Why aren't the Nun's considered Opressed?

[GreyKode]

Why would I think that was right? Who do you know, who thinks that's a perfectly okay thing to do? I never even thought of that! Makes me wonder what was going through your mind at the time!

First : It was just an example

Second : Could you think of a reason why looking at skin is wrong?

Finally : You missed the point, since your child won't be easily convinced why somthing like that is wrong, you will have to indoctrinate him. Got it.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Does christianity teach how to sexually abuse little children?

No it does not. But, sadly there are cases where some Christians have abused children. Sadder still, some have taken advantage of their position(s) in various ecclesiastical bodies to actually prey upon children. And others have tried to twist teachings of the church to their own perverted ends. These acts are heinous. And they are not a part of the Christian faith. But, they do point out deficiencies in the practice of our Christian faith. One of the greatest deficiencies that we let go for far too long was that we just assumed that only good people would be interested in the priesthood or being a pastor. That isn't true and never was. Because of lack of oversight, and the implicit trust that congregants gave pastors, we ended up with sick people seeking to enter into ministry for reasons completely unrelated to serving either God or his church. This is an area in which not just those who perpetrated this horrofic acts, but also those who turned a blind eye to them or created a system in which one could get away with such crimes have had to examine outselves, confess our lack of care for those at risk, and repent of our own contributions by challenging and change old systems.

Assuming that all religions spend time in such introspection so as to correct past or present errors to make for a better future, what are some of the issues where Islam has chosen to become introspective?

 

[GreyKode]

Because of lack of oversight, and the implicit trust that congregants gave pastors, we ended up with sick people seeking to enter into ministry for reasons completely unrelated to serving either God or his church. This is an area in which not just those who perpetrated this horrofic acts, but also those who turned a blind eye to them or created a system in which one could get away with such crimes have had to examine outselves, confess our lack of care for those at risk, and repent of our own contributions by challenging and change old systems.

So you are saying taht this is a flaw in the practice rather in the teaching. I used to think that celibacy that was enforced on priests was one of the main reasons of causing such sexual trangressions.
But isn't celibacy a teaching in the religion itself not only a matter of practice?

 

[Ezekiel_B]

First : It was just an example

Second : Could you think of a reason why looking at skin is wrong?

Finally : You missed the point, since your child won't be easily convinced why somthing like that is wrong, you will have to indoctrinate him. Got it.

First : Yes, of course it was just an example. I just thought it was a little bizzare, that's all. But never mind...

Second : It wouldn't be the looking at the skin which is wrong, so much as the breach of privacy, as in spying, I suppose. But that would surely depend on the relationship between the one who is spying and the one being spyed on, plus the motive. Of course, in a child, the motive for 'spying' on a parent would be interpreted by most sane persons as a simple act of playfulness... whereas, a priest, spying on a choirboy in the shower, for instance, would have infinitely more sinister connotations.

Finally : No, I don't think I missed your point. It's quite obvious to me what you're trying to say. The point I'm making is that although it is certainly necessary to impress upon children that something is wrong, such as lying, cheating, stealing, etc - the things which are impressed upon people in religious institutions may often go far beyond the basics, which they should obviously have learned already, during very early childhood.

By this, I mean things such as being taught that homosexuality is evil or that they will go to hell if they do not believe in god.

Of these two examples, one is garnering a form of hatred and intolerance towards people's private business (in which case I would teach that you do not judge someone, unless they are harming either themselves or another person by their actions). The other is unfalsifyable, supernatural nonsense, which we know has been used by those in power, to control the masses, by inciting fear for the past few thousand years at least.

Now, what I mean by indoctrination is this: When it comes to the basic tenets of civilised life, such as not stealing, lying, cheating, causing harm to each other, etc - which the child already knows is wrong, - when they hear these things mentioned in religious study, they will be getting the immediate sense that the holy book is correct - because it has just mentioned those things which the child has already been assured are correct. Thus, a pathway to further trust is opened up, which a priest, Imam or Sunday school teacher can then use as an open conduit to pump them full of the rhetorical wisdom which is contained in very antiquated forms of literature, designed for people of a more primitive era to follow.

That is what I am referring to, when I use the term 'indoctrination'. Religious indoctrination goes somewhat further than those very basic rules designed to ensure a child grows up treating his fellows with common respect. Protocols and behaviours, the grasp of which equip him to act in a fair and decent manner, which enable him to be a success as a human being. One who must share society with others, like himself.

All of these things... and more... can be taught successfully, without the need for further religious indoctrination.

 

[Woodrow]

A few gentle reminders.

This is a forum not a war zone.

If any member is offended by the post of another member, use the report button, do not respond to the offending post.

The topic of this thread is: * Why aren't the Nun's considered Opressed?

Please stick to the topic and only the topic. If you have something else to say, start a new thread.....Please

 

[Ramadhan]

Seriously though, it's got to the stage now, where a white person can not only be prosecuted for speaking ill of immigrants or giving verbal abuse but can also fall into unpopularity among his friends. While there are still large numbers of people who do express resentment for muslims (oh, yes, sadly, there have been racial attacks, of course!)

Is there a case where a white person has been persecuted AND tried AND sentenced for speaking ill of immigrants?

If not, I will just have to consider your statements above as nothing but xenophobia.

No, it's not 'social suicide' at all. The women over here have the social network of their fellow muslims and of their local mosques as soon as they arrive. They also have strong support from our government in terms of recommendations for acceptance and equal opportunities. You might be pleased to know that some women in traditional dress hold professional occupations, go shopping, visit the bank - often without ever having to see a white person at all, because now they can live in areas completely occupied by muslims. In other, more mixed areas, they are seen out and about, looking perfectly happy and the local mosque in my area just completed a new women's education unit. I believe they even have their own swimming baths. There is no sense of social suicide whatsoever.

Where is this area? Maybe we should encourage more muslims to migrate and move to your area.

 

[Ezekiel_B]

Yes, of course, Woodrow. And thank you for the messages. I know I should have ignored those comments, rather than responding and in future, I will do my best to respect your wishes.

 

[Ezekiel_B]

Is there a case where a white person has been persecuted AND tried AND sentenced for speaking ill of immigrants?

I'm not sure. I would certainly hope so, since there are some very xenophobic characters here in our society, who certainly deserve to be! I can't quote any specific cases right now, but I can tell you there are laws in place, which are designed to prohibit what can be deemed as 'incitement to hatred'. Abusing a person of a different ethnic origin, on the basis of their skin colour or religion is covered by the hate crime law. A law, which I myself once tried to improve, by starting a petition, as a matter of fact.

If not, I will just have to consider your statements above as nothing but xenophobia.

Eh??? No.
I can't tell you here and now, exactly how effective such legislation has been, so far, but I think it's certainly a step in the right direction.

 

[Ramadhan]

Why, yes you did! If I may remind you...?

Quote Originally Posted by naidamar
Especially in the western world, when you say there is choice, there is actually not much choice. since little girls, the women in the western countries through popular culture are conditioned and indoctrinised what to dress (sexy is better), how to dress (or undress), how to behave (like a *****)

I am bolding my phrase,
"there is actually not much choice"
is it the same with
"there is no choice whatsoever"?

I assume english is your first and native language, so are you sure that "not much" = "not at all"?

I wish I didn't have to, but I'm sorry, I see certain similarities (in just some areas, you understand)

However instead of addressing particular areas, you brush it off as "these things about any religious culture".

Well I think you do. What else is it for? You don't dress in black to make people think you're evil, do you? No, you see - I'm the one who does that!

You charged that muslimah only wear hijab because they want to be looked as "pure" and "good"
And I have explained to you the reasons why muslimah wear hijab, however you seem unable to accept the explanation I gave.
although I am not a woman, I know close and personal (including my own mother, aunts, cousins, sisters in law) those who wear hijab, and that is the reason they told me why they wear hijab.
So, I assume you personally know some muslimahs who TOLD you that they prefer to wear hijab because they want to be seen as "PURE" AND "GOOD"?

What I mean is, (and you've intimated as much yourself) if a woman is parading around wearing very little in the west, I get the feeling you consider her to resemble some kind of prostitute? Well, if a woman is covered (in the so called 'decent way') it stands to reason you may think more highly of her (than if her butt was hanging out the back of jeans). Do you not see what I mean? Goodness... purity... you know... that sort of thing...?

Are you that insecure?
Do you take other people's opinions to form they way you dress or you think about yourself?

I'm sure those woman who wear skimpy clothes do not give a rat's ass what other people think of them
likewise, those who wear hijab couldn't care less what other peeople say about them, one way or another.

Excuse me, but don't you think you've just contradicted yourself? You 'choose' although Allah commands it anyway? The way you put it, it doesn't sound very much like he asked you nicely or as a second thought... ("Er, excuse me, madame... I'd be ever so grateful if you didn't mind covering up a bit?"). He commands and you... what...? Obey? Or do you choose to obey? At what point do his 'commands' stop being commands and become requests? And what does he do if you don't comply? Are you saying his commands are optional?

No, I did not contradict myself.
yes, Allah commands us to do or not do certain things.
but yes, I also have the option whether I comply with the commands or not.
You see, there are more than a billion muslims in the world, some of them choose to obey Allah more than others. FYI, not all muslimah wear hijab.

Have a look at yourself too, you claim you live in the area where there are a lot of muslims, and you are participating in this forum which shows you have at least more than a passing interest for Islam. Yo have the freedom to choose whether you want to become a muslim or not. it is not contradictory.

 

[Ezekiel_B]

Where is this area? Maybe we should encourage more muslims to migrate and move to your area.

Why? Do you not think they're happy where they are at present? I should tell you, it's not entirely a bed of roses as there are still challenges to face, when moving to the UK and they have still had to put up with some of the western ways they don't approve of. Some have become more integrated with our culture than others. It varies. However, to their credit... did you know... some years back, they managed to clean up the prostitution problem in that area, by rallying in the streets and preventing the curb crawlers from parking there! Unfortunately the problem just moved to another area... but I think many people agreed, it was a good effort on their part.

 

[Ezekiel_B]

Naidamar, I think if I reply to your most recent post, point by point, I suspect we'll end up going around in circles. I think you may have misinterpreted some of those points I made earlier. I don't know if you've realised it yet, but I have actually taken on board the point you've made, regarding the choice aspect of wearing the hijab.

I once came across something very similar in a christian church, where I overheard a conversation between some women who were considering taking on the practice of 'covering their heads' during worship. They believed it was right and so they wanted to persue it and encourage other girls to do it - but by no means was it ever obligatory.

Living very near an all-muslim area has certainly opened my eyes to some things (some good / some not so good), but has not exactly provided the endless fount of knowledge on Islam. Erm... they don't tend to come out onto the streets and preach to us, as do some of the christians here!

All I'm really saying here, is that from the outside observer's point of view, it appears that both traditional nuns and muslimah in full hijab (by that, I'm referring to the burqa or 'chadri') seem to be displaying some form of individualistic and sexual repression - and that that can, realistically, only be brought on by some form of religious indoctrination. It's been admitted that indoctrination is necessary for religion by someone here already, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about. What I have done is attempted to draw a meaningful distinction between non-religious moral guidance, necessary for any modern, civilised society to function, and further indoctrination drawn from very ancient holy books.

Honestly, I'm grateful for some of the insights you've brought to this discussion, Naidamar.

 

[Ramadhan]

Naidamar, I think if I reply to your most recent post, point by point, I suspect we'll end up going around in circles. I think you may have misinterpreted some of those points I made earlier. I don't know if you've realised it yet, but I have actually taken on board the point you've made, regarding the choice aspect of wearing the hijab.

Good!

I once came across something very similar in a christian church, where I overheard a conversation between some women who were considering taking on the practice of 'covering their heads' during worship. They believed it was right and so they wanted to persue it and encourage other girls to do it - but by no means was it ever obligatory.

I don't know what your current or former religion is, but covering head especially during service IS obligatory in christianity, it is written in bible, there's severe punishment for those who don't.
Just because christiniaty does not believe in their own scripture anymore does not suddenly make what was obligatory become voluntary.

Actually your view seem to be confirming the title and the aim of this thread, which is to show hipocrisy among western society who consider head covering nun as exercising their choice while viewing hijab-wearing muslimah as having no choice.

 

[Ummu Sufyaan]

I see, so what you're saying is really that you're happy to abide by those Islamic dress laws and forego dressing like a scantily clad harlot, in return for a sense of pride and dignity. Well, I must say...! It's rather hard to knock! So it seems no sister of Islam has any real interest in attracting men other than her husband. Again - what can I say against that!? Nothing. Now, I hear that women of Islam may dress sexy at home, before their own husband only. So it seems as though you can appreciate what it is like to wear nice clothes - except you prefer to keep that in a private context. But, what I'm interested to know - is there any penalty (apart from inner shame) given to those who decide they would like to wear more revealing clothes on the street?
[...]

Well hold your horses for a minute. Answer my questions first and don’t jump to conclusions about what was i was trying to say (which incidentally you got all very wrong). That’s wasn’t what i was implying-in fact that wasn’t what i was implying at all.

I haven’t touched upon the matter about a husband or about apostasy. That’s what you said. If that’s your own ignorant opinion- then fine, but don’t go around putting words in my mouth.

What I was getting at, is that once you become Muslim then you accept whatever Islam comes with. Like the nun-who has given up her will for a husband and children. They are the conditions, if you will, to become a nun. And likewise once you become a Muslim (or if you were already one), you too will have matters that you forfeit and give up. Does that equate to force and “indoctrination?” rubbish. You chose to become whatever you become, you also forfeit and give up whatever that particular thing entails you give up and no-one and nothing forces or indoctrines you into it. Thus my argument about living in western/non-Muslim state. If I chose to live there, i therefore accept that plotting to kill the head of state (and other example used) will call for some kind of punishment. Abiding by the law, does not mean that you don’t have freedom. Rubbish again.

Jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth does in no way denote that i have made or implied any such comment, no matter how affective you believe that approach is.

Furthermore, even if that was what i was saying and even if that was what argument is about, it holds no relevance or is tied to what was being said anyway.

Lets break this down:
1. You assume that taking off the hijab equates to apostasy and thus this is the reason why us Muslim women are forced to keep it on. (i know what your argument about freedom in a Muslim state was all about- i aint thick).

2. Wearing hijab is not associated with a husband. That is, the law of hijab is still binding for a woman who isn’t married, a widow whose husband is deceased and yes, a married woman as well. Being married is really associated with the point. So your evidence about some Muslim dude you spoke to, doesn’t count since it hold no relevance.

Goodness me, give us Muslim women some credit, instead of making blatant and ignorant assumptions.
Some of you non-Muslims think you are our hero’s or something. You have ZERO idea about how many Muslim women LOVE their veils, so beat it.

Now you’re going to come up with some baloney that i’ve been brainwashed.

Another point you raised was belonging to the man. What an ignorant and funny thing to say considering the state that non-Muslim women are in. Since we are so obsessed with impendence and living our lives independent of any man, let’s have a good laugh shall we? Of course we shall!

The simple question: What does the man like?? Flesh, and make makeup or opaque, modest fabric? Which one is going to attract him more?

How many times would a non-Muslim woman get hired had it not been for her hair style or skin?
How many securities would there be at offices? Not actually in an office, but in front of where all can see and talk to her (she needs to attract customers, etc that’s why she is at the front where everyone can see and talk to her).

Look closer, and you probably see, that behind all those women getting hired are actually men hiring them.

Modeling agencies and the fashion industry, the brains behind them (especially modelling agencies) are all men! Women do NOT have a need to hire women!

If that doesn’t denote women belonging to men, I don’t know what does. i thought people get hired for brains, not body.


So whether you like it or not, or whether you admit it or not, this so-called idea of independence where women have been brainwashed to believe that having your hair a certain way and being as anorexic as a twig basically showing all what you look like, is great and empowering because it means being independent of the man, is exactly what is driving her to do- belong to the man. The irony eh? Being independent of the man, by being dependent and belonging to him. Hilarious.

Another interesting point you and some other people here have bought up is Indoctrination.
How about the indoctrination of young western women? Based on certain factors (the media and feminism come to mind as an example) which advertise for young girls/women what they should look like and what they should eat. And how to flirt with boys and all that stuff that a young teenage mind is so naive and vulnerable about, whilst believing she is free and independent and its all about growing up...?

So Just because you mention indoctrination along side Muslim women, doesn’t actually mean anything. You can make anything up up and pout any fancy label on it to make a statement but it doesn’t mean its actually true or has any substance to it.

But there we have it. I know we're talking about values here, rather than these dangers - but I suppose those values must come from somewhere...

Nice scape goat, but i dont buy it.

Anway, thank you for a most interesting and informative chat. It's been a pleasure talking with you!

You’re welcome, but we havnt finished yet.

 

[Grace Seeker]

In Islam, there is no compulsion, and a marriage can only take place if both the bride and the groom agree to a marriage.

I think you need to put "agree" in quotes. The means by which some families get their young daughters to "agree" is tantamount to compulsion.

I'm still not sure what you mean by "arranged marriage".
But I personally don't know anyone whose marriage has been "arranged".

I do. And in this particular case it has worked out very well. The families of the man and the woman made the arrangements for their children to be married to each other. Their children did not have any romantic connection prior, but did agree (and indeed they could have said "no") to accept the decision of their families. And then they entered into the marriage with the intent to love (not as an emotion, but as an action) their spouse, and as a result they built a marriage that today is better than most relationships built principally on emotional attraction, but that has evolved over time as well.

In "arranged marriage", do the woman have a say?

In the case I noted above, she did. I understand from other reports that not all women do. Also, I have heard of cases where neither man nor woman has a choice, but the couple are actually married to each other as children. I don't think those types of arranged marriages where both the man and the woman are children are connected with Islam.

I can only assume that you only listen to/watch/read western media with all that entails, hence you have such uninformed opinions about muslims?

Do you care to suggest other non-western media that one might be able to access in the west?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I seen this with my own eyes christians (not saying all) who are pious on Sunday but Monday thru Saturday drinking, partying, and having sex.

So, the practice of Christianity was wanting. Surely you have found that not everyone who claims to be a Muslim is the best follower of Islam either? I have an acquaintance who is a taxi driver in Libya and his biggest complaint is about Saudi businessmen, supposedly Muslims, who ask him to arrange for them the very activities you just decried among Christians. In fact, they often ask him to help them find young boys to have sex with.

Of course, I don't judge the actual faith of Islam based on those Saudi businessmen, but upon that which is taught in the mosques, or presented as normative and acceptable practice by those who are serious about their faith. Since your mom was a minister, did you hear it ever taught that Christianity was not a lifestyle?

Following is a part of the Discipline of the denomination I belong to that speaks of how our faith is much more than just a creed, but a lifestyle:

Wesley and the early Methodists were particularly concerned about inviting people to experience God’s grace and to grow in their knowledge and love of God through disciplined Christian living. They placed primary emphasis on Christian living, on putting faith and love into action. This emphasis on what Wesley referred to as "practical divinity" has continued to be a hallmark of United Methodism today.
The distinctive shape of our theological heritage can be seen not only in this emphasis on Christian living, but also in Wesley's distinctive understanding of God's saving grace. Although Wesley shared with many other Christians a belief in salvation by grace, he combined them in a powerful way to create distinctive emphases for living the full Christian life.

(source: Beliefs, subsection "Our Wesleyan Theological Heritage", of the United Methodist Church)

 

[GreyKode]

Naidamar, I think if I reply to your most recent post, point by point, I suspect we'll end up going around in circles.

I was intending to write a lengthy response to you, but then i got this same feeling as yourself, going around in circles.

You agreed that everyones does some kind of indoctrination to their children, however, you disregard other peoples opinions and you give yourself the right to judge and decide what is right and what is wrong, you gave the verdict that religious indoctrination is dangerous, however i and other muslims sincerely beleive that leaving children without this religious indoctrination is extrememly dangerous to society . Hence my decision of refraining from repsonding to you. Anyway, I am not writing this to have the last word or anything, I simply want you to think about what I just said and unless you feel there is something you might add, please don't respond.

 

[Grace Seeker]

So you are saying taht this is a flaw in the practice rather in the teaching. I used to think that celibacy that was enforced on priests was one of the main reasons of causing such sexual trangressions.
But isn't celibacy a teaching in the religion itself not only a matter of practice?

I'm not Catholic, but as I understand it, it is a matter not of faith but of administration.

Celibacy is something that is expected of Catholic priests, monks and nuns. Should a Catholic priest desire to get married, he can leave the priesthood and get married. Also, it is not something that has always been the practice even among Catholics, and while it is the expectation of anyone who seeks to become a priest in the Catholic church, the have not codified it to the extent that the standard cannot be relaxed if (in the opinion of the Church) such relaxation is warranted. Therefore, should an Anglican priest who is married desire to convert to Catholicism he can do so and remain married; this actually happens more than people might think.

My understanding of the rationale behind the standard practice of the requirement for celibacy is the desire that a priest not be burdened by concerns for one's family and is therefore able to devote the whole of one's energies and attention to the service of God in the church.

You may wish to have what I have written clarified by someone who is Catholic.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't know what your current or former religion is, but covering head especially during service IS obligatory in christianity, it is written in bible, there's severe punishment for those who don't.
Just because christiniaty does not believe in their own scripture anymore does not suddenly make what was obligatory become voluntary.

Naidamar, I think that your definition of obligatory needs some fine tuning. Who determines whether something is or is not obligatory in Christianity (or in any religion for that matter)?

One might be tempted to say that God makes it obligatory, and certainly all who would hold that something is obligatory would contend that God said it was. But the question then becomes who says that God said it or that the particular practice represents the best understanding of what God did say?

There are Christian women who do wear and head covering and Christians who don't. Those who don't aren't being rebellious, they simply don't accept the interpretation that others have regarding the necessity of wearing a head covering. It isn't that they don't believe the scripture; they do. What they don't believe is the interpretation of it that attempts to apply those statements which they see as being for a particular time or place and make it a universal statement for all time, people, and places.

Ultimately what makes something obligatory then is whether I can make you feel obliged to comply with my interpretation rather than make such a decision for yourself.

To the extent that a woman feels like God has asked this over it, it really isn't obligation but devotion that causes her wear a head covering whether she be a Muslim, a nun, or doing it for some other reason. To the extent that someone else has demanded it of her and for that reason and not genuine devotion she wears it, even if not under direct force, she is wearing it out of compulsion and is making less than a free choice. You would have to know the mind of each woman to know which of those is true for her.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Modeling agencies and the fashion industry, the brains behind them (especially modelling agencies) are all men! Women do NOT have a need to hire women!

You probably aren't aware that Ford Models, which for decades was the top modeling agency in the world, was founded and run by Eileen Ford. Another top modeling agency is Wilhelmina Models founded by a woman who was herself a model, Wilhemina Cooper. Wilhemina Models has since been sold to Horst-Dieter Esch who made his daughter, Natasha Esch, president of the company. There are plenty of men running the modeling industry -- that is undeniable -- but to say, as you did, they are ALL men, is simply not true.

 

[Ramadhan]

There are Christian women who do wear and head covering and Christians who don't. Those who don't aren't being rebellious, they simply don't accept the interpretation that others have regarding the necessity of wearing a head covering. It isn't that they don't believe the scripture; they do. What they don't believe is the interpretation of it that attempts to apply those statements which they see as being for a particular time or place and make it a universal statement for all time, people, and places.

The conclusion I take from all this is that the bible means little for christians.
As if most of the things written and prescribed by god in the bible is just for a nice reading and has no consequences in todays life.
I am not saying this is either right or wrong, it's your own scripture anyway, you can do things you like with it.
It's just my observation regarding the matter.
For example, homosexuality acts certainly warrant extremely severe punishments in the bible, however these days people who proclaim publicly they do homosexual acts are received warmly and highly respected by the church. hell, the church even marry homosexuals these days!
I see that views and attitudes of the church keep shifting to conform with current trend of society.
Who knows, maybe in the future churches will also marry fathers with their daughters too, if incestuous relations becomes acceptable by society?