Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Want to talk about Matisyahu's religious beliefs? Please do so here. Personally I know next to nothing about his beliefs and its not a subject that I'm terribly interested in.
here are some links to articles that discuss matisyahus unwillingness to play music with females and wont even sign cds for female fans while signing them for male fans... is this what roo is all about??
well personally i would buy my tickets to roo no matter whos playing... its the atmosphere that i go for... hope its not different then years past... but seems to be headin that direction....at any rate we all have our limits of what we consider to be disrespectful... i think that some of matisyahus actions are discriminatory... just my opinion... we all have to form our own opinion, is he as bad as the taliban or other extremisits around the world? no i dont think so....does he belong at roo? no i dont think so...im not goin to dcfc but im not raising a fit over them being there (althoughi did bust some balls in good fun` in an earlier thread)... they are not discriminating in anyway.... i dont like them and wont see them.... but im not upset that some of my money goes to them... they make music that some people enjoy and they dont offend anyone in the process..80000 people should not have to pay this cats bills while he wont even acknowledge half of them with a handshake and an autograph.. if someone came to roo and said i wont play with any black people on stage, wont shake any black persons hand, and will sign cds but not for black people we would all tell him to go to hell whether its his religous beliefs or not many people do find matisyahu somewhat offensive and more and more people turn on to him and find this stuff out and decide his attitude/beliefs are not for them... i mean shiiit, even eminem will sing a song with the gayest man on earth....but matis wont play with any female on earth... everyone is entitled to believe what they want.... but if you believe women should not be allowed to play music you shouldnt be welcome at roo...... none of you think its discrimination for a culture to not allow women to perform music? in my eye thats is the ultimate in discrimination....shiit im glad janis was allowed to play and not held back by some outdated belief system that has no place in todays society or bonnaroos society.... that is why true hasidic and onther religious extremists live in their own society....(only comin out to make a buck apparently)
Last Edit: Mar 9, 2006 15:03:55 GMT -5 by keithk1055 - Back to Top
I've tried to find more information on this, and I really haven't found any to say any more than what I already said in the other thread. I also haven't found anything that really changes what I said there.
I do have a question, though. In that first Rolling Stone article, it says "Talmudic law restricts contact between the sexes and forbids women from singing in public." If it is Talmudic law, wouldn't it apply to all Jews rather than just Hasidic Jews? Obviously, not all Jews observe this particular practice. I know that Judaism has split into separate groups (Reform, Orthodox, etc.), but that is about all I know about it. I'm just curious if anybody knows anything about this.
If you were to ask a hasidic or orthodox jew they would say, yes it applies to all jews. Other sects of judaism use it more as a reference, to varying degrees, and do not take the talmuds interpretation of the laws of moses as an unarguable fact. One of the rabbis at the (reform) congregation we belong to grew up orthodox or hasidic or something but she did not agree with the rules about women touching the torah so left to become a reform rabbi.
Keith though, to you it might seem like he is descriminating, but to him to sign a girls cd who is not his wifes would be a crime against himself and the girl whos cd he signed. He respects them by NOT signing thier cd. And the values of our modern society are still pretty fucked up in many ways so you have no basis for judgement.
Edit: not to say that orthodox and hasidic are the same thing though,
Post by Lucid Interval on Mar 10, 2006 0:37:06 GMT -5
Huh i didnt know about any of this. Im not into Matisyahu alot. This religion sounds like some weird Jewish sect like Mormon or Pentacostle is to Christianity...
I'd say probably more like catholicism vs. protestantism as far as relation to christianity goes. For hundreds or thousands of years the talmud was pretty standard.
Another edit: guess the hasidic view on the talmud though is relatively new, so i dunno, maybe some would call it a weird jewish sect.
Edit: And again. orthodox and hasidim are definitley diferent, just both pretty much based on the talmud, Not quite sure if their opinions on this subject matter differetiate. Some hasidic practices go beyond what is required in the talmud, including the ordinances defining the relationship between men and women.
Keith Wow, quite a beating you're takin (mainly from the thread where this started at). Just wanted to throw some support your way. I can't and won't be tolerant of those that are sexist, racist or whatever no matter if the justification is religious or personal beliefs. For those who say it's only about the music I disagree, if Saddam Hussein (if the genocide was his religious intolerance of other religous beliefs) has a kick ass band, I won't be there. My question would be if you find sexism acceptable, where do you draw the line, when will it no longer be just about the music? I'm sure I'm comparing apples with oranges. I for one will not be seeing Matisyahu, thanks to inforoo for making me aware of his actions. And yes I know I will not be missed and that his stage area will be packed.
We live in a country with freedom of religion, which truly is an amazing thing. Personally, I find Matisyahu's beliefs to be antiquated, but not misogynistic. He won't touch women so as to show respect to his wife, family, and religion. It is a way to show enduring faithfulness, and that is something to be admired. However, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I don't consider it to be truly harmful in its given context. That's just me though.
I don't think it is just about the music either. I'm just not convinced that he or his religion is sexist. They obviously do believe that there are differences between men and women, and men are allowed to do some things that women are not allowed to do. I don't have any evidence, though, that this is out of disrespect for women rather than for some other reason. As for the hand shaking thing, for reasons stated in previous posts, that doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2006 11:38:49 GMT -5 by keithk1055 - Back to Top
Hilari, you are certainly the voice of reason (that sounds sarcastic, but is not), I do plead ignorant of the reasons why they treat women as they do, I'm sure they don't mean to disrespect women and I'm not trying to put down their beliefs because they're different from my own (atheist). But I do believe that the reasons are not as important as the act itself. Evidence as to the act being intentionally disrespectful is not necessary. Darn you lawyers
I think that's understandable. It's easy for things to get perpetuated when maybe they should not be. I guess I just think it is pretty strong to say that it is a sexist culture when I don't know any more about it than I do. (I tried to find more, but they don't seem to like to associate a lot with the non-Hasidic world, so there isn't a lot of info available that I could find.)
I certainly don't see eye to eye with him on certain beliefs, and I have no problem what so ever with you not going to his set because you think he descriminates. But saying he should not be allowed to play at roo because of his beliefs (which are inseperable from his actions), that's descrimination.
Just for the sake of argument though, where do you draw the line? will you not see a catholic preformer?, women can't be priests ya know.
As far as a sexist culture, this is from www.jewfaq.org/women.htm ... Women are discouraged from pursuing higher education or religious pursuits, but this seems to be primarily because women who engage in such pursuits might neglect their primary duties as wives and mothers.
Very interesting link. After reading it and some info off one of the pages it is linked to, I think I feel more strongly that this is not really a sexist culture. Yes, they definitely treat women differently than men. And I understand the resistance to broadly having different rules for men and women. That is something that some of the leaders of the women's movement fought hard to overcome. But I wonder if treating the sexes differently is necessarily such a bad thing.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to be degraded (I do believe I deserve equal pay for equal work) or forced to be something I don't want to be (I would rather be out working at a job than at home taking care of children). I am lucky enough to live in a time when I can do pretty much whatever I want.
And Hasidic women do not seem to have quite as much choice as I do. So, to me, it is not a culture that I would be happy in. And I can't say that all Hasidic women are happy with their role as wife and mother. But I still don't feel comfortable calling it sexist. Yes, women are traditionally expected to be "wife and mother" before all else, but this role seems to be highly venerated in the traditional Jewish culture. Women seem to be as important, if not more important, than men because they fill this role. Sexism, to me, implies negative feelings on the part of one sex towards the other. In these readings, I don't see examples of negative feelings towards women at all. Believing that a woman's duty is to be a wife and mother is an outdated concept in my way of thinking, but I just don't know that it implies negative feelings towards a woman. Again, from the links, it seems to be a positive thing in their minds.
Post by keithk1055 on Mar 10, 2006 20:03:39 GMT -5
correct me if i am wrong here... not trying to come off as any type of religion basher at all...everyone can believe and do what they want...however it is my understanding(again correct me if i am wrong) that hasidic jews teach women from day 1 that they cannot touch holy books because they menstrate and therefore are are unclean and unworthy of touching holy scriptures, they do have arranged marriages, both sides have to consent, but parents decide who you meet and women truly have a minimum amount of say in the matter, also they believe that a woman can be married at an incredibly young age, and that they believe that all non hasidics are are inferior, drug addicted, family abusers (although this is the view of many religious extremists not just hasidics) it just seems to me that if this guy was for real he woudnt be within a hundered miles of bonnaroo or madonna or mtv for that matter, and he could sell his own products so that he could abide by his beliefs about exchanging money on certain days of the week and during certain holidays, but there is not nearly as much money in that.... he is not goin to come out and say these things in rolling stone and throw away all of this money but i did notice that they made mention of his views on this topic in every article they wrote, i think they did what a publication of that nature is able to do....
and as for our society i couldnt agree more, im disgusted by it.. and i dont participate in it.. not votin, not payin taxes to these morons, (other then sales tax as it is unavoidable), the religous extremists that run this country are as bad as anywhere else.... they are just smart enough to oppress the rest of the world instead of their own people, well at least they do a good job of convincing us we are not opressed, thats what is great about roo...(although it is too expensive) you can get away from all of that shiit, women and men can both perform music, you wont be arrested for "victimless crimes" (although none of those are actually crimes anywyas) and everyone loves and respects eachother regardless of sex, religion, race, sexual preferences and all of the othe lables this society has, everyone at roo is just a person.. i love that and personnaly think matisyahu does not represent that
ps i am glad that this thread has developed into a conversation about the topic instead of everyone calling each other names and say the other is wrong (or worse)
As far as the unclean thing, this article was very interesting www.beingjewish.com/kresel/facts.html it was linked from the page that Big Dog referenced.
I haven't found anything one way or another about women being able to touch the holy books. If they cannot, I'm guessing it is because of the being connected with death as described in that article.
Here's what I respect, I think that the Hasidic Jews (not necessarily Matisyahu because I don't really know anything about him personally) really are trying to do what they believe God wants them to do; and while that doesn't fit with my standards (because I am not religious), I respect that it fits with theirs
it is definetly a hard line to draw.... i think it is wrong to say woman cant be preists too.... but bonnaroo is not a festival showcasing priests... its for musical performers, and if that catholic performer is is practicing some form of "extremist" catholic beliefs, refuses to perform with a certain group of other performers or would sign autographs for some at the exclusion of others then i would not go see them....john ashcroft for example believes dancing is a sin.. i would not be interested in seeing his act (plus did ya hear him sing his song... ouch!!) i have a lifelong friend that i regularly argue with about the existence of dinosaurs... he believes that the bones were planted by infidel governments to disprove the bible because it would have been mentioned in the bible if god had made dinos (otherwise he is completley "normal" ).....i respect his opinion but i wouldnt expect him to be an act at an atheist convention.... i would be upset if part of my ticket money was goin to him... i guess it is really hard to say whats right and wrong for roo as it is not an atheist festival, but a festival for all walks of life .... but i think that if a good portion of paying customers feel that they are being discriminated against by his beliefs they should maybe think about not having him....but hey if enough people feel that way they will make their statement by not going and if he dosnt get a good turn out he wont be back....and if he does come back i guess we all have the option not to buy a ticket and financially support him, but is that really an option? its roo ya gotta go i do admit that alot of these things are more in the "different" category rather then the "wrong" category... not too sure of any of it belongs in the "roo" category but i guess ill just pretend my money goes to the acts i see and others money goes to what they see...at anyrate its really a mute point.. im sure everyone will have a great time.. and if the worst thing that happens at roo is some poeple feeling they have been discriminated against or are paying a little for something they dont believe in it will still be a good year
Last Edit: Mar 11, 2006 1:12:08 GMT -5 by keithk1055 - Back to Top
I certainly don't see eye to eye with him on certain beliefs, and I have no problem what so ever with you not going to his set because you think he descriminates. But saying he should not be allowed to play at roo because of his beliefs (which are inseperable from his actions), that's descrimination.
Just for the sake of argument though, where do you draw the line? will you not see a catholic preformer?, women can't be priests ya know.
I assume the first paragraph was not directed towards me as I never said he should not be allowed to play at roo. However, I would argue that there may be occasions when banning a artist could be warranted and where I wouldn't consider the act of banning them discrimination.
As to where do I draw the line... I see your point about the Catholic performer, I would have to say it would be the individuals actions, whether they are Christian, Hasidic, Atheist etc., if they treat all others with respect then they have mine, I draw the line when they personally treat other individuals or groups as inferior. (in the context of this discussion do Hasidic men consider themselves superior to women? I honestly don't know, but it appears so to me.) Now for the sake of argument, you never answered the question, where do you draw the line?
i guess i would draw the line at the point where you start looking down on, or treating differently people who do not believe what you believe...or are imposing your beliefs onto others l.....if a woman wanted to be a priest i think its completly wrong to not allow that because she is a female and the powers that be feel woman are not good enough to be priests (assuming she has all of the other education and what not required to be a priest)... and what is the reasoning behind that... do they think they are not smart enough or dedicated enough to their faith, or was it just something "god" said?? i havent really ever looked into it... when religous people dont want an abortion so nobody can have one, i believe that is crossing the line, if two men or two women wish to get married and are unable to because of others beliefs, that is crossing the line...if a hasidic woman wanted to perform music it seems to me like she would have to leave her community and be a disgrace, thats crossing the line..... if a hasidic man wanted to stage dive or sign autographs for females and is unable to because someonelse believes that is wrong, then that too would be crossing the line...invading other countrys that are no threat to you, to impose your beliefs upon them and rape them of their resources is crossing the line(george bush is a habitual line stepper ... i dont know if there is a defined line that should or should not be crossed, i guess everyone has their own personal line.... i think the line at roo should be that if you cant treat everyone as equals then your crossing the line, maybe he should just not sign any cds, or shake any hands, and maybe he shouldnt perform with any other artists (no matter how capable they are of launching his career) then at least he would be treating everyone equally
it truly is an impossible question... if someone wants to hate black people or females i guess they should be allowed to do what they want.... but should proabaly do it in their own place with others who feel the way they do...and definetly not at a place that represents equality amongst everyone, but not letting them do it there would be intollerant...so i would have to sum it all up with
WHO THE HELL KNOWS.... its one of those chicken/egg scenarios
Last Edit: Mar 11, 2006 1:48:00 GMT -5 by keithk1055 - Back to Top
if someone wants to hate black people or females i guess they should be allowed to do what they want
There are a lot of things you say that I don't disagree with...but when you say things like the above quote, then it takes away from your point. I really don't see where Matisyahu (or his religion in general) hates females. Males and females have different roles in Hasidism, but from what I have read, women are no less important than men (I certaintly don't see how women are hated.)
no.... not what i meant.. sorry for the confusion.. but that remark was not about matisyahu.. it was only about the general question nol13 asked and bigdog was refering to of where do you draw the line in general... i did not in anyway mean that to apply to matisyahu... sorry about that..
how is it that you do the boxed in quote thing? im not sure on how to do that or i would have included it to be more clear... i tried doing the quote button and it put some symbols on the post... is that just what i see because it is mine or is there something im not doing?
Last Edit: Mar 11, 2006 3:40:03 GMT -5 by keithk1055 - Back to Top
I think I feel more strongly that this is not really a sexist culture
If we step back from the shackles of religion...
You are my daughter, I discourage you throughout childhood on thoughts of education, directly and indirectly you are told your purpose in life is mother and wife (barefoot and pregnant) in the mean time I treat your brother in a completely opposite fashion.
Do you think I'm sexist?
If your answer is yes, then why does a religious belief change your answer to no? If christians were still proslavery would you be accepting of their position, the bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages.
If your answer is no... Would you marry me? (sorry, I needed a little levity)
Out of curiosity, Hilari I'm very interested in how you as a lawyer (good luck in your upcoming career, I see a future in politics for you as well would argue for the other side.
I'll just post a quote from the above FAQ that I think is relavent to this discussion:
"A lot of the problem seems to be one of mis-labeling and miscommunications. There is a tendency for the media to equate Hasidism with fundamentalism and then equate that with Bible-Belt Christianity -- which does not believe in reincarnation. So what's wrong with this picture? Answer: Jews and Christians are not theologically alike. Real Jews are quite different from the "Old Testament Hebrews" you might have learned about in church. (To explore some common misconceptions about Jews, download a free copy of my interactive Speaking of Jews tutorial.)
Saying that Hasidim = fundamentalists = Bible-bangers because they are all "religious" is a lot like saying that apples = oranges = bananas becasuse they are all fruits -- that's dead wrong!
While it may be true that the fundamentalist Christians are the most non-mystical and literalist groups in the Christian world, the opposite is true of Jews. The modernized Reform and secular Jews are the ones who reject mysticism for literalist rationalism, while the Hasidim and the Orthodox are more open to things like mystical dreams and reincarnation. "
Basically I think this reinforces some interesting points made in the link on menstuation and "uncleaness" that Hilari posted above. There is a big difference between basing a menstruation ritual on the "dirtyness" of women and the mystical explanation provided in that link. Sure, if I were a woman, I wouldn't stand for it no matter how pretty you made it sound, but it is a culture and a practice that many strong, capable self-repecting women embrace.
keith: You should see a "quote" button on the right across from the subject line of each post. Click on that and it will send you to a reply that quotes that post in a box. Mess around with it a bit and use the "Preview" button to see what it looks like and you should be able to figure it out.
You are my daughter, I discourage you throughout childhood on thoughts of education, directly and indirectly you are told your purpose in life is mother and wife (barefoot and pregnant) in the mean time I treat your brother in a completely opposite fashion.
Do you think I'm sexist?
If your answer is yes, then why does a religious belief change your answer to no? If christians were still proslavery would you be accepting of their position, the bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages.
If your answer is no... Would you marry me? (sorry, I needed a little levity)
Not to side-step the question, but my answer would really depend on the culture in which this behavior occurs. I don't think it is dependant on the religion, though. I think the Hasidic culture is somewhat similar to the environment that existed some years ago in America in general (Let's say the 50's although I'm sure that's not entirely precise). Women were brought up to believe that they were to be wives and mothers while their brothers were taught that they could be the president if they wanted to. The difference is that in that culture, wives and mothers were not respected the way they are in Hasidic culture. They were sort of dismissed as women who sat at home watching soap operas and eating bon bons. In the Hasidic culture, it seems that wives and mothers are seen as filling the most vital role of all. So, while religion is the context in this case, I think attitude is the more important factor.
As for the slavery thing, I think that goes to the nature of it. Slaves, while probably believed to be important, were not even seen as human. There is no dignity in slavery whereas there can be much dignity in being a wife and mother.
Out of curiosity, Hilari I'm very interested in how you as a lawyer (good luck in your upcoming career, I see a future in politics for you as well would argue for the other side
Not being brought up in this culture, there is a part of me that disagrees with this treatment of women. Hasidic women have very limited options. They are taught from birth that they have a very specific role in life. I don't personally believe that all women are cut out to be wives and mothers. (I, for example, have begun to seriously doubt that I ever want to have children.) For those women who don't fit into that mold, I imagine it must be extremely difficult to get through each day.
Also, the woman's worth seems to be based entirely on giving care to others. This may not be the worst thing. In a way, it is truly wonderful and giving to devote yourself to others. On the other hand, it may deprive women of a sense of self. To some extent, I think we should all love ourselves and be loved for who we are rather than what we do for others. (I think a big part of the feminist movement was about teaching women that they are worth something aside from their relationships with others.)
Not to side-step the question, but my answer would really depend on the culture in which this behavior occurs. I don't think it is dependant on the religion, though. I think the Hasidic culture is somewhat similar to the environment that existed some years ago in America in general (Let's say the 50's although I'm sure that's not entirely precise). Women were brought up to believe that they were to be wives and mothers while their brothers were taught that they could be the president if they wanted to. The difference is that in that culture, wives and mothers were not respected the way they are in Hasidic culture. They were sort of dismissed as women who sat at home watching soap operas and eating bon bons.
It seems as though we bend over backward to "understand" when it comes to religion. Why? Do we really need to discuss what culture and history? It's NOW, it's the heart-land of America. And there's no place for narrow-mindedness, we can't stop it yet we need not accept it! I have a ten year old daughter and an eleven year old son, the thought of treating them differently I find repulsive. If my daughter wants to be a homemaker and she's happy then I'm happy, but for anyone to direct a child to a life of servitude is wrong, to discourage them from furthering their education is inexcusable. Religous dogma tells us what's right and what's wrong and not to question. Bulls#*t! We know what's right and as importantly we know what's wrong, why should we be tolerant of sexism because it's wrapped in the warm embrace of religion?
Actually, I think we should bend over backward to understand any culture -- be it a religion or otherwise. I'm absolutely not saying we have to agree with it, but if we don't make an effort to understand, then aren't we the ones who are being narrow-minded?
I think another thing that some of the links have brought up that has been neglected in this discussion is this: women and men are treated differently, but both are expected to live their lives according to God's design. Granted, this may leave men with more choices as far as education and work go, but they also are required to do things that women are not required to do (because of the importance of the woman's role). While men have more of a place at the temple, these pages say that the temple is not necessarily the central place for spirituality. The home is also very important for that.
Anyway, given my limited knowledge of this religion, I don't know that I will have much more to say on this. I will happily read any posts anybody else puts up, and I may throw in my two cents, but I'm afraid I have said all I can say without just repeating myself.
lol.. I thought the narrow-mindedness would come back at me. I've never been good at getting my point across. I would like to think that I'm very open minded, I think every one should have the right to believe as they wish, I don't have the time or desire to find what makes each religion tick. But it's hard sometimes to sit on the sidelines and keep my mouth shut when... you are right I'll be repeating my self... I've enjoyed the discussion with everyone, and hope I've offended no one. Take care, Al
... i dont know if there is a defined line that should or should not be crossed, i guess everyone has their own personal line.... i think the line at roo should be that if you cant treat everyone as equals then your crossing the line, maybe he should just not sign any cds, or shake any hands, and maybe he shouldnt perform with any other artists (no matter how capable they are of launching his career) then at least he would be treating everyone equally