Checking Your Religion Before Boarding the Plane

A few years ago I boarded an El Al airplane at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel headed back to the United States. I had a lot running through my mind. Earlier that morning I watched as two female colleagues of mine were arrested at the Western Wall for the odd crime of praying while wearing tefillin (phylacteries). While those two women rabbis were being detained at the police station in the Old City of Jerusalem I sat in a conference room with a dozen other colleagues listening to the former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky explain how he hoped to solve the issue of religious and gender discrimination at the Western Wall plaza.

As I settled into my seat on the plane and readied myself for the long flight home, I was tapped on my shoulder by a Haredi Orthodox man and asked if I'd give up my seat so he could sit there and not be forced to sit next to a woman. On any other day I likely would have explained to this man that I had already spent time and energy procuring my bulkhead seat with extra leg room (I'm tall) and was already situated in my assigned seat so I would not be able to acquiesce to his request. On this particular day, however, my denial was based on principle. His religious views would not trump my right to my assigned seat. The man then asked the woman next to me to give up her seat so he could sit next to me and avoid violating his religious convictions of sitting next to a woman for a prolonged period of time. My seatmate simply looked at him and said, "Absolutely not!"

The practice of seat switching on airplanes to accommodate the Haredi men who won't sit next to the opposite sex has gotten out of hand. After my mother's flight landed in Israel a couple of weeks ago, I called her to check in. When I inquired about her flight she lamented that it was very late taking off from Newark because of a frustrating game of "musical chairs" in which the flight attendants had to orchestrate the seat switching fiasco so families who wanted to sit together were still able to do so after the Haredi men refused to sit in their assigned seats.

Unfortunately, it's not just about the Haredi men causing turmoil on airplanes over sitting next to women. There has also been unrest in the friendly skies when it comes to what some ultra-Orthodox Jews consider immodest movies. Last week a passenger from Beit Shemesh reportedly damaged two viewing screens and attacked the cabin crew during his rampage on an El Al flight. He was angered that the airline was showing a movie that he felt was indecent based on his religious views.

Michigan's Religious Freedom Act is Dangerous

Imagine a Jewish man speeding his car at dangerous speeds down a residential street. The police officer pulls him over for reckless driving, but the man explains that he was breaking the civil law because his religion demanded he get home before the Jewish Sabbath begins. He cites the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act as his defense and demands the officer let him be on his way. Of course, such a case would be ridiculous, but that is the slippery slope that we could face in my home state should this bill pass the State Senate and then be signed into law by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

While I am a rabbi and an observant Jewish person, I am opposed to this bill, known as Michigan HB 5958. Opponents of this legislation recognize that such a law would give people the ability to discriminate and use their religious tenets as a legal defense. Our country shouldn't let people use their religion as an excuse to break the law or discriminate against others. And that is precisely what this bill has the potential to do as I wrote in an op-ed published today on TIME.com:

Freedom of Religion Shouldn’t Be Unconditional

Have you ever heard of a rabbi who was against religious freedom? I certainly hadn’t until last week when I became one. Well, I’m not really against religious freedom per se, but I am against the “Religious Freedom and Restoration Act” (RFRA). That bill, known as HB 5958, was passed by the Michigan House of Representatives on December 4 and could soon be passed by Michigan’s Senate and then signed into law by the Governor. I am concerned.

It would seem that any congressional bill that advocated for religious freedom would be a good thing. After all, I believe that one of the most cherished benefits of living in a democracy like the United States is that we all have the right to practice our own faith. However, this bill, if signed into law, would have many negative consequences. (A similar bill was ultimately vetoed by the Governor in Arizona.)

HB 5958 seeks to “limit governmental action that substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion,” which includes “an act or refusal to act, that is substantially motivated by a sincerely held religious belief, whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief.” This language would allow individuals to choose not to service other individuals on the basis of their religious beliefs. Imagine if a bakery owner was asked to produce a wedding cake for two homosexual men who were getting married. Claiming that his deeply held religious beliefs forbid homosexuality and therefore gay marriage, the bakery owner would be able to legally refuse to sell this couple a cake. In other words, his bigotry would be upheld by state law.

Another example would be a Jewish pharmacist who refuses to fill a medicine prescription for a fellow Jew with gelatin capsules on the basis that selling non-kosher pills to another Jew violates a religious law he follows. Perhaps a Catholic pharmacist would refuse to fill a prescription for birth control pills or an abortion pill. How about a Muslim shopkeeper who could, under HB 5958, refuse to sell a bottle of wine to a fellow Muslim, citing his own Islamic beliefs.

A few years ago I debated this topic while leading a seminar for second-year medical students. The question posed to the group was whether it was ethical for a Jehovah’s Witness health care worker to refuse to perform blood transfusions based on religious belief. Could they simply request that another health care worker perform such a procedure, or might this lead to a situation in which each medical employee of a hospital would have the ability to refuse certain procedures based on their own religious affiliation, causing chaos and confusion, not to mention risking the patients’ health?

The intent of HB 5958 is to protect the religious rights of Michigan’s citizens. But it would actually allow for religious tenets to be used for discrimination against individuals. [...]

CONTINUE READING AT TIME.COM