The veil of ignorance, or ignorance of the veil?

[lowtech redneck]

Still, this isnt Egypt or Jordan its typoC so instead of telling people that their choices are illiberal/sharia or some other synymon for "wrong" or "evil" wouldnt it be a useful opportunity to open a dialogue with some questions? Otherwise what's the point of even posting?

She asked what people thought about the hijab, and their reasons for it-I provided that. The point being she is looking for feedback. (The first part of my post was simply a response to Gromit, who claimed that an opinion was offensive without explaining why she thought it was false, which is essentially a means of social intimidation). And I said that wearing the hijab correlates with illiberal interpretations of Islam, not that it is illiberal in itself. The implication is that many people will assume that she likely holds beliefs that she presumably does not, just as many people assume people with Confederate flags somewhere on their person or property hold racist beliefs. I also found it ironic, in that I have been in a similar position as her, but in this case the shoe is on the other foot (i.e. I would assume that a Muslim woman I don't know who chooses to wear the hijab likely adheres to illiberal-not to be confused with militant-interpretations of Islam).

 

[Lark]

She asked what people thought about the hijab, and their reasons for it-I provided that. The point being she is looking for feedback. (The first part of my post was simply a response to Gromit, who claimed that an opinion was offensive without explaining why she thought it was false, which is essentially a means of social intimidation). And I said that wearing the hijab correlates with illiberal interpretations of Islam, not that it is illiberal in itself. The implication is that many people will assume that she likely holds beliefs that she presumably does not, just as many people assume people with Confederate flags somewhere on their person or property hold racist beliefs. I also found it ironic, in that I have been in a similar position as her, but in this case the shoe is on the other foot (i.e. I would assume that a Muslim woman I don't know who chooses to wear the hijab likely adheres to illiberal-not to be confused with militant-interpretations of Islam).

I dont think its social censor (which I think is more apt a description than intimidation but I think I know what you mean) to simply state that a particular post was offensive.

I wasnt questioning whether or not you were providing your thoughts, you obviously were, just whether or not they were conducive to closing down or opening up a dialogue, which I didnt think they were. So far as implications and presumptions, all that wasnt not clear in your earlier post, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Totenkindly]

I think we are foolish to argue for or against the wearing of the hijab, rather we should be arguing about what the hijab represents, for the hijab represents a violent, totalitarian political religion.

It is expanding and teaches hatred of Jews, Dhimmi and infidels.

The hijab is not just a veil, it is a flag. And women are the flagpole. And we should be asking, what does it flag?

Does the meaning of the symbol reside within the symbol or within the interpreter?

 

[SRT]

How would you explain that to a rational enlightend empirical modern thinker ? (who is college libertarian )

Like any social object, the value of the hijab lies in its symbolism. The hijab's symbolism being that it shows an intentional desire for modesty and a life devoid of individual pride (I'm assuming). Wearing clothing that reduces your pride reminds you of your place in life, i.e. as equals with other people.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Does the meaning of the symbol reside within the symbol or within the interpreter?

Best post I've seen so far.

 

[ceecee]

Because men are not sexy.

Not true.

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

Jenaphor and others: The veil brings you closer to God because wearing it is less comfortable than not doing so. The more uncomfortable women are in this life, the more we will be rewarded in the afterlife. At least that's how I have interpreted the Qur'an. To put it in Christian terms, the veil is like a chronic ailment received in the Crusades: A symbol of your worship.

I found this: Tell the faithful women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their scarf to cover their bosom - Source: Quran, 24:31 (English translation)

So it looks like it is about humility? Not only 'lowering the gaze', but covering the body and hiding beauty is to lose individual identity and dependence on those things that usually make a woman feel good about herself. Instead, it makes her focus and depend on God to meet all of her needs - including the need to be desired, loved, etc...

I am curious why they addressed it to 'faithful women' - does the action of wearing a hijab make a muslim woman faithful? Being closer to God doesn't make one faithful does it? Isn't the muslim faith works based? Meaning you have to do things to be and stay saved?

As a side note, the Crusades were not a Christian event. They were a Roman Catholic Church invasion of muslim countries. The Inquision was also a Roman Catholic Church 'event'. A Roman Catholic's beliefs about salvation and faith are very different than a Christian's.

 

[Lark]

As a side note, the Crusades were not a Christian event. They were a Roman Catholic Church invasion of muslim countries. The Inquision was also a Roman Catholic Church 'event'. A Roman Catholic's beliefs about salvation and faith are very different than a Christian's.

Back when we were kicking ass and taking names, inquisition's gonna get yo mamma!! And your mere christianity, chancers.

 

[Lark]

Did anyone else think this thread was about John Rawls?

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

Back when we were kicking ass and taking names, inquisition's gonna get yo mamma!! And your mere christianity, chancers.

Are we a tad touchy about church history?

 

[Lark]

Are we a tad touchy about church history?

No tad touchy about myopia, the protestant reformation unleashed sectarianism within Christendom, between protestants as much as between the RCC and dissidents, and there are some fine examples of serious attempts by the new protestant authorities to match the atrocities of the RCC, Calvin and Zweigle (spelling) each set up inquisitorial authorities of their own.

Likewise the criminality of both the crusades and inquisiton have been grossly exaggerated, of the inquisition in particular the reports of torture and persecution ignore a lot of the princely or civil/temporal practices at the time, its cited totally out of context, it was a propaganda coup begun during the reformation and carried on since by successive athiest, secular and liberal oppositions.

You are right that "christians" dont share belief system of the RCC because while there may be diversity and disparity within the single congregation constituted by the RCC the myriad differences and conflicts in "christian" congregations are dizzying to consider without any two the same and a new fashion or vogue ever week.

 

[ThinkingAboutIt]

No tad touchy about myopia, the protestant reformation unleashed sectarianism within Christendom, between protestants as much as between the RCC and dissidents, and there are some fine examples of serious attempts by the new protestant authorities to match the atrocities of the RCC, Calvin and Zweigle (spelling) each set up inquisitorial authorities of their own.

Likewise the criminality of both the crusades and inquisiton have been grossly exaggerated, of the inquisition in particular the reports of torture and persecution ignore a lot of the princely or civil/temporal practices at the time, its cited totally out of context, it was a propaganda coup begun during the reformation and carried on since by successive athiest, secular and liberal oppositions.

You are right that "christians" dont share belief system of the RCC because while there may be diversity and disparity within the single congregation constituted by the RCC the myriad differences and conflicts in "christian" congregations are dizzying to consider without any two the same and a new fashion or vogue ever week.

You are diffusing the topic; and with moot arguments as the Roman Catholic Church Fathers (like Pope John Paul II, who offered an unprecedented apology for the sins committed in the name of the church a few years ago) themselves admit to the atrocities and wrongdoing committed during both 'events'. Even the most hardcore Catholics I know do not argue this point, it is well documented fact.

The only Person that represents Christianity is Yeshua, Jesus Christ, the Son of Yahweh God manifest in the flesh. That's all. The purpose of the post and the context of it was to simply state that a Christian is not a Roman Catholic. Many people don’t realize this.

 

[Mole]

Does the meaning of the symbol reside within the symbol or within the interpreter?

Each symbol can have many interpretations unless a literal interpretation is mandated by the death penalty.

 

[entropie]

Like any social object, the value of the hijab lies in its symbolism. The hijab's symbolism being that it shows an intentional desire for modesty and a life devoid of individual pride (I'm assuming). Wearing clothing that reduces your pride reminds you of your place in life, i.e. as equals with other people.

Ya but if that was the meaning that would so suck, it still wouldnt explain to me how I can respect that.

Where I come from we have a huge muslime community and I have already seen some things. These are really nice people, one of my best friends until adulthood had been turkish, they are pretty normal people like everybody else. Sometimes a bit over-emotional but its ok. But then you suddenly see your best friend falling in total rage in a supermarket and slapping his wife in the face because she contradicted him in public. I didnt know what hit me when I saw this but I wanted to kick him in the face for that.

Dont get me wrong, I am one of the most tolerant and respecting guys you'll ever meet in your life. I've learnt the traditions of the french family of my girlfriend, which I found ridicoulus, so they accept me as an equal. But it goes only this far, there is a limit, there is a point when my belief kicks in and I am sorry, hitting people because they contradicted you is stoneage... I hope one day those people understand that

 

[strawberries]

YWIR - there's some interesting related discussion in a thread on france's decision to ban the burqa you might wish to read.

here

 

[Mole]

you suddenly see your best friend falling in total rage in a supermarket and slapping his wife in the face because she contradicted him in public.

Under Common Law this is violent assault, but under Sharia Law the husband has the right to correct his wife with violence.

 

[Red Herring]

Did anyone else think this thread was about John Rawls?

...well, it reminded me of him (more exactly, of what I remembered from Michael Sandel's Justice lectures, never read Rawls directly, but he has been recommended to me from several sources)

 

[Lark]

You are diffusing the topic; and with moot arguments as the Roman Catholic Church Fathers (like Pope John Paul II, who offered an unprecedented apology for the sins committed in the name of the church a few years ago) themselves admit to the atrocities and wrongdoing committed during both 'events'. Even the most hardcore Catholics I know do not argue this point, it is well documented fact.

The only Person that represents Christianity is Yeshua, Jesus Christ, the Son of Yahweh God manifest in the flesh. That's all. The purpose of the post and the context of it was to simply state that a Christian is not a Roman Catholic. Many people don’t realize this.

Yeah, its sectarian and its post-reformation chauvinism to consider RCs as not Christian. Although its your business if that's what you think, you'll find out whats man made religion and what's not one day.

Anyway, so far as the history goes, its important to get it right instead of just repeating oft repeated and hackneyed myths, there's also a certain present day conceitedness about condemning the past as uncivilised compared with the present. You're right that church authorities have acknowledged and apologised for its history, do you think that anyone will do so for the actions of the protestant upheavel, oh wait, there's no central or single authority so that's not actually possible even.

I'm not trying to persuade you of anything here, if you're genuinely searching after truth you'll figure it out. Cheers though for representing.

 

[Synapse]

If the hijab is meant to be a symbol of becoming closer to God. Its an odd dichotomy interlaced with patriarchy views, a caste system meant to create certain behaviour patterns. For as eternal consciousness the romanticised notions of an afterlife are misrepresented to the whole of being and what it means to be conscious.

I wonder what there is when you remove this to the essence, security in the self? Loyalty to a questionable entity whose guidance is parsimonious? Society expectations? Sexual shame or sexual abundance? Submission to God or Affirmation of God? Other?

How strange reality feels. If people can channel information from beings who are miles advanced in spirit form then what is being worshiped and how are people able to interpret that which is given to us, fed to us like a script_ure. Makes me wonder if script_ure has bio-geometric imprints into it, activates certain brain function to create a mark in the spirit that I consider an energetic sway, does this benefit or hinder spiritual growth? Is there a third option?

Sacra, mmm feeling sacralicious today.

I wonder what the veil of ignorance or ignorance of the veil truly implies.

 

[Perch420]

The 2005 London train bomber wore a burqa to cover up the explosives he had around his belt. I read a story about a group of bank robbers who used the veil instead of a ski mask in their robbery attempt.

If I walk around with a ski mask, I'll be arrested and sent to jail. If a woman walks around in a burqa, nothing happens to her even though both of us are breaking the same law. In essence, the religious person is being allowed to break the law because "it's their religion". This is stupid and has no place in civilized society.