Salted? More to it than that, and if you don’t know, you’re just as well off.
I know but it doesn’t really flow to say ‘All Hail the Cod Soaked in Lye’.
Just exactly like those three-dimensional art posters!
Holy mother of Saint Jerome, that is a pretty picture! The fashion statement works very well indeed!
Well, at least two people (one Sikh; one Hindu) in the US have been killed by others who have similar sentiments about “outsiders” as DM.
I don’t know about other people but I strongly and extremely object to women wearing head coverings of any kind. As we all know a woman’s only value is her looks. It’s Gods’ gift to them. So wearing something that would mess up their hair and thus their beauty is an affront to God. Why would you want to blaspheme against your loving Creator?
Drunky, don’t you realize women’s hair is seductive and leads wayward the minds and hearts of men?
“A woman’s only value is her looks.” What really makes me sad here is that I can’t tell if he’s joking or not.
Yeah, that happens a lot with Drunky.
That’s the thing with Drunky - he’s got layers, like a B52 shot.
What about their cooking and laundering abilities?
I found the speech compelling, but the image of a man lecturing on the Constitutional principles of equality with his wife next to him wearing a hijab is not entirely convincing.
That being said, his son sacrificed his life for this country and is ten times the man Donald Trump could ever be.
What about the hijab makes his wife less equal with respect to the constitution?
For sure.
Given your comment about the son’s parents, the son is a thousand times the human you could ever dream of being.
Ding ding ding!!
Quit shaking your head.
Don’t you remember the 1st Amendment?
*Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Unless a woman wants to wear one of those hibi-jabbi things. That’s right out.
*
It doesn’t with respect to freedom of expression. It does, I would argue, with respect to the traditional subordinacy of women in many Islamic cultures, which carries on to this day. Arguing for a progressive interpretation of Constitutional equality does not quite hit the mark when your wife is standing next to you wearing a hijab, a symbol of centuries of paternal oppression.
Symbols matter. If the Confederate flag is a historical symbol of the oppression of African-Americans, the hijab can rightly be interpreted as a historical symbol of the subordination of women. I would be uncomfortable with it, were I a progressive woman.
Yes, God forbid a woman should make a decision with her freedoms you don’t like. How do you know she doesn’t insist on wearing that hijab? Khan said in an interview yesterday that his wife was standing there because she is his strength, that he is the weak one, and that he needed her there to bolster him to stand up there and speak to the venue.
If you saw an elderly Catholic woman enter a church for Mass with a lace handkerchief over her head, like many, many Catholic women did up until about 30 or 40 years ago, would you say that she was being forced to do that? Or would you allow that it was her decision to do so because it’s what she thinks is proper for Mass attire?
Since you believe people should change their behavior if it makes me uncomfortable, I’m counting on you to stop being a jackass sometime soon. Thanks!
An important difference is that while the constitution protects religious freedom and expression, it does not protect oppression based on race.
To the extent that a hijab is a religious symbol, much like a Sikh turban, we cannot put it in the same category as a Confederate flag.
That said, progressive muslims do make a case against the custom of women wearing hijabs. So things appear to be changing on that front.