Post removed

[secondwind]

1. If they want to wear this item, I think we should respect that.

[bitterross]

2. If they want to sacrifice humans as part of their religion is that okay?

Seriously. You are supporting an act based on a religious conviction. Who is to say the sacrifice of humans in the name of faith is any less valid.

If it is their fervent belief that sacrifice is okay, who are you to question that?

[marylandblue]

3. You're comparing a scarf to human sacrifice?

Wow.

[bitterross]

6. Yes, I'm comparing religious mandates to one another.

Religions have never stopped to consider the "outlandish" factor. Why should I?

[marylandblue]

18. Because you are claiming to be the rational one?

But if you are that frightened of scarves, it may be clouding your sense of proportion.

[GaYellowDawg]

38. That's like comparing a paper cut to a decapitation

And saying, “What? I’m just comparing our wound to another.

It’s completely nonsensical and, worse for you, makes you look so ridiculous that any cogent point you might make by accident gets faded out.

[Laffy Kat]

31. That is a reduction to the absurd. nt

[HoosierDebbie]

5. That is quite a jump!

I assume that you mean sacrificing others and not yourself? A lot of people think it is quite admirable to sacrifice yourself for someone else.

My question is, how is a religion demanding that she wear a head cover any different than your demand that she not wear it?

[bitterross]

8. Is it really? How about the religous shame killings?

How about the number of women who were killed for bringing shame to their families?

Not so different is it?

https://www.google.com/search?q=family+kills+daugther+due+to+shame&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1

[HoosierDebbie]

10. That makes absolutely no sense.

Wearing a scarf is not a comparison to anything you have noted. Continue embarrassing yourself.

[bitterross]

52. So women, not behaving to the norms being killed is not the same?

Women are killed by their own family for not behaving according to the norms. For such things as being seen in the company of a man. Not actually doing anything wrong per our Western values. The scarf is just a part of that you don't want to admit

[dawg day]

39. I'm against murder--

But murder of women for religious reasons is hardly merely a Muslim thing.
Patriarchal men of many faiths-- and no faith at all-- sometimes think women should be killed. Here too.

It isn't because of their headgear.

[Doodley]

69. Have you never worn anything because it was expected of you?

[nolabear]

4. So you want to make the rules?

C’mon. You must realize how you sound.

[bitterross]

12. No, I never suggested that.

I never suggested I'm an authority or should be the entity who makes the decisions for others.

I just don't think that we should bend our secular rules to fit the needs of people who cannot think outside their religious dogma. I'm pretty sure that's in the First Amendment.

[nolabear]

19. But...it's their bodies, their wishes, their freedom.

I know how patriarchal and bizarre those rules are, and lord knows I know how being raised in them makes things that are unthinkable to some of us desirable to others. But you can’t say “they shouldn’t be able to” and “I’m not trying to make the rules” at the same time. They’re not telling me I have to do anything, just asking for the right to do as they believe is right for them.

[milestogo]

21. Ah, so free speech is just for the people you approve of.

Religious people do not get free speech.

Listen to yourself.

[marylandblue]

24. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF."

You seem to have missed that last part.

[SCantiGOP]

7. So the crux of your argument is

that women are incapable of making a decision as to their religious beliefs on their own?
What utter bullshit.

[bitterross]

9. No, PEOPLE are incapable of making their own decisions.

People, women and men, are incapable of making their own decisions when they have been indoctrinated from birth by religion.

[dawg day]

37. That just isn't true.

I will bet you many of us were raised in a faith and many of us no longer practice that faith. I was "indoctrinated" in Roman Catholicism back in the day when we were told anyone who wasn't baptized Catholic was going to hell. It actually wasn't hard at all to disbelieve that and most everything else.

Our growth doesn't stop in infancy.

[Ms. Toad]

11. Yup. That's the gist of it.

I was waiting for this post/thread to show up. The original thread (at least as long as I followed it) was too respectful of religion/women who choose to cover as part of their spiritual practice.

[bitterross]

14. DO NOT CONFLATE RESPECT OF WOMEN W/ RESPECT OF RELIGION

The modern religions are nothing but disrespectful of women and their value. To conflate the two is abominable.

[Ms. Toad]

22. Youe insistence that women who choose to cover as part of their spiritual practice

are merely robots with no brains of their own, incapable of making their own decision, is what is abominable. There are plenty of Muslim women who choose not to - especially in the United States. There are also women who were not born Muslim (and who did not convert to marry) who both choose to cover or not.

Your insistence that no woman can make that choice freely is abominable.

In this country, there is also an itty bitty thing called the first amendment prohibits the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion - absent a compelling state interest. While the state almost certainly has a compelling state interest in prohibiting female genital circumcision (for example), it has no such compelling interest in prohibiting the wearing of religious headgear while serving as a senator. If enforced against women wearing scarves - or Jews wearing Yarmulkes - it would almost certainly be declared unconstitutional.

[Eric J in MN]

13. Your expectation that elected officials don't wear head coverings on the job

...is also a result of your growing up not seeing that.

Let Ilhan Omar wear whatever she wants. If you ever meet her, you can criticize her head covering (though I prefer if you don't).

[bitterross]

16. No, it's not about not seeing it in my town

It's about not respecting ANY religious doctrine that tells women they are less important than men. That their bodies are more sexual, more sensual, more tempting than men's and, therefore, they must cover their bodies to protect the poor males who cannot control themselves.

[Ms. Toad]

32. The point is not whether YOU respect her religious doctrine -

Last edited Tue Nov 20, 2018, 11:48 AM - Edit history (1)

No one is asking you to.

The question is whether the government had the right to dictate that she may not engage in the free exercise of HER religious beliefs, which require her to wear a hijab. The first amendment protects her rights from government interference, absent a compelling reason for such interference. I frankly can't imagine even an important government interest, let alone a compelling one, to interfere with her choice to cover.

[violetpastille]

57. I don't have a religious doctrine that tells me to cover my body.

I have city ordinances that do. Also a family that would be embarrassed if I walked around naked.

Some of this stuff is more cultural than religious. Even non-secular society hangs it's shit on women doesn't it?

If I were Muslim I would definitely wear hijab. If I took all the time I spent fussing with my hair I could probably be a jazz pianist or something.

[pnwmom]

15. This rule doesn't only affect women.

Some men wear headwear for religious reasons, too.

[bitterross]

17. True, and they've been denied for all this time.

You are correct. The men have been denied their wish to wear their religious head wear.

[milestogo]

20. No. You do not get to pass judgment on another person's religious faith.

Call bullshit in private, not in the public square.

[bitterross]

34. Oh yes I do get to call bullshit on mythology.

I get to say belief in magical skydaddy is bullshit all day long in public and in private whether you like it or not. The public square is open to all.

So here, all religion is bullshit because it is based upon faith in the unprovable.

[milestogo]

40. What you don't understand about religion would fill the Smithsonian.

But keep talking, that won't stop you.

[bitterross]

56. Educate me then.

If you are so wise about it, then tell me how I'm wrong about religion. About how most modern religions are misogynistic. About how they use people's ignorance to control and manipulate them. About how they are tribal "us vs. them" collectives that profess their way or the highway.

Go ahead and tell me just how I've misunderstood those things.

[marylandblue]

65. There is such a thing as progressive religion

It doesn't get as much attention as the fundamentalists get. And maybe it's not as important as the fundamentalists. But it exists. And it's pretty much what you'd expect any progressive anything to be, except they also like to get together once in a while and pray or cleanup a park. Not tribal. Not manipulative. Egalitarian. Women in leadership positions. Rainbow flags on their churches. Some progressive religionists don't even believe in God. They just like the ceremony and the social group or whatever.

I'm sure you don't believe me, because the existence of such a thing would go totally against everything you've just said about religion. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you don't know about it. Obviously.

[gratuitous]

23. Would this argument be advanced if the headwear in question was . . .

This?



Reading up and down the thread, the answer is obvious.

[marylandblue]

28. The answer is even more obvious if you consider neckwear

[bitterross]

46. I thought about the question of an RCC Nun in Congress.

Not that a nun would ever run for public office, but the question of how they, and their garb would be treated is a good one. I ssupect the rules change would fly through. I'd still be in opposition to it though. For the exact same reason I am in opposition to it for the hijab. It is a subjugation of women at the request of men because of religious beliefs.

[marylandblue]

58. It's a really sexist and offensive argument

You are all high and mighty about women wearing scarves of their own free will, because we are in the United States where you get to choose that sort of thing. Who are you to tell any woman what to wear? Because YOU think a man made her do it? How do you know? Did you ask her? Or are you just assuming she brainwashed, because well, that's what happens to women, men brainwash them, and the poor little dears never do learn to think for themselves.

Good thing they have a man like you to think for them. Not like those other men who brainwash them.

Why don't you just let women represent their own interests and wear what they want?

[bitterross]

62. You are going to tell me men do not make nuns wear habits?

Right, the nuns wear habits not because some misogynistic males made that the norm and the requirement from the ancient times. They came up with that on their own.

BTW, I think BOTH the RCC priests and nuns are brainwashed idiots. How else can one explain their allegiance to such a stupid mythology?

My disdain has nothing to do with the gender of the person.

[bitterross]

44. Probably not, but it should be.

The religion in question is not relevant. The subjugation of one gender, one class of people is.

[OilemFirchen]

48. Or this?

This?

[jcgoldie]

25. terrible

I'm as anti-religious and proudly atheist as they get. But you have to have respect for a person's beliefs and values. Have some damn respect.

[Rizen]

35. This

Me too.

[earthshine]

41. Well stated! nt

[UniteFightBack]

26. Live and let live...even if you don't agree. nt

[LeftInTX]

27. We should also throw out the bibles they swear on too!!!!!

Maybe we should throw out all the men.....

[bitterross]

50. reducto ad absurdum

Don't be silly.

[GaYellowDawg]

63. Pot, kettle, black.

Add a stunning lack of self-awareness to the mix.

[bitterross]

64. So you dispute the premise of male dominance?

My OP title seems to be ignored by so many. Are you disputing that the wearing of the hijab and other coverings are a bow to male dominance in the religions and societies where it is predominant? That it is because males are telling the women the women should be careful and modest because men are not able to control their desires?

We've done some bit of rejecting this notion in the US though it is still quite prevalent in rape cases. "She shouldn't have been dressed that way" and "She shouldn't have been drinking." Same sort of rationalizations.

[Azathoth]

72. Throwing out the Bibles is a good idea

Let them all be sworn in on a copy of the Constitution.

[pangaia]

29. My, you ARE upset today.

[bitterross]

30. Because I want all humans treated equally? Yes, I am.

Yep, I'm totally upset we give a pass to ancient mythology as a reason to subjugate women.

[dawg day]

33. I was educated by Catholic nuns--

They wore the equivalent of a burkah-- everything covered except their hands and their face from chin to eyebrows.

Shrug. It seemed weird then and seems weird now, but it's not my business what women (or men) wear.

The Catholic church has extremely restrictive rules for women.
So do several fundamentalist Protestant churches. In my town, there's a sect (Protestant/Christian) where women have to wear long skirts, aren't allowed to cut their hair EVER, can't wear make-up or bare their arms, and aren't allowed to have jobs. (The ones who want to earn money clean houses free-lance.) They are told to obey their husband even if he's abusive.

For some reason, we key in on Muslim doctrine and practice, maybe because that is more foreign. But repressive treatment of women is pretty common in conservative Christian sects also, including the very biggest one of all, the Catholics. Some Orthodox sects also require women to cover their heads and dress very conservatively.

This is the US. It's not France. We have freedom of religion AND expression.

You going to tell that nun she can't wear her habit? Tell that Mountain-Baptist she must wear a mini-skirt? Go ahead. See how far it gets you. While you're at it, make the men take off the yarmulkes.

I'm an agnostic, but part of that is staying out of other people's way of believing.

[Bfd]

42. Thank you.

[bitterross]

49. I would tell the nun no habit in Congress.

I cannot tell a person to wear a mini-skirt. That is a silly argument for you to make.

I can tell a person to respect the secular nature of our nation and not bring their ancient, unproven mythology into my public legislature as long as the rules are applied equally to all people of all religions.

I do not respect the RCC's subjugation of women any more than I do ISIS' subjugation of women.

[sarah FAILIN]

36. This is one of those things you might want to let go.

You don't make the rules for others. If they choose this religion and the covering, that is their choice. You don't get a vote.

[bitterross]

43. Let go the subjugation of women? Why?

Why should I let the subjugation of women go? Because it's a religious thing they are practicing?

From the history I know religions are not fair, not equitable, not logical.

I live in a secular nation that claims equality is an imperative, not a theistic nation. If their religion is one that subjugates one class of people, one gender of people to another, how is that in keeping with the Constitution and the values of this nation?

[lamsmy]

45. I used to feel that way too

Until I listened to a very smart Sudanese writer, Nesrine Malik. She does not wear headcoverings but adamantly supports the rights of those who do. Here's why:

As a girl growing up in Khartoum, she and her friends were constantly harassed in the streets by older men who were complete strangers, because they considered that the girls were not dressed sufficiently conservative, or that a stray lock of hair might be visible. It was always the men dictating exactly what the females could or could not wear.

Now, in Western countries, other people tell these same women that their chosen dress is TOO conservative, and that should not only be criticised and mocked, but that it should be illegal.

For the women who deliberately chose to identify as a Muslim and wear the head scarf, should they not have the freedom to choose? Now you may argue that many woman are forced to cover up and that is wrong (which it is) but making the hijab illegal is just another way of dictating what women should or should not wear.

[bitterross]

47. It's still all about religous mandates. Your arguments cancel eachother.

If the girls didn't grow up with a religious mandate forced upon them by men then neither of the situations you describe would happen. No one would tell them they were not dressed conservatively enough and no one would have reason to tell them they were dressed too conservatively.

Both of your arguments simply cancel out one another.

[Crunchy Frog]

51. Oh for fuck's sake!

She's a goddam grown woman who just got herself elected to the US House of Representatives. She can choose to wear whatever the fuck she wants on her head.

This is so fucking patronizing.

[jcgoldie]

53. I like that response

[bitterross]

54. Oh FFS, he's a grown man who can beat his wife if he wants.

He just got himself elected to the US House of Representatives. He can choose to beat his misbehaving wife if he wants because his religion says that's just fine.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. If you can't see the difference between wearing a scarf and beating the crap out of someone

then I have absolutely nothing left to say to you, and hope I never come accross you IRL, because I think that you might actually be dangerous.

[bitterross]

59. If you haven't read the news of how the two things are intertwined...

You are willfully ignorant of what happens in this world if you do not see that the same religion that requires women to wear a hijab or a burka is the same religion that requires families to honor kill their women for disobedience to these sort of norms.

Your willful ignorance of what actually happens to women is what is dangerous.

[JI7]

70. christians and others beat their wives and commit violence also

[JonLP24]

78. Burka is a wahabbi thing

A religion that has been around since the 1700s.that fought against the Ottoman Empire with British support. They are anti women but most Muslims are not wahabbi. In fact most victims of Wahabbism are Muslims as if anyone gives a shit.

[GaYellowDawg]

61. You've got nothing to worry about...

Someone who’s consistently that far off the mark is no danger to you. If he shoots like he reasons, he could empty an Alabama militia’s worth of ammo at you and you wouldn’t be scratched.

[GaYellowDawg]

60. Oh FFS, you obviously don't have a real argument

So you resort to horribly stupid comparisons like wife-beating and human sacrifice to WEARING SOMETHING ON YOUR HEAD.

I didn’t think I’d ever see someone with Donald Trump’s reasoning and argumentative style on DU, but you’ve matched Cheetolini for incredibly inapt comparisons and the audacity to keep churning them out as if they’re remotely appropriate.

[Azathoth]

66. If a fundamentalist Christian woman walked in wearing a stylized Handmaid's Tale-style gag

to symbolize her belief that women should know their place and not speak unless spoken to around men, most of the posters here would go absolutely bonkers. There would be no talk about her "religious freedom" and being "empowered to make her own religious choices."

I'm not a particular fan of most religiously-imposed behaviors that adherents delusionally rationalize as "personal choices," but the hijab stands out as particularly odious. Unlike, say, wearing a kippah, which is justified as a symbolic act of respect to God, the hijab is explicitly and repeatedly justified as a method of controlling the bodies of women to ensure they are sufficiently tamed and not a sinful distraction to men. It's "thou shalt keep elbows and ankles covered so as not to titillate the menfolk" raised to the nth degree.

We live in a free society and thus people are free to dress as they like. But the left's patronizing insistence on defending practices of other religions, especially Islam, as "religious expression," while they would swiftly condemn those same practices as oppressive if they were part of Western Christianity, just gives endless ammo to the right wing.

[JI7]

71. Christians do walk in there trying to take away rights from women , lgbt and others

and people do object to it.

[Azathoth]

73. That's my point

The left is ready, willing and eager to call out oppressive bullshit from Western Christianity. They even pathologize its worst offenders ( how many times have fundamentalist Christian women been accused of "internalized misogyny"?).

But when it comes to non-Western religions, suddenly we can't interfere with their "religious expression" or criticize their "personal choices."

I personally don't care one way or the other about the head covering ban in the House, but the hypocrisy gets under my skin.

[JI7]

75. that''s because there aren't fundamentalist Muslims elected to office in the US

there are some people who make excuses for islam.

but you comparing a person wearing a headscarf to men beating and killing women is pretty much on that same level.

[Azathoth]

76. When did I compare the headscarf to beating and killing women? Nt

[NanceGreggs]

67. Has it occurred to you ...

... that not every woman who chooses to cover her hair does so out of some form of oppression, or out of obligation to some ancient mandate handed down by "a man" thousands of years ago?

These days, head covering is very much a choice for many, and has more to do with tradition than subservience.

I know Muslim women who come from non-religious families and have chosen to cover, even though their mothers never did and their husbands don't expect it. It's a choice.

I've known Orthodox Jewish teen-aged girls who used to shop for wigs, in anticipation of being soon married. For them, it was a right-of-passage, part of becoming a woman. In ancient times, a woman's hair was considered her crowning glory of beauty, which she only showed to her husband. In today's world, many Jewish women consider covering their hair as a sign of intimacy within their marriage, rather than as a symbol of subjugation.

To quote Olivia Dukakis in Moonstruck: "What you don't know about women is A LOT."

But, hey - if you don't like head coverings, don't wear one. Seems simple enough.

[912gdm]

68. I just wonder if this was originally a rule to do away with British style wigs..

It's a 180 year rule, so It would be in line for anti British style at the time and a way for the new govt. to continue anti-britishification. My argument might sound stupid, but its no worse then what has been suggested up thread.

ETA: the British style wigs were used by judges here prior to independence but fell out of style in the early 1800's. Yet are a tradition today In there house of lords and judicial system of GB.

[Gothmog]

74. I am Jewish and I strongly disagree with your conclusions

You are totally wrong. My daughter's best friend is an observant Muslim and wears a Hijab. There is nothing wrong with this.

I am sad that you making these claims

[JonLP24]

77. Why don't you ask the Muslim women their opinion?