gg israel

[Amit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6584661.stm

this is something i'd expect from saudi arabia or iran but israel?

:[

[Dr Hooch]

It's easy

ladies; bus boycott pls

[Dave de Sylvia]

But Shlomo Rosenstein disagrees. He is a city councillor in Jerusalem where a large proportion of Israel's segregation lines operate.

"This really is about positive discrimination, in women's favour. Our religion says there should be no public contact between men and women, this modesty barrier must not be broken."

Oh that's nice. He's looking out for their best interests by taking away their rights :)

[pedro durruti]

God damn Jews

[YDtoad]

Oh that's nice. He's looking out for their best interests by taking away their rights :)

:lol:

I donnu...I just don't have much thought about this.

[PerpetualBurn]

Don't strain yourself. It'll only come out as a bunch of incoherent fallacies anyway.

[Dr Hooch]

I can just imagine Zero's brain trying to take something he'd use as an argument against any other arab country and turn it into a postive for ISrael, and then smoke to start coming out of his ears.

[Frankie-C!]

It's all the women's fault in the end. If they weren't all going for the fat and ugly, but rich jewish men, then those men wouldn't be worrying about their stupid bimbos assing up next to some Jewdonis.

[Hababi]

Don't strain yourself. It'll only come out as a bunch of incoherent fallacies anyway.

Says the person who's all for murdering 9th month infants on their way out of the womb:amaze:

[Permanent Solution]

Oh good, I'm glad I can use religion as an excuse to take away women's rights. I was just waiting for a good excuse to do that ^_^

[SalientArbiter]

What they're doing is wrong and all, but Orthodox Jews are pretty messed up and out of the norm. When I visited Israel two years ago on a trip with my synogogue's youth group, however, something that's not often expressed is how few of them and how under voiced they are. The vast majority of civilians in Israel are barely religious at all (even though they're all Jewish). It's kind of like how during the middle ages, the people of Rome barely observed even though they were right next to the Catholic Church's head, so the more observant northern Germans began the Reformation against the Italian's hypocrisy. When you're that close to the center of your religion, you just tend to take it for granted and in place of actual observance. The only holidays they actually celebrate in Israel are the High Holy Days (Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashannah), and Shabbat is just a normal dinner with family except for a few candles on the table and a prayer recited.

But yeah, Orthodox Jews for this reason and just plain population-wise, are very repressed politically and socially in Israel, so the people there tend to let the few Orthodoxes that exist get what they want. They're not condoning it, it's just nobody cares enough to be a jackass to these few jackasses that exist. It's kind of like the Amish in America, actually that's a very accurate analogy now to think of it

[Frankie-C!]

It's not that progressive jews are less religious, it's more the fact that orthodox jews aren't actually orthodox, they're just unable to break away from the interpretation of judaism that removes God from the equation. I.e the way they all dress like Polish aristocracy. I think being Jewish to them is about security and identity rather than the search for God.

[SalientArbiter]

It's not that progressive jews are less religious, it's more the fact that orthodox jews aren't actually orthodox, they're just unable to break away from the interpretation of judaism that removes God from the equation. I.e the way they all dress like Polish aristocracy. I think being Jewish to them is about security and identity rather than the search for God.

Well yes, generally the definition of orthodoxy is that one takes one's holy text literally rather than figuratively...

[Frankie-C!]

Well yes, generally the definition of orthodoxy is that one takes one's holy text literally rather than figuratively...

Orthodoxy is following convention, in a more general way of speaking. Those conventions have become less prevalent yes, but the people who follow those conventions are still considered 'orthodox' because the swaying of jewish population toward the progressive side is too young to be considered traditional or conventional.

[SalientArbiter]

Orthodoxy is following convention, in a more general way of speaking. Those conventions have become less prevalent yes, but the people who follow those conventions are still considered 'orthodox' because the swaying of jewish population toward the progressive side is too young to be considered traditional or conventional.

That's not how it's applied in the religious sense. Orthodox's are the members of a religious community who take everything more literally and seriously than the rest. It's a misnomer, yes, but in Judaism for example, Orthodoxism hasn't been the prevalent interpretation since the 1800's.

[Frankie-C!]

That's not how it's applied in the religious sense. Orthodox's are the members of a religious community who take everything more literally and seriously than the rest. It's a misnomer, yes, but in Judaism for example, Orthodoxism hasn't been the prevalent interpretation since the 1800's.

I'll have to concede my ignorance on that fact. It's really only a matter of verbal definition anyway. I guess my point is that 'orthodox' jews aren't the 'real jews' as us heretics would see it.

[SalientArbiter]

I'll have to concede my ignorance on that fact. It's really only a matter of verbal definition anyway. I guess my point is that 'orthodox' jews aren't the 'real jews' as us heretics would see it.

Oh they can be 'real jews,' - one of the fun things about Judaism is that there's no set definition for it - just ones that are wasting their time by following outdated traditions and going to 7 hour long services ;)

[lfantwister]

So are these modesty buses really prevalent?

[Frankie-C!]

So are these modesty buses really prevalent?

According to the article it's 30 routes across all of Israel.

So no.

[Jaded]

Oh that's nice. He's looking out for their best interests by taking away their rights :)

Their right to sit anywhere on the bus they want?

[lfantwister]

Or maybe their right to remain modest, whatever that entails?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Their right to non-interference.

[Frankie-C!]

If I was a modest person then I would sit next to anyone on a bus without regard to their gender/ethnicity/religion/sexual orientation, and without trying to force my views upon them. Segregation surely entails some kind of status.

[Jaded]

Their right to non-interference.

I'm pretty sure that's not a right anyone has.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Um, people have the right not to be coerced or forced to take up certain positions on a public bus. This isn't some obscure legal code, it's on the books of every free country in the world.

[lfantwister]

yeah those buses should be private (although they should exist!)

[Frankie-C!]

yeah those buses should be private (although they should exist!)

I don't think so.

It's the same mentality as those yobbos who claim that women who dress scantily are inviting rape.

Or even black/white buses in America.

[Dave de Sylvia]

But they're not. And it wouldn't be economically viable to do so.

[Frankie-C!]

But they're not. And it wouldn't be economically viable to do so.

Insert joke about cheap jew here.

[lfantwister]

But they're not. And it wouldn't be economically viable to do so.
Might be; if there's enough demand for the buses within the orthodox community...
I don't think so.

It's the same mentality as those yobbos who claim that women who dress scantily are inviting rape. It's the same idea as banning headscarves, more like. If this is a cultural tradition it should be enabled, as long as the women who participate are fully able to choose whether or not they want to.

Or even black/white buses in America. but no one hates the women

[Iskandar]

The state of Israel isn't to blame for this. It has to do with the very conservative and traditional approach to religion and culture that Orthodox Judaism takes.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Might be; if there's enough demand for the buses within the orthodox community...
Well they'd have to compete with public bus routes- and I don't even know if public buses are fully subsidised in Israel, they may well be- and make a profit. Assuming all right-minded people made a point to choose the public bus over the private one, it'd be a pretty unworthy venture. The only way rules like this can work is through force.

It's the same idea as banning headscarves, more like. If this is a cultural tradition it should be enabled, as long as the women who participate are fully able to choose whether or not they want to.
This doesn't even make sense. Even having one woman among men or vice-versa would defeat the purpose of the rule.

[Frankie-C!]

It's the same idea as banning headscarves, more like. If this is a cultural tradition it should be enabled, as long as the women who participate are fully able to choose whether or not they want to.


Headscarves don't propegate intolerance.

The article points out that a number of women are forced to adhere to this regime, whether they agree with it or not. It just happens to be on the bus route that they have to take.

A lot of Aboriginal tribes here claimed their right to their own tribal law until recently - which involved punishment by rape and spearing limbs among other things - that's a cultural tradition but that doesn't mean it should be allowed to reer it's ugly head.

[Iscariot]

it's not like it's a hate crime it's a guideline that apparently plenty of people don't mind following if that prying attention whore was bombarded with that much abuse

i don't see a problem with it

[Amit]

yeah forget human rights if plenty of people don't follow it!

[Dave de Sylvia]

it's not like it's a hate crime it's a guideline that apparently plenty of people don't mind following if that prying attention whore was bombarded with that much abuse

i don't see a problem with it
Well we already know you don't like women.

[Frankie-C!]

it's not like it's a hate crime it's a guideline that apparently plenty of people don't mind following if that prying attention whore was bombarded with that much abuse

i don't see a problem with it

Yeah, just like that Martin Luther King. Man what was that guy's problem? Just suck it up and sit on your damn ****** bus, coon!

[Iscariot]

Yeah, just like that Martin Luther King. Man what was that guy's problem? Just suck it up and sit on your damn ****** bus, coon!

hardly the same thing

there is no racial or hate based motivation for the way these buses operate it's a matter of religious custom

if the texts say that no contact can be made between men and women in public and those buses want to enforce those texts then this would be the way to do it i don't see women being abused in any way by this

[Jaded]

Um, people have the right not to be coerced or forced to take up certain positions on a public bus. This isn't some obscure legal code, it's on the books of every free country in the world.
Um, that's a little different than the "right to non interference."

[Amit]

hardly the same thing

there is no racial or hate based motivation for the way these buses operate it's a matter of religious custom

uhh it's gender based motivation

unless you actually hate women that much

and i thought that went the way of the neanderthals :-\

if the texts say that no contact can be made between men and women in public and those buses want to enforce those texts then this would be the way to do it i don't see women being abused in any way by this

those buses are controlled by the state

if they were owned by private entities and the state also offered their own transportation then there would be no problem with this

Um, that's a little different than the "right to non interference."

the right to not be coerced or forced to take up certain positions on a public bus stems directly from the right to non interference

[Frankie-C!]

hardly the same thing

there is no racial or hate based motivation for the way these buses operate it's a matter of religious custom

if the texts say that no contact can be made between men and women in public and those buses want to enforce those texts then this would be the way to do it i don't see women being abused in any way by this

It should hardly become a social policy. If those people choose to believe that men and women shouldn't sit on a bus together then surely the simple solution would just be 'don't sit next to a woman on a bus'. It becomes intolerance when a woman is harassed and intimidated for choosing to sit at the front of an empty bus just because some chauvinist disagrees. These are public buses, and these people have no right in dictating who sits where on their bus. Just because it's not racial doesn't mean it's not discriminatory.

[Iscariot]

uhh it's gender based motivation

unless you actually hate women that much

and i thought that went the way of the neanderthals :-\

yeah grr i hate women

if this were a situation of men sitting at the back of the bus and women in the front no one would complain because then it would be a step up for gender equality honestly things like this don't matter it's only an issue because someone is always going to have a problem with something and this happens to be the current target of those someones

those buses are controlled by the state

if they were owned by private entities and the state also offered their own transportation then there would be no problem with this

the state is a religiously motivated jewish one they can enforce whatever jewish codes they want because israel is a jewish state

It should hardly become a social policy. If those people choose to believe that men and women shouldn't sit on a bus together then surely the simple solution would just be 'don't sit next to a woman on a bus'. It becomes intolerance when a woman is harassed and intimidated for choosing to sit at the front of an empty bus just because some chauvinist disagrees. These are public buses, and these people have no right in dictating who sits where on their bus. Just because it's not racial doesn't mean it's not discriminatory.

they can always take a different bus

honestly is there no such thing as sovereignty anymore

[Iskandar]

We should also remember that these women don't absolutely have to be Orthodox. They must be aware that in following the most traditional and conservative of Jewish sects, they are subjecting themselves to its strict interpretation of Jewish law. Of course, the societal pressure to remain Orthodox and obey its laws is not to be taken lightly when one lives in an Orthodox neighbourhood in Israel.
the state is a religiously motivated jewish oneAlthough religious Jews have more influence than I'd like in the Israeli government, it is an essentially secular state and was just as motivated by the practical concern of creating a homeland for an oft-persecuted people as it was by religious concerns.

[Frankie-C!]

yeah grr i hate women

if this were a situation of men sitting at the back of the bus and women in the front no one would complain because then it would be a step up for gender equality honestly things like this don't matter it's only an issue because someone is always going to have a problem with something and this happens to be the current target of those someones


So you'd be totally cool if some jock told you where to sit on the bus?


the state is a religiously motivated jewish one they can enforce whatever jewish codes they want because israel is a jewish state


No it's not, Israel is probably the most multi-cultural nation on this flat earth. That's just like saying George Bush has the right to enforce his draconian fundamentalist Protestant government because that's what most Americans are. Well what about those who aren't? Should they just be forced to adhere to fundamentalist Judaism because that's what they're sposed to be?


they can always take a different bus

honestly is there no such thing as sovereignty anymore

Yeah you can take any bus you want, but taking a different bus is going to get them ending up in a different place, fool. You don't just hop on any old bus because it's the most tolerant, you get on the bus that takes you to where you want to go.

[Iskandar]

No it's not, Israel is probably the most multi-cultural nation on this flat earth.It's certainly one of the most polyglot, since it's essentially a nation of immigrants ... but 90% of the population is ethnically Jewish. All sects of Judaism are represented though, as well as a considerable amount of non-religious citizens.

[Frankie-C!]

It's certainly one of the most polyglot, since it's essentially a nation of immigrants ... but 90% of the population is ethnically Jewish. All sects of Judaism are represented though, as well as a considerable amount of non-religious citizens.

But Judaism in itself is a very ethnically and culturally diverse religion.

[Amit]

yeah grr i hate women

if this were a situation of men sitting at the back of the bus and women in the front no one would complain because then it would be a step up for gender equality honestly things like this don't matter it's only an issue because someone is always going to have a problem with something and this happens to be the current target of those someones

sorry jared that's wrong and by spouting bullshit like that all the time you're absolutely no different than the people you're criticizing

the state is a religiously motivated jewish one they can enforce whatever jewish codes they want because israel is a jewish state

lmao wrong

they can always take a different bus

the point is that they shouldn't have to because it is their right not to be harassed based on their gender

honestly is there no such thing as sovereignty anymore

umm sovereignty for what except for stupid inequality

[Dave de Sylvia]

Um, that's a little different than the "right to non interference."
I assumed you'd be able to fill in the gaps yourself. It's pretty straightforward stuff, people have the right to be protected from violence and other forms of unlawful coercion.

if this were a situation of men sitting at the back of the bus and women in the front no one would complain because then it would be a step up for gender equality
No, nobody could ever logically construe that as an example of equality.

honestly is there no such thing as sovereignty anymore
Gosh, the cheek of us forum dweebs violating Israel's sovereignty!

We should also remember that these women don't absolutely have to be Orthodox.
But the point the article was making is that it's imposed upon non-Orthodox women too.

That's just like saying George Bush has the right to enforce his draconian fundamentalist Protestant government
Um.

[Amit]

But the point the article was making is that it's imposed upon non-Orthodox women too.

and what we are learning today is that people don't read the article!

[Jaded]

the right to not be coerced or forced to take up certain positions on a public bus stems directly from the right to non interference
...

There is no right to non interference. Being interferred with is an unfortunate part of living. The right to not be coerced or forced to take up certain positions on a public bus would stem from some other right.

[Frankie-C!]

and what we are learning today is that people don't read the article!

Bah, most people on these forums wouldn't catch on to anything if they were wearing magnetic suits in a paper-clip factory.

[Jaded]

I assumed you'd be able to fill in the gaps yourself. It's pretty straightforward stuff, people have the right to be protected from violence and other forms of unlawful coercion.
Obivously people have the right to be protected from unlawful coercion. Are those modesty busses breaking any laws?

[Frankie-C!]

Obivously people have the right to be protected from unlawful coercion. Are those modesty busses breaking any laws?

RTFM

[Dave de Sylvia]

Obivously people have the right to be protected from unlawful coercion. Are those modesty busses breaking any laws?
Yes, lots of them.

There is no right to non interference. Being interferred with is an unfortunate part of living. The right to not be coerced or forced to take up certain positions on a public bus would stem from some other right.
Define "non-interference." I thought it was pretty clear I meant being force to behave in a certain way against your will, I'm not sure what you mean by it.

[Jaded]

Yes, lots of them.


Define "non-interference." I thought it was pretty clear I meant being force to behave in a certain way against your will, I'm not sure what you mean by it.

Interference is a term thats really too broad. I was trying to tell you to be more specific.

I don't really have a point other than that.

[Jaded]

RTFM

Yeah...sure guy

:rolleyes:

[Frankie-C!]

Cut

[Iskandar]

But Judaism in itself is a very ethnically and culturally diverse religion.Yes, of course ... its adherents live literally all over the world. But in Israel they're united by a common heritage and (very importantly for a nation of immigrants) a common language (Modern Hebrew).

[SalientArbiter]

Um, some things people should know about israel before spouting bullshit..

Israel is a religious state, with Judaism being the main religion of the state. This is official, it's not like Protestantism being the official religion of the US, it's in the Constitution and legal codes of Israel itself. It is a diverse state in form of ethnicity, but 76.1% of Israelis are Jewish; 16.2% are Muslim; 2.1% are Christian; 1.6% are Druze; and 3.9% unclassified. Among Arab Israelis, 82.6% were Muslim, 8.8% were Christian and 8.4% were Druze. There is also a small community of Ahmadi Muslims in the country

Modesty buses are breaking no laws, because they are endorsed by the religious state that is Israel. As I said before in this thread, there are actually very few "religious" Jews in Israel, in fact the Jews in Israel (of which there are many) are actually a lot less observant than the Jews in a country like the USA. However, the wishes of the Orthodox on issues like these are generally carried out, because they are the vast minority of the populace and generally ask very little of the organized government. It's throwing a dog a bone here, and the buses are also a very small percentage of the state-sponsored public transit system. This lady that got on this bus that was obviously an Orthodox bus was asking for trouble, especially when she refused to move to comply with the basic rules of the bus. It's not a human rights violation, because this "segregated bus" is one of the few that serves the Orthodox community, and she had the bad luck and bad social skills to be caught in a bad place with it.

And if you really do think this is a human rights violation, why not worry about a country where blatant sexism is actually a rampant problem, not a conducive micro-minority, like Saudi Arabia? Israel is one of the most progressive countries in the world, and manages to overcome its roots as a religious state and a refuge for immigrants after a major world crises through sheer tenacity. Don't whine about this one tiny exception mean to appease a very small populace who doesn't ask very much.

[Frankie-C!]

I still don't see why such a silly idea should be state-endorsed and not just a matter of personal preference. If that lady is commiting a moral offence by you by sitting in the wrong place on the bus, then let that be her concern, not yours.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Modesty buses are breaking no laws, because they are endorsed by the religious state that is Israel.
No it contradicts Israeli human rights laws.

This lady that got on this bus that was obviously an Orthodox bus was asking for trouble
uh oh

It's not a human rights violation
Well it violates Israel's human rights laws.

Don't whine about this one tiny exception mean to appease a very small populace who doesn't ask very much.
Tiny civil rights violations are still civil rights violations.

[SalientArbiter]

Riddle me this Mister Spat, where exactly in Israel's "civil law" or "human rights laws" or whatever you'll call the Constitution (that there is no written form of) next, does it says that you can't make special transit allocations for population sects with special religious needs under the state-endorsed religion?

By the way before you use B'Tselem (if you even know what that is), that's only for cases of human rights in the occupied territories, and doesn't deal with "sexism" or a case like this anyway.

[Frankie-C!]

As far as I'm aware human rights are an international convention and not decided upon by a religious agenda?

I could be wrong

[Dave de Sylvia]

Israel has Basic Laws, and it's also bound to uphold the UN Human Rights charter.

[lfantwister]

Israel has Basic Laws, and it's also bound to uphold the UN Human Rights charter.
This does not violate human rights! No one is being abused or hurt or tortured. Stepping on the bus is a completely voluntary move, as is being Orthodox (I'm assuming it's not that difficult to move neighborhoods?).

[Frankie-C!]

This does not violate human rights! No one is being abused or hurt or tortured. Stepping on the bus is a completely voluntary move, as is being Orthodox (I'm assuming it's not that difficult to move neighborhoods?).

Would you tolerate it in your own backyard? You'd just let these ****wits waltz right all over you and be ok with it because 'hey, they're not breaking any laws'?

And people are being abused. Read the frickin article before you open your head.

[Dave de Sylvia]

This does not violate human rights! No one is being abused or hurt or tortured. Stepping on the bus is a completely voluntary move, as is being Orthodox (I'm assuming it's not that difficult to move neighborhoods?).
How is legal subordination not a form of abuse? Seriously.

[pedro durruti]

Anyways, what the hell does sitting next to one another on a bus have anything to do with "contact," whatever the hell that is. They might as well divide the sidewalks in two.

[SalientArbiter]

You're all being ridiculous. Assuming that you think all progressive Western worlds fully abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (I'll give you a hint: they don't), find me one article in the actual document that this action violates.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Don't cite your random personal ideals of "human rights" when it doesn't even follow the source you're vaguely referencing.

[pedro durruti]

What about Article 21, section 2?

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

[GreyHam]

hang on - people are DEFENDING the decision to seperate men from women on buses?

oh dear whats next... the Negroes sitting at the back again? maybe the gays...

im pretty sure UN human rights say something along the lines of people being free from persecution...not being able to sit where u want on a bus and being intimidated for it is just a form of that

and... a 'blatantly orthodox' bus? tripe, its a public bus and under no curcumstances should it discriminate against its passengers

[Frankie-C!]

zzzing

[lfantwister]

Would you tolerate it in your own backyard? You'd just let these ****wits waltz right all over you and be ok with it because 'hey, they're not breaking any laws'?

And people are being abused. Read the frickin article before you open your head.
Thanks read the article. But people aren't being abused. I would be much more comfortable with this if it were a private bus, and the government didn't sponsor inequality. But this is voluntary inequality. If the women adhere to their religious tenets, this is apparently what's required. It's not like theyre suffering dramatic injustices. They choose to believe in this set of ideals.

How is legal subordination not a form of abuse? Seriously.
Which is why it should be private (okkayy ill concede that). But the buses should be maintained if people want them.

Anyways, what the hell does sitting next to one another on a bus have anything to do with "contact," whatever the hell that is. They might as well divide the sidewalks in two.
It's their idea of values. May not agree but at least respect them?

[SalientArbiter]

What about Article 21, section 2?

They do have equal access.. That's even assuming that you're only considering this one isolated example in which public transit follows the most popular local religious deviation, both men and women can in fact take the damn bus.

And by the way, considering that Article 21 deals with involvement with one's government, I'm fairly sure that by public service they mean getting a job with the government. Basically that the government can't be ethnically/gender-based in its selection processes for government job applications.

For those who are too lazy to read: Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.


EDIT: zzzzzing
pingggggg.. kerplonk.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You're all being ridiculous. Assuming that you think all progressive Western worlds fully abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (I'll give you a hint: they don't), find me one article in the actual document that this action violates.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Don't cite your random personal ideals of "human rights" when it doesn't even follow the source you're vaguely referencing.
Is Article 1 too obscure a reference?

Which is why it should be private (okkayy ill concede that). But the buses should be maintained if people want them.
Well private companies can enact any rule they please and bear the effects of those rules. But government-sanctioned segregation is just unjustifiable.

[GreyHam]

how is it equal right of access...

if men can sit at the front....

and women have to sit at the back

seriously...

[pedro durruti]

They do have equal access.. That's even assuming that you're only considering this one isolated example in which public transit follows the most popular local religious deviation, both men and women can in fact take the damn bus.
What GreyHam said.
And by the way, considering that Article 21 deals with involvement with one's government, I'm fairly sure that by public service they mean getting a job with the government. Basically that the government can't be ethnically/gender-based in its selection processes for government job applications.
[/QUOTE]
I think that's section one. Vell, no, you are probably right.

[SalientArbiter]

Is Article 1 too obscure a reference?

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.


How is ANYTHING this bus doing have anything to do with violating the fact that all human beings have dignity and rights? What rights or dignity are being violated by the issue that some buses require sexes to be temporarily separated for the duration of the bus ride? It's not like one sex is being forced to ride in the back, the only ideal of Orthodoxism that this bus is following is that sexes must be separated, and only for the trip mind you. This isn't the whole "separate is inherently unequal" debate because it's not like the back of the bus is falling apart. There is plenty of respect for the women riding these buses, it's just their values and religious beliefs say they should be separated. I think it's a hint that when the Orthodox women aren't complaining, that there isn't any problem just because some outsider starts whining about her rights to sit in the man section. (And before the Arab references start, there isn't any women abuse in Orthodox Judaism. It's not like women are treated like devils, or given any less say in matters, and the women don't complain about their draw in the issue either. It is a conscious choice by both sexes to remain separated, and when someone comes in and violates that choice, then it's blatantly disrespectful.)

I think that's section one. That's like saying the first Amendment is like the 19th Amendment, because freedom of expression should also apply to voting and therefore also to women. There are plenty of clauses that further specify something that's previously hinted, that's how documents like these work. And also that's just not the case, section 21 deals specifically with involvement and interaction between the public and the government.

how is it equal right of access...

if men can sit at the front....

and women have to sit at the back

seriously...

How is the back any less accessible? Buses in Israel (and most other places) have entrances in both the front and the back. Unless some handicap ramp was installed at only the front and a woman had a wheelchair and for some reason couldn't simply wheel her way past the men's section to the women's section, I don't see how you can make the conclusion that there's not equal rights of access.

[GreyHam]

because theres nothing EQUAL about being forced to sit in a certain area when your paying the same cash to get on...

its not the end of the world, of course its not. but your preaching 'equality' and its the complete and utter opposite of the word

[SalientArbiter]

Once again, in this case separation =/= inequality. What is unequal about their circumstances? This isn't like education racial segregation where one school is drastically underfunded and overcrowded. It's the same bus, with the same accessibility to both sides, with the same bus stops on the route.

I'm going to sleep.

[Dave de Sylvia]

How is ANYTHING this bus doing have anything to do with violating the fact that all human beings have dignity and rights?
The right to dignity and equality of rights applies to government action- government has no right to erode the dignity of an individual through the passage of any law or the promotion of any practice which actively demeans a section of society. Segregation unquestionably falls into this category.

There is plenty of respect for the women riding these buses, it's just their values and religious beliefs say they should be separated.
OK, then at worst it's rude for a woman to sit beside a man or vice versa. Some people get on the bus without showering. That's also quite rude.

It's not like one sex is being forced to ride in the back, the only ideal of Orthodoxism that this bus is following is that sexes must be separated, and only for the trip mind you.
Actually that's exactly what's described in the article.

I think it's a hint that when the Orthodox women aren't complaining, that there isn't any problem just because some outsider starts whining about her rights to sit in the man section.
Gosh, who cares about the women who do complain then? You can choose to sit with other women or at the back of the bus, and this is very much a question of choice.

[pedro durruti]

That's like saying the first Amendment is like the 19th Amendment, because freedom of expression should also apply to voting and therefore also to women. There are plenty of clauses that further specify something that's previously hinted, that's how documents like these work. And also that's just not the case, section 21 deals specifically with involvement and interaction between the public and the government.
Read the whole post...
How is the back any less accessible? Buses in Israel (and most other places) have entrances in both the front and the back. Unless some handicap ramp was installed at only the front and a woman had a wheelchair and for some reason couldn't simply wheel her way past the men's section to the women's section, I don't see how you can make the conclusion that there's not equal rights of access.
I would argue that dividing it by front and back has some fairly significant symbolic implications.

[GreyHam]

an outsiders perespective?

the perspecitve of someone AWARE of the human rights that are SUPPOSED to be practiced in a country drawing attention to them, also highlighting the ignorance of the people who are being affected by them?

sometimes it takes an objective viewpoint to highlight weaknesses and important issues within a society

[pedro durruti]

It's their idea of values. May not agree but at least respect them?
Why should I respect something that I find disrespectful? Not that separation of the sexes is inherently disrespectful, but in this case it is.
Once again, in this case separation =/= inequality. What is unequal about their circumstances? This isn't like education racial segregation where one school is drastically underfunded and overcrowded. It's the same bus, with the same accessibility to both sides, with the same bus stops on the route.
They are both equally unequal. The men have the privilege to access the front of the bus, and the women have the privilege to access the back, while neither share their privileges with one another.

[Iscariot]

Um, some things people should know about israel before spouting bullshit..

Israel is a religious state, with Judaism being the main religion of the state. This is official, it's not like Protestantism being the official religion of the US, it's in the Constitution and legal codes of Israel itself. It is a diverse state in form of ethnicity, but 76.1% of Israelis are Jewish; 16.2% are Muslim; 2.1% are Christian; 1.6% are Druze; and 3.9% unclassified. Among Arab Israelis, 82.6% were Muslim, 8.8% were Christian and 8.4% were Druze. There is also a small community of Ahmadi Muslims in the country

Modesty buses are breaking no laws, because they are endorsed by the religious state that is Israel. As I said before in this thread, there are actually very few "religious" Jews in Israel, in fact the Jews in Israel (of which there are many) are actually a lot less observant than the Jews in a country like the USA. However, the wishes of the Orthodox on issues like these are generally carried out, because they are the vast minority of the populace and generally ask very little of the organized government. It's throwing a dog a bone here, and the buses are also a very small percentage of the state-sponsored public transit system. This lady that got on this bus that was obviously an Orthodox bus was asking for trouble, especially when she refused to move to comply with the basic rules of the bus. It's not a human rights violation, because this "segregated bus" is one of the few that serves the Orthodox community, and she had the bad luck and bad social skills to be caught in a bad place with it.

And if you really do think this is a human rights violation, why not worry about a country where blatant sexism is actually a rampant problem, not a conducive micro-minority, like Saudi Arabia? Israel is one of the most progressive countries in the world, and manages to overcome its roots as a religious state and a refuge for immigrants after a major world crises through sheer tenacity. Don't whine about this one tiny exception mean to appease a very small populace who doesn't ask very much.

well put

[Rimbaudian]

I read it to

"But Shlomo Rosenstein disagrees."

and could NOT stop laughing.

[lfantwister]

Why should I respect something that I find disrespectful? Not that separation of the sexes is inherently disrespectful, but in this case it is.
You should respect that this is part of their culture, and that they choose to engage in it.

Also, this is just the government trying to cater to the area's wishes. If the entire Orthodox religion were changed then the bus thing wouldn't be a problem.

[pedro durruti]

You should respect that this is part of their culture, and that they choose to engage in it.

Also, this is just the government trying to cater to the area's wishes. If the entire Orthodox religion were changed then the bus thing wouldn't be a problem.
What does that mean? I will acknowledge that it is part of their culture, but if I find it wrong, I see no reason to respect it.

That's the problem. You can't cater to their wishes just because they ask little of the government, as SalientArbiter says. Besides, Orthodox Jews aren't the only ones riding the buses, and not all Orthodox Jews agree with this, as the article points out. Should the US government cater to right-wing Christians, and outlaw public displays of affection by gay people?

Edit: By the way, I don't disrespect their wishes to separate men and women, although I do think it is kind of stupid. But I do disrespect the way they have segregated the buses.

[Dave de Sylvia]

You should respect that this is part of their culture, and that they choose to engage in it.
You can't choose to have no choice in something.

[Iskandar]

I would argue that dividing it by front and back has some fairly significant symbolic implications.It's a visible sign of the attitudes to sex segregation in Orthodox Judaism. Women and men don't sit beside each other in Orthodox synagogues either. Most Orthodox Jews are fine with this; it's part of their faith. If they don't like it, more liberal and egalitarian forms of Judaism exist.

[lfantwister]

You can't choose to have no choice in something.
But you can choose to ascribe to a faith that maintains thsoe sorts of values

[PerpetualBurn]

It doesn't make sense to treat something as worthy of respect just because a lot of people have done it for a long time.

And you certainly wouldn't apply the idea that you should as a universal concept, I'm sure. I could make up some crazy example, but I hope I don't have to.

[lfantwister]

No, I'm not advocating this as any universal tradition that should be followed. I think though that people ought to be able to choose their own value system, and if it entails seperation of the sexes so be it. I don't really care if it's been around for a million years or a day; it's all about the peoples' choice to do whatever they want. If this community decides that it's right to segregate men and women they should be allowed to.

As a disclaimer, I would draw the line at harmful practices. Like mutilation and such. But this is just a cultural nothing that they should be allowed to practice.

[Dave de Sylvia]

But you can choose to ascribe to a faith that maintains thsoe sorts of values
True, but I'm guessing a faith that institutionalises sexual repression isn't easy to opt out of. I'm just stunned that you'd condone it.

[lfantwister]

True, but I'm guessing a faith that institutionalises sexual repression isn't easy to opt out of. I'm just stunned that you'd condone it.
Please don't get me wrong. I don't always play myself on this forum (this argument included).

As for getting out of the faith: Israel isn't really a big country. If the neighbors pressure you to take the bus, move. If the temple pressures you to sit in different sections, go to a different temple. In short, if you don't ascribe to the Orthodox values, leave.

[Dave de Sylvia]

If your entire family are Orthodox Jews, leave? I just don't see why this has to be mandatory. Like the woman who wrote the article said, she sat in the men's section of the bus and was harrassed even though she's not Orthodox or even Jewish. It's a value that necessitates the co-operation of non-Orthodox people, and therefore necessitates imposing awful sexually repressive values on innocent non-wacko people.

[PerpetualBurn]

No, I'm not advocating this as any universal tradition that should be followed. I think though that people ought to be able to choose their own value system, and if it entails seperation of the sexes so be it. I don't really care if it's been around for a million years or a day; it's all about the peoples' choice to do whatever they want. If this community decides that it's right to segregate men and women they should be allowed to.

As a disclaimer, I would draw the line at harmful practices. Like mutilation and such. But this is just a cultural nothing that they should be allowed to practice.

I don't understand what you're saying at all. I'm not saying they can't do this if hypothetically everyone in the community was in favour of it, so there was no discontent. I'm saying that the fact they're all doing something so backward and stupid makes it in no way respectable.

[lfantwister]

I'll agree that they should be privately funded?

But they should still exist

I don't understand what you're saying at all. I'm not saying they can't do this if hypothetically everyone in the community was in favour of it, so there was no discontent. I'm saying that the fact they're all doing something so backward and stupid makes it in no way respectable.
Clearly they dont think its backward and stupid; it's just a relative values thing. You don't have to condone it but you ought to respect their freedom to decide their own faith and the social implications of that faith

[pedro durruti]

It's a visible sign of the attitudes to sex segregation in Orthodox Judaism. Women and men don't sit beside each other in Orthodox synagogues either. Most Orthodox Jews are fine with this; it's part of their faith. If they don't like it, more liberal and egalitarian forms of Judaism exist.
But what I am asking is, assuming Israeli buses are anything like the buses over here, why must the bus be segregated by front and back, rather than left and right? What exactly is the logic behind this custom, anyways?

And although they may be fine with it, I still find that putting women in the back symbolically suggests some form of subjugation. However, if women being placed in the back is just random, and the structure of the segregation is for convenience and practicality according to their belief, then all is fine with me- aside from the fact that this is still silly.

If this is so, this brings us back to whether or not this should be enforced.

[PerpetualBurn]

Clearly they dont think its backward and stupid; it's just a relative values thing. You don't have to condone it but you ought to respect their freedom to decide their own faith and the social implications of that faith

I don't really care what they think, segregating buses is stupid. And I don't see why I have to respect it any more than I should respect them only letting black people have menial jobs or some absurd hypothetical.

[lfantwister]

I don't really care what they think, segregating buses is stupid. And I don't see why I have to respect it any more than I should respect them only letting black people have menial jobs or some absurd hypothetical.
That example would only work if the black people subscribed the idea that they should only do menial jobs. No what am I talking about, even then it doesn't work. The bus separation is not harmful and therefore not comparable to your example (which would be, since black people wouldnt be able to live to their full potential).

[Dave de Sylvia]

But it is harmful.

[lfantwister]

How?

[PerpetualBurn]

But since there is absolutely no good reason for this to happen and, if the reliability of the article is assumed, it is indicative of a rather close and prejudiced society, how can I respect it?

[lfantwister]

But since there is absolutely no good reason for this to happen and, if the reliability of the article is assumed, it is indicative of a rather close and prejudiced society, how can I respect it?
Well, they think there's a good reason for it. It's a part of their culture, it's not harmful. The society may be close but their prejudices are based in their ideals of modesty (a virtue?)

[Dave de Sylvia]

How?
It validates the view that women are inferior to men.

[lfantwister]

It validates the view that women are inferior to men
I dont see how? It divides them, certainly, but it doesn't put an emphasis on one being any better than the other

[pedro durruti]

I dont see how? It divides them, certainly, but it doesn't put an emphasis on one being any better than the other
Eh, there's something that seems visually wrong with designating the women to the back.

[lfantwister]

Eh, there's something that seems visually wrong with designating the women to the back.
Come on, something visually wrong shouldnt dictate a government or a society's social policy. No one's being harmed!

[Dave de Sylvia]

I dont see how? It divides them, certainly, but it doesn't put an emphasis on one being any better than the other
Of course it does.

[lfantwister]

inclined to expand on that?

[Dave de Sylvia]

Well in this specific example, the "back of the bus" symbolism is a pretty big hint, as previously pointed out. In general, Judaism and religious conservatism in general is paternalistic and excludes women from many of the freedoms men enjoy.

[lfantwister]

Would it still be an issue if the women were in the front and the men in the back? Inside the bus it's exactly the same; it's just the direction the bus is moving. THere are exits at both ends.

Judaism in general seems irrelevant to this situation in particular

[pedro durruti]

I think it would but it'd be less salient because it doesn't reflect current gender relations at all.
Come on, something visually wrong shouldnt dictate a government or a society's social policy. No one's being harmed!
Some religious belief shouldn't dictate policy either. And people who want to freely choose a seat are being harmed (especially when they are harassed- hello article).

[PerpetualBurn]

Well, they think there's a good reason for it. It's a part of their culture, it's not harmful. The society may be close but their prejudices are based in their ideals of modesty (a virtue?)

Them thinking something stupid has good reason is not a valid point. It's not respectable.

[Dave de Sylvia]

Would it still be an issue if the women were in the front and the men in the back? Inside the bus it's exactly the same; it's just the direction the bus is moving. THere are exits at both ends.

Judaism in general seems irrelevant to this situation in particular
Its completely relevant considering it's a religious value.

[lfantwister]

Its completely relevant considering it's a religious value.
but modesty =/= patriarchy
Them thinking something stupid has good reason is not a valid point. It's not respectable.
People are free to think things that differ from your opinions
Some religious belief shouldn't dictate policy either. And people who want to freely choose a seat are being harmed (especially when they are harassed- hello article).
I can understand that, and still maintain it shouldn't be a public bus. But it should still exist since the people whose culture maintains that sense of modesty still want it, and it doesnt harm them

[PerpetualBurn]

People are free to think things that differ from your opinions

Sure. They do it all the time. But if their opinion that differs from mine is patently stupid, then it doesn't deserve respect.

[Iskandar]

Would it still be an issue if the women were in the front and the men in the back? Inside the bus it's exactly the same; it's just the direction the bus is moving. THere are exits at both ends.

Judaism in general seems irrelevant to this situation in particular
No, this is all about Judaism, namely the Orthodox varient.

Two facts need to be acknowledged:

1) Yes, Orthodox Judaism does contain some patriarchal aspects. Egalitarianism in Judaism is a relatively new movement.

2) Designing the place for women to be at the back of the bus is not necessarily patriarchal, however. To Western eyes it brings up associations with Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement. It might not have the same association to Israeli citizens, however. We don't know what the motives for designating the women's spot at the back were, or if it was completely arbitrary.

[Reaganista]

but modesty =/= patriarchy
when has it not

[lfantwister]

when has it not
In theory theyre separate

[Dave de Sylvia]

In this case they're not.

[shaqadelic]

Although religious Jews have more influence than I'd like in the Israeli government, it is an essentially secular state and was just as motivated by the practical concern of creating a homeland for an oft-persecuted people as it was by religious concerns.

I am not so sure about that. The settlements in Palestine is motivated by their claim that it is their Holy Land.

There are laws that punish you for pretending to be a Jew (but not for pretending to be a Muslim and Christian.

The only form of Judaism recognized by the "Jewish state" is Orthodox Judaism, so most US Jews could not get married in Israel. Furthermore, the only conversion to Judaism recognized is Orthodox, so most US converts aren't Jewish enough. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4215160.stm

I don't think these are characteristic of a secular country.

[Iskandar]

I am not so sure about that. The settlements in Palestine is motivated by their claim that it is their Holy Land.

There are laws that punish you for pretending to be a Jew (but not for pretending to be a Muslim and Christian.

The only form of Judaism recognized by the "Jewish state" is Orthodox Judaism, so most US Jews could not get married in Israel. Furthermore, the only conversion to Judaism recognized is Orthodox, so most US converts aren't Jewish enough. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/this_world/4215160.stm

I don't think these are characteristic of a secular country.
I'm not sure if the settlements are motivated exclusively by religious reasons. I think for many secular Jews there is simply a desire to retain control over territory which figures importantly in Jewish history.

About the disproportiate Orthodox influence in government, several factors have to be considered:

1) Orthodox Jews are the most likely to desire a religious state, and will push for it.
2) More liberal sects of Judaism are accepting of Orthodox practices while Orthodoxy does not reciprocate. Inevitably the state must then make concessions to them.

I don't view Israel as a theocracy, just as a state with a strong religious influence in government which has become entrenched. Until this century America was little different.

[shaqadelic]

I'm not sure if the settlements are motivated exclusively by religious reasons. I think for many secular Jews there is simply a desire to retain control over territory which figures importantly in Jewish history.

If for Jewish history, I do not see how that is not for a religious reason.


About the disproportiate Orthodox influence in government, several factors have to be considered:

1) Orthodox Jews are the most likely to desire a religious state, and will push for it.
2) More liberal sects of Judaism are accepting of Orthodox practices while Orthodoxy does not reciprocate. Inevitably the state must then make concessions to them.

If you take out religious objectives, the creation of the Israel state wouldn't be where it is now. The Liberal accepts that without religious roots, there will be no Israel as we know now. The concession to me is a small piece of a bigger agreement between the two sides.

I don't view Israel as a theocracy, just as a state with a strong religious influence in government which has become entrenched. Until this century America was little different.

I don't consider them a theocracy neither because the religious leaders are not the head of state. However, saying that Jewish tradition/code doesn't enter law is quite inaccurate. Turkey is more secular than them in that sense.

[Iskandar]

If for Jewish history, I do not see how that is not for a religious reason.
The desire to possess the homeland of your people isn't necessarily religious motivated. It certainly is for a lot of Jews, of course.
If you take out religious objectives, the creation of the Israel state wouldn't be where it is now. The Liberal accepts that without religious roots, there will be no Israel as we know now. The concession to me is a small piece of a bigger agreement between the two sides.

I don't consider them a theocracy neither because the religious leaders are not the head of state. However, saying that Jewish tradition/code doesn't enter law is quite inaccurate. Turkey is more secular than them in that sense.It's all part of the long, complex and often conflicting relationship that the Jewish religion has found itself in with the secular State of Israel. Basically, it boils down to the fact that a significantly proportion of Jews are religious, and an equally significant proportion are non-religious; and Jews of both persuasions can be secular. So there's always been a conflict between these forces in Israeli politics and government.

[Reaganista]

In theory theyre separate

i don't understand

[lfantwister]

i don't understand
the concept of modesty is not inherently tied to a patriarchal society. modesty is essentially a rejection of modernity, as the woman seals herself in and hides from modern culture. women who dress nicely or sluttishly are basically sticking notes on their forehead that say "My outer looks are my main interest." Women who are hardcore believers in the virtue of modesty are trying to escape the world around them while foregoing traditional effeminate qualities like appearance.

[CarnageFairy]

Where's Rosa Parks when you need her?



Oh yeah...

[Reaganista]

the concept of modesty is not inherently tied to a patriarchal society. modesty is essentially a rejection of modernity, as the woman seals herself in and hides from modern culture. women who dress nicely or sluttishly are basically sticking notes on their forehead that say "My outer looks are my main interest." Women who are hardcore believers in the virtue of modesty are trying to escape the world around them while foregoing traditional effeminate qualities like appearance
so codes of moral dress are about controlling female sexuality?

[Smokey D]

the concept of modesty is not inherently tied to a patriarchal society. modesty is essentially a rejection of modernity, as the woman seals herself in and hides from modern culture. women who dress nicely or sluttishly are basically sticking notes on their forehead that say "My outer looks are my main interest." Women who are hardcore believers in the virtue of modesty are trying to escape the world around them while foregoing traditional effeminate qualities like appearance.

Patriarchy defines what is sexually conservative and what is sexually liberal. I don't think it's very accurate to say modesty = rejection of modernity.

Also, sexual conservatism is intimately connected with the need to preserve and clarify just who was sleeping with who (and whose children were whose) in pre-contraception cultures.

That's the thing about patriarchy -- it gets women to dress like tramps and prudes at the same time.

[shaqadelic]

I don't see how modesty in a woman is her hiding from modernity.

Modesty is moderation in one's actions or appearance, not wishing to attract undue attention to oneself. How can that be concluded to be rejection of modernity?

[Smokey D]

Well, it's true that rejecting modern codes of dress could be construed as modest, but I think that's just a coincidence.

[shaqadelic]

Well, it's true that rejecting modern codes of dress could be construed as modest, but I think that's just a coincidence.

Yes, it is a coincidence.

Technology and education are more accurate measurement of modernity than adherence to current dress codes/fashion.

[lfantwister]

so codes of moral dress are about controlling female sexuality?
yeah
Patriarchy defines what is sexually conservative and what is sexually liberal. I don't think it's very accurate to say modesty = rejection of modernity. but that's only because patriarchy is the cultural norm; if it were a matriarchy it woudl define sexually conservative and liberal. modesty isn't necessarily tied to patriarchy.


I don't see how modesty in a woman is her hiding from modernity.

Modesty is moderation in one's actions or appearance, not wishing to attract undue attention to oneself. How can that be concluded to be rejection of modernity?rejection of modern (humanist, secular etc) culture, of which appearance plays a great big part

[Tha End]

massive lol @ iscariot's stupidity in this thread

[shaqadelic]

rejection of modern (humanist, secular etc) culture, of which appearance plays a great big part

Still a bad explanation. One can practice modesty and still be a secularist.

[Smokey D]

but that's only because patriarchy is the cultural norm; if it were a matriarchy it woudl define sexually conservative and liberal. modesty isn't necessarily tied to patriarchy.

Well, we don't have matriarchy so the point's irrelevant. In practical terms, patriarchy and modesty are inseperable.


rejection of modern (humanist, secular etc) culture, of which appearance plays a great big part

Naw. You can be modest and secular and humanist.

[lfantwister]

Still a bad explanation. One can practice modesty and still be a secularist.
But you'd be rejecting popular culture by being modest, sicne popular culture maintains the opposite method of dress. You can still be a secularist or a humanist but you're essentially rejecting one of the tenets of modernity

Well, we don't have matriarchy so the point's irrelevant. In practical terms, patriarchy and modesty are inseperable.Thats like saying since we dont' have matriarchy you could name any cultural establishment and say its linked to patriarchy.

[Jon]

the ultra-orthodox jews I met in jerusalem (specifically, at the western wall) were some of the most vile and disgusting human beings I've ever met. They go right along with terrorists, ahmednejad, child-rapists & chris martin.

[Smokey D]

Thats like saying since we dont' have matriarchy you could name any cultural establishment and say its linked to patriarchy.

Yes, that's pretty much what feminism was all about.

[lfantwister]

Yes, that's pretty much what feminism was all about.
here i was thinking it was about seeking equality

[Smokey D]

It's about establishing androgny (ie, removing the unequal power relationships that exist between men and women that is reified and transmitted in patriarchy).

[Reaganista]

yeah
oh then it's patriarchal

[shaqadelic]

But you'd be rejecting popular culture by being modest, sicne popular culture maintains the opposite method of dress. You can still be a secularist or a humanist but you're essentially rejecting one of the tenets of modernity

The fashion of pop stars is not a principle characteristic of modernity. Even if you consider it is - it will be a vastly insignificant one -, you do not have enough basis to make a statement as strong as this.

modesty is essentially a rejection of modernity, as the woman seals herself in and hides from modern culture.

[Frankie-C!]

It's really quite simple.

If you believe in segregating men and women on public buses, then you can choose not to sit next to a member of the opposite sex. If a member of the opposite sex chooses to sit next to you then you can freely object to it, and if that person chooses to ignore it, then you can elect to move seats and sit next to a member of the same sex. Whenever religion reers it's ugly head in politics, it only leads to bigotry, and if you can provide me of one single example of a successful ideological government, then I'll eat my hat.

[Jon]

saudi arabohwait

[italic zero]

united states is a successful ideological government

[Frankie-C!]

united states is a successful ideological government

Successful for who?

[italic zero]

for its citizens

[Frankie-C!]

for its citizens

lol

[Reaganista]

sucessful government is like the most broad concept possible

[Dave de Sylvia]

how is the us government successful the means of production are still in the hands of the ruling class :confused:

[Reaganista]

the means of production will always be in the hands of the ruling class