My Photo
Location: California, United States

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

The SSPX, Kirill's Orthodoxy, and the burqa/burkini

Still seeing stuff about the burqa and the burkini in the news. I'm a social and political liberal - a pro-choice Democrat in favor of women's rights - so it's just weird for me to see so many other liberals defending these restrictive garments. I don't think people realize that when they are defending the (coerced) wearing of things like the burqa and burkini, they are defending the Muslim version of the Catholic SSPX or Kirill's brand of Orthodoxy.

The SSPX, for those who don't know ...

The Society of Saint Pius X (Latin: Fraternitas Sacerdotalis Sancti Pii X; Spanish: Hermandad Sacerdotal de San Pío X; also informally known as the SSPX) is an international priestly fraternity founded in 1970 by the French Roman Catholic Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. The Society of St Pius X denies the legitimacy and authority of the Second Vatican Council,[citation needed] its teaching and of all the liturgical reforms that followed it, particularly the reform of the Roman Missal (1970), and refuses in practice to submit to the authority of the pope and the bishops in union with him.

The SSPX is about as right wing and conservative (and anti-Semitic) as you can get in the Catholic church, and they have a particular idea of what exactly women should and shouldn't wear .... they especially hate women wearing trousers.

And then there's Putin's buddy, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kiril. His church has some ideas of how women should dress as well ... A Dress Code For Russians? Priest Chides Skimpiness

Most liberals in the west recognize that conservative religious factions trying to impose a dress code on women is anti-feminist, as long as it's being imposed by religions in the west. I don't understand why, when conservative Muslim religious factions expect women to wear garments like the burqa and burkini, these same liberals defend the "right" of women to wear this imposed clothing rather than addressing the imposition itself.

Maajid Nawaz: The Great Hypocritical Muslim Cover-Up ...

[...] When it comes to Muslims, Western liberals seem perennially confused between possessing a right to do something, and being right when doing it.

For example, American Christian fundamentalists have the right to speak, but non-Muslim liberals routinely—and rightly—challenge their views on issues such as abortion and marriage rights. To do so is not to question their right to speak, but to challenge their belief that they are right when they speak.

To my mind no liberal, Muslim or otherwise, could adopt any other policy toward Muslim religious-conservatives unless they hold a double standard for Muslim peoples as not capable or deserving of liberty. If liberals are comfortable challenging Christian fundamentalist attitudes toward marriage and birth control, then we should be equally as comfortable challenging the Muslim religious-right’s “modesty” theology.

Why is a woman in a headscarf deemed more modest than one without, and what implication does that have in attitudes toward the “honor” of women who do not cover? Only a racism of low expectations would prevent liberals from asking these questions of my religious-conservative fellow Muslims. No idea is above scrutiny, just as no person should be beneath dignity ...


Post a Comment

<< Home