Iran and Headveiling

[JohnH]

I think you mean "both forcing the hijab and prohibiting it are equally wrong." And I agree. Forced religious observance is meaningless. But in many places, the hijab is a symbol of oppression and misogyny

(for example, both religions teach that it provides protection for women against evil spirits).

I'm aware some Christians have taught this. I first read it in a book my parents have, called Sunset of the Western Church, by Ellis Skofield. It turns head coverings into a lucky charm. I believe it's bunk. Head coverings are not magic. The protection of a Christian woman against evil spirits is the presence of the Holy Spirit in her life. It has nothing to do with head coverings.

1 Corinthians 11 seems to teach otherwise. I consider it a mystery we don’t need to understand in detail, but obedience to the head covering clearly is some kind of witness to the “angels”.

[Ernie]

I think you mean "both forcing the hijab and prohibiting it are equally wrong." And I agree. Forced religious observance is meaningless. But in many places, the hijab is a symbol of oppression and misogyny

(for example, both religions teach that it provides protection for women against evil spirits).

I'm aware some Christians have taught this. I first read it in a book my parents have, called Sunset of the Western Church, by Ellis Skofield. It turns head coverings into a lucky charm. I believe it's bunk. Head coverings are not magic. The protection of a Christian woman against evil spirits is the presence of the Holy Spirit in her life. It has nothing to do with head coverings.

I would not say it has "nothing to do with head coverings". I think there has been plenty of times that men with evil spirits have not done what they wanted to because of women being veiled.
Head covering certainly doesn't protect women with the Holy Spirit from persecution or abuse in every situation, even though it may have staved off persecution or abuse in some situations.

[JohnH]

(for example, both religions teach that it provides protection for women against evil spirits).

I'm aware some Christians have taught this. I first read it in a book my parents have, called Sunset of the Western Church, by Ellis Skofield. It turns head coverings into a lucky charm. I believe it's bunk. Head coverings are not magic. The protection of a Christian woman against evil spirits is the presence of the Holy Spirit in her life. It has nothing to do with head coverings.

I would not say it has "nothing to do with head coverings". I think there has been plenty of times that men with evil spirits have not done what they wanted to because of women being veiled.
Head covering certainly doesn't protect women with the Holy Spirit from persecution or abuse in every situation, even though it may have staved off persecution or abuse in some situations.

Or otherwise stated, Christian women who have the Holy Spirit in their life will obey the scriptures, including passages in Corinthians.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Even though I am not Muslim or Iranian, i see the hijab requirement as a positive development, and feel more solidarity with the Ayatollah and the current regime than the Shah and its liberal outlook. Its tangentially in line with Scripture and our own Mennonite coverings.

Does anyone else think the same?

Not here. Both forcing the hijab and requiring it are equally wrong. Religious practices should not be required or prohibited by governments.

But religious observances should be a personal choice. Often, Muslim women who keep their heads covered are being coerced by males in authority over them.

Or by passers by on the street. My gals were taught what triggers Muslim men. Some nationalists are worse than others.

[JimFoxvog]

I think forcing people not to wear traditional, modest clothing is worse.

As an example, I think forcing people to wear pants and long robes or dresses or hijabs etc. is not nearly as bad forcing everyone to be stark naked.

I don't know of any government that has forced public nakedness. I agree that forcing people to be publicly naked is wrong; it would offend people's freedom of religion. I don't know why we have to decide which is worse; both are wrong.

If you want to discuss policies of nudist resorts, that should be a separate topic.

[JohnH]

I think forcing people not to wear traditional, modest clothing is worse.

As an example, I think forcing people to wear pants and long robes or dresses or hijabs etc. is not nearly as bad forcing everyone to be stark naked.

I don't know of any government that has forced public nakedness. I agree that forcing people to be publicly naked is wrong; it would offend people's freedom of religion. I don't know why we have to decide which is worse; both are wrong.

If you want to discuss policies of nudist resorts, that should be a separate topic.

What the Shah did was enforce partial nakedness. I think that was wrong.

[ohio jones]

I think forcing people not to wear traditional, modest clothing is worse.

As an example, I think forcing people to wear pants and long robes or dresses or hijabs etc. is not nearly as bad forcing everyone to be stark naked.

I don't know of any government that has forced public nakedness. I agree that forcing people to be publicly naked is wrong; it would offend people's freedom of religion. I don't know why we have to decide which is worse; both are wrong.

If you want to discuss policies of nudist resorts, that should be a separate topic.

What the Shah did was enforce partial nakedness. I think that was wrong.

Banning the wearing of a hijab was wrong, I agree, but it seems a stretch to call it "partial nakedness".

[JohnH]

Banning the wearing of a hijab was wrong, I agree, but it seems a stretch to call it "partial nakedness".

I'm referring to the ban on traditional clothing and requiring Western clothing.

[ohio jones]

Banning the wearing of a hijab was wrong, I agree, but it seems a stretch to call it "partial nakedness".

I'm referring to the ban on traditional clothing and requiring Western clothing.

I haven't found evidence that any sort of required Western clothing was more revealing than the traditional clothing, particularly not to the degree that it could be called "partial nakedness".

[JohnH]

Banning the wearing of a hijab was wrong, I agree, but it seems a stretch to call it "partial nakedness".

I'm referring to the ban on traditional clothing and requiring Western clothing.

I haven't found evidence that any sort of required Western clothing was more revealing than the traditional clothing, particularly not to the degree that it could be called "partial nakedness".

This was the core of the controversy. People had traditional clothing that is roughly analogous to what typical plain Anabaptists would consider adequately covered. But to advance in society one had to adopt modern fashions.