Whatzit?

[webenda]

I have something to say about the Burqa.

Hello darkness, my old friend
I've come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence

"Fools" said I, "You do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you"
But my words like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence

And the people bowed and prayed


Excerpted from, "The Sound of Silence"
Songwriter: Paul Simon
The Sound of Silence lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group

[Roy]

If someone told me I had to wear that tent all the time, I'd tell him what he could do with his religion.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

If someone told me I had to wear that tent all the time, I'd tell him what he could do with his religion.

And in largely desert lands, no less. Can you imagine the discomfort? I've often wondered why the women put up with that tyranny from the men, though I do understand it is rooted in religious convictions.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

I have something to say about the Burqa.

"Hello darkness, my old friend...And the people bowed and prayed."
Excerpted from, "The Sound of Silence"
Songwriter: Paul Simon
The Sound of Silence lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group

And what is it, if I may ask, that the overall message of those lyrics says to you if applied to the wearing of the burqa, Wayne?

[webenda]

The darkness in a world without Jesus.

This is what Jesus taught,
4 Every man who prays or prophesies with something on his head shames his head; 5 but every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered shames her head, for it is one and the same as if she were a woman with a shaved head. 6 For if a woman does not cover herself, she should have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved, she should be covered.

10 That is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.

1Co 11:4-6, 10

Men take their hat off when they pray, women cover their head. Full covering from head toe is not required. The requirement for a Burqa is something imposed by man, not God.

Your last hint reminds me of a Catholic Sister in a Nun's Habit. The Habit serves the same principle as a Burqa.

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Well reasoned and stated, Wayne. Thank you.

[HONDO74]

After a 181-year ban, House Democrats aim to allow religious headwear on the floor
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/181-yea ... d=59292019

Ilhan Omar, one of the first two Muslim women newly-elected to Congress, is helping spearhead an effort to allow religious headwear, such as hijabs or kippahs, on the House floor.

The proposal would reverse a 181-year ban on headwear of any type in the House.

Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, said on Twitter that wearing a religious headscarf is her First Amendment right.


For liberals and democrats, separation of church and state only applies to Christians.

[webenda]

The requirement for a Burqa is something imposed by man, not God.

If nobody is going to speak for the Muslims, I will.

Muslims believe that the Quran was orally revealed by Allah to the final Prophet, Muhammad, through the archangel Gabriel (Jibril), incrementally over a period of some 23 years, beginning on 22 December 609 CE, when Muhammad was 40, and concluding in 632, the year of his death.

Verses of the Quran relevant to the burqa are as follows:

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful."

— Qur'an, Surah 33 (Al-Ahzab), Verse 59 (Translation by Pickthall)

"And say to the faithful women to lower their gazes, and to guard their private parts, and not to display their beauty except what is apparent of it, and to extend their scarves (khimars) to cover their bosoms (jaybs), and not to display their beauty except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husband's fathers, or their sons, or their husband's sons, or their brothers, or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their womenfolk, or what their right hands rule (slaves), or the followers from the men who do not feel sexual desire, or the small children to whom the nakedness of women is not apparent, and not to strike their feet (on the ground) so as to make known what they hide of their adornments. And turn in repentance to Allah together, O you the faithful, in order that you are successful"

— Qur'an, Surah 24 (An-Nur), Verse 31

In the Islamic world, preventing women from being seen by men is closely linked to the concept of Namus. Namus is an ethical category, a virtue, and is a strongly gender-specific category of relations within a family described in terms of honor, attention, respect/respectability, and modesty. The term is often translated as "honor".

Therefore, the burqa requirement is from Allah, not from man.

In case someone does not know, the word “Allah” is not a personal name but a title meaning “God.” Bible translations in Arabic and other languages use “Allah” as an equivalent for “God.”

[Mitch]

Ya know what, Wayne? I don't give a rat's azz about those Muslim women in Congress. Just goes to show that they don't come here to assimilate and become Americans; they come here to try to take over and make us believe their BS. And friggin' Minnesota and Michigan are two leading states for gettin' the Muslim takeover off the ground. In Michigan, there is a city, (Hamtract) or some such, that is completely run by Muslims, and includes the call to prayer 5 times per day for all citizens. If I was still drivin' a rig and went through that town when the bells were goin' on, I'd lean on the air horns the whole way through, and if there was a slight downhill through town, I'd run the Jake brake the whole way to the bottom.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

If nobody is going to speak for the Muslims, I will.

Good man.

[Roy]

By contrast, the Catholic rules about priests not marrying is completely human policy. In the days when priests did marry, there was confusion when they died about what property went to their children, and what went to the church. Given the suffering caused by their first solution, you'd think they'd try something else. But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[rogruth]

If nobody is going to speak for the Muslims, I will.

Good man.

I agree.
Many years ago in the "Dark Ages" of my under grad days, I had a class about world religions and their sources.
Most of tje important religions were discussed but not really in any depth.
The class was taught by a prof that had traveled and studied in many parts of the world and, IMHO, the most
liberal thinking Baptist ministers I have ever met. He said, and I understood and agree, that no one can learn
much about religion in a year long college course. Oh, this was not a required course inany way.
I learned enough to know that I knew nothing about religion.

[chuck]

This has nothing to do with freedom of religious expression, It has more to do with safety. The burka was never meant to be used by someone trying to drive a car. Too often the head piece gets "stuck" much like a snorkel hood on a parka and the driver's vision is cut in half or worse. Something that was meant to be worn for someone walking around doesn't always work well when you are in a metal behemoth that's going 40+mph and the driver is trying to make a turn into cross traffic or enter a freeway. BTW I'm equally opposed to anyone trying to drive while wearing a snorkel hood on a parka with the hood "up". Pull down the hood and/or wait for the car to warm up.

Newer vehicles with enhanced cradle seats and safety belts make it easier for the burka to get "stuck". The hijab is a much better choice in terms of following the intent/purpose of modesty without sacrificing vision and safety. The wearer can turn their head and not worry about blocked vision. It is actually closer to a nun's headgear than the burka.

And yes, I have experienced both situations aka people trying to drive with burka's and snorkel hoods, emphasis on trying.

[webenda]

By contrast, the Catholic rules about priests not marrying is completely human policy. In the days when priests did marry, there was confusion when they died about what property went to their children, and what went to the church. Given the suffering caused by their first solution, you'd think they'd try something else. But, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Let is see what the Bible says on the subject. This is Jesus talking about celibacy.

Matthew 19:11-12 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”[a]

Footnotes:
[a] Jesus means that a life of continence is to be chosen only by those who are called to it for the sake of the kingdom of God.

Concerning the term, "eunuch" in Matthew 19:12:
In a literal sense, "eunuch" means a castrated male. Such men were often appointed in royal courts as attendants or caretakers of the queen and the concubines. The term also refers to a man who was, not a literal eunuch, but an official assigned to duties in the court of the king. It is used figuratively for a ‘eunuch for the Kingdom,’ one who exercises self-control so as to apply himself more fully to the service of God.​

Definition: Continence refers to self control. It's the ability to hold it all in. The word continence come from the Latin continentia which means "a holding back.”

[MurphOnMillerAve]

Back in the 90's, I had a high school student in one of my classes who had just returned from a visit to her homeland, which was a Middle Eastern country, devoutly Muslim. She told us the story of when she had been crossing a street, garbed entirely as you see here. However, when she raised her skirt to step-up onto a curb, that action exposed an ankle. Immediately, a man, totally unknown to her, apparently ever-on-the-alert, shouted at her for her "exposure" and took a stick he just happened to have in-hand and began striking her with it, beginning at the ankles, and working his way upward. She protested and screamed, but to no avail. He continued to scold her. NObody intervened or protected her (I wish I had been there. )

Can you imagine such a thing as a public thrashing for an exposed ankle - or any other part - being perpetrated in the USA upon women?