We have heard a lot in the past week about religious coercion in various forms, be it gender-segregated public bus lines, intolerance towards different interpretations of modesty laws, we can go further back and mention the fights over public observance of Shabbos, and the list goes on and on.

A result of the recent upswing in violence and the reaction to it, a campaign was waged, rightfully or wrongfully depends on your point of view, smearing the entire Haredi public. Perhaps some of it was deserved, mostly for not dealing with the extremists or for not disassociating with them and for some general intolerance, but most of it was beyond reasonable, and much is inciteful to violence.

The other side of the coin is something that is discussed less often. That is secular coercion. In a democratic society, everybody has the right to live his or her own preferred lifestyle, according to his or her own personal beliefs, as long as that does not harm someone else. In a democracy, it is incumbent upon the majority to protect the rights of the minorities. When the majority, in this case the secular public, goes into the minorities communities, in this case the haredi community, and tells it how to live, that is not protecting the rights of the minority, it is not a democracy, it is secular coercion and it is a dictatorship of sorts.

In situations where the haredi lifestyle harms in any way other people, that is one thing. It is ok in such situations for the general public to reject the haredi community, to tell it do it on your own dime, keep it to yourself, or even at times to say that is completely unacceptable. When the haredi community lives its own lifestyle, not stepping on anyone's toes, they should be left alone and their rights to live according to their beliefs should not be condemned in the public sphere but should be protected. We should not be hearing calls for violence against haredim, as many media sites are allowing such talkbacks to be published and some journalists are even calling for violence and civil war.

I was talking to a friend the other day about the general topic and the conversation turned to the issue of female soldiers singing in the IDF at ceremonies, and the recent trend of religious soldiers to walk out. This has created a wave of anger, as soldiers are called upon to continue being tolerant. The has been blamed on the recent move to extremism. Every community, haredi, dati leumi and others are all moving more extremist.

So, the religious soldiers walked out. What's the big deal? So they walked out. Who cares? Well, the main complaint was their intolerance, and specifically that ti goes against a major tenet of Judaism to not shame someone else publicly.

So, I ask, why is walking out of a performance shaming someone? As long as they walk out discreetly, and don't turn it into a public display, why would it shame the performer?

If someone were to walk out of a performance because he or she received an important phone call, would that have shamed the performer? When many people walk out of the shul when the rabbi gets up to speak, is that shaming the rabbi? When people walk out of a concert because they don't enjoy it, is that shaming the performer? While people can choose to do what they want, if walking out of a public performance of any kind would necessarily shame the performer, you should stay in, even if you don't like it. If you walk out of the rabbis speech, they should be able to walk out of a female singer. If you leave a class early, they should be able to walk out of a female singer. If you step out of an Avraham Fried concert, or whatever other performance, that is no better or worse than stepping out of a female singer's performance. If you believe it is ok for you to do, what criticism of these soldiers is justified?

Taking this a step further, I was corrected by my friend. I never served in the Israeli army. My friend told me that the assumption that people used to just suck it up and sit quietly, and maybe try to not listen, is not true. The issue was always resolved quietly. Religious soldiers, those who did not want to be at such performances, were almost always allowed to make other arrangements to be elsewhere during the time of the performance. One soldier would be given guard duty, another would be given kitchen duty, or whatever other job was needed to be performed even during the time of the performance. The conflicts were always easily resolved, quietly, before they happened. Soldiers, and commanders, anticipated the problem, and made arrangements to avoid conflict while allowing the religious soldiers to not listen to a woman sing.

The fact that nowadays commanders are not helping make such arrangements, that when it happens it becomes such an outcry, is secular extremism and secular coercion. And if walking out of a performance is not really shaming the performer, than this secular coercion is based on nothing but an attempt to force others to give up their own lifestyle.

That was one example. My point is that while religious extremism and religious coercion have been under public scrutiny recently, the flip side has been allowed to operate freely for too long. Secular extremism and secular coercion are just as bad. They too need to be under scrutiny and stopped.