Head-to-toe Muslim veils test tolerance of stridently secular Britain

IHT ^

[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.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

Thank you for the explanation. What a great calling for both of you:)

[Mr. Know It All]

Whatever is wrong with 'suffering in joy for Christ'

Whating in what? I like Google's answer:

Your search - "suffering in joy for Christ" - did not match any documents.

Toughen up, or change styles.

My wife has been fending off pinheaded busybodies for many years since she took her vows. She's plenty tough.

You could also wait until the threat to our lives from people who wear the same style as your wifes's headpiece are killed.

Is this sentence supposed to make sense? What is supposed to be killed? A threat? Ladies in scarves? Happy hour go a bit long tonight?

Not many dressed as Germans or Japanese in the 40's.

What?

Japanese people in the 40's:

German people (obviously in the Sudetenland) in the 40's:

Nobody dressed like that?!

[Twink]

Now I understand. She’s in the secular sphere which means she isn’t a “nun” as commonly known.

However, many if not all of the secular Franciscans, don’t wear habits or at least not the head stuff. They never wore anything that covered the face anyway, no Orders did. Even the strictest Orders never wore anything that covered the face.

Anyway, I understand now. It’s comparable to Deacons, who have been ordained to perform certain functions but they are not Priests. The whole nun thing/sister thing threw me off there for a bit since they’re not nuns like what most know as nuns.

I still don’t get the head gear stuff because I know most don’t or aren’t required to wear it anymore. At least not in this area and not since the 70’s. Some still do, just like some women still wear some kind of head covering to Mass, but it’s not required anymore.

[Twink]

I corrected my wrongs in an earlier post. I wasn’t aware this was a game. I thought it was a discussion so my bad for taking it seriously.

She’s not a nun, so stop trying to “play” that one.

Heh, at least with this Pope, we’d get Church Doctrine and not the liberal mush the American Catholic Church has been feeding the masses.

Like I said in my previous posts, she’s not a “nun” as commonly known by most catholics and those who aren’t catholics. She’s secular, a lay person, like the rest of us and if she’s following the OSF, they usually don’t wear habits and even those that do and did 4 decades ago, they never wore any head gear that covered their faces anyway.

I’ll go with you and your wife being practicing Catholics and she’s devout according to your posts. More power to her but if she’s covering her face, she’s suspect in my eyes and I don’t care what faith she claims she’s a part of.

However, this was a game to you and all playing so I wasted my time.

[Twink]

You’re playing a game and unfortunately some of us weren’t aware. Google all you want.

I almost took your initial post seriously and responded in kind, despite how confused I was by your words.

If anyone disrespected your wife because she wore some little scarf on her head, that’s a sorry thing imo. I’m going with you playing some game, since you said it was a game, and this is a fictional story. Some will actually believe it, those who aren’t catholic and don’t know anything about catholicism and some who are and do know but got thrown off by the googled explanation.

I think it’s all bs now and whether I’m right or wrong is inconsequential. It only matters to me and I ain’t buying it anymore. You’re full of it and your story is fiction.

This is Free Republic isn’t it? I’m allowed to post my opinion, right? It was a game anyway, right?

Sheesh, let’s notify the Pope :)

[Martins kid]

What if we all wore pillow cases with eye holes cut out tomorrow. I’m sure the banks, airports, 7-11’s, police departments, traffic photos, tube security, etc won’t mind at all. We can all run around anonomously - Is that free enough for you? We are all free to hide our faces. Something tells me that we would get into lots of trouble.

I think that having a segment of our society being forced to wear tents and be incognito is wrong. If wearing that tent is so darn important then they can go back to the land of sand and to the middle ages. They can go back to where women are virtually slaves or worse. We in the 21st century world don’t have the time, energy, or patience to allow our security to be screwed up by tent wearing. We live in a world where women are equal to men and we are not letting a bunch of tent wearing primatives take us back to the Middle Ages.

[Alkhin]

Twink - you are unaware, apparently that the monastic orders have opened up their communities to lay people to take the same vow of obedience they do, and yet remain 'in the world' and part of the families they are already attached. Most Roman Catholics have not been made aware of this. I only found out about this option myself when I became Anglican Catholic, and was told that even the Benedictines accept lay people into their fold. I have been an associate Benedictine for a few years now. For the Franciscans, there are three levels that are open to lay people.

*DO* try to do a bit of research before casting aspersions on those who have made their spiritual journey a bit more of a serious pursuit than most...

[Dajjal]

Perhaps the most famous 3rd order nun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena
"Saint Catherine of Siena (March 25, 1347 - April 29, 1380) was a Dominican Tertiary (lay affiliate) of the Dominican Order...."

Mr. Know It All, you and your wife have my deepest admiration.

Twink, don't be so thin-skinned. He was just making a fraternal correction in a jocular manner.

[Mr. Know It All]

I wasn’t aware this was a game.

"Bzzzz. Wrong. Thanks for playing." is a colloquial idiom meaning, "You are incorrect." I wasn't playing a game.

She’s not a nun, so stop trying to “play” that one.

I never said she was a nun, I said she was a "Sister." She is a hospital chaplain, so she is not "just like the rest of us." She is not ordained, so technically that does make her a lay person according the Church Doctrine. That's why her status as a religious is difficult to explain, especially to non-Catholics. She prefers the title Sister, but goes as "Chaplain" at work. Chaplain is a term understood by all of the believers and non-believers she visits.

Some people call her Reverend, but she doesn't really like them to, as she is not ordained. Many of the Protestants and non-Christians who she ministers to at the hospital don't understand the subtleties of Catholic hierarchy, however. She doesn't correct them, as it is her job to minister to their spiritual needs, not to school them in the Catechism.

She does not wear the head scarf at the hospital, but usually wears a scrubs hat (pictured below) which is a trick for following a head-covering practice in a hospital that she picked up from an ultra-Orthodox Jewish nurse.

More power to her but if she’s covering her face, she’s suspect in my eyes and I don’t care what faith she claims she’s a part of.

I think I not only threw you with "Sister" but also with "hijab." This is a picture of various ways a Muslim woman can wear a hijab:

My wife wears her scarf in style #2. Again, it says, "I love Jesus" on it. In your previous post you disparaged "liberal" American Catholicism, and yet you criticize my wife for not following recent trends in dress. Make up your mind. Anyway, "retro" is the new "modern" so keep up!

I've never seen a female religious without her head covering when she was praying or performing other religious duties, so I don't see how my wife's "style" choice is at all unusual. Granted she doesn't have to keep it on when she leaves the church, but I didn't mention that she has Lupus and has to shield herself from the sun for health reasons.

Sometimes she does wear a "normal" ball cap for sun shielding purposes and no one gives her a hard time about it, but it's still nobody's business what she wears on her head.

Finally, I think we'd be a lot better off if Britney Spears and Paris Hilton would spend some time wearing tents in public rather than letting the world be their gynecologist, but at least I admit that's my own personal opinion.

[Dajjal]

I would like to remind everyone that there is a huge difference between the hijab (or hijab-like scarves) and the "head-to-toe" niqab, which is the proper subject of this thread.

I personally have no problem with any Muslim woman who chooses* to wear a hijab, whether for reasons of religious modesty or for cultural reasons.

But I do have problems with Muslim women, particularly in Western nations, adopting the niqab or the even more severe burqa, for reasons of national security, identification, etc.

*"Choose" being the operative word -- not being forced by shari'a law.

[Martins kid]

We cannot hide our faces in a free society. It just cannot work if some are allowed to hide their faces and others are not. Batman, Robin, Superman, and Spiderman are ok.

[Mr. Know It All]

What if we all wore pillow cases with eye holes cut out tomorrow.

Is that you Senator Byrd? (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

IÂ’m sure the banks, airports, 7-11Â’s, police departments, traffic photos, tube security, etc wonÂ’t mind at all. We can all run around anonomously - Is that free enough for you? We are all free to hide our faces. Something tells me that we would get into lots of trouble.

You're conflating a lot of things here.

For the record, I am not a total fool. I recognize that there are legitimate security concerns at play here. I spent some time in my career doing security policy and procedure, so I've given some of these things a lot of thought. My job was easy though, because I was in the corporate sector; civil liberties only apply broadly in civil society.

A private organization can impose strictures that the government can't. There are some places in which it is illegal to wander the streets in a mask, although it is questionable whether that restriction is Constitutional. It is perfectly Constitutional for me to forbid anyone from entering my store with their face covered, especially if I'm selling something that requires that I check ID. Observant Muslim women wouldn't consider going into a liquor store, so they're not likely to picket Mr. Know It All's Boozarama, however.

A Constitutional right to free association entails a right to privacy. Like all of our Constitutional rights, there is some point where "the public good" might put limits on them. But where do we draw the line? I've noticed that Freepers don't seem to like drawing lines for the Second Amendment (good for them). Why, then the First? It doesn't make sense to me. If I can't exercise my First Amendment rights in the public square, why should I be allowed to exercise my Second Amendment rights?

The idea that Western society faces some grave danger from women wearing tent-like garments seems plainly silly to me. When the Founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, al Wahab's new friends in the house of Saud had just started raining bloody death all over the Arabian peninsula in the name of fundamentalist Islam.

Jefferson and company were learned, worldly, men and were undoubtedly aware of the kind of mayhem that religious fanatics were causing — and could cause. Still, they authored an Amendment that would protect those fanatics' right to believe what they did. These men won a war against the greatest Empire in Earth history and they didn't hesitate to create a free society where "evildoers" could hide among us protected by privacy and rules against unwarranted surveillance. Did 9/11 turn us all into cowards who are afraid of our own freedom?

[MediaMole]

"9/11 was a wake-up call for young Muslims,"

The proper response would have been conversion to Christianity or some other religion.

[Winniesboy]

A point about this article which nobody has picked up is what it says about the attitudes of ordinary Britons to in-your-face Islam. The usual, and erroneous, consensus on this forum is that Britons are simply rolling over and allowing Islam to do what it likes. The trivial anecdotes in this piece give a flavour of how wrong that is.

[Balding_Eagle]

Wearing a hijab, which is essentially the flag of the enemy, during this war is foolish.

The muslims have promised to attack schools and kill our children. As I’ve pointed out on other threads, this will enrage citizens beyond what the muslims imagine, and there will be unbridled, and very personal reactions which could end up with muslims being hung from street lights.

For someone to publically self identify with the attackers is beyond foolish. People may very well remember her, decide she is a one of our enemies, and deserves retribution too.

However, I think Martins Kid upthread was correct, this is some made up story. The phrase, “Suffering in joy for Christ” is a phrase well know among those of us who are fundamental believers. The fact that you know nothing about it speaks for itself.

[Mr. Know It All]

The muslims have promised to attack schools and kill our children.

"The muslims"? All 1.2 billion of them? I'd say that we're in a pretty bad spot, then.

People may very well remember her, decide she is a one of our enemies, and deserves retribution too.

Well, as the sad events at Virginia Tech remind us, you never know when some psychopath is going to decide you deserve retribution. All I can say is that when my wife was a police officer, she received FBI sharpshooter certification, so they'd better hope she doesn't see them coming. (Note: as a Franciscan, however, she's not supposed to take up arms, so I've been trying to coax her into a more violent order.)

The phrase, "Suffering in joy for Christ" is a phrase well know among those of us who are fundamental believers. The fact that you know nothing about it speaks for itself.

I think I make it clear that I'm a Catholic and not a fundamentalist. Catholics don't find joy in suffering, but we are really, really into guilt.

[tacticalogic]

A point about this article which nobody has picked up is what it says about the attitudes of ordinary Britons to in-your-face Islam. The usual, and erroneous, consensus on this forum is that Britons are simply rolling over and allowing Islam to do what it likes. The trivial anecdotes in this piece give a flavour of how wrong that is.

Acknowledging this is going to involve approval of the British for being "stridently secular". That'g going to have the potential to create some cognitive dissonance in some factions.

[Martins kid]

I don’t think that the Framers in their wildest imaginations ever thought that there would be a problem with islamic extremists living in large numbers in the USA. At the most they probably thought of few diplomats connected with an embassy. I think they set up the country in a way that Catholics, Jews, a wide variety of Protestants, visitors to the country, and non-believers could find common ground on which to live peacefully together. Today it is still hoped that the same framework will make it possible for all religious groups to work peacefully together. However, when radical islam starts pushing folks around, and making themselves exemptions to the rules that the rest of us follow, then we are correct to take offense.

In mention of the KKK - are we not appalled when a klan member wears the sheet and walks down our streets? We should be equally appalled by the tent women.

[XR7]

A handful of young women wore the niqab and spoke effusively about their reasons. "Wearing the niqab means you will get a good grade and go to paradise," said Hodo Muse, 19, a Somali woman. "Every day people are giving me dirty looks for wearing it, but when you wear something for Allah you get a boost."

Pitiful.

[sheik yerbouty]

Wasn’t the hijab part of a fundamentalist Islamic movement in Cairo, circa 1972?