# Religious loopholes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 16, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259 "2005-08-16T13:35:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/21 "2005-08-16T20:26:26Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So you might end up in a weird situation in the future where further advances in food science lead to cheeseburgers which are totally synthetic but taste exactly like real cheeseburgers, and thus are loopholes around laws that are already themselves not actually preventing you from violating the original law, which you couldn’t violate even if you wanted to And different groups and individuals within Judaism would deal with this in different ways. Mr. Neville and I are Conservative and keep kosher (including two sets of dishes). We will eat veggie burgers with cheese (using our dairy dishes), but not real cheeseburgers. Something similar happened with eating [kitniyot](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitniyot) during Passover hundreds of years ago. Ashkenazic Jews decided that the restrictions on eating the five grains (wheat, barley, oats, rye, and spelt) during Passover also applied to other types of grain (and things similar to grain- see link), but Sephardic Jews decided that those rules didn’t apply. There are more recent divisions between Orthodox and Conservative Ashkenazic Jews, too- Conservative Ashkenazic Jews will eat peanuts and peanut butter during Passover, but Orthodox Ashkenazic Jews won’t. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/22 "2005-08-16T21:34:12Z")
> [@Mama Tiger](#): > > It’s my understanding that for Orthodox Jews, the prohibition is against work, not use of electricity. Correct. They go into great detail about [what exactly constitutes “work”](http://www.ou.org/chagim/shabbat/thirtynine.htm) as well. > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > But, then shouldn’t there just be a “chill out” rule? I mean, no going to work or doing non-family, religious things. You have to draw a line somewhere. Orthodox Judaism has drawn their line. Conservative and Reform Jews who try to keep the Sabbath draw their own lines, and it’s not a trivial thing. I try not to work on work-related stuff during the Sabbath, but I’m OK with doing non-work-related stuff. So reading a novel would be OK, but reading a computer book would not. But I’m doing the exact same thing to read one type of book as I am to read another. It gets worse- if I had been keeping the Sabbath when I was in school (I converted to Judaism after I graduated), reading a novel for class would not have been OK, but reading a novel of my own choice for pleasure would. I’m not sure what I would have done if I’d enjoyed a book I was reading for class… My point is, you get weird situations pretty much however you define the rules, if you think about it. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/23 "2005-08-16T22:01:18Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > When I lived in SLC I saw plenty of Garments in the locker rooms. No one seemed shy or embarrassed about them at all. There were even bumper stickers: “Welcome to Utah. Land of Funny Underwear.” OK, give. What are these Garments of which you speak? Are you saying that all members of LDS must wear a certain kind of underwear, and that it is odd or unusual? Please describe in more detail. This isn’t prurient interest. Really. I’m just trying to broaden my knowledge. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/24 "2005-08-16T22:08:22Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > When I lived in SLC I saw plenty of Garments in the locker rooms. No one seemed shy or embarrassed about them at all. There were even bumper stickers: “Welcome to Utah. Land of Funny Underwear.” Maybe this guy’s were dirty, or had holes in them… ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/25 "2005-08-16T23:44:19Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > I try not to work on work-related stuff during the Sabbath, but I’m OK with doing non-work-related stuff. So reading a novel would be OK, but reading a computer book would not. But I’m doing the exact same thing to read one type of book as I am to read another. It gets worse- if I had been keeping the Sabbath when I was in school (I converted to Judaism after I graduated), reading a novel for class would not have been OK, but reading a novel of my own choice for pleasure would. I’m not sure what I would have done if I’d enjoyed a book I was reading for class… > > My point is, you get weird situations pretty much however you define the rules, if you think about it. But I’m not considering any of those issues as loopholes. If you want to read a novel on the Sabbath, I would consider that line drawing, as you note. However, if you were to take the rule that you aren’t allowed to read on the Sabbath and say, “Well, I can have someone else hold the book for me, and if I HAPPEN to glance in the direction of the book for a few hours, well, that’s not MY fault,” then THAT would be a loophole. To me that’s what is going on with Islamic loans. Apparently, there are rules against interest, but going through elaborate money transactions that end up with the exact same result as a loan with interest is a loophole around it. I guess it boils down to spirit of the law. If someone in secular law can get out of paying a ticket by finding a loophole, I say bravo, and good for you. However, when one signs on to a set of religious beliefs, isn’t one sort of obligated to follow what the rules are clearly meant to say. I mean, if one follows one’s religion which says that one can’t operate an elevator on the Sabbath, certainly getting into the elevator and having a non-believer push the button is against the spirit of the rule. In the secular world, you’re obligated to follow the letter of the law, and not necessarily the spirt. In the religous world, aren’t you obligated to follow both? ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/26 "2005-08-17T00:16:59Z")
On a somewhat related topic. My Grandfather was Roman Catholic and my mother was Episcopalian. He wouldn’t eat mincemeat tarts on Fridays because they had meat in them. She would always say: “there isn’t any meat, just suet!” Suet, for those who don’t know, is fat from around the kidney’s of cattle. The tying a string around a neighborhood that an earlier poster referred to, is the height of hypocrisy to me. Another interesting “loophole” is that Islam does not allow the Quaran to be sold. So the pages are free and the customer pays for the binding. ---
**Author:** ![Anne\_Neville](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Anne\_Neville](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anne_Neville)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/27 "2005-08-17T00:21:05Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I’m sure that there are examples from Christianity as well. The exact same one, in fact- [charging interest on loans](http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Harris/SocioMat/intensif.htm). Christianity got around it at first by having the Jews be the moneylenders. They later defined the problem out of existence- they said that charging interest was OK (which goes against the spirit of the law), but charging “usurious” interest was not. The definition of “usurious”, of course, was subject to change. > [@](#): > > However, when one signs on to a set of religious beliefs, isn’t one sort of obligated to follow what the rules are clearly meant to say. But not all of us take our holy books literally. If you don’t take every word literally, it’s all open to interpretation, and one person’s “what the rules are clearly meant to say” isn’t necessarily someone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![Mickeyboy87](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/aca169/32.png) [@Mickeyboy87](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mickeyboy87)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/28 "2005-08-17T00:21:51Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > I mean, if one follows one’s religion which says that one can’t operate an elevator on the Sabbath, certainly getting into the elevator and having a non-believer push the button is against the spirit of the rule. I’m a little slow, so could someone explain _exactly_ why it is that “operating” an elevator could be considered work (for most people I would consider it’s just pushing buttons - but maybe there are some other electro-mechanical _manual_ types I don’t know about)? ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/29 "2005-08-17T00:39:44Z")
> [@Anne Neville](#): > > But not all of us take our holy books literally. If you don’t take every word literally, it’s all open to interpretation, and one person’s “what the rules are clearly meant to say” isn’t necessarily someone else’s. I absolutely agree with the first part, and if one doesn’t take every word literally, then that is fine. If someone looks at the holy rules against interest and says to themselves, “That was fine two thousand years ago, but I don’t think god would say that I should have to economically harm my family in his name,” then I have nothing but respect for that. Where I do have a problem, is where the person seems to be saying, “Hmm. Here’s something not EXACTLY outlawed by my holy rules, even though the end result is EXACTLY the same. I have fooled god.” And I do have a hard time believing that some of the things cited in this thread are not recognized as loopholes even by the people taking advantage of them. I’m trying to come up with a secular analogy. The only thing I can think of is if I wanted to kill a man walking down the street. I hold out my knife, and he (not looking) impales himself. I then claim that I didn’t actually kill him. But, the intention was clear, and I wanted him dead. The end result is the same, in that my hand was on a knife that ended up in his chest and he is killed. Therefore, my claim that I didn’t kill him is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/30 "2005-08-17T01:04:28Z")
> [@Mickeyboy87](#): > > I’m a little slow, so could someone explain _exactly_ why it is that “operating” an elevator could be considered work (for most people I would consider it’s just pushing buttons - but maybe there are some other electro-mechanical _manual_ types I don’t know about)? Because Jewish law is SUPER-slow-changing, and some decided a looooong time ago that making a fire is work, and someone else decided a long time ago that electricity=fire, and someone else put those two principles together and decided that activating any electrical device must be work. Not that I think any of those decisions make _sense_, mind you. > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Where I do have a problem, is where the person seems to be saying, “Hmm. Here’s something not EXACTLY outlawed by my holy rules, even though the end result is EXACTLY the same. I have fooled god.” And I do have a hard time believing that some of the things cited in this thread are not recognized as loopholes even by the people taking advantage of them. I think it’s a question of whether they think “God himself made this law, and I’m fooling him” (which, I agree, is stupid and hypocritical) versus "this law is a tradition of my religion, and by following this law, I am participating in part of my cultural heritage and identity, blah blah blah. But this law also makes it very hard to function in modern society. Therefore, I will attempt to appease those conflicting interests by employing this ‘loophole’ ", which strikes me as still a bit silly, but not insanely inconsistent or self-defeating. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/31 "2005-08-17T01:05:35Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > I like the fact that, if nothing else, these “loopholes” require thought, and lots of it. They require people to examine their relationship with the Divine and their religion and try to suss out what is truly important to their spiritual well-being and what is claptrap. We may have different conclusions and definitions of claptrap, but at least it gets the noggin’ thinking about Divinity and our place in it, which is always a good thing in my book. > > And, like \*\*Mama Tiger \*\*says, the Sabbath prohibition is against work, not electricity. Wired Magazine had a great article on this a while back. Basically, if you turn on a switch you cause the light to come on therefore you did work. Same with turning on an oven, etc. It has something to do with an action having a direct effect. What if you put in a delay so that the light comes on (let’s say) 3 seconds after flipping the switch? Nope, since you know it will be 3 seconds for the light to come on. HOWEVER, if it is a random amount of time, somehow now you did not do work since there is no “direct effect” thus you still managed to turn on the light or the oven without doing work. Perhaps someone who is Jewish can explain this better. ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/32 "2005-08-17T01:08:28Z")
No loopholes needed. Jesus put it simply: Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: The sabbath was to be a day of rest from normal ways of making a livelyhood. It was not to be a day to be micromanaged by rules and regulations not to be found in the law. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/33 "2005-08-17T01:18:39Z")
> [@spingears](#): > > No loopholes needed. Jesus put it simply: > Mark 2:27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: > The sabbath was to be a day of rest from normal ways of making a livelyhood. It was not to be a day to be micromanaged by rules and regulations not to be found in the law. I’m not sure what you’re saying. I’m all in favor of a day with no work where you hang out with your family. But, don’t these requirements (like setting timers and not pushing buttons) cause more, not less, rules and micromanagement? Maybe we’re agreeing. Not sure. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/34 "2005-08-17T01:21:06Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > Wired Magazine had a great article on this a while back. Basically, if you turn on a switch you cause the light to come on therefore you did work. Same with turning on an oven, etc. It has something to do with an action having a direct effect. What if you put in a delay so that the light comes on (let’s say) 3 seconds after flipping the switch? Nope, since you know it will be 3 seconds for the light to come on. HOWEVER, if it is a random amount of time, somehow now you did not do work since there is no “direct effect” thus you still managed to turn on the light or the oven without doing work. Perhaps someone who is Jewish can explain this better. That was one that I had heard, but seemed too silly to be true. That, there are Sabbath friendly appliances that turn on a random amount of time after you push the button. Can anyone seriously think that someone using such a device is not aware that they are in the center of a loophole? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/35 "2005-08-17T01:41:38Z")
What about Catholicism? Okay, the no meat on Fridays rule (used to be every Friday, now only Fridays during Lent, and Ash Wednesday). No meat-poultry, pork, beef are all out, but fish is okay. The whole point of not eating meat is that you’re fasting-doing without something so you can think of Christ’s sacrifice. So I’m still within the rules if I eat an elaborate meal of lobster and caviar, but leftover meatloaf is out. How is that fasting, or abstaining? And then there are “indulgences.” No, they don’t sell them anymore, but they’re still around. Remember how everyone in Boston (or was it New York?) was all in an uproar a few years ago because St. Patrick’s Day happened to fall on a Friday during Lent and the local bishop refused to allow an indulgence for corned beef? If something’s supposed to be a sin or whatever, why is the bishop allowed to wave it? Hell, I’ve read that in some areas in Europe, local priests and bishops would declare say, pork as “not meat” in order to boost the local pork industry. A lot of people use confession as a way out-hey, I’ll commit this sin, but the next day, I’ll go and confess and do penance and it’s okay! Now, confession is NOT supposed to work that way, but you can’t tell me people don’t do that. Do these count as “loopholes?” ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/36 "2005-08-17T01:48:12Z")
Most of those are not so much loopholes as just plain cheating! ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/37 "2005-08-17T02:32:08Z")
And don’t forget about Catholic marriage annulments. Because divorce is a sin, but never fear! Your local priest has time-travel ability that makes it possible to go back in time and strike the marriage from history completely. For a price, of course… Catholicism is like the king daddy of loophole religions. Though Orthodox Judaism gives it a run for its money. A friend of mine who is still a practicing Catholic said that religious laws serve the purpose of making you think about the role religion plays into your life, that it’s not just God being persnickety. So even if you’re “cheating” and eating fish on Friday, you’re still acknowledging that God is with you even when you’re planning dinner. It’s a way of being constantly reminded of your faith. That doesn’t mean much to those of us who either don’t want there to be or don’t believe that there is a divine spirit looking over our shoulder watching everything we do, but what we perceive as being a legalistic thorn in the side is a soothing reminder to others. I can’t wrap my head around that mindset, but it’s a big deal to some people. Religion (not just Judaism) changes very slowly. By the time a young, change-minded church member makes it to the status of an elder who actually has some power in the church, he’s become beaten down and conservatized by his long years serving under aforementioned conservative elders. Also, what may have seemed new and dynamic when he was young (letting women wear pants, for example) now seems quaint and old-fashioned in an age when many people are clamoring for gay marriage. So even if he is still a radical, his views aren’t radical enough. It’s a kind of progress gap. I would also like to know about these Mormon undergarments. ---
**Author:** ![davenportavenger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f8ce5/32.png) [@davenportavenger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davenportavenger)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/38 "2005-08-17T02:34:11Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > A lot of people use confession as a way out-hey, I’ll commit this sin, but the next day, I’ll go and confess and do penance and it’s okay! Now, confession is NOT supposed to work that way, but you can’t tell me people don’t do that. That reminds me of the recent Simpsons episode where Homer and Bart convert to Catholicism. Homer spends hours in the confessional tallying up all his sins, then bursts through the door yelling “Whoo-hoo, I’m clean!” And don’t forget about the Catholic women getting birth control “for cramps.” ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/39 "2005-08-17T02:54:25Z")
> [@](#): > > The exact same one, in fact- charging interest on loans. Christianity got around it at first by having the Jews be the moneylenders. They later defined the problem out of existence- they said that charging interest was OK (which goes against the spirit of the law), but charging “usurious” interest was not. The definition of “usurious”, of course, was subject to change. I’ve mentioned this before, but another way to get around usury laws was an creative form of currency exchange. There were no laws prohibiting currency exchange and the rates were fluid. So let’s say the current general rate was that 1000 florins = 1200 guilders. Now let’s say that you and I made an agreement that I would give you 1300 guilders in exchange for 1000 florins but with the provision that you’d give me the florins today and I’d give you the guilders in thirty days. The effect would be that you would be loaning me 1000 florins for thirty days and I’d pay you 100 guilders as interest on the loan. ---
**Author:** ![Kyla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/eada6e/32.png) [@Kyla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kyla)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2005, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259/40 "2005-08-17T03:06:03Z")
Not directly related, but Ethiopian Jews never had the Talmud until they came to Israel. One of the many interesting results of this is that they consider the Shabbas loopholes like hotplates and timers to be terrible hypocrisy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-loopholes/317259.md?page=3)