# You need to comply with *my* sacred religious oath! Don't even talk to me, you women!



## Explorer (Feb 28, 2015)

Remember those orthodox Jews who inconvenienced flights because they refused to be seated next to women? The ones who also wouldn't pay for extra seats in order to honor their own religious requirements, but instead wanted to offload the burden from those obligations onto others?

Same with the monks of the Hindu Swarinamarya faith, apparently. 







Women should *not* talk to these very holy monks and nuns, because it's up to the rest of us, including businesses and other travelers who want to be on time, to help with these obligations they didn't sign up for. 

What's kind of hilarious about this is, it automatically assumes that it's only the monks traveling. That to me is the most telling part of the letter. 

It sounds like that religion needs to only have its monks travel in ways which don't aren't used by half the population. 

Here's the deal, though. The monks don't have to reply to any women. A sign saying they won't should be sufficient. 

To say that their religion requires women of other faiths, including female airline pilots on the intercom, to not speak to them in any way, is not an obligation that they can require of someone else... unless they eat a hamburger or steak in front of me. My religion is offended by hypocrisy unless it is balanced out by someone doing something *I* hold as a required activity. 

Idiots.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 2, 2015)

Monkin' ain't easy..


----------



## Danukenator (Mar 2, 2015)

Frankly, if it wasn't for the potential bad PR, as a company I'd completely ignore the request. There is no reason they should get treatment like this and other passengers also not have the same ability to request stuff like this.

I'm a Sevenstringanite. I need to have 2 blond Swedish dudes sit next to me on all flights. There I made that up. Where's my seats Delta?!?


----------



## lemeker (Mar 3, 2015)

Danukenator said:


> Frankly, if it wasn't for the potential bad PR, as a company I'd completely ignore the request. There is no reason they should get treatment like this and other passengers also not have the same ability to request stuff like this.
> 
> I'm a Sevenstringanite. I need to have 2 blond Swedish dudes sit next to me on all flights. There I made that up. Where's my seats Delta?!?




Kinda have to agree on this one. You make accommodations for the old who can't move on their own, and need help, and things of that nature. 


Funny thing, this place is a hop skip and a jump away from my house.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 4, 2015)

So they observe lifelong celibacy - and cannot have a women talk to them because then they might sleep with her?  Dudes - do not flatter yourselves! It is NOT that easy! I've observed long periods of celibacy while actively trying to bed a girl. Having a girl talk to you is roughly .000001% of the way along the path toward not being celibate. If it were only that easy! If the president of the organization were smart he'd advise that no Catholic priests strike up a conversation with the monks - that would be a much bigger challenge to their celibacy.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Mar 4, 2015)

Can I make up a religion that doesn't allow me to pay for things so everyone else can be burdened with the costs...


----------



## Overtone (Mar 4, 2015)

Seems severely lacking in empathy to liken it to that. These guys' plan is to never have sex and you guys make it sound like their whole plan was to do it just to inconvenience the flight. Like a person's choices only matter in the way they affect YOU. And in this case, is it that hard to just accommodate them? I usually see mixed gender flight crews.

And Americans... Don't forget who else were pilgrims.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 4, 2015)

Tl dr everyone should be an atheist because it pisses off intelligent and privileged people to see you doing things differently for reasons that they personally see as illogical.


----------



## Edika (Mar 4, 2015)

So in the case a nun of that faith flew she'd had to be seated next a woman and not be spoken too by male flight attendants? Or the same rules apply for the nuns too? I didn't know women had that kind of power over monks/nuns of any faith unless we're referring to porn, which would really put in question this faiths president pass time activities. And what kind of faith has a president?


----------



## Overtone (Mar 4, 2015)

In spite of having the most Indian name ever, I don't think that guy is the president of the Hindu religion. LOL


----------



## bostjan (Mar 4, 2015)

I see no problem here. They are politely asking a business to accommodate their wacko religious beliefs. The business can politely refuse to do so, and then this customer can try someone else. It's a free market and a free country, and they aren't hurting anyone.


----------



## Hollowway (Mar 4, 2015)

Overtone said:


> Seems severely lacking in empathy to liken it to that. These guys' plan is to never have sex and you guys make it sound like their whole plan was to do it just to inconvenience the flight. Like a person's choices only matter in the way they affect YOU. And in this case, is it that hard to just accommodate them? I usually see mixed gender flight crews.
> 
> And Americans... Don't forget who else were pilgrims.



Yes, that was a joke. I'm aware that monks are not worried about getting into a bed like I was in high school. And John Wayne is the only one allowed to call me a pilgrim, mister!

(that last part was also a joke. You can call me a pilgrim.)


----------



## Overtone (Mar 5, 2015)

Lol
I thought it was funny too. My post was a reaction more generally to the thread and to cwhiteey


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2015)

cwhitey2 said:


> Can I make up a religion that doesn't allow me to pay for things so everyone else can be burdened with the costs...



It's called movement conservatism, man.


----------



## russmuller (Mar 5, 2015)

bostjan said:


> I see no problem here. They are politely asking a business to accommodate their wacko religious beliefs. The business can politely refuse to do so, and then this customer can try someone else. It's a free market and a free country, and they aren't hurting anyone.



Agreed.


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 5, 2015)

I love the "thank you for your kind consideration"


----------



## pushpull7 (Mar 5, 2015)

And another thing, if they are that big a twat, attendants shouldn't speak to them IN an emergency either.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 5, 2015)

Just because the company can say no doesn't make the request any less stupid no matter the reasoning. If them making the request makes the company feel obligated (through guilt or avoiding bad press) then in some respects it does make them douche-bags for making the request in the first place. 

Last I checked tons of religions try to use religion to justify racism, sexism and to make anti-LGBT things a reality. Why exactly would this not qualify?


----------



## bostjan (Mar 5, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Just because the company can say no doesn't make the request any less stupid no matter the reasoning. If them making the request makes the company feel obligated (through guilt or avoiding bad press) then in some respects it does make them douche-bags for making the request in the first place.



Hmm. I just don't agree.

If I asked the pizza place down the road if they wouldn't mind leaving the pizza on my front porch and taking the money out from an envelope I leave on the same porch, under the welcome mat, that makes me a weirdo, but not a pain in the ass.
If they say "no," and I complain publicly, then I've performed another set of operations, and there is the problem. Doing the former, though, does not guarantee in any way that I will do the latter.



flint757 said:


> Last I checked tons of religions try to use religion to justify racism, sexism and to make anti-LGBT things a reality. Why exactly would this not qualify?



This is easy, because there is nothing racist, sexist, nor anti-LGBT in the letter. 

Are we so easily offended now, that we get offended at the thought of people potentially over-reacting to possibly feeling offended about something that has not even happened?! It seems silly to me even typing that out


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Hmm. I just don't agree.
> 
> If I asked the pizza place down the road if they wouldn't mind leaving the pizza on my front porch and taking the money out from an envelope I leave on the same porch, under the welcome mat, that makes me a weirdo, but not a pain in the ass.
> If they say "no," and I complain publicly, then I've performed another set of operations, and there is the problem. Doing the former, though, does not guarantee in any way that I will do the latter.



But your request here has no bearing on anyone else receiving their own pizza orders, which is a critical difference here.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 5, 2015)

asher said:


> But your request here has no bearing on anyone else receiving their own pizza orders, which is a critical difference here.



So, of the 6 requests in the letter, the issue you ahve is solely with request number 1?


----------



## Edika (Mar 5, 2015)

I'd just like to add, that just because they're making a request and not hurting anybody that doesn't mean the rest of us won't find it stupid and make fun of it. I didn't know religions were beyond reproach, especially in cases like these. It's another thing to respect religion and another thing to have to inconvenience the majority for any whimsical request they might have.

For exampe, I recently heard that a priest here has been telling people during the shermon to avoid yoga and specificaly deep meditation as they might get posessed by demons. Being Ireland you can guess which part of Christianity he is coming from. Now if this doesn't qualify as a really stupid thing that can't go uncommented, °then I don't know what is.


----------



## Edika (Mar 5, 2015)

bostjan said:


> This is easy, because there is nothing racist, _sexist_, nor anti-LGBT in the letter.



They're mentioning monks and nuns yet they keep mentioning female stuff not coming in contact with them as that would break their celibacy. Now in my book that is sexist and offensive in a passive aggresive manner.


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2015)

bostjan said:


> So, of the 6 requests in the letter, the issue you ahve is solely with request number 1?





I think you completely missed the point.

Pretty much ALL of their requests will mess with other paying passengers or the flight staff.

In your pizza example, the request doesn't really mess with the delivery driver very much at all, and messes with other pizza customers zero.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 5, 2015)

Edika said:


> I'd just like to add, that just because they're making a request and not hurting anybody that doesn't mean the rest of us won't find it stupid and make fun of it. I didn't know religions were beyond reproach, especially in cases like these. It's another thing to respect religion and another thing to have to inconvenience the majority for any whimsical request they might have.



Ok, I suppose everything is fair game for ridicule. In that case I'll simply refrain from the ridicule. 




Edika said:


> For exampe, I recently heard that a priest here has been telling people during the shermon to avoid yoga and specificaly deep meditation as they might get posessed by demons. Being Ireland you can guess which part of Christianity he is coming from. Now if this doesn't qualify as a really stupid thing that can't go uncommented, °then I don't know what is.



Well, that is stupid. But then again, the priest you mentioned is making a claim and trying to influence decisions by others. These monks in this case are requesting special service due to a personal choice. To me, that's not nearly as stupid. 



Edika said:


> They're mentioning monks and nuns yet they keep mentioning female stuff not coming in contact with them as that would break their celibacy. Now in my book that is sexist and offensive in a passive aggresive manner.



I disagree, particularly that it is offensive. When I was young, there were plenty of women who would not talk to me because I was a young man, and they were out with their friends. If it is offensive for a celebate monk to politely ask that a message is relayed to female staff not to talk directly to them due to a personal choice, then I should be really offended that girls in bars wouldn't talk to me when I was 21.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 5, 2015)

asher said:


> I think you completely missed the point.
> 
> Pretty much ALL of their requests will mess with other paying passengers or the flight staff.
> 
> In your pizza example, the request doesn't really mess with the delivery driver very much at all, and messes with other pizza customers zero.





> 2. They are assigned seats together with a male passenger sitting next to them in the aisle seat.



A) How does this interfere with other passenger's service?
B) Is this not a request that the airline would not otherwise respect without any qualms?



> 3. Female flight attendants avoid verbal and physical contact except in the case of an emergency.



A) How does this interfere with other passenger's service?
B) Is this not a request that the airline would not otherwise respect without any qualms?



> 4. They will not require any in flight service.



A) How does this interfere with other passenger's service?
B) Is this not a request that the airline would not otherwise respect without any qualms?

etc.


----------



## michblanch (Mar 5, 2015)

I'm fine with all of those except one. 

Be allowed to preboard. 
Let's see: 
Elderly - That's cool
Babies - That's cool
Active Military - That's cool
Disabled - Super Cool

Religious denomination - ???? Nope , don't buy into that one. 

I fly a lot. I get on board put on my headphones and watch my iPad. 
So if a monk wants a drink he better tell the flight attendant.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 5, 2015)

bostjan said:


> A) How does this interfere with other passenger's service?
> B) Is this not a request that the airline would not otherwise respect without any qualms?



Taking a brief moment to give some examples. 

In answer to question A - You have flight crew moving a drink cart up the aisle. That crew is told they should respect someone's religion, which forbids the crew from following the FAA laws regarding the required informing of passengers of safety procedures. That affects other passengers in the event of an emergency. 

There's also the matter of the drinks and food. The flight crew is busy, and handles requests on the fly, but are trained to engage with the passengers. They hand out meal service based on how is closest, and that helps get everyone served faster. They aren't thinking, am I allowed to talk to this person? 

Regarding question B, yes, the flight crew does not just set aside FAA law, even if a passenger requests it.

No one is being obligated to travel on a conveyance which is a public accommodation, just as no Amish are required to own automobiles. if the Amish cannot do certain things because of their faith, they do without. The Amish cannot require others to avoid modernity because the Amish won't use it in their private lives. The public doesn't even have to dress differently on the street. The Amish can control their own actions, but not those of others. 

There was a strange court martial case during the W. Bush administration, a case regarding religious freedom. A Christian military vehicle driver was being told that she had to cover her head in order to respect the Muslim religious practices of Saudi Arabia. She refused, because she was not Muslim, and wouldn't put Allah ahead of the Christian God. That was her sincere religious belief. The Sauds wanted American solders to protect them, but still wanted those soldiers to bow to their religious beliefs. 

If the Hindu sect feels that using public accommodations endangers their religious tenets, it's up to them to either reject whatever temptations are being thrust upon them, or to not put themselves into those situations. If they need to charter private transit as the price of their beliefs, that's on them.

To claim that everyone else needs to help keep 50% of the population, including flight crew, away from a person is an undue burden, and an unreasonable accommodation to request. They can stay home.


----------



## Edika (Mar 6, 2015)

bostjan said:


> Well, that is stupid. But then again, the priest you mentioned is making a claim and trying to influence decisions by others. These monks in this case are requesting special service due to a personal choice. To me, that's not nearly as stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree, particularly that it is offensive. When I was young, there were plenty of women who would not talk to me because I was a young man, and they were out with their friends. If it is offensive for a celebate monk to politely ask that a message is relayed to female staff not to talk directly to them due to a personal choice, then I should be really offended that girls in bars wouldn't talk to me when I was 21.



As I haven't mastered the multiquote I'll just go like this.

They are not being stupid, instead incredibly clever. They're trying to influence a major company and create a precedent that would be as an example to leverage preferential treatment from any other company or public service for a different understanding of celibacy from their part.
Which ties to the sexist comment as they don't specify male staff speaking to and serving nuns of that faith as a breach of celibacy. It might be inferred or the guy was just lazy writing down the other case and thought the company would "get it". As we have a really explanatory text for monks and nothing for nuns it is easy to make the conclusion that they think women are temptresses that will sway their monks and nuns or they just don't give a shit about nuns in their faith which is sexist towards women in general and the women in their faith.

Ridicule surely is not the right way to go but when faced with people that will object to any logical arguments using as a shield "because my faith says so" then you can't really take them seriously either.

EDIT: Your comparison with women not wanting to talk to you in bars is not that successful as you're comparing two completely different situations.


----------



## vilk (Mar 6, 2015)

Sexism, even when written into a religious code (as it is in every major religion I can think of), is still wrong, bad, should be thrown out.

I don't understand how any of these ....ing religions can expect to be taken seriously when they hang on to such utter bullshit. You know, I think that belief in a higher power is a fantastically stupid way to waste your mental effort, but I realize there are _some good, even great_ ideas about living in religion. I would like to see religions, even hinduism, continue on... I just wish they'd get the .... with it already. 

Sort of a tangent but recently I think I might be off with the whole "Let's destroy religion!" train that I've been on for so long. I might be boarding the "Let's take religion and make it atheist, really just more of a glorified cultural-tradition club, giving back to the community, but no one really believes it and chooses their religion based mostly on aesthetics/personal identification/kind of like how you choose what style of clothes you wear or the music you like" train


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Taking a brief moment to give some examples.
> 
> In answer to question A - You have flight crew moving a drink cart up the aisle. That crew is told they should respect someone's religion, which forbids the crew from following the FAA laws regarding the required informing of passengers of safety procedures. That affects other passengers in the event of an emergency.
> 
> ...



I am missing something major here. Where did they ask to not be informed of the safety information that is provided on the safety information cards that passengers are obligated to read if they choose not to pay attention to the safety announcement? Also, didn't they make an exception for emergencies in the request? I thought that they asked not to have service, so I am also missing your second point entirely. 



Explorer said:


> To claim that everyone else needs to help keep 50% of the population, including flight crew, away from a person is an undue burden, and an unreasonable accommodation to request. They can stay home.



Who is making that claim? They politely requested something special. Everything you guys seem to be so pissed about, seems to me to be your assumptions about what they might do or whatever if they company says "no, we won't do that."

All I am saying is that there should be nothing wrong with asking.



Edika said:


> As we have a really explanatory text for monks and nothing for nuns it is easy to make the conclusion that they think women are temptresses that will sway their monks and nuns or they just don't give a shit about nuns in their faith which is sexist towards women in general and the women in their faith.



Maybe you are right, but to me, that seems like a little bit of a conclusion leap.



Edika said:


> Your comparison with women not wanting to talk to you in bars is not that successful as you're comparing two completely different situations.



Okay.  I agree that the analogy was not successful in getting the point across to you.

This idea that the request is somehow offensive just blows my mind. It seemed pretty polite to me. If the fact that someone else holds a different worldview than you do offends you, then I think that's your problem. I was merely trying to point out that picking on someone else for having a different world view is one thing, but getting offended is another level beyond that. I fail to see how the world view of these monks harms anyone. In this case, I still don't see how it is even an inconvenience for them to ask if it would be too much of an inconvenience for a company to accommodate that differing world view. Maybe it says something that they realize and identify that most other people would not, by default, be comfortable with their different world view.

-------------

Overall, this thread just strikes me as unneccesarily grumpy. We all have the right, of course, to be grumpy. You guys can be grumpy about this all you like. I just don't get it, so I disagree.


----------



## asher (Mar 6, 2015)

Let's try a little thought experiment:

Replace "women" with "[insert racial minority here]."

Is it racist?


(hint: yes. Try pulling "I won't sit next to [minority] here because of my beliefs" anywhere and see where that gets you.)


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2015)

asher said:


> Let's try a little thought experiment:
> 
> Replace "women" with "[insert racial minority here]."
> 
> ...



I think that's congruent with this analogy:

Take heterosexuality. You prefer not to have intimate contact with men. Replace "men" with "[insert racial minority here]".

Is the new statement racist? If so, following the same logic you used, heterosexuality is sexist.

Maybe it is, actually, and I'm just not open-minded enough to think of it that way


----------



## asher (Mar 6, 2015)

It's not, though, because one's sexuality is not a preference or selection


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2015)

Deciding who you sleep with and who you sit next to on a plane aren't exactly the same thing. Somebody is stretching it thin to be right.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2015)

flint757 said:


> Deciding who you sleep with and who you sit next to on a plane aren't exactly the same thing. Somebody is stretching it thin to be right.



How am I stretching it any further than you guys are?

Why when someone else makes an analogy, you guys are fine with it, but I make a similar analogy, and everyone piles on me.

And no, it's not "exactly the same thing" that's the point of an analogy. I even said that the logic followed was congruent, not that it was the same thing.

What am I trying to be right about anyway? Some people here got offended by this polite request from a religious sect for special service. It seems to me that it is no stretch to say that they are entitled to ask for something. If anything is a stretch, it's all of this "these people are making sexist demands."

I'm not always right, I'll admit. In this instance, I'm not even stating what is right and wrong, this is all a matter of opinion, anyway.

If you guys all think that *I* am the one using hyperbole in this thread and that no one else is, then I will gladly stay out of here, because, in that case, sadly, there is no reason for further discussion.


----------



## vilk (Mar 6, 2015)

Bojjy, no one is mad. _We like you_! If this place (especially this subforum above all) didn't have people disagreeing it would be the most boring shit ever!

And the logic isn't congruent, because those dudes themselves chose to be that way, while our sexuality isn't exactly "up to us".


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2015)

vilk said:


> Bojjy, no one is mad. _We like you_! If this place (especially this subforum above all) didn't have people disagreeing it would be the most boring shit ever!
> 
> And the logic isn't congruent, because those dudes themselves chose to be that way, while our sexuality isn't exactly "up to us".





Ok. Maybe an anology of an analogy is silly way to try to make a point. Maybe it's not, but the more I think of it the more I know it isn't *the best* way to make a point.

As far as whether the request is sexist or not, let's confer with a dictionary:

sexism: noun 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles. 
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women. 
3. ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny. 

[from dictionary.com]

Which of those three do you think applies to the request?


----------



## vilk (Mar 6, 2015)

1 & 2 pretty much. Maybe 3 but it isn't overt in the request.

And I realized it can be excused for "religious reasons". They're monks, after all, who've made a life choice to be celibate, even insofar as not allowing women to communicate with them directly. That does not make it less discriminatory in actuality, on a practical application level. Having some esoteric reason to do something doesn't change what you're doing... at least in this situation... at least in my opinion.


----------



## asher (Mar 6, 2015)

vilk said:


> Having some esoteric reason to do something doesn't change what you're doing... at least in this situation... at least in my opinion.



No, it doesn't, otherwise we'd all be stuck with giving a pass to all the Christian-fueled LGBT discrimination laws.


----------



## Edika (Mar 6, 2015)

I also see 1 and 2 and maybe 3. I do also agree that the request is polite, but the whole wording of it feels like a polite demand. Because if they don't facilitate the monks then this company obviously doesn't respect other religions and diversity. I can even see a successful lawsuit for discrimination as this is in the US which tends to be a bit more litigious even in trivial matters. I'm not saying they'll do it but with this letter they're covered. 

As I'm sure the company would accept the requests to avoid bad press, this means the monks get pre boarding incoveniencing other passengers and passengers need to be shifted out of their allocater seats to accommodate the monks.

I'd also like to say that I understand your point bostjan I just don't agree with it. Respect is earned and things like these just don't fall into these category.

On the other hand is this letter legitimate? It's easy to forge documents like these to discredit almost anyone.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 6, 2015)

bostjan said:


> What am I trying to be right about anyway? Some people here got offended by this polite request from a religious sect for special service.



I'm neither angry, upset or offended. At the end of the day I don't really care (it has no real effect on my life), but this discussion would be really boring from that perspective. 

Relax man. Disagreeing with you or something you say/how you say it is not an attempt to directly attack you. It's just discourse.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 6, 2015)

Edika said:


> So in the case a nun of that faith flew she'd had to be seated next a woman and not be spoken too by male flight attendants?



That is my understanding of the letter. If you read it you'll notice that:


The letter refers specifically to certain monks from India that will be flying on that particular day (not nuns); and 
Explicitly states that both monks and nuns of the Swaminarayam faith are forbidden contact with the opposite gender due to the celibacy requirements of their faith; and 
Requests no contact with females for those monks flying on that particular day.
 Given the above, this is a specific request on behalf of a particular group of monks, and the only logical interpretation is that if nuns had been flying that day, the letter would request that accommodations be made such that they would not have contact with males, too. But those requests were not made because they were not applicable to the situation at hand.




bostjan said:


> I see no problem here. They are politely asking a business to accommodate their wacko religious beliefs. The business can politely refuse to do so, and then this customer can try someone else. It's a free market and a free country, and they aren't hurting anyone.



I agree. The business can accommodate a relatively trivial request or not based on the circumstances at hand. I don't really see this as being any different from a group of 10 or 15 people going to lunch together and asking the restaurant to push a few tables together so they can sit together rather than having to sit at separate tables. Or going to board a plane with a guitar that I would prefer to carry on rather than check as baggage and making a request to carry it on. It doesn't really affect anyone else very much, if at all.




pushpull7 said:


> I love the "thank you for your kind consideration"



I work with a number of Indian colleagues, both in there he US and overseas, and this is a typical comment when they make a request. It is just a form of formal politeness.




flint757 said:


> Last I checked tons of religions try to use religion to justify racism, sexism and to make anti-LGBT things a reality. Why exactly would this not qualify?



I don't really see this as being sexist. It's not saying men should be separate from women because women are inferior, it is segregating genders based on a desire for celibacy and rules of their faith.

(Don't misunderstand, India definitely does not have a culture of gender equality. And the caste system is utter bullshit, too. I just don't see either at play here).




Edika said:


> They're mentioning monks and nuns yet they keep mentioning female stuff not coming in contact with them as that would break their celibacy. Now in my book that is sexist and offensive in a passive aggresive manner.



See my comments above regarding the specificity of the letter.




Explorer said:


> In answer to question A - You have flight crew moving a drink cart up the aisle. That crew is told they should respect someone's religion, which forbids the crew from following the FAA laws regarding the required informing of passengers of safety procedures. That affects other passengers in the event of an emergency.



The request was for no personal contact with members of the opposite gender (e.g., a flight attendants asking what the monks would like to drink), not general communications like the safety instructions flight attendants provide. And there was even an explicit stamen that emergency situations were an exception to the request for no personal contact. So neither the monks nor the other passengers would miss out on the safety and other emergency information.




Explorer said:


> There's also the matter of the drinks and food. The flight crew is busy, and handles requests on the fly, but are trained to engage with the passengers. They hand out meal service based on how is closest, and that helps get everyone served faster. They aren't thinking, am I allowed to talk to this person?
> 
> Regarding question B, yes, the flight crew does not just set aside FAA law, even if a passenger requests it.



I don't think this is applicable as a Hindu monk would be blatantly obvious due to style of dress, hair style, etc. Do a Google image search if you don't know how these folks dress.




asher said:


> Let's try a little thought experiment:
> 
> Replace "women" with "[insert racial minority here]."
> 
> ...



Except that this isn't about women in general, it is specifically about segregating the genders due to celibacy (and like "impure thoughts") issues. I can't imagine sitting next to someone of another race to cause issues with either unless you have a race based fetish.


----------



## asher (Mar 6, 2015)

I don't see why made up rules about sexual purity get any more credence than made up rules about racial purity.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 6, 2015)

asher said:


> I don't see why made up rules about sexual purity get any more credence than made up rules about racial purity.



Discrimination based on race, gender, etc. is wrong, as everyone should be equal. However, asking for special treatment in order to maintain celibacy is not discriminatory. It's about the sexual component between the genders, not gender based discrimination.

And if we want equality for everyone, we have to learn to accept these differences between people/cultures/religions/etc. even if we don't share those differences/beliefs/etc. Otherwise there is no equality, only a new group of people trying to homogenize everyone else around them according to what they personally believe is the "right" way to look/behave/etc. And in that case, how is it any different from the religions and other discriminatory groups you and others here rail against regularly?


----------



## asher (Mar 6, 2015)

Intolerance of intolerance is not a good rabbit hole to go down here I don't think 

My beef is with the fact that the celibacy doctrines effectively lay it out like the men are completely powerless to resist or some crap without completely discarding contact and interaction. Though less so here than traditional Islam.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2015)

vilk said:


> 1 & 2 pretty much. Maybe 3 but it isn't overt in the request.





edika said:


> I also see 1 and 2 and maybe 3.



I would be very interested to hear your reasoning behind that. I just don't see it. I am a little skeptical to see that two of you repsonded without giving reason, especially with the "maybe" part. Usually if I answer "maybe" I will expound more. Not that it is expected in general, but in this context, assuming that I do not agree, I simply think that there would be some more information explained.



edika said:


> I'd also like to say that I understand your point bostjan I just don't agree with it. Respect is earned and things like these just don't fall into these category.



When you operate a business, respect is typically given by default to customers. Potential customers maybe not. If you were working for the airline and the letter offended you, then not. Me, I just don't see what's offensive about it, so I would have treated the request with respect. Any excuse to say "no," I would have taken it and responded respectfully declining the request. 



asher said:


> I don't see why made up rules about sexual purity get any more credence than made up rules about racial purity.





By sexual purity, do you mean celebacy? If so, I won't speak of "credence" or truthfulness, since I'm not sure how that applies, but as far as respecting one's choice to be celebate, versus respecting one's choice to be a certain race, there really isn't any comparison, since the former is a choice and the latter is nonsense.


----------



## vilk (Mar 6, 2015)

saying "women can't speak to me" and saying "blacks can't speak to me" are both choices.

also, in retrospect, I'm not sure if I see #'s 1 or 3. But 2 definitely. "Women may not communicate with us or be near us" is discriminating against women. And #3 only in that it's being institutionalized by the religion.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2015)

vilk said:


> saying "women can't speak to me" and saying "blacks can't speak to me" are both choices.
> 
> also, in retrospect, I'm not sure if I see #'s 1 or 3. But 2 definitely. "Women may not communicate with us or be near us" is discriminating against women. And #3 only in that it's being institutionalized by the religion.



So it's not #1 or #3.

But it has nothing to do with devaluation or job opportunities.

In this context, discrimination means "1.the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex," and "unjust" means "not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair." In this case, you feel it is morally wrong. I suppose morals are not universal, but it's not really a treatment, since they are simply asking to be left alone, but since it has nothing to do with their valuation of women, but rather their valuation of intimate contact in general, #2 doesn't apply anyway.


----------



## vilk (Mar 6, 2015)

well then I guess it comes down to whether or not you think actions speak louder than valuation


----------



## bostjan (Mar 6, 2015)

vilk said:


> well then I guess it comes down to whether or not you think actions speak louder than valuation



But what is the action? Taking a vow of celebacy?

Or are you refering to the person who made the request? Their action was asking for special treatment for someone else.

IDK


----------



## vilk (Mar 6, 2015)

Yes, the action is taking/keeping a vow of celibacy (but I think we can all agree that this group's interpretation of the word celibacy is a little above and beyond).

I get what you're getting at. In their hearts, they don't hate women. Or at least, as far as we know, this "vow of celibacy" doesn't necessarily imply that women are lesser than men. It's a "spiritual path"... whatever exactly that means. How can we judge them if we don't understand their gods and their rules? but if you turn up the heat and really, really boil it, it precipitates ideas like "I'm so damn holy ain't no bitch can talk to me"... or maybe, "man I loves me some god. better keep these whores away so I can evolve into a sky warrior"


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 6, 2015)

So wait, is this for a flight where everyone is given their seats randomly when they get to the gate to board the plane, or is it a flight where you pick your seat when you buy your ticket? If it's the latter (which honestly, what else would it be), the author of the letter isn't just asking the airline for consideration, he's asking _everyone else on the plane_ for consideration. 

If a monk's seat ends up being next to a woman, he's expecting that complete stranger to change the seat that they paid for (potentially for specific reasons, like proximity to safety exits, restroom, or the center of the plane) to placate his religious beliefs. He's asking _another_ complete stranger (with the "correct"' gender) from another part of the plane to leave the seat _they_ paid for, to come sit next to and act as go-between for someone he's never met. Multiply that by however many monks and nuns there are on the plane that end up seated next to the opposite gender, and you could be asking for quite a bit of reshuffling.

Those strangers aren't providing a service to the airline, they're paying for a service from them. The monks and nuns are expecting complete strangers to change the terms of the service they're paying for. I can understand making a request that only effects how the company providing a service performs that service for you, but it's more than that in this case. It's potentially affect the service for everyone else on the plane.

This isn't like a Jewish person requesting a kosher meal, and then a bunch of people being like "WTF, why should he get special treatment?!?". That sort of thing doesn't require anyone but the service provider to change anything. There's nothing wrong with asking a company if they can accommodate your beliefs somehow, as long as you aren't putting out any other paying customers. 

I suppose it's possible that somehow it ends up being that coincidentally all the monks and nuns and up sitting next to someone both of the matching gender _and _willing to be their middle man, or that there will be nothing but people happy to change their seats and social interaction habits to suit them, but I don't think that's entirely likely.

Seems to me, this religious group had a few options here:

1) Don't fly.
2) Charter a private jet.
3) Provide and buy seats for caretakers to travel with them.
4) Act in a manner not in accordance with their religion (ie Deal with it).
5) Buy seats as normal, and expect everyone else on the plane to cater to their needs.

Obviously cost is probably an issue with most of those, but sometimes you have to pay extra to get the service you require, or go without. That's life.

I mean, I do understand that sometimes stuff happens and people are asked to move, and sometimes they're fine with it. I was on a long-haul flight once and a mother and her child were seated in different parts of the plane because the only seats available when they purchased them weren't adjacent. The stewardess politely asked me if I was willing to change seats with the daughter so she could sit next to her mother, and I was happy to. Not everyone's a kind or reasonable person, though, so one shouldn't just assume they'll be able to find people to bend to their needs, or for service providers to force them to. It's just not sensible.

_That's_ what's stupid about this whole thing. To me, anyway. Not that a religious group made a special request of a company, but rather the nature of the request and its implied selfishness and lack of consideration for other customers. I hope the airline told them no can do, or at most "We'll see who on board is willing to accommodate you, but we can make no guarantees."


----------



## asher (Mar 6, 2015)

See, here I thought all of that was pretty much implied when talking about it screwing with the other passengers


----------



## Explorer (Mar 7, 2015)

bostjan said:


> I am missing something major here. Where did they ask to not be informed of the safety information that is provided on the safety information cards that passengers are obligated to read if they choose not to pay attention to the safety announcement? Also, didn't they make an exception for emergencies in the request? I thought that they asked not to have service, so I am also missing your second point entirely.



I believe they asked for more than just not to have service. Did you read the same letter that I posted? 

If you were reading a letter where a group just asked not to be given food and beverage service, please post a link. Otherwise, you're deliberately ignoring much more. 

Did you know that FAA laws have led to flight crews being required to visually verify the seat belts on each passenger before take-off? That's one non-emergency example of what is being argued against. If a particular flight crew doesn't have a male member, that's a problem. 

However, you in fact hit the nail on the head: "choose not pay attention."

These monks can choose not to pay attention to the females as much as possible. That is the option which imposes the least on everyone else, especially if the monks can display their buckled seat belts to their paid male travel companion in view of the flight attendant, should the flight attendant assigned to that side of the plane happen to be female. 

Oh, dear... but what if a woman bought the window seat in that same row of three because they are going home to visit their mother in the hospital, who got there because of her father whose religious views are that women should be kept in their place and not speak unless they are spoken to? The monk decided not to buy all three seats? Why not? And now he's going to argue that the woman has to move because of religion, the same reason the woman is going to visit her mother in the hospital. 

To me, the main thing is... why not honor someone else's religion? Because I don't feel like it, and have no obligation to honor practices which I feel insult half my friends and family. That is *my* right to my beliefs, and doesn't require anyone else to take actions for me. They can be Jews, or gay, or Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim, or even a gentle Baha'i. I'm not going to ask them to eat pork, stop being what they are, or even to throw up the horns for Satan.


----------



## Explorer (Mar 7, 2015)

By the way, where are all the nimrods who wrongly claim I am against Christianity, but ignore my posting about this kind of story? 

I guess ignorance sometimes has to be cultivated and protected, lest it wither from being exposed to contrary facts....


----------



## Edika (Mar 7, 2015)

I think Grand_Moff_Tim covered me completely as this is what bothered about this request and this was the point I wanted to make before I got sidetracked with all the sexism staff. 
If they want special service then pay for it and not have to incovenience everybody else in that flight that might not want to entertain their definition of the word celibacy.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 7, 2015)

all I'm saying is I thought this forum would be more sympathetic to a bunch of guys _not_ getting laid. All I'm saying...


----------



## asher (Mar 7, 2015)

Overtone said:


> all I'm saying is I thought this forum would be more sympathetic to a bunch of guys _not_ getting laid. All I'm saying...





+rep


----------



## tedtan (Mar 7, 2015)

asher said:


> Intolerance of intolerance is not a good rabbit hole to go down here I don't think



I agree completely, but I don't see any intolerance in the original letter. What I see is a request for special treatment based on beliefs that I disagree with, but no more harmful than someone refusing to walk back to work after lunch on a certain sidewalk because a black cat had just ran across the sidewalk. Sure, if this were my friend I'd be busting his balls about it because it is nonsensical superstition, but if it were instead a stranger we had observed, my friend and I would just have a good laugh between ourselves and go on about life. No harm, no foul.




asher said:


> My beef is with the fact that the celibacy doctrines effectively lay it out like the men are completely powerless to resist or some crap without completely discarding contact and interaction. Though less so here than traditional Islam.



Again, agreed.




Grand Moff Tim said:


> So wait, is this for a flight where everyone is given their seats randomly when they get to the gate to board the plane, or is it a flight where you pick your seat when you buy your ticket? If it's the latter (which honestly, what else would it be), the author of the letter isn't just asking the airline for consideration, he's asking _everyone else on the plane_ for consideration.


 
I get what you're saying, but if this were a flight where one chooses a seat when purchasing the ticket, why wouldn't they simply have bought adjoining seats for the monks when initially purchasing the tickets in order to avoid the situation of sitting next to a member of the opposite gender? In a worse case example in that situation, only one would end up having to deal with this unless they had waited until the last minute to purchase tickets and didn't have much to choose from. But it definitely seems that someone who cares enough to make a life commitment to this would do everything they can to address the issue themselves before asking for preferential treatment if they had the ability to do so.

So based on the fact that they are in a position to have to make the request in the first place, it really seems to me like this was a Southwest Airlines type flight where the seating is first come, first serve upon boarding (hence the request for early boarding in order to choose seats that accommodate their requirements without troubling others any more than necessary). I may be reading into this a bit (but certainly no more than others), but if we look at the letter and imagine in what type of context the letter would make sense, this seems the most likely scenario.




Grand Moff Tim said:


> _That's_ what's stupid about this whole thing. To me, anyway. Not that a religious group made a special request of a company, but rather the nature of the request and its implied selfishness and lack of consideration for other customers. I hope the airline told them no can do, or at most "We'll see who on board is willing to accommodate you, but we can make no guarantees."



I'm not sure I agree that it is stupid to make the request when everyone involved is free to decline that request, and the more people necessary to fulfill the request, the less likely it will be fulfilled.


----------



## tedtan (Mar 7, 2015)

Explorer said:


> Did you know that FAA laws have led to flight crews being required to visually verify the seat belts on each passenger before take-off? That's one non-emergency example of what is being argued against. If a particular flight crew doesn't have a male member, that's a problem...
> 
> especially if the monks can display their buckled seat belts to their paid male travel companion in view of the flight attendant, should the flight attendant assigned to that side of the plane happen to be female.



I'm not sure how visually verifying that a passenger's seatbelt is buckled requires the flight attendant, regardless of gender, to either 1) sit adjacent to that passenger or 2) speak directly to that passenger. Perhaps, in the case of #2, if the seatbelt were covered over by clothing, but the letter did explicitly state that the monks are well versed in flight protocol, so this would be an unlikely occurrence.




Explorer said:


> To me, the main thing is... why not honor someone else's religion? Because I don't feel like it, and have no obligation to honor practices which I feel insult half my friends and family. That is *my* right to my beliefs, and doesn't require anyone else to take actions for me. They can be Jews, or gay, or Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim, or even a gentle Baha'i. I'm not going to ask them to eat pork, stop being what they are, or even to throw up the horns for Satan.



Absolutely!

But if you want respect from others, it helps to show them respect, too, even if you disagree with their beliefs, no?




Explorer said:


> By the way, where are all the nimrods who wrongly claim I am against Christianity, but ignore my posting about this kind of story?
> 
> I guess ignorance sometimes has to be cultivated and protected, lest it wither from being exposed to contrary facts....



I can't speak for anyone else, but when I mentioned that you had been "on an anti-Christian crusade lately" a year or so back, acknowledged one of your threads against a particular Islamic issue, and asked why you don't criticize other religions more frequently*, your own response was to link to threads about 8-string guitars, Gahndi and other non-religious topics.

I have noticed that you've posted more threads criticizing religions other than Christianity in the past few months. I'm not sure if this is standard operating procedure for you and my observations were based on a non-characteristic period or if you've started posting more threads against other religions as a result of several people mentioning your focus on Christianity lately, but it doesn't matter as neither invalidates my observations at the time I made them.


* Note that my comments were related to advising you to present yourself and your argument as objectively as possible, rather than as biased against a particular idea, as this greatly influences how you and your argument are perceived, not as me caring about the specific number of threads you've created on any given topic. You're welcome to post about whatever you want.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 7, 2015)

tedtan said:


> I get what you're saying, but if this were a flight where one chooses a seat when purchasing the ticket, why wouldn't they simply have bought adjoining seats for the monks when initially purchasing the tickets in order to avoid the situation of sitting next to a member of the opposite gender?



Yes, that's why I brought up other options they could have used in my original post. I didn't list "buy empty seats next to theirs" as an option because that could still leave them in a position of having to communicate with flight attendants of the opposite gender, rather than having a middle man in the aisle seat to do that for them.



tedtan said:


> In a worse case example in that situation, only one would end up having to deal with this unless they had waited until the last minute to purchase tickets and didn't have much to choose from. _*But it definitely seems that someone who cares enough to make a life commitment to this would do everything they can to address the issue themselves before asking for preferential treatment if they had the ability to do so*_.



I don't know why you would make that assumption. I think I have a higher opinion of humanity than most around these parts, but it's not so high that I would expect that sort of forethought and consideration of others from anyone, religious devotee or not.



tedtan said:


> So based on the fact that they are in a position to have to make the request in the first place, it really seems to me like this was a Southwest Airlines type flight where the seating is first come, first serve upon boarding (hence the request for early boarding in order to choose seats that accommodate their requirements without troubling others any more than necessary). I may be reading into this a bit (but certainly no more than others), but if we look at the letter and imagine in what type of context the letter would make sense, this seems the most likely scenario.



Obviously if they _didn't_ have a choice in where they were seated when they bought the tickets, a great deal of what I said is negated. That would be why I prefaced my post with that. However, if, like you said, you think they'd "do everything they can to address the issue themselves before asking for preferential treatment if they had the ability to do so," wouldn't the act of choosing an airline that doesn't give them the option of choosing their seats itself be inconsiderate of other passengers, knowing what it will lead to?



tedtan said:


> I'm not sure I agree that it is stupid to make the request when everyone involved is free to decline that request, and the more people necessary to fulfill the request, the less likely it will be fulfilled.



I think making a request that's inconsiderate of everyone around you when putting yourself into a situation that you could have avoided in the first place is pretty stupid, but we can't all agree on everything, I suppose.


----------



## asher (Mar 8, 2015)

I'm kind of confused about how you (ted) agree that their view unfairly victimizes/objectifies/others all women, but then also say it's harmless? It's not.


----------



## bostjan (Mar 9, 2015)

Explorer said:


> I believe they asked for more than just not to have service. Did you read the same letter that I posted?



I did. As I've stated over and over, they kept the door wide open for the airline service company to say "no."



Explorer said:


> If you were reading a letter where a group just asked not to be given food and beverage service, please post a link. Otherwise, you're deliberately ignoring much more.
> 
> Did you know that FAA laws have led to flight crews being required to visually verify the seat belts on each passenger before take-off? That's one non-emergency example of what is being argued against. If a particular flight crew doesn't have a male member, that's a problem.



Hmm. I don't know if you are purposely being obtuse, or it just comes off that way to me. Obviously, the letter covers this instance, in general, in that the female flight attendant speaks to the passenger through another passenger or directly in the case of an emergency.



Explorer said:


> However, you in fact hit the nail on the head: "choose not pay attention."
> 
> These monks can choose not to pay attention to the females as much as possible. That is the option which imposes the least on everyone else, especially if the monks can display their buckled seat belts to their paid male travel companion in view of the flight attendant, should the flight attendant assigned to that side of the plane happen to be female.



What are you getting at with this? 



Explorer said:


> Oh, dear... but what if a woman bought the window seat in that same row of three because they are going home to visit their mother in the hospital, who got there because of her father whose religious views are that women should be kept in their place and not speak unless they are spoken to? The monk decided not to buy all three seats? Why not? And now he's going to argue that the woman has to move because of religion, the same reason the woman is going to visit her mother in the hospital.



This letter was sent prior to the purchase of the tickets, no? So I think this entire argument is moot.



Explorer said:


> To me, the main thing is... why not honor someone else's religion? Because I don't feel like it, and have no obligation to honor practices which I feel insult half my friends and family. That is *my* right to my beliefs, and doesn't require anyone else to take actions for me. They can be Jews, or gay, or Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim, or even a gentle Baha'i. I'm not going to ask them to eat pork, stop being what they are, or even to throw up the horns for Satan.



If you don't feel like it, that's your perogative. In this case, these people are asking a corporation to make special accommodations. The corporation can say "no," with or without reasoning. The corporation could also simply choose not to respond. And that's my main point - how is asking the question offensive?!

If I was a Satanist, and I asked a restaurant to bring the chicken out to my table, make an encirled pentangle of salt on the table, slaughter the chicken in the middle of the table, then take it back into the kitchen and cook it, what did I just do? Did I offend a whole bunch of customers with my religious practice? No, I asked a question. If I get the answer "yes, we'll accommodate that request" from the restaurant and then follow through, then we have a conversation that could get interesting, but, since all I did was ask, and then nothing happened, it's a rather silly thing by which to become offended.

If I asked the airline to give me a seat not next to any "smelly Jews," then that's also different. I am asking, in that case, because I have chosen to be intolerant. These monks are making a special request due to a ridiculous religious oath that they took. That oath is one of celibacy, not an oath of intolerance. If a nun took the same sort of oath, I would respect that, and not be offended that she not talk to me. On the other hand, if the nun will not talk to me for a reason stated that I'm a "stinky, ignorant Slovenian," then I'd be cranky.

So what I'm ultimately missing is why request = actually doing and why celebacy = sexist. Without those to equations, I don't see how this is offensive, by your arguments.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 9, 2015)

bostjan said:


> This letter was sent prior to the purchase of the tickets, no? So I think this entire argument is moot.


 
I'm not sure that's the case. While it doesn't explicitly say anywhere in the letter whether or not the tickets have already been purchased, it does open with the line "This is a request to facilitate special requirements for Hindu monks from India *who will be flying today*." (Emphasis mine). It's possible of course that I'm just reading too much in to it, but it seems to be suggesting that the tickets have already been purchased.

You're right, though, it is just a request, and in and of itself there's nothing really outrageous about making a request. If they make the request and then make a stink about it if and when the request is denied, that'd be another kettle of fish, but we don't know how this whole situation ended.

Anyone have any follow-up info on this story?


----------



## flint757 (Mar 9, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm not sure that's the case. While it doesn't explicitly say anywhere in the letter whether or not the tickets have already been purchased, it does open with the line "This is a request to facilitate special requirements for Hindu monks from India *who will be flying today*." (Emphasis mine). It's possible of course that I'm just reading too much in to it, but it seems to be suggesting that the tickets have already been purchased.
> 
> You're right, though, it is just a request, and in and of itself there's nothing really outrageous about making a request. If they make the request and then make a stink about it if and when the request is denied, that'd be another kettle of fish, but we don't know how this whole situation ended.
> 
> Anyone have any follow-up info on this story?



The only two things I could pull up that even mentioned this request is this page and an atheist blog. I couldn't find anything else on the request, much less what happened afterwards.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Mar 10, 2015)

flint757 said:


> The only two things I could pull up that even mentioned this request is this page and an atheist blog. I couldn't find anything else on the request, much less what happened afterwards.


Same, google reverse image search on the letter gives me a couple atheist blogs, a link on Richard Dawkins website (which is funny because there's a good amount of sexism in those circles as well )


----------

