I explained that in the later part of my post
Orthodox jews who want to force their views on others are no better or worse than Islamic extremists. They're basically the same: religious extremists.
However, among all forms of religious extremism, it is Islamist extremism which is by far the most prominent. The blame does not go for Islam itself but the practitioners who interpret it in violent or extremist terms. The number of such practitioners far outnumber any Jewish or Christian extremists.
Again, my point, as stated in previous post: If a headscarf-ed girl and a non-headscarf-ed girl comes to a muslim, he will subconsciously assume the headscarf-ed girl is more pious and trustworthy than the one who did not wear. Judgment will be done based on appearance rather than personality. Over time, this discrimination would become rampant across society and will pressurize girls to be headscarf-ed. This subconscious phenomenon is unique to Islamic culture (not religion) which is not widely adhered to by other religion's followers. Thus, it is the Islamic headscarf which is the threat to society, not Christian headcover or Jewish cap.
The converse could also be true if peer-pressure and perception is what 'right and wrong' is contingent on; for a head-scarf wearing girl in a room full of women who don't wear it would be subconsciously assumedthat the girl has been forced to wear the head-scarf by the society in general, her parents, male chauvinism and a whole bunch of other 'discriminatory phenomena' !
And if one is to argue that a certain kind of conformity even if it doesn't extend beyond 'perception', is a bad thing then why does Europe so fervently insists on 'assimilation' ? Why is someone else's 'normalcy' more palatable then mine ? What makes it so right and my disposition so condemnable ?
One might also argue that if one were to start regulating 'perception' and 'peer-pressure' and then go one step beyond by 'legislating' then where does one draw the line ? Where does it become far too intrusive ? And who gives the 'State' the right to speculate on what is or isn't going through the mind of the said person ?
How is this subconscious phenomenon unique to Islam ? What substantiates this to be true ?
The headscarf, when worn as per the (supposed) Islamic requirement, signals quite different to "modesty". Modesty, in a general sense, would be attributed to a person with a gentlemanly dress, not too covered and not too bare. Headscarf is generally not attributed to modesty.
The signal which would be fair to associate with Islamic headscarf would be "piousness", which is quite different from modesty. When headscarf becomes prominent, not wearing one would be interpreted as "slutty", something which will endanger the moral fabric of a society.
I posted this in a previous post but it seems to be valid here as well :
The inherent problem with this approach is that we find ourselves in a conundrum because of the following :
- Whether a 'head-scarf' constitute as a 'offense against the freedom to build one's character' or not ?
- How much freedom should one have to build one's character ? If the answer is complete then why would all of us unanimously condemn allowing a 'mentally disturbed' kid to build his/her character further and end up into a 'destructive adult' ? If the answer is that 'it depends' then who gets to decide what that 'it depends' is going to be and does one even have the right to do so ?
- If we can decide upon the 'freedom to form one's own character', 'the limitations of that freedom' and 'the exceptions to those limitations' then where does that leave the parents ? Do we have the right to do so more so than perfectly decent parents or not ? Which in turn comes with another question 'what if our definition of decency might not be the same as someone else's' and so are we 'right' and the other 'wrong' or the other way around and that are way actually capable of making such a decision without being partial and biased in our favor ?
- If a commission is to be formed that regulates or legislates for or against this then who gets to be on that commission ? The representatives of parents and by extension those of the parents under question and other parents who tow a similar stance. If that is true that what suggests that their representatives are more qualified then the parents themselves or have more rights then the parents themselves to make decisions of sch a nature on their behalf ?
- And it goes without saying that can one define something like 'character' to begin with ?
- Additionally if 'character development' is something that should be left to experiences then isn't learning from others and by others also 'an experience' in that progression. If that is true then is it more 'right' or 'sensible' to allow the experiences gained at the hands of a 'formidable world' and possibly, 'less than friendly' people, be had in preference to the guidance provided by someone who loves you ?
- And while your at it can you please define 'modesty' and 'piety' ? And if it doesn't agree with my notions of either of those two things then whose version gets to be accepted ? Yours...? Why ? Mine...again Why ? What makes your version more 'normal', 'more acceptable', 'more reasonable' then mine and vice versa ?
- And one may never be able to define something as 'subjective', as 'normative' and as 'circumstantial' as 'piety' and 'modesty'....so does it even make sense to try attempt to regulate and then later legislate for or against it ?
