Hijab is supposed to be voluntary under Islamic scripture. Islam does not include anything about having to impose anything on others. Attempting to downvote you results in a server error.
And Christians are supposed to give up all early possessions, renounce sex and serve God all their days.
What’s your point? Theory means fuck all.
Religions are coercive social structures. You cannot distinguish those doing it willingly from those corrected into “proper behavior”. As such a civil society can permit neither.
Re: downvotes - no idea why it’s not working, but your anger is obvious enough without it
Christians are not obligated to give up sex or “all early possessions”. At most they’re just obligated to give up personal trinkets during lent and fund the church. My point is that there is no coercion within Islam to wear a hijab, kinda like how there is no coercion within Christianity to be a virgin.
People who want to oppress women will do it regardless of means. Islam is just an excuse. There are many atheists who use their moral code instead.
To distinguish them, just get their confidence and ask them in a safe environment.
Pretty unequivocal: give up everything and serve God.
there is no coercion within Islam to wear a hijab, kinda like how there is no coercion within Christianity to be a virgin.
The fuck there isn’t. Coercion in Christian sects is rampant. Your parents finding out you’re not a virgin will have you disowned in plenty of Christian households.
People who want to oppress women will do it regardless of means
And people who want to murder will do it regardless of means. That doesn’t allow us to throw up our hands and let murder cults exist. Instead we extirpate them, outlaw them, stamp them out both legally and culturally.
To distinguish them, just get their confidence and ask them in a safe environment.
Pragmatically speaking this is, unfortunately, the best we can hope for. I’m not talking about pragmatics here though: I’m talking about fundamentals. Theory. What is a truly polite society?
It’s not one where religious coercion is allowed to fester.
That’s a pretty bad misreading. These are about how material accretion is not to be valued too much, especially in comparison to kindness and serving God. (The latter story also says “If you wish to be perfect”, not “you must do this to get there”.)
Your parents finding out you’re not a virgin will have you disowned in plenty of Christian households.
That’s sad to hear. Even as an agnostic, I know nicer Christian sects.
That doesn’t allow us to throw up our hands and let murder cults exist.
Most people of faith aren’t those radical maniacs you see on ye olde telly. Radical [blank]s exist in nearly every field you can imagine, and since they’re radical, they’re gonna be vocal and take over all your anger-driven feed. To assert that all religions fester and allow hate simply isn’t true. Radicals will turn to everything they can find to justify their stupid beliefs.
It’s not a misreading at all. In many fundamentalist sects (such as the one I left) that’s the dogmatic truth of those verses.
Everything material is sinful and holding you back.
I have lived with and continue to love many religious people - that does not make them rational. That does not make their religious beliefs OK. With all the love in their hearts they still participate in evil and coercive control of others. They are particularly dangerous in that they believe in their heart of hearts that they are doing the right thing.
This is the reality of religion: it is dangerous, coercive, self propagating brain washing that forces people into shape. It creates panopticons. Window twitching neighbors that snitch and shun.
This is true of all religion. In Christianity it’s true of southern baptist and Lutheran’s and Christian scientists and episcopalians and Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th day Adventists and Mormons and Catholics and Orthodox and …
I am truly horrified by what you had to endure. I understand, or at least think I may understand, why you feel this way. However, your experience is not universal to all people of faith.
Religion is very much compatible with day-to-day rationality, and most religions do not believe that one has to forsake everything; in fact, that fundamentalist sect still owns things, and they’re just making up an excuse to steal. Propagating beliefs themselves is not coercive control; coercive control is coercive control.
It’s just that since religion used to be universal, old filth found their justification in what they know and created their existing communities of control. That does not mean religion always lends itself towards more coercion. Belief in a greater purpose is a great rationale to endure and go on to create astonishing projects.
Can anybody with more knowledge about this explain this? I don’t know much about islam but i thought husbands and/or fathers would force women to wear them?
It’s a complex issue, but think of it like backwards fundamentalist Christians going ballistic over women (especially their daughters) wearing anything more revealing than a sweater. That kind of familial coercion is couched in religious terms and springs from religious values, but is not, strictly speaking, fundamental (ha) to the religion itself.
While its true there are outliers like fundamentalists who go to extremes and progressives who deny many rules, there are four major schools in (Sunni) Islamic law that the majority of people follow and they all take at the very least the ruling that the covering for women is everything except her face, hands and feet - when among men who she legally can marry (“mahram”).
Does it make a difference that it’s under the section “Prescribed Prayers”? Because the New Testament has a similar rule written in it that women have to cover their heads while praying.
Hijab is supposed to be voluntary under Islamic scripture. Islam does not include anything about having to impose anything on others. Attempting to downvote you results in a server error.
And Christians are supposed to give up all early possessions, renounce sex and serve God all their days.
What’s your point? Theory means fuck all.
Religions are coercive social structures. You cannot distinguish those doing it willingly from those corrected into “proper behavior”. As such a civil society can permit neither.
Re: downvotes - no idea why it’s not working, but your anger is obvious enough without it
Christians are not obligated to give up sex or “all early possessions”. At most they’re just obligated to give up personal trinkets during lent and fund the church. My point is that there is no coercion within Islam to wear a hijab, kinda like how there is no coercion within Christianity to be a virgin.
People who want to oppress women will do it regardless of means. Islam is just an excuse. There are many atheists who use their moral code instead.
To distinguish them, just get their confidence and ask them in a safe environment.
Matthew 6:19-34 and Luke 18:22-25
Pretty unequivocal: give up everything and serve God.
The fuck there isn’t. Coercion in Christian sects is rampant. Your parents finding out you’re not a virgin will have you disowned in plenty of Christian households.
And people who want to murder will do it regardless of means. That doesn’t allow us to throw up our hands and let murder cults exist. Instead we extirpate them, outlaw them, stamp them out both legally and culturally.
Pragmatically speaking this is, unfortunately, the best we can hope for. I’m not talking about pragmatics here though: I’m talking about fundamentals. Theory. What is a truly polite society?
It’s not one where religious coercion is allowed to fester.
That’s a pretty bad misreading. These are about how material accretion is not to be valued too much, especially in comparison to kindness and serving God. (The latter story also says “If you wish to be perfect”, not “you must do this to get there”.)
That’s sad to hear. Even as an agnostic, I know nicer Christian sects.
Most people of faith aren’t those radical maniacs you see on ye olde telly. Radical [blank]s exist in nearly every field you can imagine, and since they’re radical, they’re gonna be vocal and take over all your anger-driven feed. To assert that all religions fester and allow hate simply isn’t true. Radicals will turn to everything they can find to justify their stupid beliefs.
It’s not a misreading at all. In many fundamentalist sects (such as the one I left) that’s the dogmatic truth of those verses.
Everything material is sinful and holding you back.
I have lived with and continue to love many religious people - that does not make them rational. That does not make their religious beliefs OK. With all the love in their hearts they still participate in evil and coercive control of others. They are particularly dangerous in that they believe in their heart of hearts that they are doing the right thing.
This is the reality of religion: it is dangerous, coercive, self propagating brain washing that forces people into shape. It creates panopticons. Window twitching neighbors that snitch and shun.
This is true of all religion. In Christianity it’s true of southern baptist and Lutheran’s and Christian scientists and episcopalians and Jehovah’s Witnesses and 7th day Adventists and Mormons and Catholics and Orthodox and …
I am truly horrified by what you had to endure. I understand, or at least think I may understand, why you feel this way. However, your experience is not universal to all people of faith.
Religion is very much compatible with day-to-day rationality, and most religions do not believe that one has to forsake everything; in fact, that fundamentalist sect still owns things, and they’re just making up an excuse to steal. Propagating beliefs themselves is not coercive control; coercive control is coercive control.
It’s just that since religion used to be universal, old filth found their justification in what they know and created their existing communities of control. That does not mean religion always lends itself towards more coercion. Belief in a greater purpose is a great rationale to endure and go on to create astonishing projects.
Can anybody with more knowledge about this explain this? I don’t know much about islam but i thought husbands and/or fathers would force women to wear them?
It’s a complex issue, but think of it like backwards fundamentalist Christians going ballistic over women (especially their daughters) wearing anything more revealing than a sweater. That kind of familial coercion is couched in religious terms and springs from religious values, but is not, strictly speaking, fundamental (ha) to the religion itself.
The root of the thing is that Islamic teachings require practitioners to dress modestly.
Interpretations of this range from “cover your sex bits” to “don’t show an inch of skin to anybody except your husband”.
While its true there are outliers like fundamentalists who go to extremes and progressives who deny many rules, there are four major schools in (Sunni) Islamic law that the majority of people follow and they all take at the very least the ruling that the covering for women is everything except her face, hands and feet - when among men who she legally can marry (“mahram”).
No, it is obligatory according to the major schools of law in Islam, which the manority follow.
Here’s the section from Encyclopedia of Islamic law: a compendium of the views of the major schools by Laleh Bakhtiar (archive: https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofis0000bakh/page/70/mode/2up )
Does it make a difference that it’s under the section “Prescribed Prayers”? Because the New Testament has a similar rule written in it that women have to cover their heads while praying.
Its under a subsection on “modesty”. But I don’t know why it’s under the section on prayer.
They are general rules on clothing, you can look up “awra for women” to get at the same stuff.
Ooh, thanks.