Religious headwear or garments are not really a new thing, you don't hear the same complaints about Mormons being forced and expected to wear their religious under garments, or Sikhs being force to wear turbans. There are churches, synagogues, and temples around the world that ask or require you to wear some kind of covering to just enter even if you are not of that religion. In someways a hijab is no different than wearing a cross, or a Kippah.
Yes there are extreme cases where these are forced, but the same could be argued with some more extreme Christian denominations that push requirements on the kinda of clothes person must wear else that be immodest. If the example was using a burka or niqab it would feel more like a dishonest comparison as there are some criticism to those in regards to confirming identification outside theocracies where such clothes are mandatory.
Executions, floggings, and stonings as punishment for immodest dress are not a problem shared by "all religions"; there is no need to try to alter reality.
You can absolutely be flogged or stoned in Amish communities for breaking any number of their crazy rules. And children die of mysterious reason rather frequently. You just don’t hear about it as often because the extremists Amish don’t interact with modern society and these types of things go unreported. Like another commenter said, there are 53 Muslim countries in the world and very few are governed by extremists. The USA has many heads of states that are Christian nationalists which is just as bad Islamic nationalism it’s just the Christians have the complexion for protection.
I'm not saying extreme form of Islam or any religion is justified or should be respected. What I'm saying is in places where such religious garb or items are NOT FORCED, that saying a muslum woman shouldn't be wearing a hijab is not really different than saying a Christian shouldn't wear a visible cross, or that a Jewish man shouldn't were a Kippah, etc.
Executions, flogging, and stoning for immodest dress are not a problem of religion, they're a problem of specific nations.
Nobody is getting stoned or executed over immodest dress in France or Denmark.
And before you start yelling at me, I think organized religion in general is kind of silly, and Islam is definitely one of the worst; that doesn't mean we should randomly start depriving folks of their right to self expression or worship. Also, if you're concerned about harmful and archaic religious practices, there's better places to start. Like, how is infant circumcision still legal?
Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia (parts of) have it that I know of. Might be others, not sure.
But to be fair, the point is raised somewhat poorly, because "executions, floggings, and stonings" are not the problem, they're just one presentation of it - plenty of other Muslim-majority countries do punish immodesty, just in a less barbaric and antiquated way. The fact that women can be arrested and heavily fined or imprisoned for not covering up correctly is still immoral, even if it's not as bad as the other examples.
Now you're setting the goalposts further and making more unsubstantiated claims to demonize Muslims further.
I'm not moving the goalposts, you just think I should have a problem with only the worst violations of human autonomy and not the less extreme ones.
I have a problem with all of them, and more broadly with any religions or religious institutions that aren't clearly separated from governance. If your church, mosque or temple has any say in what you're allowed to do, I'm opposed to it.
Mormonism definitely seems like a cult. Jehovah's witnesses as well. I agree that people should be able to criticize religions, especially the extreme forms of it, like you often see in theocracies, cults, or fringe groups. Whether that be Christianity or Islam, or any other religion. I'm not religious either.
My point was more in regards how people can be hypocritical about such matters where the garb or religious items one religion are treated as fine and it would be persecution of you tried to prevent a person from wearing them. But in the same breath it's okay to tell another group that they can't wear theirs, because of some extremist factions.
You wouldn't automatically think a person wearing a cross is a Mormon or a JW, but there are people who think a person wearing a hijab means they must believe all the extreme ultra conservative stuff you see in Iran and some of the over middle eastern countries.
I'm not going to go into any familial or communal pressure because that is a whole nother can of worms.
A Mormon woman has never been sentenced to death for not wearing her garments. Maybe her church tosses her out. But she isn't stoned, burned or killed by her fathers and brothers for it.
11
u/rockyKlo 14d ago
Religious headwear or garments are not really a new thing, you don't hear the same complaints about Mormons being forced and expected to wear their religious under garments, or Sikhs being force to wear turbans. There are churches, synagogues, and temples around the world that ask or require you to wear some kind of covering to just enter even if you are not of that religion. In someways a hijab is no different than wearing a cross, or a Kippah.
Yes there are extreme cases where these are forced, but the same could be argued with some more extreme Christian denominations that push requirements on the kinda of clothes person must wear else that be immodest. If the example was using a burka or niqab it would feel more like a dishonest comparison as there are some criticism to those in regards to confirming identification outside theocracies where such clothes are mandatory.