Display:
I think you're right about the Christian origin, and it isn't only Catholic. My SO and I were talking about it, and we said we had each seen a change since our childhood in the 1950s, when it was inconceivable that a woman enter church (RC in her upbringing, Protestant in mine) without a head covering - a scarf or a hat. This is not as strict an unspoken rule today.

And the biblical injunction on which this was based?

St Paul, 1 Corinthians, King James version

3: But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
...
13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

And what was this a fashionable fossil form of?


by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 11:55:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Reading the biblical injunction closely, it is utter nonsense. None of the statements are logically justified.

It's more likely Paul is reflecting pre-existing eastern Mediterranean mores.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 11:58:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Of course he is, and providing them with the trappings of the new religion. All three religions - judeo-christian-muslim - have maintained patrirchal traditions of the semitic peoples in this way. This is why, imo, the hijab/niqab/burqa controversy is not properly speaking to do with religion.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 12:02:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And that's the issue with the burka finally, its imposition is merely cultural, but is defended as if it is a religious requirement.

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Jun 25th, 2009 at 01:47:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it's what clouds the issue. The burqa is not an issue of freedom of religion, any more than excision, arranged marriages, and polygamy are. (Disclaimer: I'm not conflating these with the burqa).
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Jun 26th, 2009 at 02:07:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series