by John Doe 43 Replies latest jw friends
Got a quote for that?
"It is not right for a woman to be dressed in a man's clothing, or for a man to wear a woman's robe: whoever does such things is disgusting to the Lord your God." ~ Deuteronomy 22:5 (various biblical commentaries here)
I was under the impression that it stemmed from the time when thighs were thought to be part of the reproductive system, and any indication that a woman had legs was seen as perverse. . .
Got a quote for that?
No I don't Skully. This is not something I really care about, and I don't recall where I had that discussion. I do see a problem with your explanation, however. You say that the requirement to wear dresses was to avoid wearing men's clothing. Now, what does that have to do with the requirement that dresses go down to the ankles, since men do not wear any sort of dresses?
Scully,
I hope you gave that man a peice of your mind.
A few days ago I was having lunch with my BF and we were having a disagreement on where our son should go to preschool. We were not fighting or anything like that. It was simply a disagreement. There was a muslim couple sitting across from us. The woman was covered from head to toe and she looked so sad. Almost the whole time she was looking down at the table and not making eye contact with anyone. The male was dying to saying something. I saw the look of disgust on his face and he was staring daggers at me. Like how dare I disagree with a man. I decided to really piss him off by changing the subject and I brought up how far the US had come by electing Obama. I pointed out it was only a matter of time before there would be a woman president and it was bound to happen in other countries. I very smugly said this world would probably be a much more peaceful place of the world was ran by women. That statement made him so upset he said something in his native language and they left the restaurant before their food even arrived. I mean god forbid a women becomes president one day.
I have no doubt if I had been by myself having that kind of conversation on my cell he would have confronted me. The only thing that stopped him was my BF being there. I was hoping he would confront me. I could tell him to f*** off and go to hell w/o any reprecussions from him. His wife would have been able to see that women had some rights in this country.
This is not something I really care about, and I don't recall where I had that discussion.
How convenient. If you don't care about it, why bother discussing it? Are you bored this afternoon?
I do see a problem with your explanation, however. You say that the requirement to wear dresses was to avoid wearing men's clothing. Now, what does that have to do with the requirement that dresses go down to the ankles, since men do not wear any sort of dresses?
It's not "my" explanation - it's in the Bible. So it must be True™, right?
You don't seem too well informed on ancient dress customs. I suppose the way the Virgin Mary is portrayed (or any other ancient biblical characters) wearing a long robe-like garment is not a reflection on the biblical directive (which Jewish people were expected to memorize) or on the customs of the day.
Scully, perhaps you misunderstand my tone. I'm not taking an adversarial stance here. I am questioning how much I've seen is true. I'm not attempting to prove anything wrong, and in fact, you may be 100% correct. Instead, I have hopes that this discussion can help everyone to come a little closer to truth, or at least to analyze why we think what we do.
Additionally, this subject is not about ancient customs. To this day, in this country, we still have faiths demonizing birth control. In the last 30 years, we've had a case go to the Supreme Court over a statute that crimilized giving birth control to unwed people. We have numerous women's rights issues regarding child care and abortions. At any rate, my first class was cancelled today, and I'm off to my second one now.
Additionally, this subject is not about ancient customs.
R U sure? Christianity is just past its second millenium; Islam is at about 1400 years. And don't count Judaism out: it is passing three milleniums and can easily be invoked in such a potentially far-reaching discussion.
I found it useful to delve into HG Wells commentary. That harks back ~ 100 years. His comparison of all of the above but being one century old makes a useful baseline.
Mustang
As far as burkas, recall that in this country until relatively recently it was considered immodest for women to wear jeans and dresses had to be at least ankle length. I'm really not seeing the distinction.
It's been almost 90 years since women wore dresses down to their ankles over here and I don't recall women ever having to hide their faces or their hair behind some ugly garb lest some man look at them 'with lust in their hearts'. And even when they did wear dresses down to their ankles, they quite often wore extremely low-cut dresses that showed half of their boobs.
As for seeing any of this first hand, well, I see it all the time. Islamic women forced to walk behind their husbands when out in public, their faces covered. There was a group of Islamic men who tried getting the Sharia Law passed in Ontario a few years ago. Now why would they want something like that? Because it would give them the freedom to still practice their neandrathal methods of "punishment"----like stoning their women for "adultery" (which, as we've seen, includes being raped) and hell----they could even still cut off your hand for stealing if this law had come into practice.
Obviously, many Muslims do not like the freedom that the laws over here give the women and this was their attempt at regaining total control over them, without the interference from the laws of Society. Thank god it never went through, mostly because of the outcry from the Muslim women themselves. They were all too aware that Canadian laws guarantee them basic Rights and that if the Sharia Law went through, they might as well be back in Saudia Arabia.
Criticizing Islam has been found to be unhealthy.
However, it needs to be noted that here is a fundamental difference: this, the United States, is a nation of critics, but we have been taught tolerance. We have finely tuned the coexistence of dissimilar peoples, in that manner. That is to say, contrasting criticism with tolerance.
This has not been achieved by the peoples under the Islamic codes.
That is the nature of the American experience: a blending of different ideologies and people.
But, we remain a nation of critics. If a person cannot tolerate criticism, they need to think twice about coming here. That sign needs to be posted on the door. And it is: see the First Amendment, quoted below. You are supposed to study this and encounter it on your way to US Citizenship.
Further, please note the emphasis on SUBMISSION: it is the goal of the Islamic to bring all others under SUBMISSION.
BTW: this is technically, and in the long run ILLEGAL in the USA. Our government is established to prevent the mixing of a religious Theocracy into the Secular realm. To that end, note the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Theocracy is essentially illegal in the USA. Your coming here is OK: but park your Theocracy at the door. If you've got to have Theocracy, you need to return to whence you came.
If you can't stand some criticism, and temper that with tolerance, when you criticize, then it looks like this is not a country for you.
We have to consider, that the USA may not be suitable for all comers.
Naturalized citizens have to learn these things, i.e. what we call Civics Lessons.
As an aside, isn't it amazing that the USA spawned that Theocracy, the WTS?
That old 50's ("?) quote that showed that WTS yearned to be able to take the law into its own hands (stone apostates?) still floors me.
Mustang
Here is the latest cheerful headline regarding a few Muslims that were upset that females wanted to get an education...
Please read the book "Infidel". A little bit of insight goes a long way.
