more religious issues

Ahmad Abas wrote: Keith, What I meant was, I agree with what you said earlier. The fact is, bowing is meaningless without the spirit behind it. I subscribe to the need for mixed gender training. When I said shallow, I meant disallowing someone to practice in the dojo because they won't bow. Marc, Well I've no idea what Osensei would have said about those things you pointed out about Islam. Mainly because its apparent that you're intent on focusing on negativity without context. Similarly, I won't be able to think what Osensei would have said about the Jews killing unarmed activists on aid boats, manhandling old men, women and child, sexually abusing children in prison and the other stuff going about right now... I see both points as being nothing relevant to the religion of Islam or Judaism and I don't think Osensei would see its relevance to his spiritual pursuit either way.

Ahmad:

Let me make myself VERY CLEAR to you.

1) Killing people in the name of ANY religion is WRONG!!!
2) Israeli soldiers were attacked with weapons- I suppose the person who stabbed the soldier in the gut was unarmed? The situation in that region is simply unacceptable to me. Jews and Muslims should be able to live in peace, UNCONDITIONALLY! I am sure that Hamas as well as some ultra-orthodox Jewish groups would agree with me !
3) Would you prefer to spend time in an Israeli prison or one in say, Yemen? Wasn't that movie "Midnight Express" about what happened in a prison in Turkey? Regardless of where it occurs, abuse of any kind is morally wrong!

I was in no way focusing on negativity without context. There is plenty of context involved. Many religious practices run counter to a larger sense of morality. O'Sensei talked about world peace. I am sure that you could guess what O'Sensei would say about the Crusades, throwing acid in the face of female students attending school, or a Jewish settler burning the land of a Muslim inhabitant. Please spare me your convenient "not knowing" what O'Sensei might say about repugnant, cruel and immoral practices. When a person speaks of world peace, having lived through a world war in which vast destruction of places and people throughout the world, I would think that they would be above making exceptions to that belief for a particular group of people.

Once again, I will emphasize that the poster clearly pointed out that training took place in a "wonderful" dojo! If people did not want to train there because of the rules that the teachers put in place to create and "wonderful" dojo, then so be it. They can cry wolf to whom ever they like, it still does not point out discrimination, simply a deep, dedication to create a wonderful training environment.

Marc Abrams

Mary Malmros wrote: Use a simple example: Bob wants to join a dojo. Because of his religious beliefs, Bob will not train with women. He steps onto the mat with Jeff, Steve and Ann. Not only can Ann not train with Bob, but she also is deprived of practicing with whoever Bob is paired up with because he "needs" this special accommodation. If the class consists only of Bob, Jeff and Ann, what then? Jeff is okay training with everyone. Ann is okay training with everyone. Bob insists that he will only train with Jeff. Should Ann have to sit out so that Bob's beliefs can be accommodated?

Don't you see the fallacy and the flaw in your logic up here?

When I first became involved in the martial arts in 1956. I know without doing a memory search that students left all their `` baggage `` outside the dojo. A Gay person was a `happy` person ( probably still is :-) Students came along to practice a martial art . This thread has touched on so many different issues, from various religions - discrimination - gender - what OSensei thought ??? . Someone asked " Why is this issue such a big deal " ...Well ! It wasn't a big deal until someone walked into a dojo wanting to change that dojo's etiquette.

Further to my earlier post, I should have added, the guy I escorted from my dojo threatened to report me to various PC organisations and have my dojo shut down.:-)

Henry Ellis
http://kenshiroabbe.blogspot.com/

Marc,

"Please spare me your convenient "not knowing" what O'Sensei might say about repugnant, cruel and immoral practices. When a person speaks of world peace, having lived through a world war in which vast destruction of places and people throughout the world, I would think that they would be above making exceptions to that belief for a particular group of people."

You're right. I can only conjecture in either case Osensei would have been opposed to it, as he was also opposed to Japan going to war during WW2. Killing people senselessly is not only morally wrong, it is repugnant. I'm glad we both agree in that regard.

As to how and why the 'unarmed' International activist manage to gut an armed and well trained Israeli commando, we can only guess. It would not have happened and we won't be discussing it, had the Israel government allow the humanitarian aid convoy consisting of various countries press, Members of Parliaments and aid workers to pass through. Still they didn't and we live with the consequences. If this thing didn't happen, no one would know about the crippling sanctions forced upon palestinians who die every day from lack of nourishment and proper health care. Preventing aid to get through is tantamount to senseless killings, which we both agree to be morally wrong.

So since we've well deviated from the original post. Allow me to make myself very clear, minus the caps.

1. I'm against hypocrites, who claim to be for justice yet turn a blind eye when evil is being done.

2. I believe we are human beings that deserve respect and kindness from each other, and that given a choice, most of us who are sane would want to live in peace. But given the state of affairs in the environment today, I doubt most human beings are sane.

3. Instead of mincing words, I choose to adopt openness in my dealings with others. I place my trust in them and hope they will honour that trust. Perhaps I have misjudged some people and that trust has been broken, but I would be in error to assume the worst before it has happened. Nevertheless, I fully understand why some people justify preemptive strikes against perceived future threats. Not everyone is willing to risk their health, safety and sanity to prove that human beings are just. Not everyone is born a Ghandi.

4. I don't want to argue for argument's sake. So I won't deviate any further from the original topic. To which I have only this opinion which I've said earlier. If you subscribe to Aikido fully, then you must fully embrace its meaning to be in harmony. Be it the teacher who sets his dojo rules, or the student wishing to learn from that teacher. Each person is different, no one is perfect and no one can hope to make every individual happy. Majority is important as long as it subscribes to the Aiki principle. We can beat the horse to death here, and no answer will make everyone happy. We can only hope that in providing the final solution, the sensei has given weight to his Aikido ideals in making the decision, and not his personal preference or ego. If it was me, I won't go to a dojo where I'm not welcomed or if I don't agree with the way things are done. I won't make a scene or demand for 'justice'. Making mountains out of molehills is just another sign of a diseased mind.

Alejandro Villanueva wrote: Don't you see the fallacy and the flaw in your logic up here?

Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see a logical fallacy. A "flaw" would depend on how you define it. Please elaborate.

Keith Larman wrote: Maybe I'm dense, but I don't see a logical fallacy. A "flaw" would depend on how you define it. Please elaborate.

I'm not Allejandro, but I interpret his comment like this:
"Should Ann have to sit out so that Bob's beliefs can be accommodated?" is a legitimate question, but so is "Should Bob have to train with Ann so that Ann's beliefs can be accommodated?" The only answer to this is deciding whose beliefs are worth more and accommodate those beliefs. Unfortunately, logic does not give us the tools to make that decision. Acting as if it does, would be a logical fallacy. One that in my opinion Mary did not commit, as she did not claim to use 'pure' logic to reach her conclusion.

Fact is that there is no objective means to decide whose beliefs are worth more. So by accommodating Ann but not Bob you're making a subjective decision about the worth of the beliefs of the people involved. That's perfectly ok (How to survive otherwise?), but I do think one should be clear about it. (Not much of an issue in this thread, I think.)

Joep Schuurkes wrote: I'm not Allejandro, but I interpret his comment like this: "Should Ann have to sit out so that Bob's beliefs can be accommodated?" is a legitimate question, but so is "Should Bob have to train with Ann so that Ann's beliefs can be accommodated?"

Being female is now a "belief"?

Thanks, I can sure see the "flaw" in my reasoning now

The problem is that people have subjective views of what is 'good'. Evidently some can accept that bigotry of a certain type is indeed very good. With that I can't argue (that is, I won't argue because you can't change such a fundamental view in a person).

Let us put it simply; if your religion states that you cannot train with women, don't go and put yourself in a position to get offended and indignant by traipsing into a dojo that's open to all.

Ah, okay. That's one problem with having a philosophy degree -- I couldn't see anything even remotely related to what we would call a formal fallacy in the statement. The point is that there are different perspectives for the people involved. And that creates competing requirements.

Mary, I think the point Joep made was the female's belief that she should be able to work out with anyone regardless of gender vs. the belief of the male that he can't work out with a female.

Another way to frame the discussion. Assume a strict Islamic training hall (doing whatever). All men. A woman insists on joining. Should the men be forced to train with the woman? Assuming this is a private venture then I see no reason why they can't train the way they choose -- I would argue the woman has simply gone to the wrong place to train. Those men have every right to have their own private club to train in the way they see fit.

There is a "women only" health club just a mile from my house. Should I raise a stink because there aren't any other health clubs closer that I can go to?

In cases of competing, mutually exclusive moral imperatives it is virtually impossible to logically resolve some issues without judging that one position is somehow "more correct" than another. Absent that you're left with what I posted before -- your freedom ends at the tip of my nose. Don't walk into my house with dirty shoes and I won't slaughter that baby seal in yours... : (I never should have used that example -- it's gonna stay with me forever I think...)

Keith Larman wrote: Mary, I think the point Joep made was the female's belief that she should be able to work out with anyone regardless of gender vs. the belief of the male that he can't work out with a female.

Oh. So the conflicting beliefs are as follows:

1)I believe that I am equal to others and should have equal opportunity.
2)I believe that I should be able to join a dojo and then deny opportunity to others.

Got it. Makes all kinds of sense now.

Keith Larman wrote: There is a "women only" health club just a mile from my house. Should I raise a stink because there aren't any other health clubs closer that I can go to?

Are you trying to draw some kind of parallel? Your analogy fails. A valid analogy would be if you were to go to a mixed-gender health club, demand that it become male-only because you don't like working out with/near/among women, and then raise a stink when the club declines to change its policies.

Keith Larman wrote: Ah, okay. That's one problem with having a philosophy degree

LOL ... I have one of those too.

Mary, I think the point Joep made was the female's belief that she should be able to work out with anyone regardless of gender vs. the belief of the male that he can't work out with a female.

Yep, that's it. I was not stating that being female is a belief.
(Off-topic: In a discussion about transgender that statement would actually make sense: "Being female is a belief.")

I am now a Malmosian. I was thinking about becoming Larsonian, but the ritual was too messy.

You know folks, this thread makes me look forward to a nice afternoon and evening of Aikido classes, followed by some of us Aikidoka going to the loca,l born-again, crescent moon, kosher deli to wash back some beers over BBQ pork ribs, along with some good cussing and fornication, before we go back to purgatory for a good nights sleep !

Marc Abrams

ps- To all of you who are seriously offended by this post, thank you for exercising your right and choice to decide to read it. Have a wonderful evening!

Marc Abrams wrote: You know folks, this thread makes me look forward to a nice afternoon and evening of Aikido classes, followed by some of us Aikidoka going to the loca,l born-again, crescent moon, kosher deli to wash back some beers over BBQ pork ribs, along with some good cussing and fornication, before we go back to purgatory for a good nights sleep ! Marc Abrams ps- To all of you who are seriously offended by this post, thank you for exercising your right and choice to decide to read it. Have a wonderful evening!

First round is on me...

Mary Malmros wrote: Oh. So the conflicting beliefs are as follows: 1)I believe that I am equal to others and should have equal opportunity. 2)I believe that I should be able to join a dojo and then deny opportunity to others. Got it. Makes all kinds of sense now.

Never claimed it made sense. Actually quite the opposite. Hypocritical at best.

Mary Malmros wrote: Are you trying to draw some kind of parallel? Your analogy fails. A valid analogy would be if you were to go to a mixed-gender health club, demand that it become male-only because you don't like working out with/near/among women, and then raise a stink when the club declines to change its policies.

Actually I was trying to argue that even in a vastly weaker case (as you pointed out) I would still not intrude upon those who wanted to train at an all-women's health club. Often it is useful to come up with thought experiments that are extreme (clubbing baby seals) in order to make a point. Other times one might try to show that even in instances where things are vastly less complicated and with less moral "friction" the answer remains the same. In both cases the end result is that I would have no expectation of others adjusting their practice to accommodate me. Whether it is me clubbing seals in their living room or even just wanting to quietly train as a male in an all-women's health club.

I'm not arguing with you.

Back to my tuna sandwich and then my cave for me. Carry on...

I hear ya, Keith -- I just thought the points were worth stating because all too often these days, we have people stating "conflicts" on just such terms -- my right to walk down the street vs. your right to not have the sight of people like me "forced on you", for example -- in the apparently sincere belief that there is an equivalence between fundamental rights, and the "right" to infringe on others' fundamental rights. When the failure to see the distinction is so widespread, it's hard to overstate it.

Mary Malmros wrote: I hear ya, Keith -- I just thought the points were worth stating because all too often these days, we have people stating "conflicts" on just such terms -- my right to walk down the street vs. your right to not have the sight of people like me "forced on you", for example -- in the apparently sincere belief that there is an equivalence between fundamental rights, and the "right" to infringe on others' fundamental rights. When the failure to see the distinction is so widespread, it's hard to overstate it.

Yeah the idea of it all is about as ridiculous as having "No Marys" and "Marys only" Restrooms, just so people name Bob can avoid contact with women named Mary.

Maggie Schill wrote: Yeah the idea of it all is about as ridiculous as having "No Marys" and "Marys only" Restrooms, just so people name Bob can avoid contact with women named Mary.

My ex's name is Mary so I'd like the "No Marys" restroom please

Chris Covington wrote: My ex's name is Mary so I'd like the "No Marys" restroom please

hmm, sounds like a personal problem..

Maggie Schill wrote: hmm, sounds like a personal problem..

Yes, yes it is lol.

Mary Malmros wrote: I hear ya, Keith -- I just thought the points were worth stating because all too often these days, we have people stating "conflicts" on just such terms -- my right to walk down the street vs. your right to not have the sight of people like me "forced on you", for example -- in the apparently sincere belief that there is an equivalence between fundamental rights, and the "right" to infringe on others' fundamental rights. When the failure to see the distinction is so widespread, it's hard to overstate it.

Nice round of recent posts by you, Keith, and Marc.

Kudos to everyone, though, for keeping a really civil discussion on such hot topics. Don't have anything to add, just wanted to say thanks.

Marc Abrams wrote: You know folks, this thread makes me look forward to a nice afternoon and evening of Aikido classes, followed by some of us Aikidoka going to the loca,l born-again, crescent moon, kosher deli to wash back some beers over BBQ pork ribs, along with some good cussing and fornication, before we go back to purgatory for a good nights sleep ! Marc Abrams ps- To all of you who are seriously offended by this post, thank you for exercising your right and choice to decide to read it. Have a wonderful evening!

Don't forget to post pictures of the fornication part

Not sure you want pictures. I might be offended too!

Kevin,

You wear a Ranger Tab - the only thing that you offend you is a day off, a dry place to sleep and a full belly.

Semper Fi!

Kevin Leavitt wrote: Not sure you want pictures. I might be offended too!

Hey,

I resemble that "remarc" !

ps- My best friend and I used a line from a Billy Joel song as our tag line growing up "ONLY THE GOOD DIE YOUNG!"

Stay Well Kevin, Live Long!