Religious clothing debate

[David Bailey]

Daily Mail Attitude?

"Indians, Muslims, whatever" - not too far from saying "Foreign people with funny skin colours" - that's just the way it came across to me.

[Clueless]

that isn't the way I meant to come across

[David Bailey]

that isn't the way I meant to come across

Sure - I didn't think you did, it just came across a bit iffy (oo-err missus) to me.

Anyway, back to the debate...

In my view, anyone who uses "religion" as an excuse to avoid basic civc duties, in any way, is just a nutter - Christian, Muslim, or Pastafarian. We shouldn't feel too sensitive about calling them nutters either - any more than we should be sensitive about their ethnic origin.

Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in - and we do have to be sensitive to some of these things, or we'll get sued to smithereens, or worse.

[Barry Shnikov]

I am vaguely aware that Sikhs are supposed to carry a knife, aren't supposed to cut their hair, and there are rules in all religtion. It's correct to say that nothing in the christian religion says anything about wearing jewellery, in fact AFAIK the only thing christian texts have to say about it is 'Thou shalt have no graven images', which would appear to forbid the wearing of crucifixes, though celibacy rings might not count.

But does anyone have more explicit detail about requirements of other religions. Is it perhaps the case that english institutions don't press the issue of a Hindu says 'Oh my religion says I must wear so-and-so", whereas the cultural background means that a similar assertion cannot be made by a christian because WASPs know it isn't true..?

[David Bailey]

I am vaguely aware that Sikhs are supposed to carry a knife, aren't supposed to cut their hair, and there are rules in all religtion.

Sikhs have the "Five K's" as explicit rules in their religion - hair, comb, special underwear (!), iron bracelet and "strapped sword" - OK, knife actually - interestingly, it is legal for sikhs to carry these knives in the UK.

But does anyone have more explicit detail about requirements of other religions. Is it perhaps the case that english institutions don't press the issue of a Hindu says 'Oh my religion says I must wear so-and-so", whereas the cultural background means that a similar assertion cannot be made by a christian because WASPs know it isn't true..?

I think the problem is one of different sects. Most of the mainstream big religions don't have a dress code. But what's to stop someone joining "Nutter Sect 534", which says that, for example, all members must wear pink tutus? (The McGregorites, we could call them), and then whingeing to the world that people laugh, or that they've been sacked, for expressing their legitimate religious beliefs?

Freedom of religious belief is historically very important as an expression of tolerance and liberation from oppression. European history over the past few centuries is littered with examples of such oppression, and it's no coincidence that so many sects chose to go to America.

But it's not an absolute right - it can't be.

[Barry Shnikov]

Sikhs have the "Five K's" as explicit rules in their religion - hair, comb, special underwear (!), iron bracelet and "strapped sword" - OK, knife actually - interestingly, it is legal for sikhs to carry these knives in the UK.

That's the sort of stuff I was after. But what about any other mainstream religions - that would be, um, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Shinto, Hinduism? Possibly Orthodox Greek and Russian. Do any of them require the wearing of any items? Anybody?

[Stuart M]

Well, it now looks like we have a Muslim Vicky Pollard, possibly heading for jail for listening to her MP3 player in court. While she was supposed to be listening to the evidence as a juror.

All initially rather amusing, but could it end up being grounds for appeal for the guilty party? And what if she'd been a witness being coached through a mobile phone headset (I don't know whether this is technically possible in a courtroom)?

[David Bailey]

Well, it now looks like we have a Muslim Vicky Pollard, possibly heading for jail for listening to her MP3 player in court. While she was supposed to be listening to the evidence as a juror.

I heard that on the radio last night, I couldn't help laughing. I know, it was a serious murder trial, but it's also very funny...

[Barry Shnikov]

I heard that on the radio last night, I couldn't help laughing. I know, it was a serious murder trial, but it's also very funny...

Laughing? What's funny about it? At the risk of sounding pompous ("Barry! As if!") this woman could not even be bothered to give the murdered person the courtesy of paying attention at the trial of his or her killer.

Proves that wearing religious outfits says nothing about the true beliefs of the person underneath. If she lived by the principles of the faith that she purported to espouse by wearing the outfit, then she could never have done such a thing.

[David Bailey]

Laughing? What's funny about it?

Because people are so stupid, sometimes, you have to laugh at them. Look at how many jokes there've been about the Glasgow airport attack, for example.

Of course, we "shouldn't" laugh at this sort of thing - but let's face it, we all do.

At the risk of sounding pompous ("Barry! As if!") this woman could not even be bothered to give the murdered person the courtesy of paying attention at the trial of his or her killer.

"Vicky Pollard" sums it up quite nicely I reckon - apparently the music was just the last straw, she'd been behaving poorly all through the trial.

Proves that wearing religious outfits says nothing about the true beliefs of the person underneath. If she lived by the principles of the faith that she purported to espouse by wearing the outfit, then she could never have done such a thing.

Yeah, but this isn't a religion thing, this is a "stupid person" thing.

[David Bailey]

That's the sort of stuff I was after. But what about any other mainstream religions - that would be, um, Islam, Judaism, Confucianism, Shinto, Hinduism? Possibly Orthodox Greek and Russian. Do any of them require the wearing of any items? Anybody?

OK, for Islam:

Sunni Islam has the "Five Pillars of Islam" - Shahadah (profession of faith), Salah (ritual prayer), Zakah (alms tax), Sawm (fasting during Ramadan), and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).

Shi'a Islam also has jihad (struggle against oppression - sort of), Amr-Bil-Ma'rūf ("Enjoining to Do Good"), and Nahi-Anil-Munkar ("Exhortation to Desist from Evil")

None of these mention dress code - however, there are some prescriptions in the Qu'ran regarding dress code:

"And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and guard their private parts and not to display their adornment except that which ordinarily appears thereof and to draw their headcovers over their chests and not to display their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands fathers, their sons."

Obviously, this verse has been interpreted in about 500 different ways. To me, it's the equivalent of the "anti-gay" passages in the Bible - it's an excuse to oppress a section of society, which is seized on by bigots.

To me, the most amazing thing about the Islamic dress code is how many women choose to participate in their own subjugation, and how silent the feminist lobby is on this area.

EDIT: I also know that orthodox Judaism has similarly-strict dress codes for women - and, yet again, lots of women are happy with that...

[Barry Shnikov]

To me, the most amazing thing about the Islamic dress code is how many women choose to participate in their own subjugation, and how silent the feminist lobby is on this area.

Good point about feminists. Perhaps their roblem is that political correctness pretty much originated in the women's movement - "Why Chairman? The language suggests that women cannot rise to such a position so we must modify the language." Next thing you know there are people saying that 'mandatory' should be changed to 'persondatory' and 'history' should be changed to 'personstory'.

Political correctness demands that we not criticise people - er - at all, pretty much. (Except for transgressing the rules of PC, for which no criticism is severe enough.) We certainly can't criticise victims, even for collaborating in their own victimisation.

A woman wearing a hijab and listening to headphones only needs a pair of sunglasses and she is pretty much in her own, portable, sensory deprivation tank. No need to interact with the inconvenient outside world at all. If you view the outside world as a distraction, like a monk or a nun might do, that might seem quite attractive. Plus, of course, given how rapacious we western men are, and how we are addicted to shameful displays of the female form and live by a debased moral code, there is no telling what horrible fate might befall a moslem woman who walked about dressed in only a t-shirt and jeans...

Who knows what the motive is.

[Barry Shnikov]

Because people are so stupid, sometimes, you have to laugh at them. Look at how many jokes there've been about the Glasgow airport attack, for example.

Of course, we "shouldn't" laugh at this sort of thing - but let's face it, we all do.


"Vicky Pollard" sums it up quite nicely I reckon - apparently the music was just the last straw, she'd been behaving poorly all through the trial.


Yeah, but this isn't a religion thing, this is a "stupid person" thing.

I'm all in favour of laughing about dreadfully serious things - I loved the post about people lighting their fags off the burning car at Glasgow airport - I just didn't see any humour in this story. Just didn't tickle my funny bone, I suppose.