It’s Not a Minor Matter…..
Comments. Considerations. Questions.
by Kenneth Bagnell
These are challenging times for those who take institutional religion seriously or even mildly seriously. The problems are many. They include certain beliefs and practices that are, in today’s culture, seen as eccentric or worse. In fact some are. This came back to me when — after hearing and reading of many such incidents in recent months — I read a news item about the experience of a former Halifax woman, Christine Flynn. (She first told what happened to a CBC radio reporter.) She was buckled in aboard the Canadian airline Porter in Newark, New Jersey, ready for takeoff.
Then she looked up to see a man coming toward her, obviously by dress and appearance, a member of an ultraorthodox segment of the Jewish faith. As she recalled it, he turned to the man in the seat opposite her and without looking at her said simply: “Change.” She said it was clear he didn’t want to sit next to her because she was a woman. “Leaving it to the last minute” she added, “and expecting me to move is appalling. He’s expecting me to fall into that arch typical feminine role and acquiesce.” It’s happening, for specific reasons, a lot more frequently than in past years. And it’s relevant to us all, because there’s a major principle involved in the man’s assertive request: (a) an aspect of his particular religious doctrine versus (b) her legitimate human rights. And in fact, the man’s request is indeed often made by men of a particular Orthodox segment. They won’t sit beside a female passenger. This matters. Not just to such female passengers but to a democratic society at large.
There’s debate over when this clearly outmoded practice was born. It probably centers on the interpretation of two verses in the Book of Leviticus. (Some claim it dates to the era of Moses, 1300-1273 BC.) In any case it struck me as theologically questionable as a basis for today’s seating problems. (It makes a brief oblique reference to women and sexuality.) It’s said to have, somehow in time, evolved to a stern ancient law “negiah.” Thus many men of the ultraorthodox are, aside from family, advised to keep a certain distance from women. So we have those who will not even sit by a female on the bus, train or plane seat. In turn this leads to the justifiable indignation in a growing number of today’s women told to get up and move to find another seat.
As for this now growing problem, North America’s most credible and influential newspaper, The New York Times, has noted that in recent weeks numerous flights have been delayed when, as the paper puts it: “ultra-conservative Jewish men have refused to sit next to women.” (Birthrates indicate that the number of ultra-orthodox men is increasing.) The Times, meticulously balanced and fair to every segment of society, ran a lengthy article in late spring revealing the practice not only annoys female passengers, but many Jewish citizens who deeply disagree with it. “A growing number of passengers”, The Times reports, “particularly on trips between the United States and Israel, are now sharing stories of conflicts between ultraorthodox Jewish men trying to follow their faith and women just hoping to sit down. Several flights from New York to Israel over the last year have been delayed or disrupted over the issue, and with social media spreading outrage and debate, the disputes have spawned a protest initiative, an on line petition and a spoof safety video from a Jewish magazine suggesting a full body safety vest to protect ultraorthodox men from women seated next to them on airplanes… Some passengers say they have found the seat change request simply surprising or confusing. But in many cases the issue has exposed and amplified tensions between strains of Judaism….” In my view this is obviously unfortunate (indeed for “organized religion” in general) but maybe also constructive in that the unjust practice may be modified from within Judaism rather than from secular external forces. I expect members of Reform or Conservative Judaism (many conservatives are quite progressive) are as concerned over this matter as non-Jews. So are human rights advocates. One, Sukanya Pillay, a lawyer and the Executive Director of Canada’s Civil Liberties Association wrote a calm and thoughtful essay to The Globe & Mail in which he said: “Personally, I don’t think that in a public or commercial space, the religious beliefs of one person can be used to deny or relegate (intentionally or not) as inferior, the equality rights of someone else.” I find that very fair and very reasonable.
Other forces are at work at another but concerning level. They are the members of the secular movement whose long term objective (though they’ll deny it) is to discredit all religion as specious, if not nonsensical. Their objective is just as I have stated it, even though some will pretend to be “interested in dialogue”. Two books must suffice as examples, both written by scholarly academics whose works I’ve read and, in some cases acquired. One is “How to be Secular,” a sophisticated book by a highly credible sociologist, now director of a program of Jewish studies at highly respected Georgetown University. His book, well thought out, seeks to revise the word secularism claiming it is not atheistic. Maybe; maybe not. (Barack Obama, a seriously liberal Christian, once chastised some of his fellow Democrats for their accommodating attitude to secularism.)
Another, more recent and very readable book (I’ve bought this one) is by another sociologist Phil Zuckerman. It’s titled “Living the Secular Life.” In it one of his most basic claims is that religion is not part of the answer to living a good life; in fact, he insists, it’s a large part of the problem. As an example, he illustrates this by claiming that the parts of the world that take religion seriously have much higher crime rates than those parts of the world which barely practice religion. In a word, he says, we’d be better off without religion. I found both of these books -– quite different in style — not persuasive, but very worthwhile reading for their perspectives. I mention them here mainly because they are examples of the ever increasing assault on organized faith. I’m more sad than indignant. Why? Because, given the flareup over this practice of the ultraorthodox, the adversaries of religion have an additional example they can draw upon to portray a portion of one of history’s great faiths, Judaism -– the forming foundation of the Christian faith — as nonsense that belongs in in the dustbin of the past.
30
All past blogs are archived on my website: your comments are welcome there: www.kennethbagnell.com.
.