why should we pay to placate irrational behaviour?
According to this article, Orthodox Jews in Melbourne who fail to use pedestrian crossings lawfully have had their tickets for jaywalking rescinded, and they are demanding to have ratepayers spend more money to condone and placate their irrational behaviour.
Their behaviour is the result of their religious belief that they should not touch anything electrical on holy days, so they choose not to push the button to activate the pedestrian crossing signals. They expect the Glen Eira Council to install an automated system, which does not need to be touched, at intersections at an approximate cost of $2000 per intersection.
I thought that all citizens are required to obey the law of the state. Religious practice is a choice, and belief is a private matter. The state is not required to make different rules for different people. It is expected to provide freedom of religious belief and practice within the law. Religious belief is not an excuse or a justification for breaking the law or an exemption from obeying the law.
So why should Glen Eira ratepayers and the citizens of Victoria (state and local governments are being expected to contribute to the costs) pay extra to indulge the irrational behaviour of some citizens? This does not sound like the separation of church and state to me. It sounds like the state is making an irrational decision of its own. If the Orthodox Jewish community in Gen Eira wants these automated pedestrian devices, it should raise the money for them itself and donate it to the council.
A group called the Kingdom of Yahweh (no relation to Judaism as far as I know) is reported to be defying the law by deliberately driving cars with fake number plates and fake licenses, and the police consider them a threat to society.
So why does one group of people receive the support of the state (the government, the police and the local council) to either disobey the law or make taxpayers pay more so they can obey the law in a manner of their choosing, while another group who also chooses to disobey the law is considered dangerous?
I think both these groups are dangerous because they consider themselves above the law. It doesn’t matter why they believe this; the only thing that matters to the public is that the behaviour of these people is potentially dangerous and a threat to the health and safety of others.
You might also like
|
|
|
|
Other posts you may find relevant and interesting
- the secular state and religious holidays, 22 February 2008
- FOI on food hygiene in the City of Yarra, 21 May 2009
- the ethics of citizen journalism, 27 December 2008
- common sense, discrimination and human rights, 12 December 2009
- broccoli is a political weapon, 6 May 2009
December 8th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
You’re an idiot mate.
I have only recently subscribed to your blog and have generally found it to be somewhat interesting but seriously this is just a ridiculous, irrelevant and irreverent rant.
To kick off, what does this have to do with Fitzroy? (yes that’s why I subscribed)
Why would you even bother trying to compare members of the Kingdom of Yahweh with Orthodox Jews – are you serious? (i ask this assuming that you are over 21- disregard if not)
Surely there is a more interesting point to this who issue, that adults should be responsible for themselves when crossing the road and that more should be done facilitate safe informal road crossing.
I am not religious (any type) and have no Jewish ties or heritage.
Justin.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 8th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Hello and goodbye (I’m anticipating you unsubscribing soon). As my about statement claims, this blog is about “the suburb of Fitzroy in Melbourne, Australia, and reflections on life”. Hence the “ridiculous, irrelevant and irreverent rant” you’ve just read – that’s quite a compliment.
In case it was too subtle for you to understand, I was comparing two social groups who are breaking road and traffic laws. One gets the support of the state and one gets pursued by the Police. It’s about double standards and how religion corrupts the secular state. Does that help?
There’s a button to push to activate the crossing system. You push it. Can it get more “informal”? If people refuse to use the system provided that is their problem and the state should not have to accommodate their irrational behaviour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 18th, 2008 at 10:32 am
i see the old-media-derived expectation that bloggers also have to “stay on message” and aren’t allowed to stray from some narrow commercial interest is still alive and well, even among blog readers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
December 18th, 2008 at 11:53 am
It’s particularly annoying because I am on message with this post – it’s consistent with my stated purpose and with previous posts about strange social phenomenon. Oh well, I have to accept some idiots. It’s better to be read than not read!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0