The natural state of streams is when they are open to the entire public. Religious people, for some reason, decide that separation is more convenient for them, so why should they impose that on the public sphere?

You can’t call it secular coercion in this context, because this is the natural state of affairs—that the stream or spring is open to everyone…

That is, the religious person comes with an external consideration and asks to arrange the public order according to his private consideration; the secular people come with a request to leave the normal situation as it is and not create any artificial division between the different genders.

Your claim reminds me of the argument that says buses on the Sabbath are secular coercion because I don’t want there to be any. If you don’t want to, then don’t get on—but don’t force the public sphere to be run according to your whims.

The natural state is that I steal your pants. For some reason you decide it’s more convenient for you to have your pants on, so why should you impose that on me?
“The naturalistic state” is a completely empty justification.

Exactly. By the same token, people want to walk around naked in the street. Why are you forcing them not to do that? The default is that everyone goes however they want.

B.Z., the natural state isn’t determined arbitrarily; it is determined directly by reality. In reality I know that the stream has two possibilities:
1. To be without gender restrictions
2. To be with gender restrictions.

The natural state is the absence of restrictions. That’s how it has been until now and that’s what you can see in reality. Now you come and demand changes based on pants arguments? Fine, enjoy—but there is no logic at all in saying that your religious, faith-based way of life should run the public sphere.

There is also no justification for your non-religious, non-faith-based way of life to run the public sphere.
I don’t see any such thing in the natural state. In the natural state there are no disabled parking spaces, no pedestrian crosswalks, and no health tax deductions. Conduct is determined by goals, principles, and balancing the desires of citizens. A strange joker like “the natural state” has no meaning, and you can’t derive any laws from it.

@Rabbi, you wrote: “Nobody is excluding any secular person. Let him come and bathe separately during the hours allocated to him. He wants mixed bathing? And the religious want separate bathing.”

There are two planes here: the general legal plane and the particular religious plane;
On the general legal plane—both the religious person and the secular person can enter the spring whenever they want to do so (in the current situation).
On the particular religious plane—the religious person chose to limit himself because of some belief, and the secular person did not.

Should we say that the particular religious plane ought to affect the legal plane? After all, on the legal plane they are currently equal: both are allowed to enter at any time. And if there really is separation, the legal freedom that secular people had will be harmed and reduced to certain hours—because of the private belief of a certain public!
How so?

There’s a struggle between secularism and religion in this country. As a secular person, I want to give the religious not one inch. If they don’t like it, let them start paying taxes and move to Europe. Enough with them leeching onto our souls in every way possible. Ciao.

Ben, that is exactly what the whole discussion here is about. Many examples have been brought, and I don’t see what there is to add. To me these things are completely simple.

Secular, that’s an understandable approach. Just take into account that there are quite a few religious people who think just like you, only in reverse. And from what I see right now, there’s a pretty good chance that you’ll be the one who has to leave for Europe. The use of power by a majority looks very attractive when you don’t look far enough ahead.

You probably think that if I “give” the religious people something today, then if they have power they’ll also give me something. I don’t think so, and I don’t believe in their fairness at all.

In a decent state, every community with special demands should get its place, whether in time or in space, according to its relative size in the population.

I am a community with one member, and I demand that I be given exclusive access to the roads (this is now a core principle for me), according to my proportion in the population. There should be a few seconds each year in which all the roads are at my disposal. I’ll consider allowing others to use them in exchange for an outrageous payment.

First of all, in a decent state, before issuing rulings, you check whether this is the demand of an honest person or a swindler. And your demand is the way of swindlers.

So a person’s right is conditional on whether he really, really wants it? I really, really want to ride in the Prime Minister’s armored convoy. So according to my proportion in the population, will they allocate me travel time in that convoy?

In a decent state that wouldn’t be a right but an obligation. Every citizen should serve in every public role for part of his time.

Very logical!

@Rabbi, how are these things simple in your eyes—that a particular plane should affect a general constitutional plane??
After all, right now everyone is equal before the law. I, my sister, and my neighborhood rabbi—we can all legally enter the springs right now. Why should your personal religious plane affect me or my sister and prevent us from entering at a certain time? Because of your whim you would harm the existing constitutional equality?

“I said, I will become wise—but it was far from me.”

Ben: the law is equal. There is time for you and time for your sister; the two times are equal.

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

The secular belief is personal too.

Dear Ben, I understand that you are against allocating resources to adapt the public sphere for people with disabilities because of their small share in the population, since the natural state is without those adaptations.

Bat Zachar, secular belief is neither personal nor relevant. What we are dealing with here is the absence of belief, and it is completely natural that the absence of a personal belief should set the tone in the public sphere.

Bניה, the question is a good one but the answer is simple: there is an essential difference between the cases. Belief is something you choose for yourself; disability is not. I do not prevent a religious person from entering a swimming pool if it is mixed—he prevents himself from doing so. In contrast, I do prevent a disabled person from entering a swimming pool if it lacks the required accommodations. And that is obvious.

Now, with your permission, I’ll direct a question to both of you:
Do you think that one group among the people has the right to pass a law that prevents another group from going out to walk on the city promenade between 8 and 12?
Just as here, I assume you would agree with me that a defined group has no right to exclude another group from a public place, so too with springs and streams.

Eighth line:
….if*….

Holding the belief that there is no God / no Torah is personal exactly like holding the belief that there is a God and Torah.
Is holding the belief that “there is no partner” less personal than the belief “there is a partner”?

Ben, you also believe in many things, just different things. So we too, the stupid fundamentalists, can demand things—just as secular law demands not driving above a certain speed.

You’re missing the point.

Imagine that a group arose among the people demanding with all its might to forbid Haredim from walking in the street for 12 hours every day. What would you think? Legal?

In fact, that is exactly the case here: a group has arisen among the people that wants to limit another group from being in a public place because of a particular personal belief.
You want to establish by law that boys and girls who want to do so may not enter the springs for half the hours. If before I could enter 24 hours, now I’m only allowed 12! And why? Because you also had 24 hours and chose to limit yourselves (your right) and me as well (which you have no right to do).
Does that seem logical to you?

True, you can demand things—but how could it possibly be that it is “your right” to demand to limit me? Maybe you’ll also legislate that I can’t drive on the Sabbath because it’s your right to have quiet on the roads?