Airline passenger asked to move for religious accomodation

[FaustianSlip]

That's not really true, though- they'll go along with their own rabbi on some issues, but their rabbi's rulings are based on the rulings of hundreds of other rabbis throughout history. And there are Haredim who don't affiliate strictly with any particular Rebbe. Meanwhile, the ruling in question, I believe from Rav Moshe Feinstein, is from a hugely respected rabbi and has passed into normative halacha, at this point. And it wasn't always like this, even amongst Haredim- the Haredi obsession with gender segregation has noticeably intensified in the last ten or fifteen years. I also find it very difficult to imagine that the men causing these issues on flights never use public transportation in New York or Jerusalem or London or wherever, not least because I've seen plenty of ultra-Orthodox men on public transport in each of these places. Perhaps if these gentlemen are so paranoid at the prospect of physical contact with the opposite sex that they're going to regularly delay flights, they should either stay home or get together as a community to charter their own, gender-segregated planes.

I'm Jewish. I understand the concept of shomer negiah and respect the wishes of people who practice it- as a general thing, it doesn't offend me if a guy says he can't shake my hand, for instance, because he's shomer negiah. But I wouldn't move in this situation, either, because why should I? This is your chumrah, dude, not mine, so it's your problem to find yourself a seat, especially if you can't even manage to exercise common courtesy when you're asking me to swap seats for your benefit. If the flight attendant had asked me to move, I would have responded, "Are you moving me to Business or First Class? No? Then I'll stay right where I am, thanks," and go back to whatever I was doing.

It's not like it's news that there are frequently women on airplanes. If that's a dealbreaker, then either buy two seats or don't fly anywhere.

[Trynn]

I have severe flight anxiety. I live in fear of this happening, because it would either make my anxiety worse, or I'd be so drugged up i wouldn't know what was going on.

Usually I just tell flight attendants that and it magically makes them keep a close eye on me (it's like they think I'll have a heart attack or something...) so I'm hoping that would help in a situation. Like his....

[2xx1xy1JD]

Ay. Yi. Yi.

I used to think my church was a little woo-wee for pouring the unconsumed Communion wine on the earth rather than down a common drain. That's mild compared to this.

I've come to understand that the wine/earth instruction is for us, not for God. We need to be reminded of the sanctity we believe is ascribed to common elements once they've been consecrated. God is so far above worrying whether consecrated wine (Her creation) is commingled with dishwater and etc., those also being His creations. It's for us.

So this practice is for the Cohen and his students/followers. That's fine. I was just so relieved to know the baggied traveler wasn't a *woman* whose patriarch had commanded her to be hermetically sealed against the world.

How did he fasten his seatbelt? How did he not suffocate? What did he think his seatmate would do if there were an emergency exit of the plane? ETA: I see, his seatmate is probably a traveling companion of his, so that was worked out. So many questions. As one of the Young Turks said, "Fundamentalism is a sickness." Ok, that's probably a paraphrase. And ETA also, as long as fundamentalism only affects its believers, who am I to call it a sickness??? It's when it damages the lives of those outside the group -- then, yes, sickness.

I have to wonder if this was real. How would someone breathe like that? Wouldn't a flight attendant want to make sure that someone wasn't about to suffocate?

[lawlifelgbt]

I just have to add something here, because it did happen at one point. I had someone freak out and try to claim religion on me to change seats...

Because we were flying as a same-sex couple, and a conservative evangelical was next to us. How, exactly, does existing impinge on someone else's religious freedom? And I'm not even going to say how much affection my wife and I were showing (because it shouldn't matter, and I think MOST people who say "I don't want to see anyone making out in public!" use it as a cover for homophobia. It's also true that because it's rarer to see, same-sex PDA naturally gets your attention- novelty bias in your brain- while most people can ignore opposite-sex PDA). Suffice to say, other people were fine, but not Mr. Conservative. Even used a slur. How Christian.

Anyway, if that sort of "religious freedom" justification is so clearly not okay, why should this be? It's the person's responsibility to sort it themselves. Others can help only if they want to. It reminds me of my good friend, who is Muslim (so no pork). At each place, she would monitor her own food/talk to waitstaff to make sure X or Y did not have pork if it wasn't obvious. If she was at my home, I would not serve it as an important part of the meal, and would warn her if it wasn't obvious (fun fact, most canned baked beans contain some pork- that was where I would warn, and offer another side, because she was my kind, polite friend- not an asshole like that guy).

[OkToBeTakei]

I just have to add something here, because it did happen at one point. I had someone freak out and try to claim religion on me to change seats...

Because we were flying as a same-sex couple, and a conservative evangelical was next to us. How, exactly, does existing impinge on someone else's religious freedom? And I'm not even going to say how much affection my wife and I were showing (because it shouldn't matter, and I think MOST people who say "I don't want to see anyone making out in public!" use it as a cover for homophobia. It's also true that because it's rarer to see, same-sex PDA naturally gets your attention- novelty bias in your brain- while most people can ignore opposite-sex PDA). Suffice to say, other people were fine, but not Mr. Conservative. Even used a slur. How Christian.

Anyway, if that sort of "religious freedom" justification is so clearly not okay, why should this be? It's the person's responsibility to sort it themselves. Others can help only if they want to. It reminds me of my good friend, who is Muslim (so no pork). At each place, she would monitor her own food/talk to waitstaff to make sure X or Y did not have pork if it wasn't obvious. If she was at my home, I would not serve it as an important part of the meal, and would warn her if it wasn't obvious (fun fact, most canned baked beans contain some pork- that was where I would warn, and offer another side, because she was my kind, polite friend- not an asshole like that guy).

Unrelated anecdote I spent 5hrs on a flight with a very young 'new' couple next to me. I was in the aisle seat. They proceeded to for the majority of the flight as we say where I am from, 'winch the face of each other.'

I was in the aisle seat and MrOK was in the opposite aisle seat. He was no help whatsover as he just kept winking at me and alerting me to when it was getting a bit frisky, with those head nods you do. Could have killed him :lol:

The young couple 18/19 maybe, had met on a holiday they were all on to celebrate the end of school.

I get that folk can feel uncomfortable and I'm not into huge PDA's myself. It just amused me with this pair. I would have felt precisely the same if they had been same sex but I realise that is not common. It should be. It will be (power of positive!)

All these religious practices that the rest of society has to accommodate would go a lot better if the people practicing them would accord the same courtesy to those around them.

Above all else the parts of any religion which supposedly sets a person apart as 'better' more 'moral' than you. When that attitude is on display discreetly its horrible anyway but like in this case when it is full on in your face it's a very arrogant and ignorant behaviour. Be it Christian Jew, Muslim or any faith.

[ven]

This happens quite frequently these days . It' s an extreme form of " guarding your eyes" because yes! we evil women may lead to unfruitfull spilling of the seed by just sitting next to a guy ;)

Edit: the guy with the bag has more to do with kabbalistic beliefs, something with flying over cemetaries and the bag is the necessary fysical boundary

[Librul]

One of the problems I have with this whole scenario (and I have a lot of problems with this entire situation!) is the airline's quisling attitude. Post 9/11, flight attendants have a lot of power to remove people from the plane and I suspect that on many planes, if we wimmin folk would object, refuse to move, simply ignore the request, etc., WE would be the ones de-planed, not the man demanding protection from girl cooties.

[ShepherdontheRock]

I just have to add something here, because it did happen at one point. I had someone freak out and try to claim religion on me to change seats...

Because we were flying as a same-sex couple, and a conservative evangelical was next to us. How, exactly, does existing impinge on someone else's religious freedom? And I'm not even going to say how much affection my wife and I were showing (because it shouldn't matter, and I think MOST people who say "I don't want to see anyone making out in public!" use it as a cover for homophobia. It's also true that because it's rarer to see, same-sex PDA naturally gets your attention- novelty bias in your brain- while most people can ignore opposite-sex PDA). Suffice to say, other people were fine, but not Mr. Conservative. Even used a slur. How Christian.

Anyway, if that sort of "religious freedom" justification is so clearly not okay, why should this be? It's the person's responsibility to sort it themselves. Others can help only if they want to. It reminds me of my good friend, who is Muslim (so no pork). At each place, she would monitor her own food/talk to waitstaff to make sure X or Y did not have pork if it wasn't obvious. If she was at my home, I would not serve it as an important part of the meal, and would warn her if it wasn't obvious (fun fact, most canned baked beans contain some pork- that was where I would warn, and offer another side, because she was my kind, polite friend- not an asshole like that guy).

Even beyond religious freedom, it shouldn't be everyone else's job to know how to accomodate your specific needs, and bend over backwards for you.

I've been asked to move on planes so families can sit together. And usually, it's fine because they'll offer me the same seat a few rows up. But don't just sit down in my seat, or I'll call the flight attendant if you don't move.

I also remember in thanksgiving dinner my immediate family were asked to make appetizers for the big dinner. One of my aunts who follows fad diets complained that they weren't gluten free. We apologized for not knowing. She then proclaimed "I've been gluten free for all these years!" Because it was really our job to accomodate her, on top of all the vegetarians/pescetarians/borderline vegans/people who don't eat butter in our family. (she's also not gluten free for any reason other than it being the new health fad. We'd have been more sympathetic if she had celiac)

TLDR; don't expect people who have no obligation to to bend over backwards for your every preference.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I'm posting this discussion from another blog: rechovot.blogspot.ca/2015/07/another-seat-change-scandal.html?showComment=1438791142909#c4886632628793376078

The blogger isn't saying that the guy on the airplane was right. He does, however, try to argue this:

Of course, society as a whole doesn't view sitting next to someone as a sexually charged situation - but society as a whole has an abysmal track record for sexual safety. I personally don't believe that switching seats was required by Jewish law, but frankly, if people would observe such strictures then we would be able to avoid much of the rampant sexual harassment and abuse we tolerate as "normal" in our world.

I don't think this blogger is stupid, but he's pedaling a line that's just wrong. We've seen this before - banning forms of consensual physical contact doesn't actually prevent non-consensual contact. In fact, if you place a ban on any sort of sexual arousal at all, you turn women into feared sources of potential sin, and that sets them up for hatred, harassment and dehumanizing treatment.

I'm also seeing a whole lot of faulty logic. How on earth do you compare actual data on how existing legal protections fall short, with your idealized version of what the world would look like if everyone followed a different set of rules?

[Idolatry]

I'm posting this discussion from another blog: rechovot.blogspot.ca/2015/07/another-seat-change-scandal.html?showComment=1438791142909#c4886632628793376078

The blogger isn't saying that the guy on the airplane was right. He does, however, try to argue this:

I don't think this blogger is stupid, but he's pedaling a line that's just wrong. We've seen this before - banning forms of consensual physical contact doesn't actually prevent non-consensual contact. In fact, if you place a ban on any sort of sexual arousal at all, you turn women into feared sources of potential sin, and that sets them up for hatred, harassment and dehumanizing treatment.

I'm also seeing a whole lot of faulty logic. How on earth do you compare actual data on how existing legal protections fall short, with your idealized version of what the world would look like if everyone followed a different set of rules?

LOL, well this moron could move to Saudi Arabia, and then this wouldn't be a problem, and everything would be great. Also I don't think "harassment" and "abuse" mean what he thinks they mean.

[FaustianSlip]

That blogger's argument is absurd. It's no different than saying, "If only we still had all-encompassing segregation between the races, we wouldn't have any more of the racism that we tolerate as 'normal' in our world." If Orthodox Jewish men are so out of control and oversexed that they literally cannot sit next to a woman without needing to fondle or sexually assault her, then there is something very, very wrong in the Jewish community generally and the Orthodox community in particular. What a nonsensical attempt to justify (or at least mitigate) blatantly un-halachic behavior.

[Anny Nym]

Well, it is an option when he insists to make a fool of himself

[bBvideo 560,340:2kgk2n9h]

[/bBvideo]

starting at 4:15...

"You have this one life, enjoy it, don´t live in a plastic bag!"

That is actually some great, great advice. Some one needs to put this in cross stitch and up on pinterest. Seriously!

[August]

That blogger's argument is absurd. It's no different than saying, "If only we still had all-encompassing segregation between the races, we wouldn't have any more of the racism that we tolerate as 'normal' in our world." If Orthodox Jewish men are so out of control and oversexed that they literally cannot sit next to a woman without needing to fondle or sexually assault her, then there is something very, very wrong in the Jewish community generally and the Orthodox community in particular. What a nonsensical attempt to justify (or at least mitigation ate) blatantly un-halachic behavior.

There would be no problems with sexual harrasment if thise uppity women weren't trying have jobs and things!

Isn't the rule about women literally for period cooties, though? They're not even allowed to touch their own wives until their period has been over for a week. And not sexually touch, but brush by or anything. And I'll have to go and check, but I think there's a sharing seats rule, too. Period cooties.

I have a fantasy where this happens to me, so I say I'll switch, stand up, grab his arms and lean in really close to him and whisper "I'd quite like to sit closer to the bathrooms, because I have my period". And then just calmly walk off. Although, given how shaky I was the couple of times I had to stand my ground over travelling with babies/toddlers I'd never have the guts.

[Cheetah]

There would be no problems with sexual harrasment if thise uppity women weren't trying have jobs and things!

Isn't the rule about women literally for period cooties, though? They're not even allowed to touch their own wives until their period has been over for a week. And not sexually touch, but brush by or anything. And I'll have to go and check, but I think there's a sharing seats rule, too. Period cooties.

I have a fantasy where this happens to me, so I say I'll switch, stand up, grab his arms and lean in really close to him and whisper "I'd quite like to sit closer to the bathrooms, because I have my period". And then just calmly walk off. Although, given how shaky I was the couple of times I had to stand my ground over travelling with babies/toddlers I'd never have the guts.

Have you read "The Year of Living Biblically" by AJ Jacobs? He spends a year trying to actually follow all of the laws of the Bible, including the ones from Leviticus that almost no one follows. It's pretty amusing. His wife would go around and sit on every chair in the house when she had her period just to give him a hard time.

[FaustianSlip]

The Year of Living Biblically is entertaining, but it shows an exceptionally poor understanding of how Jewish law works. Jews believe that the Torah is comprised of the written Torah (i.e. the first five books of the Bible) and the oral Torah (i.e. the Talmud). The written Torah is the law, the Talmud is the practical guide, is probably the best way of explaining it. Most (all?) Orthodox Jews will tell you that both the written and the oral Torah were handed down to Moses at Sinai, and both are equally holy and binding. So yes, it is incredibly difficult to follow just the written Torah, but basically no observant Jew would say that you're supposed to look only at the written Torah with no consideration given to the oral Torah- the Karaites made that argument, and they left the Jewish fold. I have no patience for people like the gentleman in this story, asking women to move because he's afraid he'll touch them, but I get tired of strawmen arguments like the ones made in The Year of Living Biblically, which really only show me that the person making them did basically no research on how Jews approach Torah and Jewish law (though I think he did visit a Chabad rabbi at some point in the book, who did try to give him a rundown on how Jewish law is viewed through a traditional lens). I think the book has marginally more merit as a critique of Christianity, in that Christianity completely rejected the Talmud, but still tries, at least in some quarters, to maintain some aspect of Levitical law.

[2xx1xy1JD]

The Year of Living Biblically is entertaining, but it shows an exceptionally poor understanding of how Jewish law works. Jews believe that the Torah is comprised of the written Torah (i.e. the first five books of the Bible) and the oral Torah (i.e. the Talmud). The written Torah is the law, the Talmud is the practical guide, is probably the best way of explaining it. Most (all?) Orthodox Jews will tell you that both the written and the oral Torah were handed down to Moses at Sinai, and both are equally holy and binding. So yes, it is incredibly difficult to follow just the written Torah, but basically no observant Jew would say that you're supposed to look only at the written Torah with no consideration given to the oral Torah- the Karaites made that argument, and they left the Jewish fold. I have no patience for people like the gentleman in this story, asking women to move because he's afraid he'll touch them, but I get tired of strawmen arguments like the ones made in The Year of Living Biblically, which really only show me that the person making them did basically no research on how Jews approach Torah and Jewish law (though I think he did visit a Chabad rabbi at some point in the book, who did try to give him a rundown on how Jewish law is viewed through a traditional lens). I think the book has marginally more merit as a critique of Christianity, in that Christianity completely rejected the Talmud, but still tries, at least in some quarters, to maintain some aspect of Levitical law.

Yes, the Year of Living Biblically is not the Year of Living Jewishly.

It would be like reading the US Constitution as a stand-alone document, without any of the cases or commentaries about it. The document itselfs says nothing about abortion, same-sex marriage, Miranda rights, etc., but we say that certain things are unconstitutional based on Supreme Court cases and the lines of reasoning that evolved from them. Contrary to what some conservatives may think, the intentions of the Founding Fathers are irrelevant, and we assume that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, interpreted by the courts on an ongoing basis. [Fun fact: the Canadian Charter of Rights was only written in 1982, and one of the authors went on to become Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, he had to deal with the same-sex marriage issue and was actually shocked when the court said that the Charter required it. Everyone accepted that it was the Supreme Court, not the Prime Minister/author of Charter, that had the final word: http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/04/15/ ... rtien.html]

Rabbinic Judaism (ie. the form that exists today across all movements, except for traditional Ethiopian Jews and the Karaite offshoot) is basically a legal system, quite similar to the common law system. For every law, you've got tons of regulations, commentary, binding decisions, judicial innovations, etc. I find that a lot of people, both Christian fundies and those who oppose them, have absolutely no idea about this. The volume of all this stuff is huge - if you read one double-side page of the Talmud every day (which is considered a fast rate of study), it would take you 7 years to read the whole thing. Yes, many of the laws from Leviticus are still followed by traditional Jews today - subject to 3,000 years of regulations, commentaries and rabbinic rulings. The biggest changes - getting rid of temple sacrifices and criminal penalties - had nothing to do with modern sensibilities at all. The change was forced by the destruction of the Temple and the Sanhedrin by the Romans 2,000 years ago. So, bacon-wrapped shrimp still isn't kosher and you're still supposed to avoid linen/wool blends in fabrics, but you don't get to stone gays or sacrifice sheep.

[ShepherdontheRock]

There would be no problems with sexual harrasment if thise uppity women weren't trying have jobs and things!

Isn't the rule about women literally for period cooties, though? They're not even allowed to touch their own wives until their period has been over for a week. And not sexually touch, but brush by or anything. And I'll have to go and check, but I think there's a sharing seats rule, too. Period cooties.

I have a fantasy where this happens to me, so I say I'll switch, stand up, grab his arms and lean in really close to him and whisper "I'd quite like to sit closer to the bathrooms, because I have my period". And then just calmly walk off. Although, given how shaky I was the couple of times I had to stand my ground over travelling with babies/toddlers I'd never have the guts.

Wow, it goes that far? I thought it was just don't have sex with your wife.

It's too bad, bc women are the horniest right when their periods' up (so I've heard.) Many of my guy friends have told me they do not care what part of the cycle a girl's on, as long as she's horny.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Wow, it goes that far? I thought it was just don't have sex with your wife.

It's too bad, bc women are the horniest right when their periods' up (so I've heard.) Many of my guy friends have told me they do not care what part of the cycle a girl's on, as long as she's horny.

The Orthodox version of the rule has a bunch of additional restrictions designed to prevent anything that could possibly lead to sex.

In some communities, husbands and wives won't ever touch each other in public, because if they were touching at some times and not others, other people would know if the wife was on her period or not. To keep some privacy, they follow the period rules in public at all times, and just touch in private.

[Trynn]

Yes, the Year of Living Biblically is not the Year of Living Jewishly.

It would be like reading the US Constitution as a stand-alone document, without any of the cases or commentaries about it. The document itselfs says nothing about abortion, same-sex marriage, Miranda rights, etc., but we say that certain things are unconstitutional based on Supreme Court cases and the lines of reasoning that evolved from them. Contrary to what some conservatives may think, the intentions of the Founding Fathers are irrelevant, and we assume that the Constitution was intended to be a living document, interpreted by the courts on an ongoing basis. [Fun fact: the Canadian Charter of Rights was only written in 1982, and one of the authors went on to become Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, he had to deal with the same-sex marriage issue and was actually shocked when the court said that the Charter required it. Everyone accepted that it was the Supreme Court, not the Prime Minister/author of Charter, that had the final word: http://www.thestar.com/news/2007/04/15/ ... rtien.html]

Rabbinic Judaism (ie. the form that exists today across all movements, except for traditional Ethiopian Jews and the Karaite offshoot) is basically a legal system, quite similar to the common law system. For every law, you've got tons of regulations, commentary, binding decisions, judicial innovations, etc. I find that a lot of people, both Christian fundies and those who oppose them, have absolutely no idea about this. The volume of all this stuff is huge - if you read one double-side page of the Talmud every day (which is considered a fast rate of study), it would take you 7 years to read the whole thing. Yes, many of the laws from Leviticus are still followed by traditional Jews today - subject to 3,000 years of regulations, commentaries and rabbinic rulings. The biggest changes - getting rid of temple sacrifices and criminal penalties - had nothing to do with modern sensibilities at all. The change was forced by the destruction of the Temple and the Sanhedrin by the Romans 2,000 years ago. So, bacon-wrapped shrimp still isn't kosher and you're still supposed to avoid linen/wool blends in fabrics, but you don't get to stone gays or sacrifice sheep.

I always thought the book was more about christians who insist on so following Old Testament rules, not Jews really.

[August]

Have you read "The Year of Living Biblically" by AJ Jacobs? He spends a year trying to actually follow all of the laws of the Bible, including the ones from Leviticus that almost no one follows. It's pretty amusing. His wife would go around and sit on every chair in the house when she had her period just to give him a hard time.

I haven't, but I've meant to. Leviticus is the best bible book.

[nastyhobbitses]

Just to throw it out there, the majority of mainstream/liberal Jews think that guys like these are complete nutjobs. We don't like them any more than a lot of Christians on this board like people like the Duggars.

Also, if I had an encounter with this guy, I'd refuse to move...and make my Star of David necklace extra conspicuous. If you can't sit six inches away from a woman for a few hours, your faith in God and your moral convictions are not strong at all. Seriously, screw people of any creed who think that the world needs to stop and start at their faith-based convenience. You have the right to practice your religion, but you do not have the right to infringe on others' rights (beyond reasonable requests) in the name of your religion. So if you want to wear a hijab, go right ahead. If you want to refrain from using electricity on Fridays, do your thing. If you want to say grace in a restaurant before you eat, go on and do that. And again, reasonable requests (hey, could you please make sure that there are no pork products in this dish?) are totally cool. But don't make other people bend their lives around you because you can't exercise a little self-control or responsibility.

[DeFrauder]

Wow, it goes that far? I thought it was just don't have sex with your wife.

It's too bad, bc women are the horniest right when their periods' up (so I've heard.) Many of my guy friends have told me they do not care what part of the cycle a girl's on, as long as she's horny.

For some reason, the cooties do not count when the wife is preparing food for her husband. Somehow the cooties cant be transferred from her hands to the food. This has always puzzled me.

[nastyhobbitses]

For some reason, the cooties do not count when the wife is preparing food for her husband. Somehow the cooties cant be transferred from her hands to the food. This has always puzzled me.

Anything to justify being lazy and making your wife do everything for you ;)

Actually, I recently read an article about how a lot of ultra-Orthodox private schools in New York are almost comically non-compliant with education standards (religious/private schools have to give basically an equivalent or better education to what you'd get in public school), since very few secular things are taught; some students do not even have basic English proficiency. However, the female students tend to get a bit more secular education, since they're expected to support the family financially while their husbands study Talmud all day long. (And actually, this particular case reminds me a lot of the issues that come from an SOTDRT-style education: some of the former students who signed a petition to get the state to investigate said that they feel numb, empty, and useless because they don't know how to do anything besides read the Talmud, but are still expected to support these gigantic families.)

[tropaka]

Actually, I recently read an article about how a lot of ultra-Orthodox private schools in New York are almost comically non-compliant with education standards (religious/private schools have to give basically an equivalent or better education to what you'd get in public school), since very few secular things are taught; some students do not even have basic English proficiency. However, the female students tend to get a bit more secular education, since they're expected to support the family financially while their husbands study Talmud all day long. (And actually, this particular case reminds me a lot of the issues that come from an SOTDRT-style education: some of the former students who signed a petition to get the state to investigate said that they feel numb, empty, and useless because they don't know how to do anything besides read the Talmud, but are still expected to support these gigantic families.)

I don't know about New York, but a former student in Quebec sued the Ministry of Education for not making sure his school complied with educational requirements:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014 ... ation.html

Ex-student of ultra-orthodox Jewish school system in Quebec wants compensation for poor education

Barely literate and unemployable, Yonanan Lowen is demanding Quebec’s education ministry pay $1.25-million for failing to ensure its mandatory curriculum was followed in privately run Hassidic Jewish schools.

[GeoBQn]

An Orthodox friend shared this photo on Facebook. It's from an Amazing Savings in New Jersey. I think I'm going to be sick.