Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
600 Kilo Bear:
The Chilul Hashem was made by the non-Jewish provocateur who went on the bus just to expose something that the passengers wanted and agreed to based on the perfectly valid views of their rabbonim.
No, the chillul Hashem was MADE by the people enforcing their practices against the law. The reporter was merely the instrument that made the chillul Hashem chal. She is immaterial in this regard.
Had someone done the same to expose an African-American practice, everyone would be crying “racism.”
Alternately, the company will ditch the franchise and the new operator or the MTA won’t make a penny on it because the old operator will get all the Jewish business.
It will all be forgotten, things will go on as they always did, and unless some passenger acts the way the sikrikim do, no one will interfere.
Try stopping any Islamic or African-American practice, including such beautiful demonstrations of civilization as the Crown Heights Labor Day Massacre, I mean parade, where bystanders of all creeds risk getting hit by stray bullets.
On the other hand, bnei yishmoel pere odom that follow the religion of a certain warlord who would today be arrested for pedophilia are suing a Catholic college so they can have a room without crosses! They will probably win, unless the college capitulates first as so many do because of fear of Islam.
So you want us to have the RIGHT to break the law, since the Muslims seem not to CARE if they do? The principle is not sound.
BP has far more political clout than the non-English speaking and often non-citizen population of Southeast Queens.
All they agreed to was that the DRIVER could not enforce seating…
***
Thanks, Mod-80. I’ve been trying to figure it out for the longest time.
popa_bar_abba:
Contracts Examples & Explanations by Brian A. Blum is a good, readable text. Though I am not sure they have so much on out clauses, as they are a used mostly in intricate large-scale contracts, where there are very many contingencies. Ordinary contracts are in fact very difficult to terminate without breaching. I presume that is why they instituted the “efficient breach” as a sort of legal shortcut, with a minimum of messiness.
I believe Restatement (Second) of Contracts is the preeminent directory, but I have never waded through it. Thank God I’m not in law school. 🙂
popa_bar_abba: But what if the WAY we do the right thing is not mekadesh Hashem? What if, for instance, someone did something with the correct motivations, but in a manner and setting that turned another Jew off of Yiddishkeit?
Sam2: Very apropos to certain current events.
Estonia
Breach of contract means failing to perform any term of a contract without a legitimate legal excuse.
Breaking a contract entails followed the legally defined procedure (as per the terms of the contract’s break clause) to terminate the contract.
To elucidate: a breach on the part of one party would likely be grounds for breaking the contract.
Efficient breach IS considered a “break” of sorts, since the intent is the same. If one cannot comply with contract’s break terms, and considers it more profitable to suffer the fallout of a breach than to fulfill the contract, his would be an “efficient breach.” In a way, you could view it as a break of contract, with an added penalty for not complying with the break terms. Efficient breach and stam breach are NOT synonymous, though. Conceptually, the idea of efficient breach is closer to the definition of contract break than it is to that of contract breach.
popa_bar_abba:
As per my original post to shein, I am referring to a breach of contract, not to a break reached by legal agreement. You are absolutely right – there is a perfectly commonplace procedure for that.
I realize that I wrote “it would be illegal to BREAK them” in my previous post. I have edited it for accuracy. Sorry if it has caused confusion.
popa_bar_abba:
“Breaching legal contracts is not illegal. You just have to pay the damages.
The legal philosophers of the goyim are divided over whether it is even immoral. The economists say it is not, and I agree with them.”
As implied above: as regards to this case, though I am not knowledgeable in the legal particulars of New York State franchise law, etc., I take it on faith that the contract has additional legal implications. In addition, of course, to the application of the laws regulating public transportation.
And the passengers ARE party to the contract. The bus company has a responsibility to enforce the laws of its contract on its buses. By using a publicly operated bus, passengers are tacitly agreeing to comply with any laws entailed in riding it. So by extension, the contract applies to them as well.
So, in this specific case, segregation is illegal al kol panim.
Sorry – I didn’t mean to jump on you like that.
But I believe that the morality aspect of zehavasdad’s friend’s question WAS in a purely legal context (i.e. what is legally defined as moral and therefore law), since as it pertains to the current issue with the bus, the question would most likely originate from that consideration.
P.S. Is it just me, or is it weird to type “zehavasdad’s”?
yitayningwut: Excellently expressed. Sh’koach.
popa_bar_abba:
Yay, another edifying argument! 😀
I didn’t say immoral, I said illegal. That’s really the only basis for serious complaint, since morality is so subjective nowadays. And I’d tell zahavasdad’s friend that I don’t approve of the morality of some of their practices, either, but I don’t say anything.
Doesn’t this thread fall under the same category as the “where do you come in in ur family?” thread?
Plus, it’s so much more fun to try to figure it out from the person’s posting style. 🙂
gavra_at_work:
“Everyone just keeps repeating themselves here. I am not a lawyer and dont pretend to know the laws involved here. What I am saying is there is a need to have a bus with seperate seating for this route. There are various bus routes along the tristate area which have seperate seating. If they have to privatize I’m sure they will.”
That’s really not the issue here. No one gives a fig about their privately-owned-and-operated segregated bus. That they tried enforce their chumra on a public bus, with no apparent halachic basis or legal backing, is an big issue and a chillul Hashem. Don’t just dismiss that.
popa_bar_abba:
“I’d say that depends on if we are being chauvinistic, or following our ideals.”
shein:
“The passengers will keep enforcing the rule even if the bus company and driver do not. It would be dangerous for the bus driver to get involved while driving a bus on the road. And the bus company isn’t responsible for the passengers enforcement.
“The bus driver is driving. And a multi-ton bus. It is dangerous for him to get involved in conversations between passengers. A bus driver is not liable for their conversations.”
Ein chadash tachas hashemes. But I like to butt in with my opinion, too.
shein: Did I intimate that they contradict each other? Then I am sorry. They are DEFINITELY compatible, but QuestionForYou’s is a lot broader. Which is what we are trying to determine, no?
And look: sam2 seems to have broadened his definition as well.
Wolf: Well done. As always.
shein: HASHEM decrees that what the Rabbonim determine is the will of Hashem. And a lone authority does not qualify as the consensus of the Rabbonim. You have yet to identify this authority, by the way.
And how does the fact that the owners of the bus go with this authority make him the arbiter of the will of Hashem any more than any other Rav?
L’tachlis, though, arguing about Hashem’s will is irrelevant to this thread. There is no way you can unilaterally assert that Hashem wills us to enforce separate seating on public transportation. And that is the matziv.
Health: All true – I’d just like to add something. The PROBLEM is that no one is screaming “religious exemption” – they are just quietly breaking the law. Maybe they would get a religious exemption if they applied for one. Kol hakavod if they did.
shein: I would ask for a source for the Gemarah. Not that I doubt its veracity – I just think that it may be taken out of context. The Gemarah very often makes seemingly unilateral statements that are expounded upon by the meforshim.
I personally am going with QuestionForYou’s definition.
shein: There may be some Rabbonim who DO hold by it. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I don’t think you can invoke “because Hashem said so” in their name.
And the owners are absolutely irrelevant as per this specific discussion.
Krakatoa (does that count? :P)
zahavasdad: If the authorities found out that we were hiding one, that would be a a pretty big chillul Hashem. And enabling the abuser to commit such acts by concealing his crimes is probably not okay l’halacha.
I’m not entirely sure the goyim would decry us for obeying the law and bringing a criminal to justice. And doing so would clearly state that Judaism does not condone or foster such behavior.
Shein: I never hold with “The Seforim.” They are too unpredictable.
Let me clarify: when I said criticize, I was in no way referring to matters of halacha. Perhaps you are extrapolating erroneously from my comments on the B110 thread.
Kiddush/chillul Hashem applies to ANYTHING we do that would that would degrade the Jewish (and by extension, Hashem’s) image – pushing past people on line, making a ruckus in the street, treating goyim as inferior, v’chulay.
As an aside, I think most goyim don’t criticize us for our “backwardness.” Aderaba – nowadays, many I know wish THEY had some of our policies concerning T.V., kibbud av v’eim, dating, etc. But maybe I only know the decent ones.
I don’t think any Jew ever did anything in violation of gay rights.
“One day, a scary poster by the name of the Goq because he was always so pessimistic.”
?
😉
shein: Which Rabbonim? I believe Sam2 (I’m taking him on faith here) quoted some very reliable sources that do not hold with that.
And as for coercion – this has already been discussed extensively on this thread. What they are doing is illegal. Saying “so don’t take the bus” just doesn’t cut it – they have a RIGHT to ride that bus, and you DON’T have a right to make them do anything.
Again, let me say that I am not against separate seating. However, if you are going to break the law to enforce it, that creates a big chillul Hashem. And there is no clear evidence that suggests that that is warranted.
shein: You said something COMPLETELY different on the B110 thread.
And why do you think kiddush/chillul Hashem applies PRIMARILY to Jews?
If it applies PRIMARILY to anyone, it should be the GOYIM – since they are de facto more apt to criticize our actions (and by extension Hashem), as they are not part of us. Plus, they are just apt to criticize us b’chlal.
(Disclaimer: this is NOT coming to discount the importance of kiddush Hashem altz Yidden.)
soleik: Valid, but you have to be careful about where your interpretation or ratzon Hashem comes from. You don’t want to end up like those fellows terrorizing Me’ah Shearim…
shein: I’m asking you for a source.
…that had a nasty habit of devouring its inhabitants. One day…
a mamin: The existence of worse chillul Hashem does not negate this one. Plus, it’s getting media coverage.
shein: Where did you get THAT definition from?
Bar Shattya: “since it was always the custom for womenfolk not to get such an insane education until Mrs. shnerer came along”
– why do you think she DID come along?
***
It’s interesting how this thread has degenerated from talking about girls’ ruchnius to their clothing styles/sizes. Seems like the disease is catchy…
We SHOULD care – we’re all Jews and this is making quite a chillul Hashem.
For the record, (in my opinion) the idea itself is not so terrible. It’s the way they set about doing it that is.
Dunno. But at least it’s edifying. 🙂
This one?
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/seminary-3
It’s newer than a month, though.
popa_bar_abba:
Marbury v. Madison established the ability to rule on the constitutionality of laws. This is one element of interpreting the Constitution. If the Constitution itself did not provide for elasticity, legal chiddushim like Marbury v. Madison would de facto not be allowed.
And do you think no one would debate someone putting their opinion on such a messy matter as clear-cut constitutional law?
Good point, Wolf!
How can we Jews argue against these laws? They are what protect US from discrimination as well!
Dr. Seuss: That is in a franchise agreement with a public one.
popa_bar_abba: The Constitution was written with the provision that it is to be interpreted by the courts as the situation warrants. So we wouldn’t really have any more power if we were in the framers’ position.
And this bus is not operated privately. Your point?
And please quote the law ALLOWING this.
Dr. Seuss: Even if we take your assumptions as true, these are still the facts: There are laws against segregation (by race, sex, etc.) of public accommodations. By entering in a franchise agreement with a public transportation service, you are agreeing to these abide by these laws. If you believe these laws violate your constitutional rights, then you can challenge them. To break the law without applying to the appropriate legal channels, citing the Constitution as your justification, is not a feasible legal practice.
The Constitution and its amendments are not quite as unilateral as you believe them to be. It is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and determine constitutionality. If things worked as you are arguing, then what exactly is their function? By your logic, gay people would have no problem marrying, as per the interpretation of several different amendments. What right would any state have to abridge theirs? That’s why we have the court system and legal action – to regulate unrestrained behaviors under the protection of the Constitution.
A conflict between established state/franchise law and the tenets of the Constitution would definitely warrant investigation. Perhaps the law would be determined in our favor. Who knows? My point is not to say that separate seating is wrong, but to emphasize the need for the issue to be addressed in the proper manner. If there are laws and we break them, then the Constitution cannot be valid. Plus, isn’t the current method causing a chillul Hashem? Why not try to avoid that?
My comment on this practice being an established tenet of Judaism did not relate to legal semantics. I was just wondering whether or not the issue warranted such extreme action on our end. As pointed I mentioned before, some buses are segregated left-right as opposed to front-back. This practice is ostensibly not as discriminatory as the current one is, so if the government is applied to appropriately, there is very little reason for this not to be allowed.
Oh, and I would be very interested in hearing some cases where private entities were allowed to violate a(n) individual/group’s constitutional rights. As well as the provenance and basis of this practice. That would surely make for an interesting legal precedent…
Hey…why doesn’t that hit show up when you google just plain “gasheekee”?
Dr. Seuss: I believe you are mistaken. When you enter a franchise agreement, you are bound to keep all the conditions of said agreement. Especially if they are state law. No one is forcing you to enter such an agreement; ergo, there is no abridgement of rights. If you have a problem with the conditions of the agreement on religious grounds, you contest them – you CAN’T just ignore them. You can’t break laws in the name of the first amendment. There IS a legal process.
Another point: as per the ruling in Reynolds v. United States –
“Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.”
Good call, because then we’d have Muslims murdering all the infidels, saying that the first amendment allows them. Where to draw the line? I don’t know. But bottom line? You can’t use the freedom to exercise religion as a get-out-of-jail-free.
NOT to mention that it has yet to be proved that separate seating on buses is an established tenet of Judaism.
That aside, I was once on a bus where the men sat on one side, and the women on the other. What would be the halachic implications of such an arrangement?
I’m not really accepting anything…I’m just curious. I DO drink water in the street, and I wondered if there was anything wrong with that. I don’t think I’d eat much more in the street, whether it was okay or not…
So it ONLY applies to bread? You can eat ANYTHING else?
By the way, thanks for the sources…
Incidentally, the puke was a lovely shade of greenish-pink (the color of food poisoning).
***
A Sheep without a Spleen: I don’t get it – what word do we use outside of the original context?
I always wondered…are things like gum/water included in this issur?
Latvia
…Bigsan and Teresh, due to purported regicide/patricide by means of…
yitayningwut:
Thanks for your input. Good to know that I’m not the only Jew who isn’t insanely prejudiced.
I also just realized that due to deleted posts, my opening question now makes no sense. Yoish.
ZeesKite: You nailed it.