Linking Hijab to Oppression of Women

[***super_nova***]

Only 44seconds video

The Problem of Linking Hijab to Oppression of Women

[lurker172602]

You have no idea what I do or do not deny.  Go away. 

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@timerunningoutsoon1 wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Why did my picture of the Queen upset you - she is head of the church Of England - doesn't that make her one of those destined for the fiery pit?

---

Why would she be destined for the firy pit?

She rules by the grace of God.She is directly descended from David.

---

So in which critical way do the doctrines of the Church Of England differ from the doctrines of the Catholic Church? Or are Catholics among the 'saved' as well?

And I'd love to see a family tree that connects the Queen to King David. She can certainly trace her lineage (in a fairly tenuous way) back to William of Normandy - but he, of course was a b*stard (in the literal sense of the word) his mother was a tanner's daughter.

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

I think I like Fr Rod 

---

he is too political.

he is the one who turned his back

on our PM in protest.  keep religion

away from politics. 

[lurker172602]

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

I think I like Fr Rod 

---

he is too political.

he is the one who turned his back

on our PM in protest.  keep religion

away from politics. 

---

I think I like him even more 

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

---

@*julia*2010 wrote:

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

I think I like Fr Rod 

---

he is too political.

he is the one who turned his back

on our PM in protest.  keep religion

away from politics. 

---

I think I like him even more 

---

yes, i thought you would (i assumed you knew

who he was) but think you may have missed

the point i was making.  never mind  

[lurker172602]

Nah, I got it. 

If a government is acting in an "unrighteousness" way I think it is beholden on clergy to pull them up on it.  

[raptor_rebooted]

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

Nah, I got it. 

If a government is acting in an "unrighteousness" way I think it is beholden on clergy to pull them up on it.  

---

would you feel the same way if that

"unrighteousness" involved, lets say,

abortion or same sex marriage?

or would you be one of those women

wearing a t-shirt saying "keep your rosaries

off my ovaries"? 

[tezza2844]

---

@timerunningoutsoon1 wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Why did my picture of the Queen upset you - she is head of the church Of England - doesn't that make her one of those destined for the fiery pit?

---

Why would she be destined for the firy pit?

She rules by the grace of God.She is directly descended from David.

---

---

@timerunningoutsoon1 wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Why did my picture of the Queen upset you - she is head of the church Of England - doesn't that make her one of those destined for the fiery pit?

---

Why would she be destined for the firy pit?

She rules by the grace of God.She is directly descended from David.

---

"She is directly descended from David."

Well that is a surprise. I'll bet that will get a few tongues wagging in the ranks of Royalty Watchers

[johcaschro]

Super-nova, There's a good comment on the link you posted which sums up the issue very well (or at least raises the salient point)

6th comment down (my bold)

 (posted by)Ban Barkawi

"She almost makes a great point - and it's no one's business whether a woman chooses (key word here) to wear a hijab or not. But there is a flaw in her argument. A hijab does more than just privatize a woman's sexuality. It also places a burden on the woman to avert the sexual desires of men. And that can sometimes be oppressive. Having said that, I don't think the hijab limits women's abilities to excel or progress in their respective societies and it most certainly doesn't define them as human beings. They're much more than that and many are extremely accomplished and admirable women."

------------------------

You see, the hijab and niqab and other forms of face-concealing, hair-concealing, figure-concealing dress which Muslim women are encouraged (and sometimes compelled) to wear really are oppressive because they lay the fault at the woman's feet as being responsible for the behaviour of men, when it is rightly the responsibility of the (Muslim) men, to offer respect for women as equals, and to develop a civilized restraint and not to act like slavering animals messing with and mauling those who, because they might wish to show a little hair or a curve of two or (gasp) a well turned ankle and show their smile to the world, are considered the guilty party.

(Muslim) men need to understand that women are not their property; that they are their equals and that they deserve respect for all of their decisions, and that women  in no way bear any responsibility if the men devolve to the level of animals; that's the men's fault and it's the religion of Islam's fault for teaching this oppressive and totally repressive attitude.

so yes, because of the reasons why it is encouraged to be worn, it is a symbol of very real and present oppression of women, taught as doctrine by Islam.

[moonflyte]

---

@lurker172602 wrote:

Nah, I got it. 

If a government is acting in an "unrighteousness" way I think it is beholden on clergy to pull them up on it.  

---

Absolutely not, in no way has the "clergy" the right to pull any government up.

We are ruled under the separation of powers and the clergy has no rights to anything the govt wants to do or say.

I just thought I'd let you know that what you are advocating cannot happen under our system of governance.