In this installment of my ethics questions, I will discuss religion as it affects other people. In my first installment, I discussed placebo pills, and delved into drugs and transplants and medical confidentiality in later installments.
So, I'm considering converting to Judaism. But I want to make a fully educated decision, so I have been following some other converts on their journey while reading the religious texts and learning the customs as much as I can. Today, one person wrote about her concerns with family when she became Shomer negiah, which basically means she won't touch anyone of the opposite sex beyond her family and spouse.
But the meaning of the phrase slipped my mind while I was reading, so I looked it up, and ran across a rather interesting article in the New York Times Magazine. Basically, the woman in this situation was making a deal with her real estate agent. When she reached out to shake his hand, he refused, saying that, as an observant Jew, he did not touch women. The woman was offended, and the author of the column was equally offended, saying that while his religious preferences could extend to his diet and dress, they could not affect his business, and he should treat her as he treats his male customers.
So, the basic dilemma is: If my religion affects you, do I still have the right to practice it?
Well, going back to look at this woman's situation... I frankly think she overreacted. I mean, he most certainly treated her with the courtesy he treats his male customers with, he just declined a handshake because of his culture. While she may feel a little indignant, the fact is that he does have the right to express his religion however he chooses. Since his religion is not harming her, only hurting her pride, and certainly not violating her rights, he has the right to continue to practice it.
It is, of course, her choice if she chooses to go to another agent, but what will it accomplish? She's being intolerant of his beliefs, and making a statement, yes, but he'll go on continuing to practice that way, despite her feminist outrage.
This all makes me wonder if it would have been different if the real estate agent had been a woman, and the client male. Would he have reacted the same way this woman did?
On the other side, a person taking off of work for a religious holiday could be said to be interfering with business by doing so. So, should the company fire the person for doing such a thing? As long as the employee is taking off days that were allowed in the employment agreement, I think all of you would agree that this would most certainly be wrong, and unlawful.
Now, of course, there are limits to my belief. If someone's religious beliefs consisted of harming another individual, whether child or adult, then it's a whole other story. All humans have the same rights, and here in America, those rights extend to religious beliefs. If you feel they affect you too personally, then move on... I'm sure you can find someone else that will provide the service without those religious beliefs.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I agree that the woman overreacted. As long as someone's beliefs aren't hurting or hindering someone else's life, then there's no reason to be offended. He wasn't telling her she was "unclean" or anything, only that he wasn't allowed to touch other women. I see no problem with that.
It's the same with most lifestyle choices. If a vegetarian were to refuse a dish that had meat in it while they were a guest at someone's house, would that person think that their cooking had been insulted in some way? It might be a bit offsetting, of course, but certainly not insulting.
I agree that there is a line though, where it goes from harmless to harmful and in that case it should definitely be objected to. This line can blur, though, such as in cases where Christian orphanages have denied homosexuals the ability to adopt children. Those couples could go to another orphange to adopt, but it could be construed as discriminatory and potentially harmful to a child who might not get adopted by anyone else.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
You see...I've been telling everyone for the last decade that religion is just bad for business.
The woman overreacted and I'm actually quite suprised that the Agent didn't respond with a statement to the author of the article.
-acertainsaint-
That would depend upon how it affects me. If you wanted to cut out one of my vital organs as some sort of sacrifice to your gods, then my religious tolerance will wane a little. Within the context of the story above though, I think the observant Jew is well within his rights to not touch women. However, since I see no reasonable purpose behind the practice, I think the woman was well within her rights to take offense.
I think that if I knew that he practiced this custom, I think I might take my real estate business elsewhere as well ... and I'm a man. The reason is that it is a custom that I don't approve of. It is hard to interpret his actions any other way than his seeing women as something unclean. He does not need my approval to practice his religion, but he does need my approval to take my money. My withholding the monetary transaction may convey the idea that there are people who see his custom as objectionable (which I would hope would get him to actually THINK about it) and that there is a price to pay for practicing it. He may conclude that his custom is worth the price ... if so fine. Or he may conclude that there really is no rational reason for him to practice this particular custom and it is therefore not worth it ... if so even better.
"Outrage" is a bit strong. Disapproval is more appropriate. Yes, she is making a statement. And I have no problems with her statement.
Suppose the person had been equally polite throughout the transaction but when it came time to shake hands he said, "Sorry, I cannot shake your hand because all women are inherently dirty". Would the woman in this have "overreacted" if she canceled the transaction and went to another real estate agent whose beliefs are more reasonable? I may be wrong but I'm guessing that you would say, "No". But why is this different?
The only difference is that a religious belief is attached to the first one and a personal belief is attached to the second. But both beliefs are equally ridiculous. Both beliefs are equally deserving of disapproval. I think it is a VERY BAD idea to somehow exempt religious beliefs from the same scrutiny we would give personal ones.
Oh, and by the way ... just for the record, I think the person is within his rights to hold that personal belief too. A person doesn't need my approval to hold any particular personal belief.
Depends upon the man. I tend to not take insults against myself as seriously as I take insults against other people I care about. If I knew beforehand that she felt that way I would most likely take my business elsewhere. If the problem came up unexpectedly I'm not sure what I would do. I'll just wait until the situation arises and then decide.
But what if the employee were taking off days that WEREN'T allowed in the employee contract? In that case, I think firing would be OK and lawful, even if the days were part of a religious holiday.
Exactly, when I read your link to the story I was of the impression that was what she was thinking about doing ... finding someone else to provide the service. I don't think she intended to have the guy arrested, or even sued. I don't see that as an overreaction.
I also agree that everybody has a right to practice their religious beliefs. But nobody has a right to demand that others not be offended by them. There are certain sects that perform clitorectomies on infant girls. I find that offensive and I make no apologies for it (so offensive, I think it should be outlawed by International Law .. religious or not). There is a Christian sect, Santaria, that ritually sacrifices chickens. I find that offensive and I make no apologies for it (although I do not advocate the practice outlawed). There are Islamic sects that REQUIRE women to wear burkas. I find that offensive, and I make no apologies for it (although again I do not advocate the practice be outlawed).
The only problem I have with your take is that at points you imply that religious beliefs should get approval simply because they are religious beliefs ... as though attaching the tag "religion" to it means that it is no longer open to criticism. Well, with that ... I disagree.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
Hence my addition at the end. His practice is by no means harming her, nor he is forcing his rights upon her, simply expressing his own beliefs.
That has not been my impression in studying this custom at all. Rather, I think it proves he shows a certain amount of respect to not touch any woman other than his wife. A woman practicing the same custom is similarly showing respect by not touching any man other than her husband. Furthermore, these commandments that they have are ways to show dedication to god. By resisting temptation and not touching those of the opposite sex, they are doing just that. While it may seem primeval to you, it doesn't necessarily mean that the man thinks of women as unclean. He may, but that's not necessarily the case.
The same thing is true when Muslim women choose to wear burkas, or just a simple headdressing. They are not doing so because they are required to, but they make the choice to because they believe it promotes modesty. You may not like it, and you're well within your rights to not, but that doesn't mean they think of it in the same way you do.
As I just explained, this is not the only difference at all. It is the purpose of the interaction that matters. If one man, say, looked the other way when a woman showed bare skin because he thought women were unclean, and another man did that same thing because he wanted to, say, honor his dead wife, the first would be a bad person, and the second would not, don't you agree?
Instead of jumping to conclusions and assuming that the man does it because he thinks women are unclean, wouldn't it be better to, oh, I don't know, actually question him about his beliefs and find out why he does them? That would probably inspire a great deal more thought than you simply taking your business elsewhere, and probably in both parties involved.
Of course. Then he's breaking his contract, and it wouldn't be discrimination. But if I got 30 days of paid vacation each year, and took 15 days off, scattered throughout the year, for religious holidays, making sure to give the proper notice and whatnot, and I was still fired because the boss didn't agree with my religious practices, that would be religious discrimination. I don't entirely understand why you're arguing against things I purposefully leave open for the things you throw at me... you can certainly see that I'm going to agree...
Of course not. But rather than immediately reacting in outrage when I (as an example) say that I don't touch men other than my family or husband, and taking your business elsewhere, or complaining to some columnist, wouldn't it be far more productive to take the time to learn why I don't?
I'm mainly upset at the columnist, rather than the woman in the situation. She makes the claim that this man was imposing on the woman's rights, because he wouldn't shake her hand. She made the claim that he didn't have the right to impose his religious beliefs on her, and because this particular belief affected something most Americans see as culturally normal. But he was merely practicing his own religion. She, of course, has the right to go elsewhere, but he also has the right to practice his beliefs, even if they affect her indirectly.
I am not talking about the extreme cases you were referring to, simply the innocuous customs that some people follow, whether they are religious or cultural, or whatever.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I think we need to determine what we agree on and what we don't.
Agreements as I see them:
(1) We agree that the right to practice religious customs is not absolute. We both draw the line at physical harm.
(2) We both agree that the real estate agent has the right to practice this particular religious practice.
Disagreements as I see them:
(1) I think it is reasonable for the woman to take offense at his actions; you don't.
(2) You think the fault lies primarily with the woman's/advice columnist's unwillingness to attempt to understand the real estate person's custom. I think the fault lies primarily with the practice of that particular religious custom.
The next thing for me to do is to state that in the big scheme of things this is a VERY MINOR incident and not worth arguing about. So instead I want to argue a principle which I think IS worth arguing about. That principle is "respect for religion".
I have already stated that I think that people should be allowed to believe what they want ... anything they want. So long as their actions fall within acceptable norms (which for the sake of this argument shall be the laws of the land) then I have no problems allowing people to believe anything they want. To me religious tolerance falls under that.
Having said that, I DON'T think that we should necessarily forgo criticism of what a particular person believes. Beliefs should NOT be given that type of respect ... not even religious ones (ESPECIALLY religious ones).
With that in mind, let me address some of our disagreements:
(1) You say that the custom is designed to show respect:
Respect to whom? God, possibly. His wife, possibly. The woman with which he was doing business ... no. It might be respect if she didn't want the contact. But in this case, she is offering her hand to seal a business deal involving trust. The real estate agent is most certainly NOT showing her respect. He is rejecting her sign of mutual trust.
Now, let's look at the rationale for showing respect to God: Why would it show respect for God? It would do so only if God had commanded it. But it is not a good thing to show respect for a senseless command. What is the rationale for God commanding it? What does it do good? Is this the best way to achieve that good? What are the costs? I do not think that a rational case can be made for such a blanket commandment.
What about showing respect for the wife? This would a good thing for the man to do if his wife was so paranoid as to think that simply touching another woman in such an innocuous way is a threat to their vows. If so then I truly feel for the man, he has a problem of that needs professional help. I do not think it reasonable that the woman need consider this off-the-wall scenario before taking offense.
I do not think an argument can be made that that particular religious custom is based on rational reasons.
(2) You imply that the woman should have tried to understand why the real estate agent did what he did and not have taken offense:
and:
What I find interesting about this is that according to you it is incumbent upon the woman to understand and accommodate the religious custom of the real estate agent. Why is it not incumbent upon the real estate agent to understand the woman? She was going to be buying property and spending (most likely) a great deal of money. She may very well have been wondering if she made a good deal, or whether or not she was being taken advantage of. She may well have NEEDED the reassurance.
(3) You say:
That may be true, but I don't think so. While you recognized that real estate agent has a right to his religious beliefs, you have either never considered or you think that his religious belief trumps the woman's cultural expectations. You certainly seem to be giving the religious practice priority over culture.
(4) I want to end by discussing the burkas.
I mentioned that there are some Muslim countries who enforce women to wear burkas. By that, I meant that they put the force of law behind it. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
You mention that there are Muslim women who wear the burka voluntarily. So what? That's not a problem. If they want to then I would never attempt to stop them.
BUT, why do they WANT to wear those things? Do they want to wear them because they think they are comfortable? If so FANTASTIC, then not only would I not attempt to stop them, I would encourage them to wear it. Do they want to wear them because they think they look good in them? If so, FINE. I dont think it does much for them, but my opinion isn't important in what another person wears. If asked I would encourage them to follow their own opinion. Do they want to wear it because of their religion? Then, I feel sorry for them. I don't view that as a good thing, but even then I'm not going to tell them they shouldn't wear it. Finally, Do they not want to wear it at all? The only reason they do so is because their local law prescribes it? Then I would support any attempt to have the law changed. It is a bad law.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
It is hard to interpret his actions any other way than his seeing women as something unclean.
That has not been my impression in studying this custom at all. Rather, I think it proves he shows a certain amount of respect to not touch any woman other than his wife.
As I understand the Halakha's prohibitions against touching (or Negiah), this prohibition originates in an interpretation of two verses in Leviticus (which is never a good sign)...
"None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am HaShem." (Leviticus 18:6)
...and...
"And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness." (Leviticus 18:19).
Now, since I think it unlikely that there was a danger of the woman in your example being too closely related to the man, then his decision to apply the prohibition must have originated in the latter verse's commandment against touching women who are "unclean" (Niddah).
How do you think YOU would react if someone came up to you and pointed at you and said, "women are unlcean, and I don't want to touch you."? That's essentially what this guy did and that being the case, I think it would be completely reasonable for the woman to take offense.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
I think I see one major flaw in your reasoning that is driving all the others. You don't understand that religion is ALSO a choice and that people make those choices for many different reasons. You also don't fully understand the reasoning behind some of these religious beliefs, but mvenus took care of that one.
"Or he may conclude that there really is no rational reason for him to practice this particular custom and it is therefore not worth it "
So you would ask him to forgo his religoius beliefs because you don't see a rational reason in it? If you asked him, I'm sure that he would have a reason that seems very rational to him. People don't make choices that affect their entire lives without thinking that they're rational. Wouldn't you like to be sure of that man's reasoning before writing him and his beliefs off as irrational?
"There are certain sects that perform clitorectomies on infant girls. I find that offensive and I make no apologies for it (so offensive, I think it should be outlawed by International Law .. religious or not). "
I'm not entirely sure why you brought this particular practice up as an example of a religious practice similar to not shaking a woman's hand. Mvenus specifically said that religious practices are ok as long as they don't hurt anyone. This practice definitely hurts someone: a defenseless child and scars her for life. There's no comparison.
"There are Islamic sects that REQUIRE women to wear burkas. I find that offensive, and I make no apologies for it"
But women make the choice to be Islamic and wear the burkas. Of course, in certain countries it is required, but that is a legal issue and a political one, not a religous one. I don't believe that a country should require all its citizens to conform to the beliefs of one religion, but I do believe that if a woman chooses to wear a burkas because she chose to be Muslim, then it deserves respect, not offense. Some women see the practice as very vital to their lives and NOT wearing it as a violation of their very being.
France found the practice offensive, too, and girls felt so strongly about being able to wear headscarves that they actually demonstrated to protect that right: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/26/france7666.htm, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=3225. Turkey did the same thing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4424776.stm.
Doesn't the fervent opposition to these laws by Muslim women themselves indicate that they aren't necessarily being FORCED to wear the headscarves and burkas but truly believe that it is something worthwhile? Wouldn't you like to find out the why behind the practice before dismissing it as offensive or repressive?
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
Of course religion is a choice. I have no problem with that. The important thing is whether or not it is a good thing. People do make bad choices.
Er ... no. Go back and read what I wrote. I want him to forgo his religious beliefs because HE doesn't see a rational reason for it.
Fine, then he can live with it and with the consequence of lost business. I have no problem with that.
With respect to religion, it seems to me that they DO make choices that affect their entire lives (and the lives of others) without thinking.
OK, I'll bite ... what makes this custom rational?
The reason I brought it up is because to me mvenus' argument is that we should give religious beliefs a special status. I used that example as a reminder that religious beliefs can be very harmful, and of the type of harm that it can cause. Why isn't this belief eradicated? Why does it even exist at all? The reason is that it is religious. No secular-based belief would remain that long.
Wait a second ... why do you say this isn't a religious one? What is the justification for it? Religion! It may be a legal issue, it may be a political issue, but it is also a religious issue. As I stated in my response to mvenus, I have no problems with a woman who WANTS to wear it. If a woman thinks the clothing is comfortable or that she looks good in them, then I think it is a good thing to wear them. If she wants to wear them solely because it is part of her religion then I don't think it is a good thing, but even then I have no problems with her wearing them.
So do I. That is why in my post I used the word "forced". The implication should have been that it was not a choice.
And what are their reasons for believing that? If it solely to please their religion despite thinking that the clothing is hot, oppressive, ugly and there are better options available, then it is NOT a good thing. It is not a rational belief.
Again, I am not advocating that the practice be prohibited. I am advocating that the practice not be FORCED.
Perhaps for them ... but there is a sizeable number of muslim women who would like to opt out. In Iraq, before we turned it into a radical muslim state very few women wore the burka. So given other options perhaps muslim women would opt out of the practice.
Er... what is behind it is religion.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
"I want him to forgo his religious beliefs because HE doesn't see a rational reason for it."
And yet you would do something to try to convince him that his beliefs were irrational. You would, in effect, "punish" him for his practices in what seems to me to be an effort to dissuade him from them.
"With respect to religion, it seems to me that they DO make choices that affect their entire lives (and the lives of others) without thinking."
This is your opinion and I'm sure that a very religious person would say that some of the things you did were choices that you made without thinking. Religion is a choice that can be made with deliberation, as mvenus is doing by researching the customs before converting.
"what makes this custom rational?"
The man believes, as mvenus said (and since she has obviously researched the practice, I'll go with what she asserted), that he is showing respect to his wife by not touching another woman. He believes that there is a higher power that he is also showing respect for by not disrespecting the vows he made. This is rational reason to him, and even though you may not believe that touching the opposite sex shows disrespect for your significant other, this man does and to him, it is rational.
My basic point is that just because you don't understand or don't believe what that man believes, there is no reason to punish him or take business away from him because of it. If he were disrespectful to you, hurting someone, or had an inherently offensive reason for it, that's one thing. Doing it because you lack understanding is another thing entirely.
"why do you say this isn't a religious one? What is the justification for it? Religion!"
This is where yo'ure not understanding my point. That's probably my fault, so I'll try to clarify. People can choose their religion. People can choose which practices to follow and which beliefs to ascribe to. God will not come down and smite me if I identify as a Muslim but don't wear headscarves, he's not going to lock me in jail because I choose Buddhism over Christianity.
The reason that country's mandating religious practices is a legal matter and not a religious one is because it takes away that choice. The people who live there no longer have the freedom to choose their religion or to choose their practices within that religion because the LAW, not religion, not God, has mandated it. If they don't follow those practices, there will be tangible, earthly consequences. It's the same with a family that forces their daughter to wear burkas because they are religious, even if she doesn't believe that it's necessary. The reasons are religious, but it's not the religion that is forcing someone. THAT is what I mean when I say that religion is a choice, and usually not one that is made lightly.
"given other options perhaps muslim women would opt out of the practice. "
Perhaps they would, which is why the choice should be open. Nevertheless, by saying that the choice should be open to allow people to practice what they want to practice, that, to me, includes other people being understanding of those practices. There shouldn't be consequences like loss of business because of someone's religious practices simply because someone else finds it offensive.
"what is behind it is religion"
Religion is more than the word, you know. There are reasons given and rationale behind it that obviously only the people who subscribe to that religion are going to find truly and utterly rational. Nevertheless, we should be taking into account those reasons, especially the person's personal reasons, which may differ slightly or greatly from someone else's who practices the same thing. As mvenus said, one man may refuse to shake a woman's hand out of respect for the vows he made to his wife, another may refuse to do it because he thinks the BIble says that women are unclean. One is benevolent, the other malevolent, and the reason makes all the difference.
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
It would be an effort to show my disapproval of what I think is a ridiculous custom. IF it makes him reconsider his beliefs, then it is a GOOD THING ... even if he ultimately concludes that following his religious beliefs is worth the price of lost business.
I certainly know a lot of intelligent people who do chose to be religious, but I do not know of a one who has as of yet provided me with an argument that withstands scrutiny.
How is he showing his wife respect? Does his wife think that if he shakes the hand of a person with whom he makes a business deal that he will be overcome with lust and be unfaithful to her? If she truly believes that then, yes, he is showing her respect. But he has a severe marriage problem ... his wife is a paranoid lunatic. If she is sane enough to know that it means they are giving each other a sign of mutual trust with respect to the business deal then he is showing his wife the same respect by NOT having sex with the woman. So interestingly, this is ONLY a rational custom if his wife is irrational.
I have the right to do with my money what I want. If he practices a custom I don't like, it IS a potential reason to not do business with him.
Actually he wasn't disrespectful to me. He was disrespectful to the woman with whom he was doing business. She offered her hand as a sign of her trust in his integrity. He refused it. It offended her. That is the fact.
Now, you are claiming that she should not have been offended. That for some reason we should give his RELIGIOUS custom more respect than her CULTURAL one.
The reason that country's mandating religious practices is a legal matter and not a religious one is because it takes away that choice. The people who live there no longer have the freedom to choose their religion or to choose their practices within that religion because the LAW, not religion, not God, has mandated it. If they don't follow those practices, there will be tangible, earthly consequences. It's the same with a family that forces their daughter to wear burkas because they are religious, even if she doesn't believe that it's necessary. The reasons are religious, but it's not the religion that is forcing someone. THAT is what I mean when I say that religion is a choice, and usually not one that is made lightly.
(1) Following this logic, nothing is religious. God isn't going to do anything because God doesn't exist.
(2) Saying that a country's mandating religious practice a legal matter and not religious one, is equivalent to saying that a country mandating against murder is a legal matter and not a moral one. It is both.
(3) If muslims are correct and their God does exist, then perhaps God HAS mandated that women wear burkas.
(4) Most often one's religious affilitations are NOT made on careful analysis. It is made on the basis of what one's parent's religious affiliations are.
You keep saying that other people should be "understanding" as though this was some deep philosophical subject. It isn't. For the most part the reason for these customs are simply traditional religious practices. There is no REASON for them other than that is the way they have done it. I UNDERSTAND that. I just don't happen to think that alone justifies anything.
(1) Reasons are not rational because people find them to be. They are rational because they are justifiable by logic.
(2) We should take all reasons we can possibly fathom into account. But we should not forgo logic.
(3) I don't find the custom justifiable by claiming that the man is showing his wife respect. (a) He could show his wife the same respect simply by loving her and not having sex with others, (b) he is showing the other woman disrespect. So neither is justifiable.
Before I quit, I want to reaffirm: I think this particular religious belief is silly and stupid. But overall, it is minor and not worth arguing about on its own merit. My argument is really an argument about principle ... and that principle being that we should give a person's religious beliefs special dispensation or priority over other regular beliefs. I think this is not a good thing.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France
I'm not saying that religious practices should get MORE consideration and respect than cultural ones, I'm saying that they should get the SAME consideration. One theory of the handshake's origination is that it was used in the Middle Ages to show the other person that you didn't have concealed weapons (1). Another theory, interestingly enough, is that Egyptian rulers used to "shake hands" with statutes of gods in order to transfer their power to the "diviine ruler" (2). We certainly don't use it in either context today, instead it is simply a symbol of respect and equality between two people. Is there a "rational" reason for it to be such a symbol other than cultural background? No.
People in other countries use many other methods of greeting other than handshakes and might even find our use of handshakes strange. For example, in Cambodia they simply put palm-to-palm in front of their chest as a greeting (3). If the woman had extended her hand to a Cambodian man and he had done that instead of shaking her hand, would she have been offended?
(1) http://soc302.tripod.com/soc_302rocks/id8.html
(2) http://www.blurtit.com/q158501.html
(3) http://www.brucevanpatter.com/world_greetings.html
-------------------------
Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress. --Mahatma Gandhi
My Blog: http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/kablock
My PhotoBlog: http://takingpictures.wordpress.com
But you condemn the woman for not taking the real estate agent's religious practice into consideration without ever once saying anything about the real estate agent's failure to consider the woman's cultural practice. Your actions argue against your words.
Furthermore, we have already considered the real estate agent's religious practice ... it is objectionable.
Cheers,
DB
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France