<p>I personally don’t feel slighted in the least by another’s beliefs, even if they show me to be heathen or unclean.
Then again, I’m not really the masses so…</p>
<p>Hunt— It is not that <em>your</em> food is “unclean”—it is that you have not been keeping your kitchen ritually pure. </p>
<p>Very observant Jews a long time ago, around the time of Jesus, began to bring the laws of ritual purity developed for cult practices in the Temple of Jerusalem into their homes & practice them there. This is where not having meat & dairy at the same meal come from, and not cooking them in the same pots, etc. </p>
<p>They were/are keeping their homes in a state of temple-level holiness. They were/are dedicating their lives to living in this state. </p>
<p>You do not have to agree with it—it is a hard standard to keep up–but you do not have to take it personally. No Jews are asking you to keep your own kitchen Kosher. </p>
<p>Why they cannot eat stuff you cooked? Well, do you keep your kitchen kosher? Then they can’t. </p>
<p>A Jewish man from certain sects cannot touch you if you are a woman. It is not because he thinks you are unclean. It is because he is not allowed to touch any menstruating woman, or he makes himself ritually impure (opinions to selves please; it’s a rule in Leviticus, look it up). Unless he asks you if you are in this state, which he certainly will not, he could be making himself unready to perform his other religious duties until he gets ritually reset. So he takes no chances and will not shake your hand. He can’t touch his wife, either, at that time of month. </p>
<p>Most Jews do not feel this way or carry their own observance to that point. But you can respect why the ones who do, do. Just like you could respect why a Catholic could not eat meat on Friday (pre Vatican II) or would have been fasting during Lent (some still do).</p>
<p>Hunt, it’s a commandment – it’s a burden, not something to make you feel superior to the ones who do not carry the burden. But it is also a burden that you are supposed to feel joyful that you carry.</p>
<p>And regarding covering heads & covered-up bodies, go to a museum or visit one online & check out what the European women in the Middle Ages were wearing. 19th cent for that matter.</p>
<p>yes, well, given the fact that there was also slavery in the middle ages, I’m not really all that concerned. Well, and the fact that the King was believed to have been annointed and appointed by God and was, in fact, in his rule, supported directly by God.</p>
<p>I mean, honestly. Have you read laviticus?</p>
<p>There’s some pretty selective enforcement on that one.</p>
<p>It’s funny how those who have benefited and continue to benefit from centuries of colonialism and imperialism can sit in their safe, secure places and judge so clearly and so well all the other peoples of the world. Sometimes these who judge belong to Group X of the predatory group and members of Group X, though they get to enjoy all the benefits, are exempt from the collective guilt generated by the crimes of the predatory group, past and present, because they say they are and convince themselves they are and that’s that. There are a greater number of people today than ever before (by number though maybe not by percentage) who live under miserable, slave-like conditions, and those who directly and indirectly support the system that determines those conditions have an interest in not looking too closely at their roles in the process (this recalls what Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it”).</p>
<p>How different are the beliefs that (i) an economic system that appears to benefit the few at the expense of the many has been determined by the laws of nature (in ways that cannot be explained in a rigorous scientific manner); and (ii) a King has “been annointed and appointed by God”?</p>
<p>Poetgirl, there is slavery today. </p>
<p>Yes, I have read Leviticus. I’m not saying I live by those rules; I don’t. Modern observant Jews are not stoning each other or making offerings of oil & bread in a temple either. </p>
<p>I’m trying to explain why Jews and Muslims, too, live by rules you find incomprehensible. </p>
<p>Hey, when I go to the farmer’s market, there are Amish people there and their women are wearing long dresses and cover their hair, too. </p>
<p>I was taught in grade school by nuns; the only parts of their bodies we ever saw were their hands and faces. </p>
<p>I buy gas from a Sikh guy who is wearing a turban because he has very long hair he has never cut. He does not criticize my husband for cutting his hair, nor me for doing the same to mine. He was commanded by his scripture to not-cut his hair. </p>
<p>Mormons wear unique underwear. It is to remind them of their special obligations to be faithful to their religion. The reminder is right next to them, so to speak. </p>
<p>What is the problem with various people reminding themselves of their specialness to their God by their dress, cooking, haircuts (or lack thereof), and so on? If it helps them to live by their commandments, so be it.</p>
<p>I really don’t care if they want to be, do, believe or say anything. What I do care about is that they not impose this on me. As I said early on in the thread, the person in the story might as well move on. I really don’t care.</p>
<p>But, I also don’t think I’m going to point to the middle ages as proof of anything. We fought a war to be rid of the kings and we fought a war to be rid of institutionalized slavery, and some fought a war for civil rights, and we have a separation of church and state here, and that is excellent. For all of our sakes, on either side of the issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As critical theory, Lacan and all others who put forth the theories used to study colonialism eventually came to understand, all women in all cultures were more like the colonialized than the colonizers. I would like to know how women, in particular, benefitted from colonializism. More importantly, The US, though we frequently get blamed for colonialism and imperialism, was 1. a colony. 2. against imperialism.</p>
<p>Well, Jews do not try to impose kashrut on you, nor Muslims halal, and so on. But those who do not live under the religious rules they choose to accept should not criticize the ones who do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying that the Jihad is not about attempting to impose hatal?</p>
<p>I’m confused.</p>
<p>Look, we have free speech in this country. I am free to criticize and to be criticized, and those who criticize “Americanized” life in America should not be surprised when they open a dialogue which allows a response. “should not.” In America, where we live right now, we “should,” we really, really “should.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are people in ski lodges laughing up their sleeves at you. The Elks club think you are a sap. The quilting bee gossips endlessly. </p>
<p>There is no sane reason to look upon group membership as being defined as “against you”. Especially if you have no interest in skiing in the first place.</p>
<p>Isn’t it odd that people come to America and then don’t want to associate with Americans, at least not the majority of Americans.</p>
<p>
I should have taken that into consideration. sorry about that.</p>
<p>
it’s not the same thing. when you’re really a minority it’s ingrained into your life, not just a temporary “I feel outside the crowd.” I can’t join any sports because of the uniforms. I’m put in uncomfortable positions sometimes, because I have to let my chorus teacher know that I can’t sing certain songs.</p>
<p>
actually, we don’t know that religion is the driving factor. the OP simply said that it was a Pakistani girl- nothing else.</p>
<p>
no one said anything about woman’s rights. the OP didn’t say that the college student being female had anything to do with the parents’ decision.</p>
<p>
just going to say that Sharia law is basically the law set down by Islam. this is NOT what Middle Eastern and many “Islamic” countries follow, no matter what they claim. they convulate it for their own ends. so let’s not use the term “Sharia” when referring to their twisted ideas.</p>
<p>
um…
no, it’s not o_0</p>
<p>poetgirl, that sure sounds like what Upton Sinclair was talking about. I wonder what other groups besides women could exempt themselves? Let’s see, since anyone with any imagination can come up with innumerable groups that they belong to – based on not just gender but also economic situation, educational opportunities, job, race, ethnicity, attractiveness, height, athletic ability, recent immigration status, etc… – they should be able to come up with some group to which they belong which is more oppressed than oppressor, shouldn’t they? Is a rich, beautiful, tall, white woman who had all the best educational opportunities really the “oppressed” while a short, ugly, poor, dark-skinned man from an immigrant family who never had any educational opportunities really an “oppressor”?</p>
<p>It’s nice to think that people with restrictive religious practices don’t consider themselves superior to those outside the group; that, however, is not my experience. I continue to believe that in America, people are free to believe as they wish, and (within the limits of the law) to behave as they wish. They are not entitled, however, to be free of my criticism. Thus, I feel free to criticize a man who will shake my hand, but will not shake my wife’s hand or my daughter’s hand because she might be menstruating. I have the right to think that his qualms about this are superstitious nonsense. He is free to dismiss my own beliefs as superstitious nonsense as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is quite possible that the dark skinned man from an immigrant family who never had any educational opportunities is oppressing his dark skinned immigrant wife and daughter. </p>
<p>And, yes, it is possible that the woman in your example is an oppressor, by default. However, I would argue that I don’t want that dark skinned, fair skinned, bleached blond, purple skinned, pierced anything, whatnot opressing ME. And, this is enough for me.</p>
<p>And, thank you, stressedout for pointing out that what the extremist muslims term sharia law is not, in fact, sharia law. However, until they stop using it in this way, the term now means what they the users have made it mean. It is up to the moderate muslims to change that. Not me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It can mean an inner spiritual struggle by a Muslim to fulfill his/her religious duties.</p>
<p>However, the meaning used by warmongers to mean a violent holy war or crusade against their enemies is probably the meaning most familiar to non-Muslims, as the use in this context most commonly appears in news that affects non-Muslims (someone’s inner spiritual struggle does not get much news interest from most people).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is not my experience either. There are plenty of examples, but the most appalling to me is that I am being judged for not being Jewish enough in the synagogue I am a member of (they do take my membership dues though). Don’t ask me why I am still a member, it is complicated.</p>
<p>Thought the Rev War was about representation. After all, didn’t they try to crown George Washington king?</p>
<p>Well, Hunt, is the Sikh guy not cutting his hair doing superstitious nonsense? Is the Amish wife at the farmer’s market in her long black dress and white cap over her tied-up hair practicing superstitious nonsense? Is the Muslim family who pulls over into the back of the parking lot of the rest area in late afternoon, getting out of the minivan & praying on the asphalt engaged in superstitious nonsense? How about the Catholics who are standing outside their church the night before Easter lighting a big candle from a fire? Or the Jewish family who goes around the house shortly before Passover cleaning it to remove all traces of chometz? Just because you do not understand it, practice it, or like it does not make it nonsense.</p>