Gender segregation.

The natural state of streams is when they are open to the entire public, the religious for some reason decide that they are comfortable with separation, why would they impose this on the public space?

It is impossible to impose secularism in this context because it is the natural state – that the stream or spring is open to everyone…

In other words, the religious comes with an external consideration and asks to arrange public order according to his private consideration, the secular comes with a request to leave the normal situation and not to maintain any artificial division between the different genders.

Your argument is reminiscent of the argument that says that buses on Shabbat are secular coercion because I don't want them to be, you don't want to get on, don't force public order to proceed according to your whims.

The natural state is that I steal your pants. You decide for some reason that you are comfortable with your pants, why would you force it on me?
The “naturalistic state” is a completely empty justification

Exactly. To the same extent that people want to walk naked on the street. Why do you force them not to do so? The default is that everyone walks however they want.

B”Z, the natural state is not determined arbitrarily, the natural state is determined directly from reality. In reality, I know that Nahal has two options:
1. To be without gender restrictions
2. To be with gender restrictions.

The natural state is the absence of restrictions, this is what has been the case until now and this is what can be seen in reality; now you come and demand changes based on pants arguments? Good health, there is no reason to say that your religious lifestyle will govern the public space.

There is also no justification for your lifestyle devoid of religious faith to manage the public space.
I see nothing in the natural state. In the natural state there are no parking spaces for the disabled, no pedestrian crossings, or a health tax deduction. Conduct is determined by goals, principles, and weighing the wishes of citizens. There is no meaning to a strange joker like the natural state, and no laws can be derived from it.

@The Rabbi, you wrote, “No one excludes any secular person. Let him come and bathe separately during the hours allotted to him. Does he want to bathe together? And the religious want to bathe separately.”

There are two levels here, the general legal level and the individual religious level;
On the general legal level, both the religious and the secular can enter the spring at any time and as they wish (in the current situation).
On the individual religious level, the religious chose to limit themselves due to some belief, and the secular did not.

Should we say that the individual religious level should influence the legal level? After all, on the legal level, they are currently equal, both are allowed to enter at any time, and if there really is separation, the legal freedom that the secular had will be harmed and will be limited to certain hours, due to the private belief of a certain group!
How so?

There is a struggle between secularism and religion in this country. As a secularist, I am interested in not giving a damn about the religious. Whoever doesn't like it should start paying taxes and leave for Europe. Enough of them gnawing at our souls in every way possible. Ciao

Son, that's what the whole discussion is about here. Many examples have been given here and I don't see what needs to be added. These are completely simple things to me.

Secular, this is an understandable approach. Just keep in mind that there are quite a few religious people who think the same way as you, only the opposite. And from what I see now, there's a good chance that you'll be the one who has to leave for Europe. The exercise of power by a majority seems very attractive when you don't look far enough ahead.

You probably think that if you "give" to the religious today, then if they have the power, they will also give to me. I don't think so and I don't believe in their decency at all.

In a just state, every community with special requirements should have been given its place, whether in time or space, according to its relative size in the population.

I am a community of one member and I demand that they give me exclusive access to the roads (this is my core principle from now on) according to my population share. There will be a few seconds a year when all the roads are at my disposal. I will consider allowing others to use them for an exorbitant fee.

First and foremost, in an honest country, before ruling, they check whether the demand is from an honest person or a fraudster. And you demand in the manner of fraudsters.

So someone's right is conditional on them really really wanting it? I really really want to travel in the Roh”M armored convoy, will they allocate me time to travel in this convoy based on my population share?

In a just country, this was not a right but an obligation. Every citizen should serve in every public office for part of their time.

Very logical!

@ Rabbi, how are these things so simple in your eyes that an individual level will affect a general constitutional level??
After all, right now everyone is equal before the law, me, my sister, and my neighborhood rabbi – we can all legally enter the springs right now, why should your personal religious level affect me or my sister and prevent them from entering for a certain time? Because of your whim, will you harm the existing constitutional equality?

I said wisdom and it is more wonderful than mine.

White: The law is equal: there is a time for you and a time for your sister, both times are equal.

Yes, but before, my sister, I, and the city rabbi could enter for twenty-four hours, and now only 12 for each gender, and why? Because of personal beliefs.

Secular faith is also personal.

Dear Ben, I understand that you are against allocating resources to adapting public spaces for the disabled because of their small share in the population and that the natural situation is without these adaptations.

Male, secular faith is not personal and irrelevant. This is about not having faith, and it is completely natural that not having a personal faith will set the tone in the public space.

Sons, the question is good but the answer is simple, there is a fundamental difference between the cases, you choose faith for yourself and disability does not. I do not prevent a religious person from entering a pool if it is mixed, but he prevents himself; on the other hand, I prevent a disabled person from entering a pool if it lacks the necessary adjustments. And easy.

Now, with your permission, I will ask both of you a question:
Do you think a group in the nation has the right to pass a law that prevents another group from going for a walk on the city promenade between 12 and 8?
Just as here, I assume you will agree with me that a defined group does not have the right to exclude another group from a public place, the same applies to springs and streams.

Eighth line:
….if*….

Holding the belief that there is no God/Torah is just as personal as holding the belief that there is a God+Torah.
Is holding the belief that there is no partner less personal than the belief that there is a partner?

Son, you believe in a lot of things too, just different things. So we, the stupid fundamentalists, can also demand things, like secular law requires not to drive above a certain speed.

You are missing the point.

Imagine that a group arose in the nation that demanded with all force that ultra-Orthodox people be banned from walking on the street for 12 hours every day. What do you think? Is it legal?

In fact, this is exactly the case here, a group arose in the nation that wants to restrict another group from being in a general public place because of an individual personal belief.
You want to establish by law that boys and girls who want to do so are prohibited from entering the springs for half of the hours. If before I could enter 24 hours, now I am only allowed 12! And why? Because you were also allowed 24 hours and you chose to restrict yourself (your right) and me (who have no right).
Does that seem reasonable to you?

You can indeed demand things, but how could it be conceivable that it is ”your right” to demand that I be restricted? Maybe you could also legislate that I should not drive on Shabbat because it is your right for the roads to be quiet?