In societies that have more or less entered into modernity, women can afford to discuss at enormous length whether they are victimized by a stranger greeting them in the street or by the invention of a roofie-detecting nail polish. And that’s not a bad thing. To the contrary, it is absolutely phenomenal because it means that all of the more serious problems have already been resolved.
Such places, however, are small oases in the desert of the horrifying, degrading treatment women are subjected to in pre- modern societies. The only way for women in these pre-modern societies at least minimally to reduce constant brutalization is to position themselves, as vividly as possible, as some man’s possession. Then they will be animalized by that man but it will be just one torturer instead of a thousand. Last week, UNICEF released a detailed report on this. Please read it if you are still in any doubt as to how horrifying the lives of women are in today’s pre-modern societies.
So what happens when a man from such a pre-modern society arrives in a fully modern one? If the man in question is uneducated, stupid, and scared of an incomprehensible world, he will look around Derby or Rotherham or Montreal, see women who are marked as a man’s possession by all sorts of shrouds and let them be. Then he will see women who are not draped and hidden, i. e. not marked as possessions, and will feel free to brutalize them and make them his own possessions.
When I was in the UK 2 years ago, I was horrified by the sight of veritable procession of these shrouded women who only had small holes in the shrouds for their eyes. The shrouded women were normally accompanied by men who were ogling the non-shrouded women in really offensive ways. I found it impossible to understand why the British society felt it was ok to degrade me in this way for the sake of protecting somebody’s right to mark women as possessions.
Some people are tempted to make this about religion. But if you are one of those people, then you are not adapting to modernity all that well either. In modern societies, religion doesn’t matter because it is relegated to the realm of the deeply personal. The need to inflict your holy book on others is a sign of pre-modern mentality. People who are comfortable with modernity don’t mind keeping their holy books to themselves.
Now, what can be done about all this?
The only way to prevent the horror of Rotherham from repeating itself over and over again is to reverse the idiotic policies of multiculturalism immediately. The idea that all cultures are equally valuable should be abandoned. All forms of attire that mark women as possessions should be banned and prosecuted in civilized countries in the same way as incitement to hate crimes is prosecuted. There should be intense public shaming of anybody who suggests segregation of women, selling children in marriage, etc. There should be constant efforts to desegregate immigrants and educate them about modern values.
In Quebec, there was an attempt to position the society as a fully modern one by banning religious garb in publicly owned spaces. Sadly, the people of Quebec haven’t seen the enormous civilizational potential of this initiative and chose to sacrifice it to identity politics. Obviously, there was not a peep out of Quebec’s feminist organizations on the subject. There is hardly a woman in Quebec who hasn’t been harassed or degraded by a man from a pre- modern society, yet the sacred cow of “all cultures are equally valuable” is preventing Québécois feminists from doing anything about the problem.
It seems that even the absolute horror of female victimization in Rotherham is not enough for us to accept that cultures where girls are genitally mutilated, sold into marriage at the age of 8, denied the right to control their bodies and manage their lives are worse than cultures where none of this is happening. A culture where a gay couple is arguing over what flower arrangement to select for the wedding is better than a culture where this couple is terrified of imprisonment or death. A culture that debates whether it’s ok to let 8-year-olds play in the park unsupervised is better than a culture where it is normal to marry them, send them to work, send them to war, or sell them to coyotes.
It is only after we accept that civilization is better than barbarity that we will be able to start the work of preventing another Rotherham.
Clarissa's Blog 
From what I understand about this, though, is that the British (civilized?) police thought it was fine.
LikeLike
The law enforcement obviously fell down on the job. Also, the patents of these kids are total freaks, and as we all know, I’m usually all over that. But here he we have an even larger issue at play, an issue of global consequences.
Why do you think the Russians are freaking out right now? For the same reason. They are uncomfortable with modernity.
LikeLike
This piece isn’t perfect but is a bit better than some of the “raped by multiculturalism” cant that has been going around. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-rape-and-rotherham.html
LikeLike
I don’t even understand what Douthat was saying with this piece. Tons of empty blabber about “evil” but nothing specific. I hate the “evil” talk.
LikeLike
Piece is weak at end, yes, and I don’t like the use of the concept “evil.” But I am uncomfortable claiming these things are multiculturalism’s fault or the Muslims’ fault, with all the complicity from nice white Christians both in this case and in much other sexual assault.
LikeLike
Yes, bad police officers, lousy parents, shitty social workers, it’s all obviously true. However, they didn’t rape any children. Bad parents and shitty state employees are an inevitable part of reality, it seems. But their existence doesn’t entitle anybody to rape.
As to Muslims, Christians, atheists, agnostics, etc, we have no way if knowing what anybody did or didn’t practice throughout this crime spree. It’s all completely irrelevant.
LikeLike
But, is the argument that they did it because they are Pakistani barbarians with an inferior culture which should be modernized or eradicated?
LikeLike
Ross Asshat is hopeless. I have to wonder what connection got him into the Times or any other serious news/opinion outlet. David Brooks is only slightly better – mediocrity pays, if you are a man telling “management” ^ what they want to hear.
^(white men owning and running the Times, and no, briefly having a woman editor doesn’t count, editors are lowly, the people who count in journalism are the owners and financial managers. Freedom of the press only belongs to the owners of the press.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
They are both useless. The paper is unreadable. When i compare it to newspapers in Spain, the contrast is galling.
LikeLike
Ha! Thank you for helping me formulate something about Quebec (sorry, I have a bit of a one track mind)… See, in Quebec the people who came up with the idea of banning religious garb and other symbols of men (or society at large) possessing women had… certain reputation. To use your terminology – this was a reputation of not too modern people themselves… Thus, the initiative was perceived by many as just another manifestation of ethnic nationalism masked by “progressive” vocabulary.
To turn it around and make it more general – the society trying to enforce the modern ways actually has to be consistent and practice what they preach. And by this practicing what one preaches I do not mean here wearing certain clothes, obviously.
LikeLike
Of course, we can and should analyze our ideological purity but barbarity is not saddled by such considerations and is on the offensive.
LikeLike
I fully agree with this:
“The only way to prevent the horror of Rotherham from repeating itself over and over again is to reverse the idiotic policies of multiculturalism immediately. The idea that all cultures are equally valuable should be abandoned. All forms of attire that mark women as possessions should be banned and prosecuted in civilized countries in the same way as incitement to hate crimes is prosecuted. There should be intense public shaming of anybody who suggests segregation of women, selling children in marriage, etc. There should be constant efforts to desegregate immigrants and educate them about modern values.”
The mood of extreme cultural relativism with regard to women is indicative of how backward many ideas in the Western world still are.
LikeLike
Exactly, exactly. I hate cultural relativism. Why is it that the possibility of segregating women at universities is actually discussed in the UK? Why isn’t every proponent of it immediately incarcerated or deported for hate crimes?
LikeLike
And to indicate a problem with modernity and tradition not understanding each other — and not being willing to — let me be anecdotal. My father, who fought for certain traditional values and lost the literal war, had made up his mind not to allow his family to adapt to modernity, as this would mean in his mind losing the war twice. Therefore I had to do a terrible battle with him for my independence of mind. And what happened when I went to modern professors or modern feminists for support? They told me I was just being overly sensitive and that we all have different patriarchies to deal with and it is just a matter of perspective. My ability to sink or swim in the given circumstances was, to them, a matter of theoretical perspective and not at all a big issue.
Therefore it seems that one of the problems of modernity is in fact a loss of perspective in dealing with issues that still impact on others as not at all just “theoretical”, but practical and real in the deepest sense.
I criticise modernity at times for its ethical bankrupsy (expressed as extreme relativism). That does not mean I am against modernity as such. But things have to be drawn back into historical context, even though this is painful for modern people to do. Leftist modern people do not like having to take on the position or attitude of having a superior intellectual or social vantage point because they have disavowed their role as colonials. The worst thing you can do to a modern person of the left persuasion is to suggest they still have colonial tendencies. They would rather be overrun and destroyed. That is easier than facing the ethical conundrum of the legacies of colonialism. But more than that, gaining and maintaining a historical perspective is too much work for most people.
LikeLike
The modern mind is just unable to understand the meaning and reality of somebody’s DEADLY COMMITMENT to their cause.
LikeLike
Whaddaya mean? We understood perfectly that the Nazis were serious, once we pulled our head out of our butts after Pearl Harbor. I do believe that we understand perfectly that ISIS, various evil governments (Putin is only one example), etc are committed. It is a hard sell to get the American public to spend more lives and money on other peoples’ wars until war comes to our doorstep. There is a certain cynical truth that war is unpredictable, and peace is unpredictable, and that it behooves one from a practical view as well as a self-interested view to “first do no harm”. In my opinion, though Saddam was a monster, we did a disastrous thing by opening up a power vacuum. Bush Senior didn’t make that mistake – he listened to regional powers, realized that they saw dangers of instability, and pulled back from believing he could fix anything other than booting Iraq out of Kuwait. Bush Junior had hubris and a messiah complex, not to mention a lot of friends with military contracts.
LikeLike
I’m talking about the way the population is conditioned to think, that if they stand tall in any way at all they are perpetuators of colonial tendencies.
LikeLike
These are golden words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rick Falkvinge (founder of the Pirate Party) sez freedom of religion is obsolete, since legitimate freedoms concerning religion are just a special case of freedom of opinion.
LikeLike
A brilliant article, thank you! It’s very heartening that there are people who are saying this. I agree completely.
LikeLike
A culture is a system of shared beliefs and values of a group. Do you really expect to systematically destroy those and yet somehow accommodate, and even promote, it but only when it is to your advantage?
LikeLike
\\ In Quebec, there was an attempt to position the society as a fully modern one by banning religious garb in publicly owned spaces.
So, would national-religious Jews too (those who go to university and serve in IDF in Israel) be unable to walk there? Women cover their hair, elbows and knees; and men wear yarmulkes.
Or only Haredi, Orthodox Jews would be out? Arrested, fined or what?
Unlike burqa. wearing a yarmulke and for a married woman to cover her hair are a must in Judaism.
Btw, national-religious men wouldn’t shake hands with a woman or work on a pig factory either. I have interacted with quite a few of those men, and they’re often good people, who contribute to Israeli society a lot. Disproportionately high number of the killed (considering their % in total population) in the last operation were national religious.
I don’t think firing employees for not shaking hands with female customers is right, since shaking hands supposedly has nothing to do with a job they do.
LikeLike
I’ll shamelessly steal (wihout attribution!) the best description of the thought processes of the Rotherham rapists.
“If these girls’ parents cared about them, they’d lock them up at home like we do and not let them talk to men like us. And if non-Pakistanis cared about this they’d burn some of our houses or businesses down. Since neither of those things is happening people must be okay with it.”
LikeLike
Has one of the rapists said that? Somebody from rapists’ community? Or is that how Westerners interpret the events? Mind you, I don’t say it’s a false to reality description, but it’s important to know something about the source.
The question is what Western society can do to stop adults holding such worldview from attacking. I don’t think one can reeducate them in practice. May be, their children or grandchildren, but not (most of) them. Obviously, burning things down is off limits. The only idea I have is jailing the criminals and deporting their families. It’s not like their mothers, sisters and wives (and fathers, brothers, etc) have no idea what their relative, who is living in the same house, is doing. If they choose not to stop him, not to report… The moment their entire family is thrown out of Europe to live in a less modern society, which attackers like more, they may rethink whether attacking is worth it. Also, their communities would be moved to begin fighting the phenomenon.
Following the same logic, Israel destroys homes of terrorists.
“House demolition is typically justified by the IDF on the basis of:
Deterrence, achieved by harming the relatives of those who carry out, or are suspected of involvement in carrying out, attacks
[other reasons, not connected to current discussion]”
LikeLike
I’ll menion my own evolving view is that governments have no active obligation to cater to or facilitate people following personal religious dictates. It can’t prevent people from following them in private settings (with appropriate caveats about not infringing on other people’s rights).
So, public schools and other public institutions that provide food are under any obligation to cater to religious restrictions, whether kosher, hindu or halal. Hospitals of course must cater to health requirements of patients but that’s it.
Having religious beliefs does not mean you get to force other people to help you follow them.
LikeLike
I agree completely. I’d take it further and create a campaign which would promote the idea that expecting others to cater to your political beliefs is wrong, barbaric and shameful.
LikeLike
NB modern England and the Scandinavian countries all have national religions. Church of England, Dansk Folkekirke, etc. In Scandinavia as I remember it is a bit difficult to get out of the religious organization that you are essentially born into as a citizen.
LikeLike
Sweden has definitely adopted separation of church and state. Unfortunately the way they did it in Sweden seems to be more church-state equality than church-state separation (“all religions receive state support” instead of “no religions”), but at least…
I don’t know about any other countries, but church-state separation seems to be the trend. You mention Denmark which seems to be lagging behind the trend. This is ironic for the country that ignited the “cartoon Mohammed” controversy. Their prioritization of free expression over religious doctrines about sanctity of images or whatever would have been more credible IMO if the country didn’t consider itself part of “Christendom” (an idea which really must die).
LikeLike
The traditional bargain has been that for the chance to start a new life with better opportunities immigrants are expected to give up some of their customs and traditions and have over the job of socializing their children to the new society (esp via schools).
The problem with much current immigration policy in western europe (including the UK) is that new arrivals aren’t expected to give up anything, or carry their own weight economically and are able to (encouraged even) to prevent their children from being socialized in the new society. This also means that the parents are free to pass on their culture shock trauma to their kids with no interference from the state and so the trauma goes on and on for generations creating a toxic ‘us and them’ mentality.
So, by the time the first children born in the new country leave high school most of them are essentially unemployable without the language and social skills needed to find a good job and full of resentment and anger which they direct at the state that supports them (aiming it at their families is too painful and their families have prevented them from gaining the personal skills to do that).
LikeLike
\\ The traditional bargain … have over the job of socializing their children to the new society (esp via schools).
There are many Muslim schools in Europe. To be fair, there are Jewish schools too. I think in an ideal society there would be one kind of schools for everybody, with students studying religion in Sunday / Jewish / Muslim schools after usual school hours.
“Around one third of Britain’s schools are faith schools. The overwhelming majority of them are Christian (around 68 per cent Church of England and 30 per cent Catholic), but there are a dozen Muslim state schools, 42 Jewish schools and a handful of others. After the 2010 Academies Act, many faith schools converted to academy status. All academies can set pay and conditions for staff, and are not obliged to follow the National Curriculum, although the DfE expects evolution to be taught in science. ”
From https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/4731/schools-for-scandal
LikeLike
May be, it could be a subject of another post? Two povs regarding socialization in schools:
David Cameron today set out a list of ‘British values’ he wanted taught in all schools – and claimed the move would be backed by the public.
The Prime Minister said he wanted pupils taught freedom, tolerance and respect for the rule of law. He spoke out after the Education Secretary Michael Gove revealed his plan to force all schools to teach British values.
Mr Gove’s proposal came after five Muslim-dominated schools in Birmingham were placed in special measures in the wake of an alleged ‘Trojan Horse’ plot to radicalise youngsters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2653750/Dawn-raid-inspections-schools-blocked-Michael-Gove-two-years-ago-claims-Ofsted-chief.html
VS
Nick Clegg: Teaching ‘British values’ in schools could upset moderate Muslims
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nick-clegg-teaching-british-values-in-schools-could-upset-moderate-muslims-9552742.html
LikeLike
I’m noticing that there is nothing about gender equality among the vague and meaningless list of British values. This could actually work and be a good idea but the list needs to be meaningful and not toothless. I’d start with “religion is a deeply private matter and bringing it into public view is unacceptable and barbaric.”
LikeLike
Modern Western societies are certainly not 100% behind gender equality. The US doesn’t have an Equal Rights Amendment, doesn’t believe that women should be able to determine the medical treatment for their own bodies, doesn’t believe that rape is a crime unless it involves a black man raping a well-to-do white woman virgin or wife of a powerful white man.
For an example of how a well-to-do white woman fares when victimized by a well-to-do white man, see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/arts/design/in-a-mattress-a-fulcrum-of-art-and-political-protest.html?ref=todayspaperhttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/22/arts/design/in-a-mattress-a-fulcrum-of-art-and-political-protest.html?ref=todayspaper
LikeLike
\\ I’d start with “religion is a deeply private matter and bringing it into public view is unacceptable and barbaric.”
Does “bringing it into public view” mean “people on the street being able to identify you as a member of religion X”? I don’t think wearing a yarmulke is unacceptable and barbaric, and I see a contradiction in singling out religious identity as the only kind of identity one must not show in public. People seeing one is gay or trans is A-OK, but seing that one is religious – is not? Sexuality is a deeply private matter too, no? I just don’t see how your argument is internally consistent here.
If my understanding of “bringing it into public view” is correct, surely, you don’t think it could be taught in faith schools.
From the site of Association of Muslim schools in UK:
7. What is your position on the Hijab? We support the right of girls to wear hijab, but we are against anybody forcing them to wear it. We expect all Muslim pupils at our member schools to dress modestly in line with their Islamic ethos. We strongly believe that everyone should have the freedom to practise their faith in the manner in which they feel most comfortable – and this is something we promote to our members.
http://ams-uk.org/faq/
Also, after reading your posts about the decline of a nation state, I found this talk of “British values” ironic. Don’t adopting values of the new country and taking about national values belong to the nation state model, not to “I went to see how China is like for a year” world?
LikeLike
“People seeing one is gay or trans is A-OK”
– I don’t even want to get into the issue of how you think you can “see” something like this.
“I see a contradiction in singling out religious identity as the only kind of identity one must not show in public.”
– Let’s drop the confusing and vapid talk of “identity” altogether. There are specific places of worship and there are tons of them. Everything that has to do with this activity can be conducted there. Sick people and doctors meet in hospitals to conduct their business. People who want to imbibe liquor and dance to loud music meet each other in bars and clubs. People who want to read books in complete quiet go to libraries. It doesn’t occur to a doctor to operate on a patient in a bar or to a bar-hopper to turn on loud music at a library. Neither does it occur to a reader to try to force everybody at a dance club to keep quiet because she wants to read. Religious worship, reading, dancing, doctor appointments, etc – these are all equally valid activities of human beings. There shouldn’t be a problem with engaging in them in appropriate places.
“Also, after reading your posts about the decline of a nation state, I found this talk of “British values” ironic. ”
– I would call them “modern values.” Who cares about the name, as long as the goal is achieved?
“If my understanding of “bringing it into public view” is correct, surely, you don’t think it could be taught in faith schools.”
– The very existence of “faith schools” in a secular state is an atrocity. Children are entitled to free education provided by the state. This is one of the greatest achievements of our civilization. The possibility of some idiot parents depriving their children of this education just because they are religious fanatics should not even exist.
LikeLike
\\ – I don’t even want to get into the issue of how you think you can “see” something like this.
One gay person I knew walked with a picture of a pride flag on a handbag.
Some trans people can be identified as such, looking like the recent Eurovision winner.
\\ There are specific places of worship and there are tons of them. Everything that has to do with this activity can be conducted there.
I still haven’t understood whether you think wearing a yarmulke in public should be permitted. I don’t think wearing a head covering, a long skirt or a cross for religious reasons is like “turning on loud music at a library” or “forcing everybody at a dance club to keep quiet.”
LikeLike
“One gay person I knew walked with a picture of a pride flag on a handbag.”
– And I walk around with a gay pride bracelet, so what? There are crowds of gay people who don’t display the rainbow flag and crowds of straight people who do.
“Some trans people can be identified as such, looking like the recent Eurovision winner.”
– You cannot possibly have any idea if anybody is trans, queer, intersex, or anything else until they decide to inform you. The need to “see” transgender or gayness or intersex is your personal issue.
” I don’t think wearing a head covering, a long skirt or a cross for religious reasons is like “turning on loud music at a library” or “forcing everybody at a dance club to keep quiet.””
– And while we are sitting here completely oblivious to one of the greatest achievement of our civilization (the relegation of the religious to the private sphere), those who are not as short of memory will take that achievement and destroy it.
LikeLike
“Does “bringing it into public view” mean “people on the street being able to identify you as a member of religion X”?
For me, no. I don’t care about crosses or stars of david. As for yarmulkes or the weird curly sideburns or hijab, I think they’re all ugly*, but am not going to argue about taste. I’m also prepared (quite generously I think) to be very tolerant about the apparel of religious authority figures (rabbis, priests, nuns and the like).
I draw the line at face covering and forced sex segregation in situations beyond public restrooms and the like. If you think men looking at your face is immoral then stay the fuck home. If you think unsupervised interactions between men and women who aren’t related are immoral then stay the fuck home. If you’re a man who refuses to shake a woman’s hand then you’re a freak and I have no use for you.
*I kind of like shtreimel (a sort of fur top hat) that some orthodox men wear but purely in a fashion sense I have no respect for the religious aspect.
(this message brought to you by the expression ‘and the like’)
LikeLike
I personally have no issue with women wearing less conservative hijab (the kind that allows them full visual fields, an important safety consideration) as a personal statement of faith or of ethnic solidarity. I see plenty of medical doctors with headscarves or wimples, and they aren’t subservient. And the former president of the local Islamic association is a woman doctor (works at my hospital) who doesn’t wear hijab scarves/wimples because she interprets the scripture to mean that women should be “modest” in public, which to her means not making a huge show of being more devout or more sexy or more wealthy or whatever (modesty goes both ways). Men are supposed to be modest as well. (Moderation in all things!) Hear, hear to that. I don’t fancy showing skin, and I consider it poor form to flaunt wealth unduly ( I am not devout, therefore, can’t comment on that).
LikeLike
\\ One gay person I knew walked with a picture of a pride flag on a handbag.
Btw, he did it while serving in IDF. 🙂
I do think that those who practice Orthodox form of any religion usually don’t subscribe to ‘live and let live.’ They do tend to ‘force everybody’, if they have the ability to do so, and usually don’t participate well in modern societies.
However, their existence doesn’t push me to advocate for prohibition of crosses, kippahs and head coverings in general. If somebody thinks his religion orders him to marry his daughter at 13, his place isn’t in a modern society. But I can’t say the same about a person with a head covering or a cross. Why can’t one create acceptable limits of religious expression, instead of total prohibition you recommend?
The model of limits is also more realistic, many people are religious to some extent and won’t support your proposition. Imagine how well “lets pass a law prohibiting wearing a cross in public” would go in USA. Or such a law about kippahs in Israel.
LikeLike
“Why can’t one create acceptable limits of religious expression, instead of total prohibition you recommend?”
– I really dig it when people try to put words into my mouth. When did I recommend “total prohibition” of religion??? I want to remind you that between you and me, I’m the one who is actually religious. All I’m saying is that people should worship in spaces that are specifically designed for that purpose. There is a multitude of such spaces. If I’m not going to a church to do my aerobics, then I’m not seeing why the religious people can’t extend me the same courtesy and not come to pray to my gym (this is a recent event I’ve experienced.)
” Imagine how well “lets pass a law prohibiting wearing a cross in public” would go in USA.”
– I live in the Bible Belt and I have not seen any crosses in any public space other than a cemetery or on a church building. Even the weirdos who tried praying at the gym were not decked in crosses. Let’s not solve non-existent problems in a thread dedicated to something very real and very serious.
LikeLike
\\ – I really dig it when people try to put words into my mouth. When did I recommend “total prohibition” of religion???
My mistake. I meant “acceptable limits of religious expression, instead of total prohibition In Public”. Here I assumed that “religious expression” includes wearing a kippah, not only “praying at the gym,” which does sound weird.
I didn’t try to solve non-existent problems, but to understand the details of your proposed course of behavior (” “religion is a deeply private matter and bringing it into public view is unacceptable and barbaric.” “)
LikeLike
If there aren’t crosses in public space, ten commandments on government buildings, students draped in super visible crosses in classrooms, etc., Christian prayer at graduation in public schools, etc., etc., you are only playing when you claim to live in the Bible Belt.
LikeLike
“If there aren’t crosses in public space, ten commandments on government buildings, students draped in super visible crosses in classrooms, etc., Christian prayer at graduation in public schools, etc., etc., you are only playing when you claim to live in the Bible Belt.”
– Obviously, I’m in favor of complete and total prohibition of this form of barbarity. I haven’t seen this in person but if it exists, it should be banned. What is there to argue about here? My position is consistent: all religions should stay in the specific places of worship.
LikeLike
If your next road trip takes you east on I-70 past Effingham IL, take a gander at the very large (198 ft) and very ugly highway-side cross, meant to be seen by the hundreds of thousands of truckers and travelers that pass through the I-70/I-57 corridor. I find it thoroughly irritating as an appropriately ugly manifestation of hubristic and rather impersonal Christianity, as opposed to the home-made wooden crosses sometimes seen in farmers’ fields or the roadside car crash memorial crosses, which are expressions of individual persons’ faith. Other people without a knowledge of religious art may find the big ugly cross not ugly.
http://www.crossusa.org/
LikeLike
I live in the Bible Belt and I have not seen any crosses in any public space other than a cemetery or on a church building.
I see students wearing crosses on necklaces pretty much every day. And sometimes students wearing pentacles which identify them as Pagan like me. I am surprised you do not see this kind of thing.
LikeLike
The thing is, if we are talking about a practicing Christian, s/he wouldn’t wear a shirt that is open so far down that one can see the cross, right? That’s my guess, anyway.
LikeLike
\\ The thing is, if we are talking about a practicing Christian, s/he wouldn’t wear a shirt that is open so far down that one can see the cross, right?
I thought crosses could be worn over the clothing, not only under a shirt.
Jewelry doesn’t have to be either under clothes or on unclothed body part.
LikeLike
“I thought crosses could be worn over the clothing, not only under a shirt.
Jewelry doesn’t have to be either under clothes or on unclothed body part.”
– Christian crosses (for practicing Christians) are not “jewelry.”
LikeLike
“I do think that those who practice Orthodox form of any religion usually don’t subscribe to ‘live and let live.’”
That’s the entire problem.
LikeLike
But that’s their problem. It shouldn’t become everybody else’s.
LikeLike
Clarissa, you say,
Shouldn’t those who have adapted well to “modernity,” including those to whom relatively benign religions matter, consider the religious incentives and compulsions which seem highly motivational to those who have not adapted well or at all? If not, how are the latter to be defeated, or at least made less dangerous to modern civilization? True, recognizing them for what they are can be only a first step. However, it is most likely an important one.
Can’t we properly give the most dangerous of those who reject and seek to destroy modern civilization a better name or names? Calling them “pre-modern” or “barbaric” seems more likely to encourage them than to cause them to reflect thoughtfully on the benefits of modernity and to seek them.
<a href = "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjHb4C7b94"Here’s a link to a lengthy video about the Islamic State. At approximately ten minutes into the video, there is a segment on the indoctrination of children. A “preacher teacher” of the type described in Hirsi Ali’s September 15th comments at Yale is seen and heard shortly thereafter.
The views of a moderate Muslim, who seems to have adapted quite well to modernity, are expressed in <a href = "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vh0cNm49zE"this video. He recognizes the importance of religion to the “barbarians.”
LikeLike
Why talk about “modernity”? ISIS has a superb grasp of how to manipulate media, along with its love of torture and beheading. I am pretty sure that the Mexican drug lords have every security device and communication device available to humankind – that still doesn’t stop them from indulging in the 15-year-plus rape-and-murder ring of young women factory workers in Ciudad Juarez. The Nazis were highly modern, even if they managed to destroy the world’s finest university system by their expulsion of the Jews from university positions (all German universities were state institutions) and promotion of unqualified but politically connected faculty members.
We are not dealing with “primitives unable to cope with modernity” here. If you wanted an example of “unable to cope with modernity”, you could take a look at the various “peace church” old Protestant separatist denominations, the Amish, Mennonites, and similar. The Amish have their children to go into the modern world for a year or two in order to “get it (curiosity about outside life)out of their system” – or not.
The rapists, woman-enslavers, murderers and such are just plain EVIL.
LikeLike
All of this talk about EVIL reminds me of W Bush. Im trying to offer an analysis that will be a little more insightful than what he kept offering us.
LikeLike
“ISIS has a superb grasp of how to manipulate media, along with its love of torture and beheading. I am pretty sure that the Mexican drug lords have every security device and communication device available to humankind – that still doesn’t stop them from indulging in the 15-year-plus rape-and-murder ring of young women factory workers in Ciudad Juarez. The Nazis were highly modern, even if they managed to destroy the world’s finest university system by their expulsion of the Jews from university positions (all German universities were state institutions) and promotion of unqualified but politically connected faculty members.”
– Exactly! As much as these groups detest modernity, they can’t exclude themselves from it. They use the modern means very effectively in their attempt to destroy modernity. Ultimately, they are doomed to failure because of the internal contradiction of their position. But before they collapse, they will cause a lot of damage. Their struggle is a struggle against time. They are doomed, just like Franco’s dictatorship in Spain was doomed. But we don’t have to sit their waiting until these ideological structures collapse under the weight of their internal contradictions.
LikeLike
Yup, without television there’d be no televangelists, and without quantum mechanics, there’d be no television. This somehow seems relevant.
LikeLike
Since cliff and Clarissa agreed that
” governments have no active obligation to cater to or facilitate people following personal religious dictates. […] So, public schools and other public institutions that provide food are under any obligation to cater to religious restrictions, whether kosher, hindu or halal. Hospitals of course must cater to health requirements of patients but that’s it. ”
I wanted to ask (may be, in a new post?) about this:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/09/when-your-atheism-is-really-about-attacking-minorities.html
Notice that “the United Nations holds that access to culturally appropriate food is a human right.”
LikeLike
A completely bizarre article.
“If you were to move to a fictional country where many dishes contained or was cooked with dog or cat meat, would you like access to food that is in keeping with your own culture—food that does not contain dog and cat meat?”
– On no planet would it occur to me to expect anybody to pay for me cultural dietary preferences. If I weren’t able to find and provide my own food, then I’d learn to eat dog meat. Half of the things I’m used to eating and even feel addicted to are not available in my region. I’m solving this problem on my own and my own expense. Demanding that anybody else provide for this need is beyond bizarre.
“Why can’t the poor demand food that is healthy, or that corresponds with their cultural traditions?”
– Anybody has the right to DEMAND anything. But everybody else has the right to disregard these demands as well.
LikeLike
I don’t think her example of cat / dog meat is a good one. I can eat dog meat, a religious Jew or Muslim won’t eat pork while starving because of believing God forbids it. It’s not about “cultural traditions,” since the latter expression brings to mind other connotations. It’s about government helping all poor not to starve, not only helping Christian and atheist ones. I am 100% sure that were Christians forbidden to eat XYZ, government charities would have provided not XYZ. And kosher / halal goes beyond meat and milk, it concerns f.e. bread too.
I don’t like much in her arguments, but her post is valuable since it informs about the case, gives some facts to put everything into context. For instance, “The local government helps fund the city’s food pantries.”
LikeLike
“I can eat dog meat, a religious Jew or Muslim won’t eat pork while starving because of believing God forbids it.”
– That’s their choice.
” I am 100% sure that were Christians forbidden to eat XYZ, government charities would have provided not XYZ. ”
– And then I would be completely opposed to that. Fundamentalist Christians believe that all contraception is murder. Should we now accommodate that belief on the level of government and use public resources to persecute all contraception?
“I don’t like much in her arguments, but her post is valuable since it informs about the case, gives some facts to put everything into context.”
– Of course, an intelligent person can find value in anything. 🙂
LikeLike
\\ – And then I would be completely opposed to that.
But you understand it would happen, regardless of your opposition.
Opposed because government should help only hungry atheists? All others can starve, if they can’t eat pig meat? The moment one wants to have a social contract of “state helps you not to starve,” and significant numbers of tax payers can’t eat X for religious or health reasons (*), government’s food services should take that into account. I don’t see any reason not to, except the slippery slope argument: “today they get kosher food, tomorrow they’ll put you in burqa.”
In Israel, schools, IDF and hospitals serve only kosher food so that every Jewish citizen will be able to eat there, and I think it’s right. The reality is that many (most, probably) Jewish citizens will eat only kosher food, and it’s reflected in those policies. I am sceptical about your claim that religion will have no influence on society (and its policies) as a whole at all. It may happen only if religious become a tiny minority. Or, if in a new state, a state does nothing about citizens’ welfare, thus doesn’t give any kind of food to anybody.
You talk about an imagined society where no special reverence is given to religion in public, even though people do it in private. I haven’t seen such society yet and am unsure it’ll come to be. In Europe, in practice Christian beliefs are accustomed (Sunday as a free day, f.e.), while any Jewish / Muslim food restrictions are seen as “weird” primary because Christianity doesn’t have any similar rules.
\\ Fundamentalist Christians believe that all contraception is murder. Should we now accommodate that belief on the level of government and use public resources to persecute all contraception?
Persecuting contraception is completely different since it concerns bodies and beliefs of others. Here, people can’t feed their own bodies and protest against government helping everybody except them to achieve this goal.
(*) There is a difference between the two, of course. However, in the real world, people are ready to do great harm to themselves (and others) because of their religious beliefs. They experience you telling “eat pig or starve” like “use contraception or be persecuted.” It’s unthinkable to them. And people don’t tend to starve peacefully and quietly. If helping them eat isn’t what government is ready to do, they shouldn’t have been allowed into the country in the first place. “Eat pork” won’t work.
LikeLike
“But you understand it would happen, regardless of your opposition.”
– We all do what we can in our struggle for human right. My contribution is through disseminating knowledge and getting people to think, both in the classroom and on my blog.
“Opposed because government should help only hungry atheists?”
– Opposed because “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In other words, I believe in the separation of church and state as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.
“The moment one wants to have a social contract of “state helps you not to starve,” and significant numbers of tax payers can’t eat X for religious or health reasons (*), government’s food services should take that into account. ”
– Yes, government already “took into account” this sort of thing in the Hobby Lobby case.
“You talk about an imagined society where no special reverence is given to religion in public, even though people do it in private.”
– Creating this society was the whole point of creating the United States. The road has been thorny, but we will get there.
“In Europe, in practice Christian beliefs are accustomed (Sunday as a free day, f.e.), while any Jewish / Muslim food restrictions are seen as “weird” primary because Christianity doesn’t have any similar rules.”
– In France, it’s Friday-Sunday. Everywhere else, it’s Saturday-Sunday. Let’s not bring in religion where there is no place for it.
“Persecuting contraception is completely different since it concerns bodies and beliefs of others. Here, people can’t feed their own bodies ”
– You are making the Hobby Lobby argument here. “Why can’t they provide their own contraception, etc.” Been there, done that, seen the results.
“However, in the real world, people are ready to do great harm to themselves (and others) because of their religious beliefs. They experience you telling “eat pig or starve” like “use contraception or be persecuted.” It’s unthinkable to them.”
– If accepting THE foundational principle of this country is so unthinkable, they shouldn’t have come in the first place.
” If helping them eat isn’t what government is ready to do, they shouldn’t have been allowed into the country in the first place.”
– No, the correct argument would be: if they are not ready to assimilate, they shouldn’t have come. As an immigrant, this is my profound belief. Every day, I try – and sometimes really struggle – to assimilate. But it’s my problem, not the society that was kind enough to have me. It was my choice to come. Now I have to carry the responsibility and often the discomfort of doing that.
LikeLike
\\ – In France, it’s Friday-Sunday. Everywhere else, it’s Saturday-Sunday. Let’s not bring in religion where there is no place for it.
Isn’t it a coinsidence that Sunday is always included in the list? 🙂
\\ – Yes, government already “took into account” this sort of thing in the Hobby Lobby case.
I read Burwell v. Hobby Lobby on wiki just now. Are those two situations exactly the same? Looks like the same case would be f.e. Muslims refusing to pay taxes to let non-halal charities function and going to court with that.
In any case, after reading H L case, I am more sure than ever it’s about hatred of those Muslims, pure and simple. “A law respecting an establishment of religion” was made in H L in protect somebody’s feelings. (Or, to be cynical, protect a company’s profits by letting it not pay for full health insurance.) Here, there was / is no need to make any laws to protect people from starving. See:
“Minneapolis already has an Asian-specific food pantry supported, like other food pantries, in part by public grants and funding.”
\\ if they are not ready to assimilate, they shouldn’t have come.
May be, their idea of assimilation doesn’t include eating pork, but rather not interfering with you doing so.
In practice, those “refugees from Somalia’s civil wars” who “have faced challenges integrating into American society” are not going to eat pork. Not in this generation. Keeping them hungry isn’t going to help their assimilation, but will have the opposite effect.
And I don’t think any laws are needed to provide thousands of hungry adults and children with food. Local agencies could’ve shown more sensitivity and concern and done it locally.
LikeLike
Nobody is preventing people from organizing food pantries and offering absolutely anything whatsoever in them. The whole ideas of hungry hordes and starving people in the US is completely ridiculous. This drama-mongering serves no useful purpose. Governmental agencies are not allowed to cater to religious preferences. That’s in the constitution. What else is there to discuss? There is no right to “sensitivity” guaranteed by the constitution, and rightfully so. People freely choose if they want to accommodate your religious beliefs. If they choose not to, that’s their right.
LikeLike
I am not sure I buy the idea that freedom of religion was the point of creating US, although we sure are taught this about Pilgrims/Puritans and separation church/state is key in constitution and so on.
I am also not convinced about assimilation: assimilation to what? To the Constitution and so on (our sacred text, practically) or to a dominant cuisine? 😀 I don’t see how putting food likely to be welcome in food pantries is a problem …. I am all too laissez faire, it seems.
LikeLike
In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that it was ok for an 11-year-old to come to school wearing a dagger because it was part of his religion. Also, in Canada a group of Muslim women sued to prohibit men from accompanying their pregnant partners to birth classes because it hurt their sensibilities. The moment you decide that the state has to actively assist the practice of religion, this principle will be applied to an endless variety of situations. Especially in countries where the system of law is based on precedent.
The question here is: do we believe that the state should actively facilitate religious practice? Once we say “yes”, we will not get to choose which religious practice we find more or less acceptable.
LikeLike
To Clarissa’s last, well, true. We now have Muslim public schools in LA because legislature wanted religious charter schools or something. They were very surprised, the legislature, that they got this result.
And no, I am not for government *facilitating* practice of religion and so on.
LikeLike
“In Israel, schools, IDF and hospitals serve only kosher food so that every Jewish citizen will be able to eat there, and I think it’s right”
I have no problem with that. My ‘no religious preference’ is actually about majority preferences (broadly understood).
I personally feel that Kosher slaughter (like Halal slaughter) is basically immoral (compared to some other methods) but if I go to Israel or a Muslim majority country I’m not going to expect people to cater to my (admittedly weak in this case) ethical stance.
And if I ever settle in one I would not expect public institutions to cater to that preference (or serve me a cheeseburger for that matter).
LikeLike
If I go to Israel or a Muslim country, of course, I will not insist on any special foods being offered to me and, of course, I will cover my head, etc. I’ve emigrated twice and never asked anybody to accommodate my religion or culture in any way. I chose to emigrate, so it’s up to me to adapt.
LikeLike
And welcome back, Cliff! You’ve been missed.
LikeLike
if they are not ready to assimilate, they shouldn’t have come. As an immigrant, this is my profound belief. Every day, I try – and sometimes really struggle – to assimilate. But it’s my problem, not the society that was kind enough to have me. It was my choice to come. Now I have to carry the responsibility and often the discomfort of doing that.
I am SO with you on this one. I wish more people thought the same. I find a lot of liberal Americans are falling all over themselves insisting that immigrants are supposed to preserve their own culture at all cost in the name of multiculturalism. I call bullshit. Failure to assimilate lleads to a ghettoization of immigrants and it ends up denying them, and their families, the many benefits that this society provides. But perhaps that’s what the proponents of multiculturalism are all about anyway– making sure all these immigrants remain foreign. We wouldn’t want them mixing with the natives, becoming indistinguishable from them and thus hard to pinpoint as “other”.
LikeLike
” Failure to assimilate lleads to a ghettoization of immigrants and it ends up denying them, and their families, the many benefits that this society provides. But perhaps that’s what the proponents of multiculturalism are all about anyway– making sure all these immigrants remain foreign. We wouldn’t want them mixing with the natives, becoming indistinguishable from them and thus hard to pinpoint as “other”.”
– YES. YES! YES!!! Sorry for orgasmic yelling, but YES!!!!! And the earnest well-wishers should understand that they are doing us, immigrants, no favor when they promote such policies.
LikeLike
\\ I find a lot of liberal Americans are falling all over themselves insisting that immigrants are supposed to preserve their own culture at all cost in the name of multiculturalism.
I don’t think so and live in an Israeli society with melting pot ideology.
Agree about dangers of ghettoization too.
However, a new society (USA or Israel) can behave in a way, which would promote ghettoization or integration. I prefer to look at the context of each case, instead of having “one rule suits all.” Here we have thousands of already ghettoized and deeply religious people. New society letting them continue to starve, while helping everybody else, will only hurt their integration. I also pity hungry adults and children. Instead of concentrating on doing well at school, children will concentrate on hunger and despair at home. Adults too lose ability to think about anything except the next meal, lose ability to learn. Last time, it won’t help integration, it will hurt it.
Seems like at both extremes (multiculturalism vs. other ideas) people talk about abstract ideas, instead of looking on specific people in a specific situation. If I am wrong, tell me how hunger and impotent rage they feel because of it helps integration. How it helps next generation’s integration too , when hunger is proven to hurt kids’ abilities to do well at school. How more traumas are helping.
LikeLike
Seriously, enough with the “continue to starve.” Maybe you need to come visit the US to discover that the last thing anybody should fear around here is starvation. 🙂
This reminded me of that tweet I once reposted about capitalism killing billions of people every day. 🙂
LikeLike
\\ Maybe you need to come visit the US to discover that the last thing anybody should fear around here is starvation. 🙂
Obviously, the Somalis in question are poorer than average Americans: “some 82% of Somalis in Minnesota live near or below the poverty level… ” And, they don’t have to literally die from hunger for them and their children to experience numerous bad effects.
Does the survey below include 3 out of 5 lying teachers?
QUOTE
The survey, “Hunger In Our Schools: Share Our Strength’s Teachers Report 2012,” was conducted among more than 1,000 K-8 public school teachers nationwide. Three out of five teachers surveyed report that they see students regularly come to school hungry because they’re not getting enough to eat at home. A majority of these teachers who witness hunger say the problem is getting worse.
“I have had students who have come to school with lunch the previous day having been their last meal,” one elementary teacher from the Northeast reported. Another teacher from the Midwest said, “The saddest are the children who cry when we get out early for a snow day because they won’t get lunch.”
Overwhelmingly, teachers say students have trouble learning when they’re focused on their empty stomachs. Hungry students, they say, lack concentration and struggle with poor academic performance, behavior problems and health issues.
http://www.neahin.org/about/news/survey-three-out-of-five.html
LikeLike
Yes, there are crowds of irresponsible parents who don’t want to parent. But once again, this is not even remotely a starvation society and the poverty line is drawn within what is the richest country in the world. This isn’t to say that poverty in the US shouldn’t be addressed. But it isn’t a poverty of starving. Rather, it’s the poverty of eating mountains of garbage. And that really great problem will not be addressed as long as we hide it behind the overwrought rhetoric of starving crowds. The immigrants in question can afford to entertain these dietary preferences precisely because there is no likelihood of anybody starving.
Seriously, consider coming for a visit. You can stay at my place.
LikeLike
\\ – Christian crosses (for practicing Christians) are not “jewelry.”
I know. But I think both can be worn over clothes, no?
LikeLike
\\ In Quebec, there was an attempt to position the society as a fully modern one by banning religious garb in publicly owned spaces.
I read the following comment from a woman from Quebec. Do you think she is right in how people there see Jews? From the article with the provocative tytle “Report: 40% of Europe’s Jews hide their Jewishness” :
COMMENT
No mention of ‘who’ is responsible for the problem (Islamic immigration-Islam). So easy to blame it on ‘far right’ whose main concern is to limit Islamic immigration.
I live in Québec. We had public hearings on the removal of visible religious symbols in the public workplace and schools. The intent was the assimilation of muslim students into our secular society to offset radicalization and the ‘us VS them’ muslim mentality.
Jews actually sided with mosques in denigrating us, the Québécois, as Nazis.
Result: hatred of the Jew is increasing (not Québécois-related) and us, the Québécois, who were so demeaned by the Jewish community have abandoned all our efforts in the promotion of the Jewish cause. No more counter-BDS demonstrations for us either.
Strange that they all put on their kippas in protest of the secular law we wanted to pass to only have them now hide these same kippas to avoid problems from the community they sided with…
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4571543,00.html
LikeLike
I’m wary of attempts to balmy anti-Semitism anywhere on Jews. Anti- Semites will remain anti-Semitic no matter what Jews do. The most radical strain of Québécois nationalism is, indeed, very anti-Semitic. I first encountered it back in 1998, when I first arrived in Quebec and met some Québécois nationalists. Those are scary, fucked up people. The good news is that they are a tiny minority of freaks. The Jewish community of Quebec is prosperous and strong. Quebec is a very good place for Jews to be.
LikeLike