The hijab (etc) is immodest

[Belacqua]

the suspension of logical and critical thinking that is required to buy into the fairy-tale stories of both religions.

...

Religion is like a plague.

A bigot is someone who looks at a huge diverse group and judges the whole group by its worst members.

The above statements show that you do exactly that. 

Religion is a huge undefinable constellation of things, with no clear essence. You've never read Wittgenstein, but if you had you would know that it works by "family resemblance," not any essential quality. 

The fact that you reduce it in every case to the suspension of logical and critical thinking shows that you pick out one characteristic as essential and judge the whole thing by that characteristic. So you are a bigot. 

This is common among simple-minded atheists. They think of "religion" as only one thing, a single thing that can be judged and argued against. This is too simple.

For example, you say that I "defend religion." But I don't defend -- or speak of -- "religion" as if it's only one thing. I do tend to point out that many of your criticisms of Christianity are foolishly simple, as when you write as if all Christians are sola scriptura literalists. When you make unfair and simple-minded statements, it is good for someone to correct you. Sadly, this would be a full-time job. 

On this thread I have said nothing in defense of religion. I have acknowledged that different societies make different rules about how much of the body can be shown, but (unlike other people here) I have also pointed out that this varies within religions. There is no uniformity in the Muslim world on this point, and when simple-minded people write as if there is they should be corrected. I have also argued that if you accept your own society's rules concerning body coverage, but denounce another society's rules, you are being hypocritical. Because such rules are not disprovable (like belief in a flat earth) but social mores. 

So you are both simple-minded and bigoted. You think that your understanding is superior to religious people's understanding, and you maintain this illusion by reducing religious people's understanding to a stupid caricature.

[The Grand Nudger]

Religious people rarely need any help with that.

[EgoDeath]

@Belacqua

Okay... wow. First and foremost man, let's step back a bit and just relax with the insults. So far you've called me a fool, simple-minded and a bigot.

Call me a fool and simple-minded if you insist, as those are a bit more subjective, but I'm certainly no bigot, which within the context of this discussion, I think we can appropriately use the definition, "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance."

I am certainly not treating any members of a racial, ethnic, or religious, group with hatred and/or intolerance. Plain and simple, it just doesn't apply to me or the things that I'm saying.

I'm not going to engage in some weird little insult battle with you. I'm just going to explain myself here, more so for the others who read, and not you. I have a hard time believing that anything I could ever say would ever change your mind about anything at all, as you seem to be thoroughly convinced that you are just so much more intelligent than all of us simple-minded atheists here, and that while our opinions are just simple and narrow, yours are just so nuanced and paint a much clearer picture of what religion, and everything that surrounds it, really is all about.

There is something very off about how you deal with other people on this forum, and it truly makes people wonder (I know, for a fact I'm not the only individual) why you're a member here. Regardless, those are conversations for another time, potentially. Let's continue on.

A bigot is someone who looks at a huge diverse group and judges the whole group by its worst members.

The above statements show that you do exactly that.

Except that I'm literally not doing that at all Bel. I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. You seem to have purposefully ignored the part where I said:

And, to be even more specific, my issue is really with the ideas themselves more than the person who holds them.

If you want to claim that I'm making generalizations about religion itself, well then that's something we can talk about here. In fact, I was making a generalization about religion itself, simply to make a point: One does, in fact, need to suspend logic and reason to believe many claims that many different religions make. It's a very general point that can be demonstrated in a lot of different ways, which we can talk about further if you'd like. But to be honest, the only reason I was even saying that was to clarify that, in most, if not all, instances, my issues with religious people are not really issues with people at all, but rather the religions themselves.

So, you see, I'm literally doing the exact opposite of what you're saying. I'm not making any sort of hateful generalizations about a group of people based on race, ethnicity or religion. I'm explicitly saying that as far as the individual goes, I don't give a shit what you identify as, only that, if you're religious, there's a good chance that I could take issue with certain ideas that you hold. But once again, you could be a white Muslim from Iowa who is a diehard Yankees fan. I don't care. Because chances are you probably believe in some of the same silly stuff that the Syrian Muslim who was born in Turkey believes. And as to whatever those ideas may or may not be can be dissected at a later time; the simple point being that race, ethnicity and religion don't make me dislike or like an individual. But when it comes to religion, I may take issue with some ideas that one holds. It's nothing personal though.

I'm truly not sure how else I can explain this to you.

Religion is a huge undefinable constellation of things, with no clear essence.

What, exactly does this mean? What do you mean by religion having "no clear essence," precisely?

I do believe that religion, even if we look at just one religion like, let's say, Islam itself, we can see a vast array of cultures, ethnicity, races, nationalities, geographical locations, traditions, values, customs, practices and societal norms. So, I'm not denying, in any way shape or form, that the ecosystem, for lack of a better term, of even one religion itself can be very diverse.

However, if one calls oneself a Muslim, I'm willing to bet that there will be similarities in certain beliefs that span across that entire ecosystem, regardless of the many differing factors that can change across that ecosystem that I listed above. That doesn't mean, obviously, that we can put all Muslims into one box and say, "You all believe this and this and that and this and you're all big dumb dumbs for thinking it to be so!"

I feel like this is the picture you've painted in your head of how a lot of atheists think, and in my experience, that's simply not true. (Interesting little side note, you're complaining always on this forum about atheists oversimplifying religion and religious folks, but then you seem to do the same about atheists... weird, huh)

So, yeah, no one is denying that religion is vast and diverse. The world is vast and diverse, and there are all sorts of people out there. I've been lucky enough to travel a little bit and in the small amount of traveling I've done, I've met all kinds of folks. And, regardless of whatever characteristics you can use to try and define someone, you know what's true among most people?

If you're nice, and present yourself well to others, and you come across as non-judgmental and non-confrontational, i.e. if you just come across as a friend, rather than foe, most people will return that behavior without question. It's funny, because I've actually had friendlier conversations with religious folks, about religion, than I've had with you... a guy who is supposedly an atheist. Strange.

You've never read Wittgenstein, but if you had you would know that it works by "family resemblance," not any essential quality.

So yeah, what was the point of saying this? Other than pointing out that I've never read some author that you clearly have, and to remind me that there's a problem I'm unaware of in what I'm saying that you're not even going to bother to explain to me?

I mean seriously Bel, what was the point of even saying that? Be honest.

The fact that you reduce it in every case to the suspension of logical and critical thinking shows that you pick out one characteristic as essential and judge the whole thing by that characteristic. So you are a bigot.

I was not, in any way shape or form, "reduc[ing] every case to the suspension of logical and critical thinking," I was making a generalization to illustrate the fact that my issue lies almost always with the religion itself, and not with the person who belongs to that religion.

I'm basically repeating myself on this point here, so I'm not going to keep beating the dead horse. You can either pick up on this very simple and honest point, or you can choose not to. I have a feeling there's nothing I can say to convince you about anything though, so the most I can do is calmly explain my points of view to any other readers who might be going through all of this. So yeah, not sure what else to say here.

This is common among simple-minded atheists. They think of "religion" as only one thing, a single thing that can be judged and argued against. This is too simple.

See right here? If I wanted to do to you what you've been doing to me here in this post, I could exclaim, "Aha! You're calling all atheists simple-minded! You're saying we all think of religion as only one thing, a single thing that can be judged and argued against. But that's a very simplified  You're a bigot!"

You see how when I start with the false premise of "You're calling all atheists simple-minded," the rest of it just becomes false premise piled on top of false premise? That's exactly what you've done to me here. You're starting with the false premise of "ego death believes X about all religious people," but that premise is false, so everything you've piled on top of that has been false as well.

You really need to stop doing this. Saying, "some religious folks believe X, and I believe it's silly and illogical to believe X" is not at all the same as saying, "all religious folks believe X and since they believe X they are inferior, as people, to atheists."

You need to stop conflating these two ideas. Once again, I have a feeling you're doing it purposefully, but only you can know that for sure. I hope you're at least honest with yourself.

For example, you say that I "defend religion." But I don't defend -- or speak of -- "religion" as if it's only one thing. I do tend to point out that many of your criticisms of Christianity are foolishly simple, as when you write as if all Christians are sola scriptura literalists. When you make unfair and simple-minded statements, it is good for someone to correct you. Sadly, this would be a full-time job.

Sadly, this is just you taking more opportunities to insult me. There's nothing else to say in response to this paragraph other than that, other than you being incorrect about my thoughts here, unsurprisingly.

On this thread I have said nothing in defense of religion. I have acknowledged that different societies make different rules about how much of the body can be shown, but (unlike other people here) I have also pointed out that this varies within religions. There is no uniformity in the Muslim world on this point, and when simple-minded people write as if there is they should be corrected. I have also argued that if you accept your own society's rules concerning body coverage, but denounce another society's rules, you are being hypocritical. Because such rules are not disprovable (like belief in a flat earth) but social mores. 

So you are both simple-minded and bigoted. You think that your understanding is superior to religious people's understanding, and you maintain this illusion by reducing religious people's understanding to a stupid caricature.

So, once again, just more insults piled on top of insults. Not really sure why you're so angry, or why you feel the need to insult me so much, but I'm not getting into some weird flame war with you. I don't have the energy for that. I will, however, defend my ideas calmly and rationally, as I've done so far. If you want to continue to spew childish insults at me, that's up to you. That's your game, not mine, so I'm not gonna' play it. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Leonardo17]

The Hijab originates from this Quranic verse:

https://quran.com/24/31?translations=
Dr. Ghali

(31) And say to the female believers to cast down their be holdings, and preserve their private parts, and not display their adornment except such as is outward, and let them fix (Literally: strike) closely their veils over their bosoms, and not display their adornment except to their husbands, or their fathers, or their husbands' fathers, or their sons, or their husbands' sons, or their brothers, or their brothers's sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or what their right hands possess, or (male) followers, men without desire (Literally: without being endowed with "sexual" desire) or young children who have not yet attained knowledge of women's privacies, and they should not strike their legs (i.e., stamp their feet) so that whatever adornment they hide may be known. And repent to Allah altogether, (O) you believers, that possibly you would prosper.

Covering the chest, legs, probably the hair too and not acting in ways that trigger the sexual reaction in men is what the verse tell believing women to do in my opinion.

Ironically; the Quran is full of other sentences that cover the prevention of blood-shedding, robbery, respecting parents..., but gullible Sunnies/Shiites focus on this one verse to abuse women via it by twisting its meaning according to their will.

About modesty, what does this verse worth if the woman covered all her body, but acted like a slut and had sex on the street?

Modesty starts in the heart. I can name you non-believing atheist women who are more modest than a Muslim in full-Hijab wearing it only to escape the abuse of her family.

- I agree with what has been said so far (I'm from Turkey by the way / Hello to everyone). 

I believe that the issue is this: There are some commandments that were adapted to the 6th century AD. You have been talking about chastity for instance. But what is chastity in the year 2022? And if there is an issue of chastity for women, are you also saying that a man also has no right "to act like a slut" for instance? 

- These are very serious issues. I think that we have to remember that in the 6th century AD there was no method of contraception. Therefore, all sexual activity had to be limited to the matrimonial institution. This has remained the same perhaps until the second half of the 20th century and the begining of the sexual liberation movement. 

Now in todays world, who am I to tell two adult person of same or separate sex not to have sexual relations outside marriage? (Provided that they are single persons of course). This is my view on the subject.

And Yes, the Hijab was about simblicity and today it became not even a religious symbol and totally a political symbol. An affirmation of support for the middle eastern version of Nazi / Fashist / Putinist ideology. (This is very unfortunate but this is how I see it)

[Leonardo17]

The original purpose of what has now become traditional dress was modesty, and arguably justified as a way to protect women from rape in a barbaric time and region, but now it's purpose is tradition and a way to announce that you're a Muslim.

Disagree. Compulsory garb is exclusively for the sole purpose of subjugation of women. There is no getting around it. And I state that as a man.

I don't like it. I really don't like it.

Give me a feisty equal any day, not a letterbox.

I have two daughters ( or at least born as daughters) and nothing gives me greater joy that to have them tell me "Dad you are wrong" followed by a logical demolition of whatever the topic du jour might be.

I may have made many errors or mis-steps or whatever, but at the very least I can rest assured that I have provided my children with the tools of critical thinking.

And the upshot of that is equality. One lives and dies according to the facts, not some mad superstition about the "roles" of the genders.

So what is it that stands in opposition to gender equality? Well religion stands in opposition to gender equality. All of religion.

Sure, there are a few exceptions, but those are not many.

To this view I usually reply like this:

  The headscarf is more of a cultural phenomenon than a religious one. Let me explain:

Here, if you go to the Anatolian Civilizations Museum in Ankara (I believe it to be one of the beast archaeological museums in the world) you will see 1st milenium BC reliefs depicting women with covered heads from Hurrian or Neo-Hittite times. Similar reliefs can be found in the middle east starting from 3000 BC. at the time it wasn't even a sign of modesty. It was simply their usual way of dressing. Also there are theories that say that could have been a sign of prostitution. There are also sources that state that in the 6th century arabic culture, free women used to wear the hijap while non-free slave women were not allowed to wear this garnment even if they wanted to.

Whatever the connotation in the past, in todays world I can only aprove of the modesty or simplicity argument (because it is true). Does a women of adult age not have the right to adopt a way of dressing that remains totally plain and simple (may is be for religious or personal reasons)? The second argument I am willing to accept is the cultural argument. Here in villages there are women who are dressed the way they were dressed since perhaps before İslamic time. So they should get a green ticket too.

Yet I believe that someone who wants to display a certain interpratation of İslam (because I totally disagree that Islam itself is promoting the headscarf and the attitude behing it) is totally being immodest and even pretencious. I even believe that they have made themselves (willingly or unwillingly) tools and militants of a political worldview that is completelly artificial an is only being articially kept alive to support the dictatorial / monarchic regimes of the middle-east and north Africa and/or the so called sharia regime in Iran or the so called islamist partie in Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt etc...

- And of course I totally dislike it. Some people are acting as if evryone has to accept their way of displaying their religious beliefs. Of couse I that women choses to act in that way I will at least try to respect it. But do I have to like it? Of course I hate it. It's a totally barbaric and outdated cultural phenomenon that has more political than religious connotations.

[Leonardo17]

At least in western cultures. When standard dress is jeans and a tee shirt, what you’re actually doing is drawing more attention to yourself. Most people will let their eyes slide right past a woman in jeans, a tee shirt and a ponytail. Besides that is it not an insult to your own god to claim that he has made your own natural body inappropriate?

Wear what you like, I couldn't care less, but when conformity equals modesty you have a problem with your culture.

- Thats the most hatefull aspect of it. Soldiers in baracks have to look, think and act in the same way. Why does a women have to look exactly like all other women, all over the muslim world?

I think one must be able to say that the attitude is totally outdated and unfit for the 21st century. Of course I have no right to forbid it. But I have the right to think that its total B.S. 

And I earn that right in a way that is based on religious itself. There was a context in medieval times that is no longer the reality in our days. So why would a religion that is said to be a religion based on reason promote something that is totally illogical in every immaginable way?

[Eclectic]

The law of hijab in Islam indicates that Muhammad Rasulullah was a mental illness.
Scientists have resided among the completely naked African tribes and have reported that there has never been a rape of women.

In Iran, the clerics say that if the women do not hide themselves, we should make the city insecure with the help of the police and thugs.

A few days ago a young girl was killed by police for lack of scarf.

[Leonardo17]

The Hijab is something I see a lot where I live - wouldn't think it would ya?  What with me being in the Dallas area.  But they are an everyday site around where I live.  So are turbans - or whatever the correct nomenclature is for those headwraps I see some men wearing.  Doesn't matter to me any more than a yarmulke.  I am as likely to see someone wearing one of those three things as I am to see someone in pricey cowboy boots and a ten gallon hat.

My only thought is that the Hijab is that it must be hot when it's 100+ here.

Some of them are sort of pretty.  I am not scoping out people to see if they are wearing a cross so that I can be all judgey about it.  The Hijab bothers me not one bit.

   In my country we have a coastline to the Black-Sea, The Marmara Sea, he Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean. One has to see their way of going to the beach in order to believe it. I won't go into the details because it is their worldview that they are displaying. So it's not my business. But still I will tell you that the men that I see with these women on the beach are totally normal-looking persons who see no issue with taking off all their clothes and swimming in the sea or remaining naked under the sun for tanning purpose just like any ordinary man would do. 
 
   The second issue is that I'm being accused of being a fascist whenever I make such remarks in the public sphere. (I couldn't understand if I am like a Zelensky / Ukrainian style Nazi or something or if I am a fascist fascist

[Leonardo17]

The law of hijab in Islam indicates that Muhammad Rasulullah was a mental illness.
Scientists have resided among the completely naked African tribes and have reported that there has never been a rape of women.

In Iran, the clerics say that if the women do not hide themselves, we should make the city insecure with the help of the police and thugs.

A few days ago a young girl was killed by police for lack of scarf.

As I said. I grew up in this culture (in Turkey). I don't agree with the idea that the prophet ever said or ordered something like that. This is all an issue of wrong, biased and evil interpretation of people who love to manipulate other people by using a distorted version of the original religion (just like the catholic church in the middle ages).

[Leonardo17]

At least in western cultures. When standard dress is jeans and a tee shirt, what you’re actually doing is drawing more attention to yourself. Most people will let their eyes slide right past a woman in jeans, a tee shirt and a ponytail. Besides that is it not an insult to your own god to claim that he has made your own natural body inappropriate?

Well, different places have different ideas about showing the body.

In the US a man can drive without a shirt or walk down the street on a hot day, but wouldn't be served in a sit-down restaurant. If that seems reasonable to you, then you agree that society can impose norms on nudity. 

I remember a case in the news about the south of France a while back. The beaches are topless and everybody's OK with that, but some women near the beach would go topless into the post office or the bank. People complained. It made the news because the mayor of the town made an impolitic (and typically male) answer -- he said it was OK with him if the woman was cute. 

Do you think your local library would be reasonable to ban nudity? I think they would. This means that I agree with societal rules about covering the body, not complete freedom for individuals. My rules happen to differ from those in some other countries. None of this is particularly logical. Why cover breasts and not elbows? The crotch and not the hair?

- You are talking about issues that have to be debated. Another debate in France is on wetter the bikini-like hijab must be allowed in beaches or not. In some beaches it is forbidden. In Germany, on the contrary, this dress called Hashmi (or something) is being promoted in public swimming pools for hygienic reasons. So who is right?
   All I am saying is that the debate must be held.
 
But this issue is mainly a cultural issue. Not a philosophical one. Women (and their entire family and in some case, their entire society) want to keep the veil because at some point in history (for whatever logical or illogical reason) this has become a general norm for society. And now they are resisting the change toward a more secular and modern society through their attachment to that object. This is the core of the issue. Indeed it is very similar to the gun-control issue or the debate on the right to abortion in the U.S.A.:
 
- He / She doesn’t want it
- Why?
“God says no” or “It is in the constitution”
(Are you out of your mind?) J)