Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MrDarwin · 01-11-2002, 08:44 AM

The article:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31292-2002Jan11.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31292-2002Jan11.html</a>

Dark Jedi · 01-11-2002, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrDarwin:
<strong>The article:
<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31292-2002Jan11.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31292-2002Jan11.html</a></strong>

Hmm, I never had a problem with it. It was not introduced to me that way, either.
Sensei told us that it was implimented as a pause, to make you think about what you are about to do. Entering the mat requires the proper mindset if you wish to avoid injury. If you don't take the time to think about it, you stand a stronger chance to injure yourself or others.

But then, Sensei said this in Japanese, and his son translated, so my acount is hearsay..

copernicus · 01-11-2002, 03:58 PM

When I was on the Ohio State Judo Team, nobody thought of the bow in a religious sense. It was a ritual part of the sport--like boxers touching gloves before a match. What we learned very quickly was to bow without taking our eyes off of our honored opponents.

Sephiroth · 01-12-2002, 02:33 AM

Oh, geez. That has to be the most ridiculous law suit ever made.

MrDarwin · 01-12-2002, 05:19 AM

I guess I find it a bit funny because conservative Christians are always screaming "special rights!" yet don't seem to see the irony when they pursue "special rights" for themselves...

Pantera · 01-12-2002, 05:47 AM

The article says it was Muslim kids didn't it? I suppose they might see bowing to a picture as a problem. Ho hum, much ado about nothing anyway.

ohwilleke · 01-14-2002, 09:12 AM

I personally think that the Muslim suit was quite reasonable and should have prevailed. They weren't just bowing, they were bowing to a picture of a deceased leader . . . engaged in a minor form of ancestor worship.

manhattan · 01-14-2002, 10:29 AM

Based on the facts presented in that article, I think I agree.

To make a parallel, it's legal to make people stand when the judge enters a courtroom, but not legal to make them stand for the Pledge of Allegience. Same same here. If the bow is to your opponent or the referee or someone, that's OK. Bowing to a graven image of the founder of the sport is idoltry.

What's unclear to me from the article is whether the competitions might reasonably be public accomodations to which the establishment clause might apply. Certainly someone can make you bow as a condition of entering their church or home. If these are private competitions, the same standard should apply. If they are funded by state education funds, for example, the establishment clause would apply.

01-11-2002, 08:44 AM	#1
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Judo Bow Not Religious, Judge Rules The article: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31292-2002Jan11.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31292-2002Jan11.html</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-11-2002, 03:58 PM	#3
copernicus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Bellevue, WA Posts: 1,531	When I was on the Ohio State Judo Team, nobody thought of the bow in a religious sense. It was a ritual part of the sport--like boxers touching gloves before a match. What we learned very quickly was to bow without taking our eyes off of our honored opponents.

01-12-2002, 02:33 AM	#4
Sephiroth Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 625	Oh, geez. That has to be the most ridiculous law suit ever made.

01-12-2002, 05:19 AM	#5
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	I guess I find it a bit funny because conservative Christians are always screaming "special rights!" yet don't seem to see the irony when they pursue "special rights" for themselves...

01-12-2002, 05:47 AM	#6
Pantera Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Cambridge, England, but a Scot at heart Posts: 2,431	The article says it was Muslim kids didn't it? I suppose they might see bowing to a picture as a problem. Ho hum, much ado about nothing anyway.

01-14-2002, 09:12 AM	#7
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	I personally think that the Muslim suit was quite reasonable and should have prevailed. They weren't just bowing, they were bowing to a picture of a deceased leader . . . engaged in a minor form of ancestor worship.

01-14-2002, 10:29 AM	#8
manhattan Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: New York, NY, USA Posts: 400	Based on the facts presented in that article, I think I agree. To make a parallel, it's legal to make people stand when the judge enters a courtroom, but not legal to make them stand for the Pledge of Allegience. Same same here. If the bow is to your opponent or the referee or someone, that's OK. Bowing to a graven image of the founder of the sport is idoltry. What's unclear to me from the article is whether the competitions might reasonably be public accomodations to which the establishment clause might apply. Certainly someone can make you bow as a condition of entering their church or home. If these are private competitions, the same standard should apply. If they are funded by state education funds, for example, the establishment clause would apply.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.