The veil/head cover in monotheistic religions

[Mary]

WHAT?!? HUH?!?
You've gotta be shittin' me, right?

Symbols many and diverse have been given both to man and woman; to him of rule, to her of subjection: and among them this also, that she should be covered, while he hath his head bare. If now these be symbols you see that both err when they disturb the proper order, and transgress the disposition of God, and their own proper limits, both the man falling into the woman’s inferiority, and the woman rising up against the man by her outward habiliments.

Ver. 7. “For a man indeed ought not to have his head veiled, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God.”

This is again another cause. “Not only,” so he speaks, “because he hath Christ to be His Head ought he not to cover the head, but because also he rules over the woman.” For the ruler when he comes before the king ought to have the symbol of his rule. As therefore no ruler without military girdle and cloak, would venture to appear before him that hath the diadem: so neither do thou without the symbols of thy rule, (one of which is the not being covered,) pray before God, lest thou insult both thyself and Him that hath honored thee.

And the same thing likewise one may say regarding the woman. For to her also is it a reproach, the not having the symbols of her subjection. “But the woman is the glory of the man.” Therefore the rule of the man is natural.

[5.] Then, having affirmed his point, he states again other reasons and causes also, leading thee to the first creation, and saying thus:

Ver. 8. “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.”

But if to be of any one, is a glory to him of whom one is, much more the being an image of him.

Ver. 9. “For neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.”

This is again a second superiority, nay, rather also a third, and a fourth, the first being, that Christ is the head of us, and we of the woman; a second, that we are the glory of God, but the woman of us; a third, that we are not of the woman, but she of us; a fourth, that we are not for her, but she for us.

Ver. 10. “For this cause ought the woman to have a sign of authority on her head.”

“For this cause:” what cause, tell me? “For all these which have been mentioned,” saith he; or rather not for these only, but also “because of the angels.” “For although thou despise thine husband,” saith he, “yet reverence the angels.”

It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience.

Again: the man is not compelled to do this; for he is the image of his Lord: but the woman is; and that reasonably. Consider then the excess of the transgression when being honored with so high a prerogative, thou puttest thyself to shame, seizing the woman’s dress. And thou doest the same as if having received a diadem, thou shouldest cast the diadem from thy head, and instead of it take a slave’s garment.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxvii.html

[Falkata]

-I dont care if they cover their hair

-I dont care if they cover their faces at home

-It should be forbidden covering your face in a public place though. Well actually is already forbidden in some spanish (catalonian) towns with significant muslim population.

[rhiannon]

Sorry, but no woman "asks" to be harassed, raped or beaten because of how she dresses. If a man can't take responsibility for his own actions and control himself, he's no real man and he doesn't belong in a civilised society.

This argument has been made many times over on behalf perps who go around raping girls on college campuses.

It's bullshit.

A woman ALWAYS has the right to say NO at ANY time, and any man who DISRESPECTS that is a SCUMBAG who ought go to PRISON for a very LONG time.

[rhiannon]

I wouldn't know that, God knows how many woman you have been with. I wonder what you would do if you never have??? Lets see if you would control yourself then?

Hevneren is a civilized man and a gentleman. Most *normal* men know how to treat a woman regardless of the amount of time that's elapsed since they last had sex.

Men who can't control themselves are animals who don't deserve a woman at all. It is unfortunate that you seem to be excusing their poor behavior by taking the blame upon yourself as a woman. You are not at fault for their actions. Please understand this

[Mary]

This argument has been made many times over on behalf perps who go around raping girls on college campuses.

It's bullshit.

A woman ALWAYS has the right to say NO at ANY time, and any man who DISREPECTS that is a SCUMBAG who ought go to PRISON for a very LONG time.

No offense, but I don't think that happens. It's rather so that a lot of unattractive women are hoping to get paid some kind of attention by uncovering themselves, and when that doesn't happen they get very upset.

For example, these women are walking around with a big sign saying that they "say yes" but one is interested:

[rhiannon]

It's their community. You live by the rules of your community. And they live by the rules of their community. I think it's fair.

I see a potential for disaster.

[rhiannon]

If Sharia law is applied, then extreme punishments such as honour killings, stoning, and amputation would certainly affect all communities. Why? Because such measures are seen as cruel and deplorable in the West. People here would not and WILL NOT stand for it.

This is the danger of Sharia Law.

It's not an issue merely of whether or not women should be allowed to wear coverings.

I believe in Freedom of Religion. However, Sharia Law is stepping over the line.

[orangepulp]

Hevneren is a civilized man and a gentleman. Most *normal* men know how to treat a woman regardless of the amount of time that's elapsed since they last had sex.

Men who can't control themselves are animals who don't deserve a woman at all. It is unfortunate that you seem to be excusing their poor behavior by taking the blame upon yourself as a woman. You are not at fault for their actions. Please understand this

I don't think I am taking the blame, I just see it as a form of protection.The thing is we don't know which men are animals and which are not.

Besides I am really not bothered by covering my hair, it really appears to be modest and decent to my eyes, now I am not saying all women who are covered are modest and women who don't cover are not. Modesty is in speech, behavior and dress. One may dress modest but have a bad behavior, that is not modesty.

[Mary]

I see a potential for disaster.

This is the model that works.

[rhiannon]

This is how it has to be. I deal with my community and you deal with your community. If you start interfering with me, I start interfering with you.

We have the largest Muslim community outside the Middle East living here in the US. There is no Sharia Law here because the tenets of Sharia Law are by and large, unconstitutional and therefore against FEDERAL law. This means that Muslims living here have to abide by the same laws as everyone else and they are not gonna get away with crazy-ass things like honor killings, etc, without being prosecuted to the fullest extent of our law

This is as it should be.

Conversely, if I as a Western woman were living in Saudi, I'd best be prepared to abide by the rules set forth in that country, because it would be patently ridiculous for me to even THINK of applying Western rules in a Middle Eastern country...not to mention disrespectful.

Alas, this is why I would never step foot ANYwhere close to the middle east. Turkey is as close as I will go.