Can an atheist appreciate the hijab?
Offline Stripped of the theist and male chauvanist underpinnings, can an atheist woman wear the hijab for its intrinsic artistic and ceremonial value? And I've actually encountered a few such atheist women (and there are few). Without Allah's decrees, is there a difference between the hijab from say the sari or salwar kameez that Indian women wear. I know gays who don the skinhead attire of shaved heads and doc martin boots. Without the white supremacist baggage, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this get up. So with all this freedom to wear (or not wear) what you like, I have trouble grasping the rationale to ban a piece of clothing like a head scarf. Let's face it, forcing an Islamic zealot to shed her burka for a string bikini will not shed the zealot.
- Login to post comments
Yea it is possible. Just like many in the UK want to advocate atheist priests. Personally that makes no sense to me. Not from a "whatever floats your boat" sense, in that context, fine. If a church is willing to accept an open atheist priest, fine. What I object to is when law goes beyond equality and forces morals on everyone.
Laws can only be based on common ground. Not your idea or your detractors ideas. When you start injecting morality on law, you are asking for trouble and in the end, long term, that attitude usually screws everyone.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
What an excellent posting !
I was of the view that this sort of clothing merely pandered to the dominance of the people
proposing it !! and I thought it should be prohibited ..
but you have now changed my mid..
I now realize that this is very short sighted..
ALL types of clothing should be acceptable in a modern society.
silly really... to ban head scarves, I mean what are we afraid of ?
Akubras for instance. Wet handkerchiefs on the heads of old men at the clovelly baths. Straw hats at the beach. Scarves on classy ladies in convertibles in movies from the 60s. But there is a distinction with the hijab. It's a religious statement that claims the moral high ground, the unbelievers of which, the doctrine of that faith says, should and will be burned. I don't know how any one else feels but if a culture/religion/group threatens to burn the people I love then I will want to fuck them up. Period.
Edit: Of course, stripped of its theist horseshit and worn by Audrey Hepburn, a scarf worn over the hair is an appealing piece of clothing.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Nothing should be "banned". But there is an argument for and against doing anything. I think the religious reasons for doing something hold no weight. I suppose if someone wants to cover up for secular reasons I can see that happening, my question still would be "why"?
Some people feel more comfortable with more on, some don't need as much on. Some like conservative dress and others like to show off their bodies. I don't think there is a right or wrong way, and most certainly time place and context have something to do with it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Yes. Of course!
Let me put it this way: My girlfriend is Iranian. It's natural for her to wear the hijab at certain occasions.
Any attempt at 'banning' it will almost certainly turn it into an avant-garde fashion statement of protest.
Seriously, what are they going to do? Stop you in the streets and remove it? Issue a fine for unlawful dressing?
That will - at best - be a very strange statement, like an inverse Sharia-police.
As for the skinhead get-up; the Docs, the rolled-up jeans, the suspenders and the bomber jacket, that's my own youth background. Nowadays, however - at age 47 - I dress quite conservatively, as the respectable senior citizen and pillar of society that I am (hah!), but I still shave my head (because it feels weird and unpleasant to have hair). I never was any 'white supremacist' though. If anything, I was a S.H.A.R.P. type of rudeboy, even before S.H.A.R.P. existed. It was about the music and the wild lifestyle, not about politics. 'Racism' (whatever the hell that means) is every bit as stupid as theism: It is an expression of the non-thinking mind.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
I find it sick in this day and age for example, if a boy wants to wear girls cloths at school, society wont let them. I think simple standards should apply and still allow them to be themselves. We don't flip out if a girl wears jeans and has a butch hair cut. So if a boy wants to wear a dress, I'd only stipulate that it doesn't show butt cheaks. I wouldn't want to see a fat chicks g-string either.
I think learning should be the goal in school, I think you should wear what you want but have the maturity to put your grades first. I think simply wearing something for shock value doesn't do anything but mask insecurities. However, if you wear something because it is merely what you like, then be happy and do it.
Highschool was horrible for me because I cared too much about what others thought of me. I thought if I wore the right thing, listened to the right music, I could fit in. I was my own worst enemy in that I simply wasn't myself and I let other people get to me.
Same with tatoos. I think it is stupid to get one because you want to fit in. Get one because YOU want one, not because others have one.
I used to not understand why my mom, as a kid, would say, "Just because others do this or that, or have this or that, doesn't mean you need to do the same". I know now what she meant and wish I had listened to her as a kid.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I would hope not. If it is anything like our laws here banning discrimination for hiring purposes I'd agree. A person's ability to do a job is all that should matter.
But I guess I get a lip twitch when lines are blurred to the point of absurdity. It would be silly for a Church to hire an atheist priest, even if they didn't discriminate. Just like it would be silly for a gay strip joint to hire a female stripper. You could do that, but why?
I just don't want society to get so absurd, with laws or even without force of law to the point anyone who forms a club gets accused of discrimination.
I think there is such a thing as being hypersensitive. I should know, I was that way as a kid and teen, and admittedly I think even here and now you are pointing out that I might be doing the same here.
I try to look in the middle at life on all subjects because that is where the common ground is found. You cant have anarchy, that isn't good. Nor should we want an uber strict society where one political party or religion or race has absolute control. And in this context I think any law should not be for the majority or the minority, but one that maximizes the benefit and minimizes the harm while still allowing individuals and clubs.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Atheism would obviously get in the way of someone being a priest - job performance requires the belief.
Where they would have to not discriminate would be for jobs where the religious belief was not an integral part.
E.g. receptionist or someone who looks after the finances for the religious organisation.
These jobs don't require religious beliefs for their work to be done, employers should not be using it to discriminate.