The village of Kiryas Joel wants you to dress moderately when you visit their Hassidic village. Dress moderately means long skirts or pants, covered necklines and sleeves past the elbows -- even in 90 degree weather. In addition they want you to maintain gender separation in the public areas. There are no consequences if you don't follow the guidelines but there is public disapproval, should you comply?
It wont happen but say it does...would you adapt or head for the "woods?"
What do you mean it won't happen, the village exists and there's a sign. Google Kiryas Joel.
This isn't "balkanization" in any form. While I happen to disagree with them, I know many places that request certain dress and behavior standards of both patrons and visitors. There's certainly NOTHING wrong with asking people to respect their sensibilities.
They also understand they have no right to demand it of you. The question that's most relelvant is: Are you respectful of their request, or do you hold your fellow Americans in such contempt that you'd prefer to offend, rather than accommodate?
I think this can illustrate the broader point that COMMUNITIES can and do define social norms. You could move right in, never conform, but you NEVER be a member of the community. In any community or group, if you INSIST on being different you will be TREATED differently. Its basic human nature.
Would I comply? Probably not, I'd stroll through town wearing only an oppossum?LOL
You're saying that there is a village, with regards to what you are saying, within in the confines of the U.S. borders?
If so, and the only consequence is public disapproval, then no I do no comply. I prefer to be comfortable in the clothes I choose to wear.
Hassidic Jews have their customs. The Amish have theirs. Mormons have theirs. If you are an invited guest to a home or community, it's customary to adopt thier ways. "When in Rome.."
If I can't accept the customs of my host, I politely decline the invitation. The same rules apply to a tourist without a specific invitation, to know and try to conform to local mores. Or don't go. It's easy to be unfamiliar with customs and, a sincere, 'I'm sorry, but I didn't know.' is usually accepted.
The question becomes thorny when the 'community' is very large - say Salt Lake City and newcomers are not guests - they are going to be permanent residents. But that's hardly the case in Kiryas Joel.
Oh you decline huh? Yet you're okay with a mosque being built near Ground Zero where the majority of the locals don't want them to build there. That's pretty hypocritical.
Your post makes no sense. Been taking lessons from Captain America?
If you look at the Quinnipac poll closely, you find your statement, 'majjority of the locals don't want them to build..' is FALSE. Looking at LOCALS, Manhatten residents, that is, 46% are in favor and only 36% are opposed.
But that's not really an issue because Freedom of Religion is a protected right of the minority, which the founders deliberately pur beyond the reach of the majority. It doesn't matter WHAT the majpoity thinks about the location of a church.
This is totally different from following the customs of a home or small community - whether it means covering your head or taking off your shoes.
Helloooo! It wasn't only Manhattan residents that were killed, it was the tri-state area and nice try restricting it to Manhattan residents who are largely leftists. The majority of New York City resident - 70% are against the mosque. But your answers only tell me that hypocrisy rings loud and clear with leftists.
So now you support Freedom of Religion but only for certain populations like the Hassids and the Muslims, yet you seem to not give the same courtesy to Christians from previous posts. Hypocrisy loud and clear. Thanks Doug.
Give me ONE example where I have extended ANY less courtesy to Christians than any other religion. I ONLY advocate EQUAL rights and an EQUAL application of the law.
And that's not good enough for a lot of Christians.
Your application of equality is relative depending on what group is the majority. You don't want Christmas pageants in schools, but the majority does how is that equal? You want to enlarge the definition of marriage to include same sex but the majority doesn't define it that way yet you want to force the majority to change the definition, how is that equal?
I love the idea of a Christamas pagent - as a child I was in many - but I attended a Catholic school. It has no place in a Public non-denominational school. If the kids who attend public scholl want to be in a Christmas pagent, they should have their CHURCH organize one.
I am married - to a woman. If my neighbor is gay and marries a man, it doesn't change MY commitment to my spouse. Their relationship does not diminish MY relationship. It would be intrusive for the government to say you MUST marry to someone of the same gender, but I don't think that has been proposed, not even in California.
The government has no say on who gets married. The Supreme Court already struck down the miscegenation laws because it goes against the equal rights amendment. It is churches that marry and define it as the joining of a man and woman and sanction that joining. The government's function was to recognize what it considers one of the most traditional contracts. What gay activists want is to put marriage under government purview, why? It seems to me they want to take that sanction away from churches so that they can force churches to marry gay people even though it is against their belief. In my opinion, it's really an animosity against Christianity. I would say you share that animosity.
What about Justice of The Peace? This is not a Church function and is recognized by the Government as a legal Marriage? The Government does have a say in Marriage when Federal or State Laws say who can and can't marry!
Let Churches choose who they want to marry, Government has no say in this I agree. That is the right of a Church.
Edit: Churches want Separation of Church and State when the Government tells them what to do, but...Churches want the Government to tell Everyone they have to do what the Church wants them to do!
See the problem!
Yes, the court struck down those miscegenation laws, just as they eventually will strike down the laws that prevent gays from marrying.
If the function of the state here is to "recognize what it considers one of the most traditional contracts", how do you account for Justices of the Peace?
Nobody will "force churches to marry gay people". Churches are always free to deny you the use of their facilities.
What this will "force" is rights, rights that people just like you wanted to deny to interracial couples no so very many years ago.
How could anyone suggest that the government will 'force churches to marry gay people'. In a forum where wingnuts spout some ridiculous stuff, that's almost a record.
No one it trying to 'force churches'. The issue is not the religous ceremony. It's whether the government will be allowed to issue a license to people of the same gender to enter into a legally binding contract - and have hospitals, banks and employers (for example) extend the same rights and obligations to that couple as they do a straight couple.
Sometimes when I talk to righties, I feel like I am explaining to someone from a different plannet.
You seem to be trying to create controversy where none exists. When one of my relatives invited me to attend a Christmas Eve service at their church a few years ago, I asked her advice about what to wear. Why? Because I wanted to be respectful of the people there. I could've worn my usual jeans and sweater and I'm sure some church members would have disapproved but I wouldn't have been turned away. However, I chose to try not offend anyone. It was my choice; not a requirement.
This has nothing to do with religious freedom; like gamergirl said, they are simply alerting potential visitors to local custom. I don't see anything sinister in that.
Who said there was anything sinister? I'm saying what if there are all these different communities that have these local customs what are you going to do then?
You do whatever you want to do. There are no consequences, remember?
There are no legal consequences but it's like a black person walking into a white area and made to feel uncomfortable. Is that right?
The Amish, the Hassidic Jews, and the Mormans have frequently had their own communities. It's not new. And it's not surprising that they don't like to be treated like animals in a zoo, with people gawking and taking pictures while dressed in ways that they (the people who built that community) find offensive.
In this case they are asking for courtesy in exchange, a small request in my book.
Yet you CAN enter the village. The residents allow it. If they did not, you could likely make suit against them.
That's obvious but you would still face their public disapproval making you uncomfortable if you're not dressed up to their standard. Do you think it's right that they should make you feel uncomfortable in public when you're not breaking any laws?
They are doing it to preserve their traditions, not too make you feel something.
How you feel is up to you.
I agree it doesn't seem very "friendly", but here's no law that requires people to be friendly. And, no, I don't think they will take over America.
I don't like thst conservatives are here at HubPages. I disapprove.
I don't like religious belief. I disapprove.
Yet in both cases I would stand with you against anyone who said you could not be here or have your religious beliefs. I wonder if you can understand that?
Why the heck would they want you to stand with them if you disapprove of them? That's not tolerance. You're just saying that because you want the same rule to apply to yourself and has nothing to do with tolerance. You're fooling yourself.
No one can make you feel uncomfortable. Your feelings are your own.
To answer your question, I would not go to great lengths to cover up just to please the community but I also would not knowingly enter wearing a tank top. I would make an effort not to be overly offensive to the community at large, but only within the parameters of my own typical attire.
Of course they can make you feel uncomfortable, that's what public pressure is about and there are very few who can go against it. Why do you think people get up set whey they see someone praying?
No one can force you to have a particular feeling. If you feel uncomfortable, it is because of your own state of mind with regard to the situation. Of course, there are certain situations where the vast majority of people would understandably feel uncomfortable. Still, your feelings are your own and cannot be controlled by anyone else.
Really? So when a black woman doesn't feel beautiful because the standard of beauty is white, she should just shrug it off?
Do you really want to argue this point? Where did I say anything about "shrugging off" your feelings?
You said that no one can make you feel uncomfortable. I'm saying that not everyone is has that strong of a personality to go against local public norms, so my question is why should a small community force a standard on members of the larger community?
You're right. Not everyone has that strong of a personality. But that applies to any public norm. It is not illegal to walk around in public with a shaved head and "I'm an idiot" tattooed on your bald scalp, but you'd probably get some disapproving stares. I'm betting you'd get those disapproving stares where you live right now.
I really don't get what you're so uptight about.
They offer choices, and alert potential visitors to local custom. It's amazing!
My answer would be very much like PrettyPanther. I am a t-shirt and jeans type of person, and knowing the local custom, I would remain comfortable while doing my best not to thumb my nose at the natives.
The fact that someone wouldn't comply to the dress code doesn't mean that they want the community to lose their personal rights. Just like supporting the building of the mosque doesn't mean you actually share their beliefs or that you'll visit it as soon as it's done. So I don't know why it shocks you that some hubbers said that they would not dress like others wanted them to.
Naughty troll is naughty.
Honestly, there are no efforts to divide people into hostility present beyond the OP. I'm not sure through what logical loophole we ended up talking about gay marriage when we started on the wearing of modest clothing in cultural locations where modest clothing is the norm, but then again, it IS the Politics forum.
If I were simply passing through, I would make no accommodations. I'm not visiting the area, I'm just going from point A to point B, and this is the quickest way. I'll be gone before you can be offended by my well-turned calves. If you don't want to see my very fine muscular arms and legs, don't look at me when I'm jogging past.
If I were going to hang out in the village as a tourist for the day? I'll make reasonable accommodations. I happen to have a linen shirt and trousers that look snappy and are very comfortable, even in high heat and humidity. There's no point in deliberately pissing people off. It's not like I live there and they're trying to make me change my life to suit the neighbors.
If I were apartment shopping, I probably wouldn't buy one there.
Then again, if I got a sweet deal on a place in the village, I might take it. At that point, my position would be, "Look, I live here too. I'm not exactly flaunting my body, so if you don't like the way I dress, don't dress that way, and don't look at me. I'm not telling you how to dress, am I?"
by Justjed5 years ago
I once posted a thread about a girl jilting a guy who she is couple of months older. Both of them are happily married to their respective spouses but some things still bring them together because they both reside in the...
by A_to_J7 years ago
Does the Bible offend anyone? And if you think it does, what is it about the Bible or certain scriptures that makes you think this way?
by Phoebe Pike6 years ago
I have seen many arguments about this, and I have my own beliefs on it, but I'm interested in what you think and why. So, what are your thoughts?
by Rabgix16 months ago
There are an extreme number of Religions in this world, some dead and some alive. How can the followers of one religion be so sure they are correct?I post this here because I come from a Christian family and they're...
by JBSSmith7 years ago
The United States fell prey to invasion on 9-11-2001. A desert flea, by the name of Osama binLaden and his Al-Quiada operates, came on American soil. To attack the worlds greatest Super Power, and did just that. Great...
by John Wilson8 months ago
Clinton's popular vote win was basically her win in California - by 4 million + votes. Take California away from Clinton, and Trump wins by a landslide. The Electoral College prevented this bias of one state forcing...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.