After the overthrow of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi and the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, women were once again obliged to wear veils in public, a practice that had largely been abandoned during the Shah's reign. Many women were outraged by this decision and protested against it in public

Anonymous wrote:
Uh-huh. It's boring. But somehow you continue to respond, go figure. I'm just amused watching you trying So Hard to apply standards of evidence to the field of bullshit legends called religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim women veil for various reasons, as do nuns and Mary, and if someone wants to make an argument that this reason may be the same, then I'm sure it's possible. Let's not fake theological expertise where none exists. It's not a matter of right and wrong because religion isn't; it's either a plausible argument or a bad one. In this case, I'm sure, a plausible theory can be advanced.

This has to be one of the lamest pieces of reasoning I've read on DCUM in a while. Just because "someone wants to make an argument" is no reason for a thinking person to be "sure it's possible." For Pete's sake, the public sphere is filled with all sorts of demagogues (Trump), liars, and ignoramouses.

You also provide no reason for why you're so "sure a plausible theory can be advanced". Presumably you can't because you, like the authors of that billboard, have zero insight or knowledge about nuns and Mary.

Who can possibly have insight into anyone's innermost mind? Who can really even know if this person existed? It's all a legend anyway. People develop claims and air them. That's all there is to it. You are looking for accuracy and proof in a field where none can be had.

PS: A person aching to accuse others of ignorance would be well served by learning to spell "ignoramus" first.

Well that's the point, isn't it. People develop claims and air them, even when they have no evidence. Like the billboard designers who, you seem to agree, have no evidence. No need to accuse other posters who criticize the billboard of looking for evidence, because they seem to share your view that there's no evidence. Yeesh. Can we move on, are we done now?

There can NOT be any scientific caliber evidence in this case. It's a theory, as good as any.

It's not as good as any if there's zero evidence for it. It's speculation presented as fact, which just seems wrong.

That's all religion is. A speculation. "Jesus is waiting" is also a speculation for which there is no evidence. You're looking for proof where none can be had.

That's a non sequitur, start your own thread. Has nothing to do with evidence, or rather the lack thereof, about historical reasons for veiling.

History has nothing to do with this.

You just want to argue. How boring.

(But duh. If you're making a statement about historical figures, then yeah, it's all about having primary sources. So Paul's letters from a few decades after Christ would work, or Hadith. That is, in lieu of any statements from actual women of the time. But your "feelings" about how women 2000 years ago "might have felt" is so bogus. Snort.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim women veil for various reasons, as do nuns and Mary, and if someone wants to make an argument that this reason may be the same, then I'm sure it's possible. Let's not fake theological expertise where none exists. It's not a matter of right and wrong because religion isn't; it's either a plausible argument or a bad one. In this case, I'm sure, a plausible theory can be advanced.

This has to be one of the lamest pieces of reasoning I've read on DCUM in a while. Just because "someone wants to make an argument" is no reason for a thinking person to be "sure it's possible." For Pete's sake, the public sphere is filled with all sorts of demagogues (Trump), liars, and ignoramouses.

You also provide no reason for why you're so "sure a plausible theory can be advanced". Presumably you can't because you, like the authors of that billboard, have zero insight or knowledge about nuns and Mary.

Who can possibly have insight into anyone's innermost mind? Who can really even know if this person existed? It's all a legend anyway. People develop claims and air them. That's all there is to it. You are looking for accuracy and proof in a field where none can be had.

PS: A person aching to accuse others of ignorance would be well served by learning to spell "ignoramus" first.

Well that's the point, isn't it. People develop claims and air them, even when they have no evidence. Like the billboard designers who, you seem to agree, have no evidence. No need to accuse other posters who criticize the billboard of looking for evidence, because they seem to share your view that there's no evidence. Yeesh. Can we move on, are we done now?

There can NOT be any scientific caliber evidence in this case. It's a theory, as good as any.

It's not as good as any if there's zero evidence for it. It's speculation presented as fact, which just seems wrong.

That's all religion is. A speculation. "Jesus is waiting" is also a speculation for which there is no evidence. You're looking for proof where none can be had.

That's a non sequitur, start your own thread. Has nothing to do with evidence, or rather the lack thereof, about historical reasons for veiling.

History has nothing to do with this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim women veil for various reasons, as do nuns and Mary, and if someone wants to make an argument that this reason may be the same, then I'm sure it's possible. Let's not fake theological expertise where none exists. It's not a matter of right and wrong because religion isn't; it's either a plausible argument or a bad one. In this case, I'm sure, a plausible theory can be advanced.

This has to be one of the lamest pieces of reasoning I've read on DCUM in a while. Just because "someone wants to make an argument" is no reason for a thinking person to be "sure it's possible." For Pete's sake, the public sphere is filled with all sorts of demagogues (Trump), liars, and ignoramouses.

You also provide no reason for why you're so "sure a plausible theory can be advanced". Presumably you can't because you, like the authors of that billboard, have zero insight or knowledge about nuns and Mary.

Who can possibly have insight into anyone's innermost mind? Who can really even know if this person existed? It's all a legend anyway. People develop claims and air them. That's all there is to it. You are looking for accuracy and proof in a field where none can be had.

PS: A person aching to accuse others of ignorance would be well served by learning to spell "ignoramus" first.

Well that's the point, isn't it. People develop claims and air them, even when they have no evidence. Like the billboard designers who, you seem to agree, have no evidence. No need to accuse other posters who criticize the billboard of looking for evidence, because they seem to share your view that there's no evidence. Yeesh. Can we move on, are we done now?

There can NOT be any scientific caliber evidence in this case. It's a theory, as good as any.

It's not as good as any if there's zero evidence for it. It's speculation presented as fact, which just seems wrong.

That's all religion is. A speculation. "Jesus is waiting" is also a speculation for which there is no evidence. You're looking for proof where none can be had.

That's a non sequitur, start your own thread. Has nothing to do with evidence, or rather the lack thereof, about historical reasons for veiling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Amen to that. Sometimes I think the more rabid hijab wearers come on this forum to solicit views just for the purpose of playing gotcha so they can accuse others of violating their first amendment right to practice free expression and religion.

How fast can you say, "Microaggression!"?

Anyone has the right to wear six inch heels and I have the right to think they are foolish to do so. The first amendment protects people in their free expression, but it is totally neutral as to the value of that expression, a point hijabi wearers playing this game seem to overlook.

You get to wear what you want within limits, but you don't get to say it's immune from criticism because it is religious belief without the basis for your saying so being questioned.

And to be clear, let's not be tiresome about Americans being perverse because some have negative views about the hijab while being fine with people going around half naked--the first amendment does allow for limits based on commonly accepted standards of decency. And please don't tell me that Virginia on other states are in violation of the first amendment because they ban wearing ski masks and other face coverings like the niqab in public for security reasons. See Employment Division v. Smith.

Niqab is prohibited in VA? why do I see women at Tysons and Fair Oaks mall wearing it then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim women veil for various reasons, as do nuns and Mary, and if someone wants to make an argument that this reason may be the same, then I'm sure it's possible. Let's not fake theological expertise where none exists. It's not a matter of right and wrong because religion isn't; it's either a plausible argument or a bad one. In this case, I'm sure, a plausible theory can be advanced.

This has to be one of the lamest pieces of reasoning I've read on DCUM in a while. Just because "someone wants to make an argument" is no reason for a thinking person to be "sure it's possible." For Pete's sake, the public sphere is filled with all sorts of demagogues (Trump), liars, and ignoramouses.

You also provide no reason for why you're so "sure a plausible theory can be advanced". Presumably you can't because you, like the authors of that billboard, have zero insight or knowledge about nuns and Mary.

Who can possibly have insight into anyone's innermost mind? Who can really even know if this person existed? It's all a legend anyway. People develop claims and air them. That's all there is to it. You are looking for accuracy and proof in a field where none can be had.

PS: A person aching to accuse others of ignorance would be well served by learning to spell "ignoramus" first.

Well that's the point, isn't it. People develop claims and air them, even when they have no evidence. Like the billboard designers who, you seem to agree, have no evidence. No need to accuse other posters who criticize the billboard of looking for evidence, because they seem to share your view that there's no evidence. Yeesh. Can we move on, are we done now?

There can NOT be any scientific caliber evidence in this case. It's a theory, as good as any.

It's not as good as any if there's zero evidence for it. It's speculation presented as fact, which just seems wrong.

That's all religion is. A speculation. "Jesus is waiting" is also a speculation for which there is no evidence. You're looking for proof where none can be had.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim women veil for various reasons, as do nuns and Mary, and if someone wants to make an argument that this reason may be the same, then I'm sure it's possible. Let's not fake theological expertise where none exists. It's not a matter of right and wrong because religion isn't; it's either a plausible argument or a bad one. In this case, I'm sure, a plausible theory can be advanced.

This has to be one of the lamest pieces of reasoning I've read on DCUM in a while. Just because "someone wants to make an argument" is no reason for a thinking person to be "sure it's possible." For Pete's sake, the public sphere is filled with all sorts of demagogues (Trump), liars, and ignoramouses.

You also provide no reason for why you're so "sure a plausible theory can be advanced". Presumably you can't because you, like the authors of that billboard, have zero insight or knowledge about nuns and Mary.

Who can possibly have insight into anyone's innermost mind? Who can really even know if this person existed? It's all a legend anyway. People develop claims and air them. That's all there is to it. You are looking for accuracy and proof in a field where none can be had.

PS: A person aching to accuse others of ignorance would be well served by learning to spell "ignoramus" first.

Well that's the point, isn't it. People develop claims and air them, even when they have no evidence. Like the billboard designers who, you seem to agree, have no evidence. No need to accuse other posters who criticize the billboard of looking for evidence, because they seem to share your view that there's no evidence. Yeesh. Can we move on, are we done now?

There can NOT be any scientific caliber evidence in this case. It's a theory, as good as any.

It's not as good as any if there's zero evidence for it. It's speculation presented as fact, which just seems wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim women veil for various reasons, as do nuns and Mary, and if someone wants to make an argument that this reason may be the same, then I'm sure it's possible. Let's not fake theological expertise where none exists. It's not a matter of right and wrong because religion isn't; it's either a plausible argument or a bad one. In this case, I'm sure, a plausible theory can be advanced.

This has to be one of the lamest pieces of reasoning I've read on DCUM in a while. Just because "someone wants to make an argument" is no reason for a thinking person to be "sure it's possible." For Pete's sake, the public sphere is filled with all sorts of demagogues (Trump), liars, and ignoramouses.

You also provide no reason for why you're so "sure a plausible theory can be advanced". Presumably you can't because you, like the authors of that billboard, have zero insight or knowledge about nuns and Mary.

Who can possibly have insight into anyone's innermost mind? Who can really even know if this person existed? It's all a legend anyway. People develop claims and air them. That's all there is to it. You are looking for accuracy and proof in a field where none can be had.

PS: A person aching to accuse others of ignorance would be well served by learning to spell "ignoramus" first.

Well that's the point, isn't it. People develop claims and air them, even when they have no evidence. Like the billboard designers who, you seem to agree, have no evidence. No need to accuse other posters who criticize the billboard of looking for evidence, because they seem to share your view that there's no evidence. Yeesh. Can we move on, are we done now?

There can NOT be any scientific caliber evidence in this case. It's a theory, as good as any.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Muslim women veil for various reasons, as do nuns and Mary, and if someone wants to make an argument that this reason may be the same, then I'm sure it's possible. Let's not fake theological expertise where none exists. It's not a matter of right and wrong because religion isn't; it's either a plausible argument or a bad one. In this case, I'm sure, a plausible theory can be advanced.

This has to be one of the lamest pieces of reasoning I've read on DCUM in a while. Just because "someone wants to make an argument" is no reason for a thinking person to be "sure it's possible." For Pete's sake, the public sphere is filled with all sorts of demagogues (Trump), liars, and ignoramouses.

You also provide no reason for why you're so "sure a plausible theory can be advanced". Presumably you can't because you, like the authors of that billboard, have zero insight or knowledge about nuns and Mary.

Who can possibly have insight into anyone's innermost mind? Who can really even know if this person existed? It's all a legend anyway. People develop claims and air them. That's all there is to it. You are looking for accuracy and proof in a field where none can be had.

PS: A person aching to accuse others of ignorance would be well served by learning to spell "ignoramus" first.

Well that's the point, isn't it. People develop claims and air them, even when they have no evidence. Like the billboard designers who, you seem to agree, have no evidence. No need to accuse other posters who criticize the billboard of looking for evidence, because they seem to share your view that there's no evidence. Yeesh. Can we move on, are we done now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No one can really know anything about why anyone does things and what anyone thinks, especially imaginary religious figures. We don't know why today's Muslim women veil because every woman has her own reasons. The hadith don't tell us WHY she has to cover, just that she has to. The why is up to her.

The words "accuracy" and "proof" do not apply to the field of religious thought. It's all a claim. That's what the billboard is. Could they have veiled for the same reason? Who knows, maybe someone can make that argument. Can anyone say with 100% accuracy that they DIDN'T? No. Because it's a field of smoke and mirrors, and legends and stories and pretend people.

Presumably the "why" is because the Hadith tell her to, making it a religious requirement among those who put their trust in that hadith.

You should have a talk with a statistician about Type 1 and Type 2 hypothesis errors.

Anonymous wrote:
No one can really know anything about why anyone does things and what anyone thinks, especially imaginary religious figures. We don't know why today's Muslim women veil because every woman has her own reasons. The hadith don't tell us WHY she has to cover, just that she has to. The why is up to her.

The words "accuracy" and "proof" do not apply to the field of religious thought. It's all a claim. That's what the billboard is. Could they have veiled for the same reason? Who knows, maybe someone can make that argument. Can anyone say with 100% accuracy that they DIDN'T? No. Because it's a field of smoke and mirrors, and legends and stories and pretend people.