Comments on: “Where’s Hillary-Gate” as a cautionary tale for religious accommodation

By: paulmurray

paulmurray — Wed, 18 May 2011 04:31:15 +0000

Why not just call them “an absurd early-modern cult” and have done with it?

Perhaps “anti-enlightenemt”, or “reactionary enlightenment-age cult”?

But feminists are deemed to be anti-men because we think them even capable of housecleaning.

Men are incapable of housecleaning – at least, to the absurd lengths that women tend to take it.

By: mark

mark — Sat, 14 May 2011 13:24:21 +0000

I did not read the original newspaper article with the picture. Did the photo caption state that images of females Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason were erased from the photo? If not, the newspaper was being dishonest, and even such seemingly minor lies can be of greater significance than intended.

By: Giliell

Giliell — Thu, 12 May 2011 18:50:34 +0000

@Madscientist
Looks like we’ve been Poe’d

@those considering the Hassidim to be less of a problem and harmless
Thank you for not giving a single thought about the women and girls who have to live in that community.
Obviously, they deserve what they’re getting by having commited the terrible crime of having fundamentalis religious parents.
Shows how much you really care about the wellbeing of other human creatures.

By: superdave

superdave — Thu, 12 May 2011 06:16:38 +0000

Just my two cents on this issue and the subsequent argument.
What the newspaper did was wrong and unbecoming of a news agency, however I wonder if they mentioned anything in the text of the article regarded the photo being altered. As for whether or not Hassidim are harmless, I don’t think that would be a fair word to use because I do think they have the potential to cause harm, but Hassidim generally do not like integrating into american culture, and would never ever send a kid to private school, so I doubt that you would ever see the Hassidim author the kind of broad structured attacks on teaching evolution and science in public schools that AIG and ICR levy. So I do think it’s reasonable to say they are less harmful than other religious extremists in this country.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Thu, 12 May 2011 03:52:03 +0000

John, what is respect worth from someone who’s behaved the way you behaved here? Nor is it just an “error.” It’s a deliberate action driven by ideology with consequences to both the women erased and to those who see the picture.

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Thu, 12 May 2011 03:44:06 +0000

Stephanie@67: ayup. On the money. I don’t think I’ve met a bigger miniboss of the intertubes video game that is blog comment threads.

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Thu, 12 May 2011 03:41:42 +0000

Kwok@65: I read them all, thank you.
Kwok@67: This was never in question by any parties in the conversation until you attempted to paint the Hasidim as less of a threat than other groups that were not mentioned, for no apparent reason. Thus why I said the things to which you objected in @65.

By: John Kwok

John Kwok — Thu, 12 May 2011 03:37:06 +0000

@ Stephanie Z –

If you want respect from an “accomodationist”, then maybe you should earn it. Let’s just end this by agreeing that Die Zeitung’s editors erred egregiously in digitally removing the images of Clinton and Tomason.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Thu, 12 May 2011 03:34:34 +0000

Jason, I’m going with “slightly stunned by the magnitude of what faces you.”

By: John Kwok

John Kwok — Thu, 12 May 2011 03:33:18 +0000

@ Thibeault –

There’s a difference between voicing my opinion and telling Greg what he should do. I was merely noting that I believe that the Hasidim are not that noteworthy, BUT, if you opted to read my other comments, I did agree with him and Stephanie Z that I didn’t like what Die Zeitung’s editors did in digitally removing the images of Hillary Clinton and Audrey Tomason. Maybe you need to read before jumping to conclusions (Ditto for Stephanie Z.).