Are face veils a symbol of free expression, misogyny or devotion to faith?

First topic message reminder :

In July 2005, Yassin Omar put on a full veil when running away from London after his failed bombing attempt. Now Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, who was under surveillance due to his connection with the Somalian terror group which bombed a Kenyan shopping mall, has done something similar. This has opened up the discussion on whether the UK should follow the example of France and Belgium and ban full face coverings. It will no doubt provide an opportunity for right-wing bigots and racists to crawl out of the woodwork, but it’s also an uncomfortable topic for those of us on the left in politics.
 
Let’s start with a few definitions. The niqab is a combination of a head covering and scarf that covers all of a woman’s face except for her eyes. The burqa covers the whole body from the top of the head to the ground, covering the entire face, including the eyes - with just a mesh cloth to see through. The hijab, which is the most common type of headscarf worn by Muslim women in the UK, covers the head and neck, but leaves the face clear.
 
As an atheist, I have no empathy for any religion, but I accept the right of others to believe absurdities if they wish to do so. So why is this topic uncomfortable? Because, at first glance, it doesn’t seem compatible with equal rights for women, which has always been a goal of the British left.
 
Writing for ‘Left Foot Forward’, Lejla Kuric said: “My grandmother and great-aunts described their own experience of wearing the burqa in the 1930s and 40s as physical and mental slavery”. The Australian Muslim cleric Sheik Taj Aldin as-Hilali uses offensive language to justify ‘covering up’ because he blames women for rape: “If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside… without cover, and the cats come to eat it… whose fault is it, the cats’ or the uncovered meat’s? The uncovered meat is the problem.” Assuming that males are sex-obsessed beasts, with no control over their animalistic instincts, is also demeaning to men, and arguably leads to a rape culture in which women are blamed for their own violation and sexual abuse.
 
Kuric argues that the face veil should be opposed because it is an inherently sexist and misogynist concept at odds with all precepts of an egalitarian society. She continued: “Despite the best effort of many to present face veiling as harmless, it depersonalises women and assigns them an existence different and separate from men, burdened by social norms such as a woman is the custody of her male guardians, strict gender segregation, non-essential conversation with men is prohibited etc. It is, by design, a device of exclusion and apartheid.”
 
Bina Shah, a Pakistani writer, notes: “Many people use blackmail to convince women to wear the hijab or niqab: you won’t be a good Muslim, you’ll go to hell, you’re pleasing God, you’ll be subject to harassment and molestation if you go outside without a veil. By playing on women’s vulnerabilities, by bringing up the imagery of women being sexually violated or bringing shame upon their families by walking around unveiled, by implying a woman’s morality is linked to how she dresses, women are coerced into believing they are making a free choice in the thousands and millions, every day of their lives.”
 
In 2006, Jack Straw, former minister and MP for Blackburn, asked female Muslim constituents who wear veils to remove them when they come to see him. Arguing that watching facial expressions was important for contact between different people, he said: "Communities are bound together partly by informal chance relations between strangers - people being able to acknowledge each other in the street or being able pass the time of day. That's made more difficult if people are wearing a veil. That's just a fact of life.” More recently, former justice secretary Ken Clarke has said that the Muslim face veil is a “peculiar costume for people to adopt in the 21st century” which should be banned in court. He added that women should be able to wear “what the devil they like” - but in a courtroom the judge and jury “have got to be able to see the face of the witness”.
 
So what’s the answer? Journalist Nabila Ramdani argues that ever since France introduced its ‘burqa ban’ in 2011, there has been a constant stream of cases involving the handful of Muslims who choose to wear such garments. She claims that “not only are perfectly upstanding women being fined for their choice of dress, principally the full-body niqab, but an increasing number of defendants are being tried for attacking them. The legislation introduced by Sarkozy's government not only stigmatised Muslim women, but somehow legitimised physical attacks on them. The ban in France is a hateful assault on basic freedoms, one that has been seized on by an unlikely alliance of right-wing politicians and feminists.”
 
Kuric comes to the following conclusions on this dilemma: “A blanket ban on the face veil would be wrong – based on a liberal principle that adults can make lifestyle choices that are self-restrictive and that state should interfere as little as possible. However limited, context based bans are right and justified, based on the following egalitarian principles: the state must assert gender equality within its institutions; religious freedom is not absolute, other concerns such as security or identification must be taken into consideration; the state must protect those coerced; the state must protect children not old enough to make an informed choice.”
 
So, is this about misogyny, freedom of expression, refusal to assimilate or just devotion to faith? Ramdani warns that in France “it is mainly ‘patriotic’ men who rally around the burqa ban, viewing it as a legitimate reason to persecute a religious minority”. She concludes that what Muslim women wear is “a petty issue blown out of all proportion, one that ultimately creates nothing but hatred and violence”. Do you agree?
 
Sources used:-
 
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2013/09/progressive-case-against-the-veil/
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5411954.stm
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ken-clarke-muslim-face-veil-2673812
 
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/21/dont-ban-veil-in-uk
 
Further reference:-
 
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/55892/labour-calls-inquiry-al-shabaab-suspect-flees-burka#ixzz2jmLDzCeg
 
http://theconversation.com/no-point-in-knee-jerk-burqa-ban-after-suspect-has-bolted-19847

Very true OW, must be a strange feeling knowing that the female can see you very well, yet you cannot see them only what they wear.

If man or woman were meant to hide any part of their bodies, God would have given Adam a suit case full of cloths, it is man who has determined all things regarding dress.

Are face veils a symbol of free expression, misogyny or devotion to faith?

.... and where do Ebola full-protection garments fit into the argument?

Well OW the face veils are certainly not a matter of choice are they my friend?

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has written a book entitled ‘Refusing The Veil’. These are some extracts from a very critical review of it by Myriam Francois-Cerrah:-

To lump all Muslim women’s religious attire together under one problematic term, when there is no single, monolithic, misogynistic worldview underpinning all of them, lacks intellectual rigour. The women YAB consults offer up a range of motivations for their sartorial choices, from resisting consumerism, to spirituality, through to political solidarity.

The book links the veil to problems of integration and national identity, yet ignores the broader dynamics of integration – the reception offered to migrant communities, unemployment, racism, ghettoisation. While the face veil has become a source of tension in certain contexts, namely schools and court buildings, establishments have typically found a compromise between upholding security requirements and the freedom of religion of individuals.

YAB is concerned that burkas may well cover bruises, but so does make-up – neither can be causally linked to the violence itself. Not wearing burkas isn’t the solution to ending domestic violence, with 30% of British women – most of them not wearing burkas – experiencing domestic abuse.

So much of our interaction now occurs without being face to face, without eye contact or the ability to read facial or body language; it can hardly be said to be an absolute impediment to any form of interaction. Amnesty International has condemned moves to ban face veils as “an attack on religious freedom”, in recognition that restrictions on women wearing the veil in public life are as much a violation of the rights of women as forcing them to wear one.

http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2014/12/feminist-case-veil

From time to time there are news reports of such-and-such (male) terrorist suspects escaping arrest by wearing the burka to slip away.

Abstract discussions of religious freedom, local customs, personal choice and racism etcetera, etc., are unlikely to produce a solution to every situation.

stuart torr wrote:Well OW the face veils are certainly not a matter of choice are they my friend?

Well this is the problem is a nutshell Stu, until Islam recognises the rights of women as the same as those they give men then the veil niqab or burkah will always represent a form of oppression. The security implications of insisting people's faces are uncovered in certain circumstances are a no brainer. I also worry about the impression and message it sends to children in schools when they see girls covered in such a way. Whatever the motives or reasons I always find it deeply saddening that women should be discriminated against in such a way, even if they feel they should wear such apparel, what does that say about our society?

In a community where nobody wore clothing, it could be quite difficult for the self-important to display their presumed authority. Might be an unexpected dividend from global warming.

Any society that imposes a dress code that makes individual identity impossible is depriving those involved of a basic human right, and if applies to only one sex then it is even more apprehensible.

On the other hand, if those involved are doing so willingly it is still nat acceptable for people walking about that cannot be identified.

Everyone in this day and age is fully aware what the human body involves even the yougsters can obtain every aspect from easily obtained sources, I doubt if after a time anyone would bat an eye if everyone was naked.

This can be evidenced by a programme I watched about native tribes.

The women just had short skirts and the men vertual fig leaves.

The sexual morality was of the highest order and the sexual code for marriage etc; was clear, and had to be stricktly ahered to.

There was no sexual crime worth mentioning because the punishment was so strick as to deter anyone from straying.

Of course women should never be treated with less respect than man, however, you cannot deny that both were meant to serve diffrent roles and once this was not adhered to the problems started.

If you are a none believer in creation then you must believe in evolution which the animal kingdom will tell you exactly that the male and female have diffrent roles and once this is changed you have major problems.

If you consider the present state of the human race, look at the news today, yesterdaqy and for weeks previous, henious crimes of all kinds commited by both men and women, deviations in every aspect of life are rife, and all the human race appears to be interested in is either pleasuring themselves are killing each other.

Kind regards.

We are sentient beings. So of course our 'morality' is derived from our social interactions. It has evolved over time and changed from our ignorant past to our more knowledgeable present. And it will change again in our future. We see it changing now. We understand that sexual orientation is not a 'perversion' or 'deviant' behaviour. It's who they are. We are far more tolerant of this since we have found that making them hide in the woodwork was not healthy for anyone.

The world is a far better place to live now than ever before. If you don't believe me just imagine the world 150 years ago and see if you would have the rights and protection under the law that you have now.

Then exactly the same can be said for anyone, irrespective of what is involved.

Anything goes.

The world at the present time is intolerant of a persons feelings, everyone has a right to feel that some things are wrong and others right.

To deny this is far worse than any other denial.

The world at this time is in a far worse state than ever before, there is no time in history that the prospect for the future of the human race has been under such threat.

Even in England thre are 22,000 children malnurished and homeless.

Not one day goes by that a couple of murders of one kind or another are not reported, child abuse, abounds, every kind of deviation is shown on television to brainwash children, along with every kind of sexual misconduct carried out by youngsters as young as six.

The only ones apparently protected by Law are those who oppose Christianity, anyone can say what they want about Christianity but heaven help anyone saying anything about any other religion.

You need to wake up and see the facts and not live in a dream world.

Regards.

And also learn the dictionaries definitions.

polyglide wrote:Then exactly the same can be said for anyone, irrespective of what is involved.

Anything goes.

That is your belief that anything goes. I don't believe that and most thinking, caring, intelligent people don't think as you do.

The world at the present time is intolerant of a persons feelings, everyone has a right to feel that some things are wrong and others right.

If the world is intolerant of bigotry and hatred then I say that is a good thing. If you think it's ok to be bigoted and hateful then I would argue against those sentiments because they are not useful or helpful to an inclusive society.

To deny this is far worse than any other denial.

Denying reality is the worst thing you can do. Religious belief and religion is the denial of reality.

The world at this time is in a far worse state than ever before, there is no time in history that the prospect for the future of the human race has been under such threat.

The world at this time is BETTER than at any time in the past. Your beliefs are not reality.

Even in England thre are 22,000 children malnurished and homeless.

There are 60million people living in the UK. There will always be families and children who fall through the cracks in the system. Where is your church? Shouldn't it make sure these children are fed? If there is a preacher or minister living in a rectory paid for by the church yet children are going hungry, whose responsibility is it? God's? The minister's? The church? Don't whine about starving children when your churches own more land and assets than they they should.

Not one day goes by that a couple of murders of one kind or another are not reported, child abuse, abounds, every kind of deviation is shown on television to brainwash children, along with every kind of sexual misconduct carried out by youngsters as young as six.

There are 7 billion people on this planet. Of course there are crimes. Since 1/2 the global population is religious and believe in god you would expect that the crime rates would be about 1/2 and 1/2 and yet we don't see that at all. In fact many people of no belief are far more moral than believers. Criminality is not the remit of non-believers.

The only ones apparently protected by Law are those who oppose Christianity, anyone can say what they want about Christianity but heaven help anyone saying anything about any other religion.

What a load of whiny rubbish.

You need to wake up and see the facts and not live in a dream world.

Says the man who believes in invisible people.

You live in dream world of your own making and have no sense of reality whatsoever.

I have given references that indicate very clearly that there has never been the same situation on earth than there is now regarding the threat to the human race.

You want to say whatever you want regrding anything but when the truth regarding other things are pointed out you start the ridiculous gene excuse.

If genes are an excuse for one thing they are also an excuse for everything else, and if latitude is given to one then the same should be for all, because under those circumstances no one is responsible for anything.

You cannot pick and choose to suit your obviously ill thought out idiotic ideas of reality.

So you do not believe in things you cannot see? strange that comming from someone who obviously thinks they know it all.

I could name many things you accept that you cannot see, and some you can see in a dictionary but the definitions of which you
cannot accept.

Stranger people there must be but I have thankfully never had the displeasure of meeting them.

Regards.

snowyflake wrote:If the world is intolerant of bigotry and hatred then I say that is a good thing. If you think it's ok to be bigoted and hateful then I would argue against those sentiments because they are not useful or helpful to an inclusive society.

I think snowy that PG was referring to feelings of ordinary decent people.

There are 7 billion people on this planet. Of course there are crimes. Since 1/2 the global population is religious and believe in god you would expect that the crime rates would be about 1/2 and 1/2 and yet we don't see that at all. In fact many people of no belief are far more moral than believers. Criminality is not the remit of non-believers.

I'd say that both religious and non religious have their fair share of good or bad.

The whole problem is that there are those who profess to be Christians or religious people who are just not.

A true Christian will behave in the manner the Bible indicates, if you deviate then you are not a true Cristian.

Of course many events influence many people towards many things, and nothing in life is straight forward, but when you have a Devil attempting to influence everyone into evil, then you have to be wary of those he is using to attain his ambition to pervert all society.

At the present time he appears to be making his last attempt to do so.

When considering other peoples opinions it is better not to get too personal because the whole point can be lost.

I have at times fallen into this and it is not of any help.

Regards.

Hi Polyglide,

I am with you as your mentioned above. I was referring to the religious including the wide variety of faiths , fake Christians and as you know false prophets.

The teaching of Jesus is the loving your enemies and neighbours as yourself.  Be as you are what ever you're happy with.

Blessings to you

Hi Jsmythe,

What many people cannot uderstand is that you may not like or believe or agree with what others feel but you can feel sorry for them, and act in a loving manner to attempt to have them consider alternatives to the path they have chosen.

I have the utmost faith in God and believe we are in the last chance soloon in attempting to have others also become aware of God's blessings, some feel that with the present state of the earth and it's inhabitants indicate the none existance of a loving God, however, they never take into account Satan who is making a last attempt to turn everyone against God.

Blessings to you and yours.

polyglide wrote:You live in dream world of your own making and have no sense of reality whatsoever. I have given references that indicate very clearly that there has never been the same situation on earth than there is now regarding the threat to the human race.

SF: The threat to the human race is never more so than from the religious.

You want to say whatever you want regrding anything but when the truth regarding other things are pointed out you start the ridiculous gene excuse.

SF: You don't know what constitutes evidence or facts let alone truth. You do not understand those concepts.

If genes are an excuse for one thing they are also an excuse for everything else, and if latitude is given to one then the same should be for all, because  under those circumstances no one is responsible for anything.

SF: Your understanding of biology and genetics is inept and pointless in any discussion. You should try to stick to things you actually have learned and understand. We are responsible for our actions and our own thoughts. However, in some cases, people are not responsible. Would you say that a schizophrenic or other mentally ill or brain damaged person is responsible for their thoughts and actions when they don't understand the consequences of their thoughts and actions? Are drug addicts and alcoholics morally weak in your eyes? And whose 'fault' is that?

You cannot pick and choose to suit your obviously ill thought out idiotic ideas of reality.

SF: If you're going to resort to Trump style debating tactics, I'll pass. There are plenty of stupid people on the internet with an axe to grind. I'll go find a forum that has intelligent people. Once in awhile, I think I can share some knowledge but you are blinded by your fundamentalism. Read this and see if you recognise yourself. http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/the-dark-rigidity-of-fundamentalist-rural-america-a-view-from-the-inside/

So you do not believe in things you cannot see? strange that comming from someone who obviously thinks they know it all.

SF: Never claimed to 'know it all' but I also don't pretend that things are there that aren't.

I could name many things you accept that you cannot see, and some you can see in a dictionary but the  definitions of which you
cannot accept.  

SF: Yes I know. And there's plenty of evidence for all of those things. Invisible people ain't one them.

Stranger people there must be but I have thankfully never had the displeasure of meeting them.

Regards.

I see you are still as odious as ever. Good day.

[quote="polyglide"]Hi Jsmythe,

What many people cannot uderstand is that you may not like or believe or agree with what others feel but you can feel sorry for them, and act in a loving manner to attempt to have them consider alternatives to the path they have chosen.

SF: That is one of the most cringeworthy sentiments but not overly surprising.

Do you think bigotry and hatred are the feelings of 'ordinary, decent people'?

I don't.

You obviously do not read with any understanding, what on earth makes you think I agree with the things you suggest?, your main fault amongst many appears to be you think you are a mind reader.

I undersatnd genes and the way they work far better than you, having bred many animals for over 70 years, actualy seeing and not readding a load of rubbish.

You obviously cannot understand that if a gene can be said to be responsible for, say a malformed leg etc; which is a deformity, the gene does not make the deformity normal, it is still a deformity and unatural and the same applies to any abnormality.

Defining the gene responsible does not make anything abnormal, normal.

You appear very self satisfied with your life which indicates a total lack of concern for anything other that your own welfare, shame on you.

For anyone in there right mind to say that the world is a better place than ever before shows a total lack of the understanding of the present position, do you actually read the news etc; or does someone with an unreliable reading ability tell you?.

If you had any consideration that a human being should have for others then you would not be so twisted in the manner you treat the beliefs of others when you obviously only have one concern, SELF< SELF< SELF.

I dread to think what the rold would be like if everyone had your attitude.

Regards.

Yep, it's a funny old rold.

Breeding with animals does not make you a geneticist. It makes you a breeder. I happen to be a genetic biomedical scientist.

You appear to make a lot of assumptions about people who happen to disagree with your worldview and belief system.

I think I have pointed you towards Steven Pinker before and his lecture on the Better Angels of our Nature. You can find this on youtube and spend yourself a good hour looking at the evidence for that claim. Then you can come back here and we can discuss this based on EVIDENCE. How does that sound?

You seem pretty sure that god is real, that science is bad, that people are sinful creatures. This sounds very negative to me and based on the evidence around me, I see mostly very good people (both believers and non-believers), science and technology improving the lives of billions and a world that is mostly good. You have a preconceived belief that prophesy says the world is an evil place and the evidence says you are wrong.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/rural-america-understanding-isnt-problem

Read that as well and see if you can see yourself in any of the paragraphs. You scream from this article.

Hi snowflake,
I have read the site you quote and the part I agree with most, is the, We are heading into a dark, ugly, unpresedented era, the worst in our lifetome etc;

Let us get the gene question settled first, every living thing is gene created, this can result in all kinds of results depending on the way in which they are brought together, wether they are dominant or recessive, or they have been damaged along the way resulting in any number of odd results etc; ther is no mystery involved and all a scientist involved in genes can do is identify them, and have a little fun dabling with them etc;

I agree with part of the article you stated because I feel that the American Christian is not a real Christian at all they just use the term to cover up and make excuses for their own activities which are apparently not those of a true Christian, there is a big difference between saying you are a Christian and behaving like one.

The eveidence for the world being an evil place is does not need the Bible to tell you so, the facts speak for themselves.

Just look at all the conflicts throughout the world, the suffering of millions of children without even the bare needs for survival, millions of children dying for lack of even the most basic care, science has created more harm than good, it has allowed the minority to have a good life at the expense of the rest, it has created the means of destroying the earth, along with numerous other potentially health destroying means.

snowflake, I dislike having a go at anyone because it is counter productive but I do not like to be told that I am, this or that, because I have a firm belief in God, there are many things I disagree with that occurs in life because the Bible says they are wrong, now I would not be a proper Christian if I did not do so, I do not, however, make any judgement and if I ignored all those who do things I disagree with then I would be friendless, and it is by making friends that you can try to explain your own belief, and I can assure you I have more friends than I could count, and of all colours and beliefs, what a dull place the world would be if everyone was the same, but what a wonderful world it would be if all abided by the BIble principles.

Regards.

polyglide wrote:Hi snowflake,
                 I have read the site you quote and the part I agree with most, is the, We are heading into a dark, ugly, unpresedented era, the worst in our lifetome etc;

                 
SF: We are in uncharted territory, I agree but not in the way you mean. It is the christians and muslims who are dictating the politics now. They are not doing it for the benefit of humanity. They are doing it to benefit their beliefs. They are mostly apocalyptic christians and fascist muslims who believe that god wants the world to be a certain way and they will kill anyone who gets in their way. The article speaks to the stupid, uneducated, bible bashing, under the radar racist, misogynist homophobic hater who believes they know what god thinks, wants and needs. All of this based on an ancient manuscript that was designed to unite a nation.

pg: Let us get the gene question settled first, every living thing is gene created, this can result in all kinds of results depending on the way in which they are brought together, wether they are dominant or recessive, or they have been damaged along the way resulting in any number of odd results etc; ther is no mystery involved and all a scientist involved in genes can do is identify them, and have a little fun dabling with them etc;

SF: This is a lot of words saying not very much, I'm afraid. Unfortunately, your lack of genetic knowledge is evident. It is not JUST about recessiveness or dominance. There is epigenetics, penetrance, dosage, uniparental disomy, translocations, mutations, missense mutations, point mutations, inversions, deletions and variations of the above. So your little dabbling in breeding means nothing without the knowledge of the rest of it. It might have served your purposes but you didn't KNOW any of the more important aspects of disease-causing genetics. Your ignorance in thinking oh it's just a bit of identification and playing around shows your immense ignorance and hubris here. It's extraordinarily irritating to hear people who are completely ignorant of a topic speaking as if they are experts. You're not an expert.

pg: The eveidence for the world being an evil place is does not need the Bible to tell you so, the facts speak for themselves.

SF: There are 7 billion people on the planet. Most people are good. The stuff you see on the news accounts for a small percentage of the global population.

You believe in god which is your own business but you cannot tell me that my not believing god exists makes me a bad person. It doesn't.

snowflake.

I have never said nor thought you are a bad person, I think misguided would be a better descirption and maybe I am being a littile over the top in that.

As you understand genetics it will not have passed your notice the vast amount of intelligence that is involved that creates a living thing.

I agree that the vast majoriy of people if left alone are good people.

I also agree that there are a vast majority of those who say they are religious are fakes, using a religion to further their own aims, which are to say the least in most cases questionable, and undesirable.

My own belief is based on the birth of Jesus and nothing else, for as a programme on the television said Jesus changed things.

I take no notice of anything prior to the birth of Jeus as a new order was created on his birth, and I disagree with anything else.

Now take the gene and the DNA involvement in the creation of a living thing, you must at times feel that they could not possibly have come about by chance, and it is this aspect that , along with other personal and Biblical considerations, leads me to belive in God.

I deplore all that you do, I disagree with many things the Bible condemns but as the Bible says, you should still love one another and not attempt to judge.

God will judge all according to the life they have led, and only God knows all, we may think we know a person, but do we ever realy know?.

Regards.

Is there any point in having "topic headings"? Most could just be headed something like, "argue amongst yourselves here."

None of the last seventeen contributions (which includes one of mine ) makes any mention of the veil.

Good point, OW - I've often thought the religion threads provide just a vehicle for people to display their prejudices - some of which I agree with on occasion.

To the rest of you - do you think we could possibly get back to face veils, or are we in agreement that this thread has outlived its relevance?

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/rural-america-understanding-isnt-problem

Good article, Snowyflake

There is no reason whatsoever why a person should hide their identity.

It takes away the right of another to know with whom they are dealing with.

Regards.

The 'rest of you' appears to be just polyglide and occasionally someone else. Would be nice to see Sheldon back here but he appears to have given up on polyglide.

You're right that it appears to be "argue amongst yourselves". I'll leave polyglide to argue amongst himself.

Merry Christmas everyone.

I disagree with argue, the whole point is to consider the opinions of others, and not in a manner that is antaganistic.

One may not agree with the belief of another but that does not in any way make the belief any less truthful.

A true Chrsitian may not want to join in the site due to the manner in which some use less than suitable terms, and feel there time is better spent on attempting to convert those who are more inclined to consider the facts rather than fiction.

Dr, Sheldon ???? one cannot discuss matters when a person denies the definition of words clearly indicated and accepterd by the vast majority of the people in the world.

A very Merry Christmas to everyone, not forgetting it is to celebrate the birth of Jesus, who gave his life and suffered that we may be saved from our own wicked ways.

Regards.

snowyflake wrote:The 'rest of you' appears to be just polyglide and occasionally someone else. Would be nice to see Sheldon back here but he appears to have given up on polyglide.

You're right that it appears to be "argue amongst yourselves". I'll leave polyglide to argue amongst himself.

Merry Christmas everyone.

Hi Mrs S, hope you are well. I don't know if you have been following the Amazon religious discussion forums, but as predicted the trolls have now thoroughly ruined it. The moderation I am afraid is a joke, and has simply banned anyone who dares offer any cogent interesting opinion if it attacks religion in any way, all very sad really as some very erudite and intelligent posters have been banned en masse.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon ???? one cannot discuss matters when a person denies the definition of words clearly indicated and accepterd by the vast majority of the people in the world.

I have never done this, it seems your posts are no more honest than I remember. However please show a word and quote a post of mine where you claim I have done this? You do realise the dictionary is precisely what reflects common usage and definitions don't you? Only I recall that it was you who offered definitions that denied and contradicted the dictionaries, even after multiple posters offered those definitions from the most commonly used dictionaries and even offered links to them online. It's too bad that you feel it appropriate to misrepresent what people have said in such a dishonest fashion though.

Is it moral to force men or women to wear veils or any particular garment?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cwOqKfEYTg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

I ask this question, because forcing people to do so, seems to go against the notions of freedom, liberty, equality and fraternity. It is an insult to our fiduciary duty to each other.

In many countries, be it a religious, political or social custom; women and men are forced to wear particular garments, veils or beards are two examples of this.

Does this practice of using force go against our fiduciary duty to women and men?

These Golden Rules exists in most religions and cultures.

No one likes to be forced to do anything, this is irrefutable.

In some cultures, force is used to have men and women kowtow to the culture or religion. This is a poor and immoral ideology.

I believe that obliging people to submit to any political, social or religious norm, --- without a just cause, --- is immoral.

Do you agree?

Regards
DL