Re: [Covenanted Reformation] It's all culturally relative ain't it ?.....
- Dear Gary,It is not a matter of Grant and I not knowing what Muslem's are wearing today in North America or in other lands....we did do some traveling during our Missionary training days to the eastern states, and Grant did spend a month in Pakistan, while he drafted up the plans for the technical trade school that was build there accordingly...Which BTW has since been destroyed by a bomb blast....killing some of the staff and students. I am thankful for the Lord's providence that the Soles family remained in Canada.I think from your response, that you have missed Grant's point...The point is/was that Muslem's wear the Burka out of *superstition*, it is a salvation by works, an act of faith and sanctification in their religion...Grant said to not wear one if it is a Muslim Symbol.Also interesting to me, I have found info that young women supporting the Militant Islamic group of Turkey and France are picking up the wearing of bright head scarves as a militant symbol, though the schools and universities that they attend have dress codes against wearing such on their heads.Paste:>>>>>>And would you say the code is sufficiently egalitarian to be attractive to women?
Feminist movements and progressive women are campaigning right now against some clauses in the civil code dating from the 1920s which are not sufficiently progressive. For instance, a woman has to ask permission from her husband in order to work outside the house. Although we don't apply it in reality, women don't want it even as a law. Dress codes were also banned. For example, the fez, which was the hat of the Muslim Ottomans, was banned by the law.
And about the veil for the women?
It wasn't banned, but it was discouraged and women were not allowed to wear their head scarves in public places such as schools. As a reaction, in this generation women began the Islamic veiling movement on university campuses asking for the right to put on their head scarves while attending university classes.
It's not a majority movement because the majority of women in the middle classes are very much attached to a secular way of life. The secularists would say that individuals should have a right to live as they choose, in terms of alcohol consumption, dancing, nightclubs, veiling or not veiling. They oppose censorship and favour free expression in the arts. On the other hand, the Islamic movement would try to put limits on what is permissible and what is forbidden.
Even though the latter is a minority movement, it is a significant, influential and determined minority. What is interesting is that the Islamic party has been on the political scene in Turkey since the 1970s, and it is becoming less marginal, less peripheral. It is becoming a very important political force because it is being welcomed by people from the modern, urban, and political spheres, including the universities. Everywhere in the world today, marginal political forces, nationalist movements, and Islamic movements, are getting more and more involved in centre stage politics. So ethnicity and religiosity are coming into the political sphere where we thought before that they were totally marginalised.
Are they using the banner of Islam or nationalism?
Islam.<<<<<~cis~----- Original Message -----From: "Gary Gearon" <GGearon@...>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:07 AMSubject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] It's all culturally relative ain't it ?.....> Dear Cathie,
> I guess you've never been to Paterson, Philadelphia or Boston. There are
> plenty of Burka's, and other types of Mohammedan head gear.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Soles" <dsranch@...>
> To: <email@example.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 1:43 AM
> Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] It's all culturally relative ain't it
> > It's ALL culturally relative ain't it?.....
> > NO, it is not....!!!! <grin>
> > As my husband Grant has said, which I have posted here before, but then
> > maybe Jason you missed that one, [don't remember what day you went home
> > the December break] on January 4, 2003..here at Jer's club and previous to
> > this at the covenanters egroup.
> > pasted:>>>>>
> > Here is Grant's response:
> > Biblical 4 rule dress code: suggested by Grant A. Soles
> > 1. cover up Gen.3.. fig leaves aren't enough
> > 2. keep your body parts in Deut. Tie up the laces
> > 3. no cross-dressing between sexes. Could this extend to men not dressing
> > same type of clothes....
> > 4. dress in keeping within the bounds of present culture eg. No burkqa in
> > NorthAmerica.... and probably not
> > the east either, if it is a muslim symbol. Cause no offense.
> > on purpose.
> > These are the general rules. They must be interpreted. The basic rule of
> > interprtation for these rules is
> > conservative judgement. There should be no running as close to the edge of
> > any of the 4 general rules
> > eg. Don't buy a tee shirt which exposes your navel. Don't put a ring in
> > there to show off anyway.
> > The more that people leave behind their Biblical underpinnings, the more
> > they feel free to take off their
> > clothes. They regard themselves as *innocent* and dress accordingly. They
> > don't understand themselves to
> > be under *wrath*. On the other hand Christians, seeing the realities of
> > unseen, cloth themselves as
> > instructed eg. Col. 3 and corresponding dress physically according to the
> > Biblical code.
> > It is no real offense to anyone so dress this way.
> > Grant
> > typed by
> > ~cis~ <<<<<<<
> > where did you find that old article, it is six years old?