Posted on 06/21/2007 5:56:04 PM PDT by traumer
LONDON: Increasingly, Muslim women in Britain take their children to school and run errands covered head to toe in flowing black gowns that allow only a slit for their eyes.
Like little else, their appearance has unnerved Britons, testing the limits of tolerance in this stridently secular nation. Many veiled women say they are targets of abuse. At the same time, efforts are growing to place legal curbs on the full Muslim veil, known as the niqab.
The past year has seen numerous examples: A lawyer dressed in a niqab was told by an immigration judge that she could not represent a client because, he said, he could not hear her. A teacher wearing a niqab was told by a provincial school to go home. A student who was barred from wearing a niqab took her case to the courts, and lost. In fact, the British education authorities are proposing a ban on the niqab in schools altogether.
David Sexton, a columnist for The Evening Standard, wrote recently that Britain has been "too deferential" toward the veil. "I find such garb, in the context of a London street, first ridiculous and then directly offensive," he said.
Although the number of women wearing the niqab has increased in the past several years, only a tiny percentage of women among Britain's two million Muslims cover themselves completely. It is impossible to say how many exactly.
Some who wear the niqab, particularly younger women who have taken it up recently, concede that it is a frontal expression of Islamic identity, which they have embraced since Sept. 11, 2001, as a form of rebellion against the policies of the Blair government in Iraq and at home.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
> “9/11 was a wake-up call for young Muslims,”
More like a call to arms.
I, sir, am talking about the full body armor worn by Muslims. Not a headscarf, yarmulke or other proclamations of ones religious beliefs. I wear a cross, not the garb that Jesus wore, not something that would make me necessarily stand out in a crowd.
I believe that most of these people wear these tents to make a statement, nothing religious, just a statement.
And, as I believe, they are doing nothing but making a political statement, go back to the land of sand and make that statement.
Over the years, this country (US) has accepted many of various religious beliefs and they have assimilated, still holding to their basic beliefs without the need to make it a billboard issue.
When this land is overrun by Shaia law, we will all wonder what happened to our “scarves”, “yarmulkes” and “crosses” and our heads.
She is a 3rd order Franciscan Sister, so her religious obligations extend beyond actual church attendance. You are correct that this is unusual. We live in the DFW area and there is exactly one other such Sister in the region.
I am not a liar.
How do they wear them? My wife wears hers in a manner similar to a hijab.
The Bible was already old by the middle ages. Many people felt it was out of fashion then, too. You are free to worship (or not worship) as you see fit, but so are we. If my wife wanted to wear a tent, that would be her business, not yours or anyone else's.
This is supposed to be a Free Republic, right?
OK, so Martin's kid wants to decide what religious statements are appropriate in a free society, and you are claiming the right to decide what political statements are appropriate in a free society.
Have you looked up the word "free" recently?
Tell that to hockey goalies and burn victims.
Make a religious statement … not a politi … oh, never mind.
At my age I will never enjoy the benefits of Shaia law anyhow. Enjoy, my friend.
Now that's twisted right there.
No disrespect intended...but an honest question here. Franciscan Sisters can marry?
OK, now I understand. She's free to do so, of course, but such an 'in your face' choice is sure to get strong responses.
Whatever is wrong with 'suffering in joy for Christ' instead of whining? Toughen up, or change styles.
You could also wait until the threat to our lives from people who wear the same style as your wifes's headpiece are killed.
Myself, I'd urge the wife to change styles. No common sense in dressing and looking looking like the enemy in the middle of a war. Not many dressed as Germans or Japanese in the 40's.
Holy mask! What about Batman and Robin?
If you’re Catholic and your wife is some order of the Sisters of St. Francis, known as Francsicans, which I doubt, they don’t wear full head gear anymore. They were one of the first Orders to do away with the “nun” habit back in the late 70’s. Plus, she’s no longer a nun or a sister if she’s married to you. So I do doubt what you wrote as I interpreted it.
Your wife is free to wear anything she wants as long as her face, thus her identity, isn’t concealed. We live in a time where even religious affiliation isn’t just cause to cover one’s face.
Neighbors of mine, the women, wear the entire tent. My youngest asked why they dress like that. I said I didn’t know why they chose to, given that they don’t have to in this country, but that it was their business but as long as their face was covered, and not identifiable, they were suspect in my mind. So, it is my business when someone wears something that covers their face.
IMO.
The Catholic ones, no they can’t marry.
I could have misinterpreted the entire post and subsequent posts based on the fact that the Fransiscan Sisters can not marry. So she’s either a Franciscan (sp) Sister who doesn’t know this or one who left the Order before the mid-70’s when they did away with their habit (for the most part).
If this isn’t a Catholic Order, then I have no idea. If it is, as inferred in the post, then it’s BS.
No offense taken, I get this a lot. :)
A 1st order Sister is neither "of the world" nor "in the world." Those nuns are cloistered in convents and cannot marry.
A 2nd order Sister is not "of the world" but is "in the world." These nuns also cannot marry, but are the ones you see teaching or in other areas of public life.
A 3rd order Sister is both "of the world" and "in the world" and can marry (because she is "of the world"). 3rd order Sisters still have vows. My wife's vows are "chastity, simplicity, and obedience to God." Chastity in this case means sexual virtue, not a lack of sex (which really helps the marriage, I can tell you).
The term "3rd order" is a pre-Vatican II term. In more modern vernacular, she would be called a "Secular Franciscan" but I find it even harder to explain how a nun can be secular, so I stick with the older term.
The grandparents of the current crop of Britons were made of sterner stuff. They would have handled this in short order. But after WWII everyone got so tolerant that they let millions of Moslems into the country and now are gobsmacked by what is happening.
bump
Bzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.
Uh oh. Someone call the Pope.
Sheesh.
I suspect you wouldn’t know a hockey goalie if he bent you over a chair.
I would be hard pressed not to snatch it off of their heads and toss it in the sewer.
What the heck is that supposed to mean?
Maybe you can clarify what you were intending to say -- do you support banning all masks (including those used for athletes, burn victims, and surgeons) or just certain masks?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.