moonsong, bureaucrats, lawyers and religion...

[Ken Gargett]

what could possibly go wrong? at first i checked to make certain this was not a holdover from april 1.

but in fairness to moonsong, no less insane than any religion. but i'm still trying to understand why a christian is suing for not being able to wear the headscarf?

at this time of miracles, the greatest miracle of all is surely that humanity still exists.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/12/17/maine-man-wins-right-to-wear-goat-horns-in-license-photo-saying-they-are-religious-attire/?utm_term=.385a5d78d0f5#comments

[Fuzz]

And people wonder why aliens visit Earth. For the exact same reason people go to the zoo or the circus.

[JohnS]

45 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

but i'm still trying to understand why a christian is suing for not being able to wear the headscarf?

There's a slab of text in 1 Corinthians where Paul discusses coverings on women's head in relation to worship of God. I think it is in Chapter 11 from memory. There are a number of dichotomous views on this passage. Traditional and more conservative views interpret the meaning of it to mean that women should have a covering on their head when in church. Others link it to a submission of authority to God. Yet again, others interpret it to mean a woman should have long hair, whilst others state that the hermeneutics of the topic is not relevant in our modern age. Very conservative denominations of Christianity, such as the Amish, have females wear coverings as a way of life (as well as other traditions).

I would therefore deduct that the woman suing for the right to wear a headscarf would have a traditional interpretation of this passage of the New Testament, which I don't think, again from memory, is alluded elsewhere in the bible in the same way. If you are still confused Ken, I myself think I am confused explaining it!

[Ken Gargett]

3 minutes ago, JohnS said:

There's a slab of text in 1 Corinthians where Paul discusses coverings on women's head in relation to worship of God. I think it is in Chapter 11 from memory. There are a number of dichotomous views on this passage. Traditional and more conservative views interpret the meaning of it to mean that women should have a covering on their head when in church. Others link it to a submission of authority to God. Yet again, others interpret it to mean a woman should have long hair, whilst others state that the hermeneutics of the topic is not relevant in our modern age. Very conservative denominations of Christianity, such as the Amish, have females wear coverings as a way of life (as well as other traditions).

I would therefore deduct that the woman suing for the right to wear a headscarf would have a traditional interpretation of this passage of the New Testament, which I don't think, again from memory, is alluded elsewhere in the bible in the same way. If you are still confused Ken, I myself think I am confused explaining it!

thanks john.

if this were any other time of year, i would suggest that you have summed up religion perfectly. a tiny few lines on a relatively insignificant issue which has 85 different interpretations and is still causing chaos 2000 years later. no doubt, there has been the odd war or two over it along the way. but it being christmas, i won't touch it.

still, i maintain i am not as ignorant as one of my best mates who, many years ago when a large group of us were christmasing in the Lake District, got up in a pub in front of 150 people and gave them a lecture on the meaning of christmas. it was going so well until he started talking about how our lord jesus christ gave his life at this time for us all. talk about your immaculate silence! he knew he had stuffed up but had no idea why. bent down and asked. i told him he was thinking of easter. 'so what the hell happened at christmas'? explained time of birth etc. i swear, he did not miss a beat. up and lecturing on the meaning of christmas again.

[gweilgi]

9 hours ago, JohnS said:

There's a slab of text in 1 Corinthians where Paul discusses coverings on women's head in relation to worship of God. I think it is in Chapter 11 from memory. There are a number of dichotomous views on this passage. Traditional and more conservative views interpret the meaning of it to mean that women should have a covering on their head when in church. Others link it to a submission of authority to God. Yet again, others interpret it to mean a woman should have long hair, whilst others state that the hermeneutics of the topic is not relevant in our modern age. Very conservative denominations of Christianity, such as the Amish, have females wear coverings as a way of life (as well as other traditions).

And in England, it is seen as a chance for women to wear big hats at weddings, funerals and other church functions (not including Ascot and Newmarket). 

Note also that in many parts of Europe, headscarves were a ubiquitous part of honest farming women's attire until well after WWII (and still are in Greece, Bulgaria and other parts of Eastern Europe).  Surprisingly few vociferous opponents of headscarves are aware of this part of their family history....

 

9 hours ago, JohnS said:

I would therefore deduct that the woman suing for the right to wear a headscarf would have a traditional interpretation of this passage of the New Testament, which I don't think, again from memory, is alluded elsewhere in the bible in the same way. If you are still confused Ken, I myself think I am confused explaining it!

One would assume that there are similar injunctions in the Old Testament, given that orthodox Jewish women tend to be quite strict about hiding their hair.  

[Corylax18]

15 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

thanks john.

if this were any other time of year, i would suggest that you have summed up religion perfectly. a tiny few lines on a relatively insignificant issue which has 85 different interpretations and is still causing chaos 2000 years later. no doubt, there has been the odd war or two over it along the way. but it being christmas, i won't touch it.

still, i maintain i am not as ignorant as one of my best mates who, many years ago when a large group of us were christmasing in the Lake District, got up in a pub in front of 150 people and gave them a lecture on the meaning of christmas. it was going so well until he started talking about how our lord jesus christ gave his life at this time for us all. talk about your immaculate silence! he knew he had stuffed up but had no idea why. bent down and asked. i told him he was thinking of easter. 'so what the hell happened at christmas'? explained time of birth etc. i swear, he did not miss a beat. up and lecturing on the meaning of christmas again.

Does your friend happen to be employed as one of those TV "evangelicals" here in the states? ?

[GrouchoMarx]

16 hours ago, Fuzz said:

And people wonder why aliens visit Earth. For the exact same reason people go to the zoo or the circus.

Well, think about it ...

If you're an alien, watching the earth and you see people following dogs on leashes picking up their poops, who would YOU think is in charge??

[JohnS]

9 hours ago, gweilgi said:

One would assume that there are similar injunctions in the Old Testament, given that orthodox Jewish women tend to be quite strict about hiding their hair.  

Oh yes, most certainly true. Specifically, I should have stated New Testament. Historically, Christian denominations have mainly cited the New Testament for their traditions as a means for being distinctive from Judaism, which cites the Old Testament obviously for their traditions.

[Balboa]

That's one horny bastich

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, Corylax18 said:

Does your friend happen to be employed as one of those TV "evangelicals" here in the states? ?

actually, he is a property developer so not that far removed.

[Fugu]

attire or satire ?

[gweilgi]

24 minutes ago, Fugu said:

attire or satire ?

Satyr.

 

[j4ke7thed4wg]

A true American hero. Now I just need to find a religion that mandates that will allow me to smoke cigars indoors in San Francisco...