in the presence of people who consider that identity morally objectionable is confrontational, and that those who do it should be prepared to encounter some (peaceful) opposition and disapproval. But I’m absolutely gobsmacked that anybody could seriously suggest that such behavior is actually intolerant and therefore wrong. That’s ridiculous.
Bigots have a right to hold bigoted beliefs, sure, but they most definitely don’t have a right to be immune from being confronted with the objects of their bigotry. Not even in their own neighborhoods. No matter how long their bigotry has been entrenched in the region of those neighborhoods.
The definition of Jerusalem as the home of Canaanites, such as the Jebusites, pre-dates any Jewish claims to the city. If some descendents of those ancient tribes were to appear today would you acknowledge their right to Jerusalem over the Jews?
Every place on Earth has just as much history as Jerusalem. Perhaps not recorded, but there nonetheless. The open plains of the US Midwest have been grazing land for animals for longer than Jerusalem has been a city. Does this mean we can’t build cities in the plains? Is there something about the history of the plains as being open land with no permanent settlements which makes them inviolate? What about sites in the ancient world like Rome, Athens, or the ancient Mayan or Azetc cities? Should new construction be forbidden because the character and history of those sites may be altered?
Also, what is special about the 100-year mark that Tel Aviv can have its culture defined, but older cities, at least in the case of Jerusalem, can not be? Athens is older than Jerusalem but it is still a thriving modern city which has adapted to modern lifestyles with no problem. Is it an act of intolerance to walk around Athens in modern clothes? Should we wear togas to respect the ancient character of the city? What about erecting a Synagogue? Should it be forbidden because it would offend the nature and culture, which includes religion, of Athens and piss off Athena-worshippers who are trying to raise their children to revere her?
The entire line of arguement with regards to the legitimacy of the definition of Jerusalem as an intrinsically religious city is built on a logical fallacy called Appeal to Tradition. It’s fine to make the arguement, as long as it is recognized as being rhetorical or emotional instead of logical.
Enjoy,
Steven
I would like to state for the record that I hate religion. Therefore, all statements of religious belief are intolerant and should be banned.
I like this rule.
And jsgoddess argues herself out of existance…
Curses! I knew there’d be a catch.
I ran into this argument a lot from conservative Christians on another board I belong to: the principle that those espousing tolerance are being intolerant of the rights of the [intolerant/bigots/morally-upright: you choose the term] to condemn the behavior of those they are intolerant/bigoted/morally-concerned against. Accordingly, I had to think through my views:
The intolerant have a right to hold their own views, and to express them. To deny them this is to be equally intolerant. They do not have the right to impose them by law, to terrorize, castigate, threaten, or otherwise intrude on the private affairs (and public activity) of those they condemn. I suspect it’s not quite as clearcut as that, but it’s a good first cut at drawing the line where I believe it should be.
Psssst…chitons.
Yea, I originally had Rome instead of Athens but changed it after looked up the ancient cities list and saw Rome wasn’t older than Jerusalem. Missed the togas/chitons substitution though. Always something isn’t it?
Enjoy,
Steven
You want them going around draped in molluscs!? :dubious: Sounds to me like a part in the nefariious Clandestine Cthulhu Conspiracy! 
I don’t know about you, but I think parading around Jerusalem wearing nothing but shellfish is pretty intolerant.
Bravo, especially Miller and Kalhoun-and the latter, I know we have disagreed in the past on matters of religion, but I think your argument a VERY good point.
The Haredim do not deserve special treatment. They do not own Jerusalem, and those planning on marching are just as much a part of Israeli as they (the Haredim) are. They don’t like it? Tough shit. Equal rights are not SPECIAL rights. Oh my god, they might have to look at GAY PEOPLE! Oh shit!
What a crock of shit. Expressing pride isn’t intolerance. Expressing disagreement isn’t intolerance. To characterize the pride parade as intolerance is to distort the meaning of the word “intolerant” so severely as to render it without meaning.
Originally posted by cmkeller
And another thing…you DO realize that not everyone considers this city a “holy” place, don’t you? That is *your * opinion. *I * consider it a central point of hate – a place where many of the world’s major problems began to fester into the clusterfuck we see today. The example of the haredim vs. Homosexuals is just one of many throughout history where people have put their personal brand of unsupportable belief ahead of the welfare of their fellow man. Where you may see it as a mystical birthplace of goodness, I may see it as a blight on humanity. Based on the state of things in the Middle East and other places in the world, I fail to see how my opinion could carry less weight than yours.
It all depends on how good the wearer looks…
My home town was founded, depending on who you ask, either in pre-Roman times or by the Moors. At the time of its conquest by the Navarrese, its Mosque and Synagogue shared a wall. The King bought the land adjacent to both temples and decreed that the Cathedral be built there, “so that the closeness of the three Temples remind all inhabitants of this town of the closeness of their religions and all live in peace.”
Some 600 years later, the Muslims and Jews were expelled. The Muslims had been steadily leaving town for a while; the Jews took advantage of the fact that Navarra was its own kingdom to stick around while Fernando el Católico got the paperwork right, many stayed as “converts”. The worst time for religious intolerance in the town was c. 1700, which is funny in a bitter way since by then the closest Jew lived in France and the closest Muslim in Morocco.
The town is viewed by most Spaniards (well, most that are familiar with its name) as “a place where they grow artichokes and asparagus”. Industry makes up the biggest chunk of the town’s jobs; services are next (so close that which is first changes periodically); agriculture is last by very, very far.
Should we go back to living in adobe three-floor houses? Should we go back to having walls around the town? Should we kick out the blacks and the gypsies, neither of whom lived here a “mere” 1000 years ago? Should my brother have died at age three instead of being taken to a modern hospital?
I’m sure you can all guess my answer to these questions.
I think part of the problem is that however people see it, what Jerusalem is, ultimately, is a city of a three quarters of a million people with all the problems and concerns that a city of that sice has. Too often, I think, people worry about Symbolism at the expense of the actual people involved.