Ban on women entering Hindu temple rescinded

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I have chosen the Telegraph article since IMHO it is better written than that of the Indy:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/28/indias-top-court-revokes-ban-women-menstruating-age-entering/

Yes some other religions have restrictions on menstruating women-Judaism, Rastafarianism, some forms of Christianity. But wholesale bans on women are rare. However, was the courtroom the correct place to decide on this issue?

[Gordon]

Looking at the article it looks to me like the court are over-ruling an argument from tradition so as to remove discrimination.

It may have been the historical case that support for the tradition was regarded as being authoritative, by adherents of the tradition that is, but clearly those whose were actually being discriminated against saw it differently and they have simply made use of an alternative source of authority to rectify their disenfranchisement.

Personally I can't see a problem with using the law to remove discrimination on the basis of tradition, especially since the very nature of tradition is that those who adhere to it will tend to resist change.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Looking at the article it looks to me like the court are over-ruling an argument from tradition so as to remove discrimination.

It may have been the historical case that support for the tradition was regarded as being authoritative, by adherents of the tradition that is, but clearly those whose were actually being discriminated against saw it differently and they have simply made use of an alternative source of authority to rectify their disenfranchisement.

Personally I can't see a problem with using the law to remove discrimination on the basis of tradition, especially since the very nature of tradition is that those who adhere to it will tend to resist change.

This was an extreme form of discrimination. Would you advocate secular law being applied in all cases of religious discrimination?

[Gordon]

This was an extreme form of discrimination. Would you advocate secular law being applied in all cases of religious discrimination?

I think any form of discrimination is fair game for review and change whether it is religious or not, and if it is established there is indeed discrimination then it should be remedied. That discrimination is based on long tradition is, I think, a poor defence if that is the only defence.

There may well be other avenues aside from the law: I seem to recall Muirfield Golf Club, which was a bastion of men-only privilege, changed their tune in the face of not hosting major tournaments. 

[Humph Warden Bennett]

OK then what about Mount Athos?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos

In this case secular law gives the monks power over who can enter their parish.

[Gordon]

OK then what about Mount Athos?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos

In this case secular law gives the monks power over who can enter their parish.

Then secular law is being used to create a mini-theocracy and is discriminatory - seems indefensible to me but this is what happens when religious privilege and tradition is being protected. It may be that nobody wishes to challenge the arrangements but they are overtly discriminatory nonetheless.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Then secular law is being used to create a mini-theocracy and is discriminatory - seems indefensible to me but this is what happens when religious privilege and tradition is being protected. It may be that nobody wishes to challenge the arrangements but they are overtly discriminatory nonetheless.

That is the  secular law. The monks are  protected under secular law. You cannot have it both ways.

[Gordon]

That is the  secular law. The monks are  protected under secular law. You cannot have it both ways.

I can think that the secular law, by protecting tradition that discriminates against women (or any other group), should be changed.

I was reading the link you posted which noted that along with women 'Female animals, chickens, cows, ewes, nanny-goats, mares, and sows are also barred except for female cats, female insects and female songbirds.': I'd say that equating women with mares and nanny-goats is demeaning and discriminatory (not to mention nauseating), and is indefensible in a civilised and progressive society.

That is the problem with traditions: they get taken far too seriously by some. 

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I can think that the secular law, by protecting tradition that discriminates against women (or any other group), should be changed.

I was reading the link you posted which noted that along with women 'Female animals, chickens, cows, ewes, nanny-goats, mares, and sows are also barred except for female cats, female insects and female songbirds.': I'd say that equating women with mares and nanny-goats is demeaning and discriminatory (not to mention nauseating), and is indefensible in a civilised and progressive society.

That is the problem with traditions: they get taken far too seriously by some.

We are now discussing a monastery on a mountain. Not exactly a mainstream society.

[Gordon]

We are now discussing a monastery on a mountain. Not exactly a mainstream society.

Overt discrimination isn't excusable on the basis of size.

[Rhiannon]

I think the reason that secular law steps in is because it is tradition, rather than it being an article of faith. Maybe this is why some countries ban the veil, yet we still allow religions to discriminate on grounds of sexuality.

[Udayana]

I have chosen the Telegraph article since IMHO it is better written than that of the Indy:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/28/indias-top-court-revokes-ban-women-menstruating-age-entering/

Yes some other religions have restrictions on menstruating women-Judaism, Rastafarianism, some forms of Christianity. But wholesale bans on women are rare. However, was the courtroom the correct place to decide on this issue?

Obviously not. There was nothing preventing the temple officials from engaging their brains and changing the rules decades ago. If they show themselves to be incompetent then the only recourse is to take the issue to the secular courts.

[Udayana]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-45885996

Crowds of agitated protesters in Kerala attacked female devotees, many of whom turned back as a result.

Several people including an old woman were injured as crowds threw stones at vehicles and attacked police officers.

So much for court rulings then ...