OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 06:14:11 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: On Modesty of Women in Church  (Read 22800 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
calligraphqueen
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GOA
Posts: 341


« Reply #180 on: May 12, 2006, 09:35:45 PM »

I cannot get away from this topic as of late, headcoverings that is.
What I keep seeing on here is a handful of men postulating and chewing the cud about how women are so ________.  (immodest, vain, etc)

Well lets ask ourselves, to whom is our butt crack tattooed woman in NY supposed to answer?  Any of you?  Even if you are Orthodox and have all her answers?  Nope.
This very attitude is what will drive away a woman, currently dressed in a way that appalls many of you, that might seek the Truth.  How much time do any of us have to question and judge the women we see?  And unless it's YOUR specific wife that you have a vested interest in answering to God for, no woman has to answer to you guys anyway-even if she walks into your parish with her tattoo showing! Embarrassed  Even if she is scantily dressed, it's your responsibility to fight temptation to judge or lust or whatever.  That ain't what you're there to do, even if she is well shaped.
I am not saying some of these Chic's dint' know better, I am sure they do.  But I still put forth that it's not ANY of our jobs to decree to another person what they should or should not do about headcoverings.  It's such an abused issue within protestant circles, and many women you meet MAY be recovering from headcovering abuse, and many other similar abuses.  Keep to your own theosis, do not rant about cracks or hair on another person.  Women have it hard enough, and God is certainly big enough to let them know it's time to wear a stupid (my input there) doily or scarf (just so their two babies on either hip can pull it off and further distract her from worship...
Sorry, my own pet peeve there.
Anyway, my suggestion to you all is to pay attention to your own growth and life-and before you rant about someone's clothing choices or doily choice-commit in prayer before God that you are clean and pure enough to be worrying about their actions.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,144


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #181 on: May 13, 2006, 09:57:54 AM »

I cannot get away from this topic as of late, headcoverings that is.
What I keep seeing on here is a handful of men postulating and chewing the cud about how women are so ________.  (immodest, vain, etc) 

Well, I don't think you're 100% correct in your obervation.  There are a handful of men chewing cud, there are a handful of men (I'd like to consider myself one of them) that are saying that headcoverings aren't part of the cultural context and shouldn't be required, and then there is the handful of women for and the handful against headcoverings.  It seems there are plenty of combatants on either side, with men and women taking each side.

I only note this to point out that it's not so cut-and-dry that the men are perpetuating this discussion, 'cause many of us aren't.  Not only are there pastoral considerations to be taken when deciding whether or not a woman should be wearing a headcovering (which should be the least of one's concerns in church, IMO), but there are pastoral concerns to be taken when discussing with others whether women should wear them.  There are some whose ecclesial cultural context has this idea of "modest dress" for women (that includes skirts/dresses ONLY - no pants - and headcoverings) that if you try to tell them it's not necessary they'll think you're taking their orthodoxy away from them; I've heard of very conservative Russian, Serbian, and other parishes that are like this.  So one must be considerate of the consciousness of that parish.  On the other hand, I've been to a parish where a woman will be ostracized for wearing a headcovering, as she would be seen as too submissive and whatnot; so one must be considerate of the consciousness of that parish as well.

In the end, I'll repeat what I thought before:

I suppose that this cuts right to the heart of why I don't like this type of discussion - we should be dressing modestly all the time, regardless of sex or age.  This particular issue (women's modesty) is only an issue of 11 pages on this forum because we (society + us) don't expect people to dress "modestly" all the time.  This doesn't mean everyone needs to wear burkahs (I know I must have misspelled that), but we don't need to show off various areas of our bodies either (we call it the "B" rule when talking to the kids about it). 

Unless modest dress is expected for both sexes 24/7/365, then this is a useless conversation.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Tsarina
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 121

St. Anastasia Royal-Martyr


« Reply #182 on: May 13, 2006, 12:46:24 PM »

I cannot get away from this topic as of late, headcoverings that is.
What I keep seeing on here is a handful of men postulating and chewing the cud about how women are so ________.  (immodest, vain, etc)

Well lets ask ourselves, to whom is our butt crack tattooed woman in NY supposed to answer?  Any of you?  Even if you are Orthodox and have all her answers?  Nope.
This very attitude is what will drive away a woman, currently dressed in a way that appalls many of you, that might seek the Truth.  How much time do any of us have to question and judge the women we see?  And unless it's YOUR specific wife that you have a vested interest in answering to God for, no woman has to answer to you guys anyway-even if she walks into your parish with her tattoo showing! Embarrassed  Even if she is scantily dressed, it's your responsibility to fight temptation to judge or lust or whatever.  That ain't what you're there to do, even if she is well shaped.
I am not saying some of these Chic's dint' know better, I am sure they do.  But I still put forth that it's not ANY of our jobs to decree to another person what they should or should not do about headcoverings.  It's such an abused issue within protestant circles, and many women you meet MAY be recovering from headcovering abuse, and many other similar abuses.  Keep to your own theosis, do not rant about cracks or hair on another person.  Women have it hard enough, and God is certainly big enough to let them know it's time to wear a stupid (my input there) doily or scarf (just so their two babies on either hip can pull it off and further distract her from worship...
Sorry, my own pet peeve there.
Anyway, my suggestion to you all is to pay attention to your own growth and life-and before you rant about someone's clothing choices or doily choice-commit in prayer before God that you are clean and pure enough to be worrying about their actions.

I see your point, and in couple of ways i agree and many way's i disagree. Yes, women have it hard enough but it doesn't hurt to practice modesty and to keep trying for the sake of our own morality and to help our male brothers not to think lustfully.

Yes, the men should be focusing on the real thing in Church, and i agree with you that the men should pay attention to their own growth and life before ranting about some women's clothing choices. But you know what? It's very hard for males, because they're "MALES". It's hard to focus when you're a male, it's hard to hold back those thoughts even in church, when a women is prostrating in front of you with a short skirt or tight jeans on. They may try to stay focused, and not to think lustful thoughts, but it just pop's into their heads, sometimes even when they don't want those sinful thoughts there.

Oh, and i agree that the currently dressed women do appeal to the men, even our Orthodox brothers. We should pray for them, and also remember that just because those women in immodest fashions are more appealing, doesn't mean that the men 'respect' her. She will most likely just be a piece of meat to them.
Logged

"Orthodoxy is life; one cannot talk about it, one must live it."

St. Nectary of Optina
Sleepyhead
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 27



« Reply #183 on: May 13, 2006, 04:43:19 PM »

"Yes, the men should be focusing on the real thing in Church, and i agree with you that the men should pay attention to their own growth and life before ranting about some women's clothing choices. But you know what? It's very hard for males, because they're "MALES". It's hard to focus when you're a male, it's hard to hold back those thoughts even in church, when a women is prostrating in front of you with a short skirt or tight jeans on."

Tsarina,

Maybe I shouldn't jump in like this - I hope you don't mind. What you just described is a problematic issue, in more than one way.

Where should we draw the line between modest and immodest clothing? Again: if a woman happens to be curvy, should her only choice be something that resembles the Muslim jilbab? I am not trying to be ironic - I have been thinking about this issue quite a  bit lately because of this thread. Clearly, a jilbab-like dress would be the only option for some.

The reason for my using the jilbab as an example is my impression that the reason for the head covering and modest dress is not quite the same in Christianity as it is in Islam1. To me, it is clear that we should not disrespect God, but the thought of a woman being covered to protect her from the lustful looks of men sounds rather alien to me. In that case, a woman should not be allowed to be alone with a man who is not a relative.

We all sin - lust is a bigger problem for some than for others, but I was under the impression that the modest dress and head covering was mainly the result of wanting to honour and respect God. I hope you can see what I am trying to get at. Smiley

1 Sorry to be raving on about Islam, but it is a religion known for its strict rules on modesty.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #184 on: May 13, 2006, 06:22:52 PM »

"Yes, the men should be focusing on the real thing in Church, and i agree with you that the men should pay attention to their own growth and life before ranting about some women's clothing choices. But you know what? It's very hard for males, because they're "MALES". It's hard to focus when you're a male, it's hard to hold back those thoughts even in church, when a women is prostrating in front of you with a short skirt or tight jeans on."
As a man, I know exactly what you mean.  Men are lured to lust first by what they SEE--I know I am.  It really is a struggle to keep my mind focused in Church when I SEE an attractive young lady, even if she IS dressed modestly.  Much more difficult is the struggle when she is not.  I take full responsibility to keep myself focused on Christ and keep my mind pure of satanic fantasies, but I don't think it's too much for me to ask my female acquaintances to help me in this struggle by dressing modestly.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2006, 06:24:48 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #185 on: May 13, 2006, 11:30:13 PM »

I see your point, and in couple of ways i agree and many way's i disagree. Yes, women have it hard enough but it doesn't hurt to practice modesty and to keep trying for the sake of our own morality and to help our male brothers not to think lustfully.

Yes, the men should be focusing on the real thing in Church, and i agree with you that the men should pay attention to their own growth and life before ranting about some women's clothing choices. But you know what? It's very hard for males, because they're "MALES". It's hard to focus when you're a male, it's hard to hold back those thoughts even in church, when a women is prostrating in front of you with a short skirt or tight jeans on. They may try to stay focused, and not to think lustful thoughts, but it just pop's into their heads, sometimes even when they don't want those sinful thoughts there.

Oh, and i agree that the currently dressed women do appeal to the men, even our Orthodox brothers. We should pray for them, and also remember that just because those women in immodest fashions are more appealing, doesn't mean that the men 'respect' her. She will most likely just be a piece of meat to them.

Self-control, for male or female, is not that difficult if it is truly desired, but impossible if not. If one does not desire self-control, then no amount of modesty on behalf of his or her neighbours will be sufficient, if one does desire it than no amount of immodesty will be of concern. The responsibility for one's own thoughts and actions lies with them and them alone, not with their neighbours. To quote Epictetus, 'Nothing outside the will can hinder or harm the will; it can only harm itself. If then we accept this, and, when things go amiss, are inclined to blame ourselves, remembering that judgment alone can disturb our peace and constancy, I swear to you by all the gods that we have made progress.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tsarina
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 121

St. Anastasia Royal-Martyr


« Reply #186 on: May 14, 2006, 12:04:35 AM »

"Yes, the men should be focusing on the real thing in Church, and i agree with you that the men should pay attention to their own growth and life before ranting about some women's clothing choices. But you know what? It's very hard for males, because they're "MALES". It's hard to focus when you're a male, it's hard to hold back those thoughts even in church, when a women is prostrating in front of you with a short skirt or tight jeans on."

Tsarina,

Maybe I shouldn't jump in like this - I hope you don't mind. What you just described is a problematic issue, in more than one way.

Where should we draw the line between modest and immodest clothing? Again: if a woman happens to be curvy, should her only choice be something that resembles the Muslim jilbab? I am not trying to be ironic - I have been thinking about this issue quite a  bit lately because of this thread. Clearly, a jilbab-like dress would be the only option for some.

The reason for my using the jilbab as an example is my impression that the reason for the head covering and modest dress is not quite the same in Christianity as it is in Islam1. To me, it is clear that we should not disrespect God, but the thought of a woman being covered to protect her from the lustful looks of men sounds rather alien to me. In that case, a woman should not be allowed to be alone with a man who is not a relative.

We all sin - lust is a bigger problem for some than for others, but I was under the impression that the modest dress and head covering was mainly the result of wanting to honour and respect God. I hope you can see what I am trying to get at. Smiley

1 Sorry to be raving on about Islam, but it is a religion known for its strict rules on modesty.

I don't think the dress code should become the most important thing in all of Orthodoxy living, they're other aspects we all need to work on and all are equally important.  Yes, your impression is correct, we should dress modesly and cover our heads to honour and respect God. It should also be for helping other men not to lust.

If there is a curvy women, she doesn't have to wear a potato sack, skirts and nice blouses can do.  Smiley

As a man, I know exactly what you mean.  Men are lured to lust first by what they SEE--I know I am.  It really is a struggle to keep my mind focused in Church when I SEE an attractive young lady, even if she IS dressed modestly.  Much more difficult is the struggle when she is not.  I take full responsibility to keep myself focused on Christ and keep my mind pure of satanic fantasies, but I don't think it's too much for me to ask my female acquaintances to help me in this struggle by dressing modestly.

You're not alone, many men can relate to you. Of course it is more difficult when a women is not dressed modestly, that's why us women should try to help our fellow brothers.

Continue to take full responsibility to keep yourself focused, and pray, God will help you through your struggle, and remember that you're not alone and it's not easy.

You don't think it's too much to ask for the females to help our fellow brothers by dressing modestly? For some it's too much to ask for, they will argue, other's will understand, and some just realize that short skirts are appealing to men. Seriously, I've known girls who actually think, now seriously, that short skirts are not "sexual" but "CUTE". *Slaps head*

Self-control, for male or female, is not that difficult if it is truly desired, but impossible if not. If one does not desire self-control, then no amount of modesty on behalf of his or her neighbours will be sufficient, if one does desire it than no amount of immodesty will be of concern. The responsibility for one's own thoughts and actions lies with them and them alone, not with their neighbours. To quote Epictetus, 'Nothing outside the will can hinder or harm the will; it can only harm itself. If then we accept this, and, when things go amiss, are inclined to blame ourselves, remembering that judgment alone can disturb our peace and constancy, I swear to you by all the gods that we have made progress.'

One may have the true desire, but we all still get tempted and slip. Yes one has the responsibility for one's own thoughts, but that person should also pray and work on it. However, we Orthodox Christians are all striving for the same goal, so shouldn't we help each other out?
« Last Edit: May 14, 2006, 12:09:45 AM by Tsarina » Logged

"Orthodoxy is life; one cannot talk about it, one must live it."

St. Nectary of Optina
Sleepyhead
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 27



« Reply #187 on: May 14, 2006, 04:19:24 AM »

Tsarina,

You are right; the dress code shouldn't be the most important thing. You have already heard about what role the desire for self-control plays - I do think it is important to keep that in mind. I have absolutely nothing against modest dress per se, but I just can't understand some of the arguments put forward.

 I do believe that we should help each other out, but different people might be in need of different kinds of help. I was going to write a long rant about if a nice blouse and a skirt would really do the trick if the observer had no desire to exercise self-control. I won't: you probably get my point anyway. Grin
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #188 on: May 14, 2006, 01:11:01 PM »

You don't think it's too much to ask for the females to help our fellow brothers by dressing modestly? For some it's too much to ask for, they will argue, other's will understand, and some just realize that short skirts are appealing to men. Seriously, I've known girls who actually think, now seriously, that short skirts are not "sexual" but "CUTE". *Slaps head*

We are not Gnostics (or at least I am not), sexuality and sexual desire are not wrong, lust is wrong...lust is to sexual desire what gluttony is to eating.

Quote
One may have the true desire, but we all still get tempted and slip. Yes one has the responsibility for one's own thoughts, but that person should also pray and work on it. However, we Orthodox Christians are all striving for the same goal, so shouldn't we help each other out?

You seem to have missed my point, which was that the modesty of one's neighbour will have no impact on one's self-control. Let me post that quote from Epictetus again, with italics for emphasis this time:

'Nothing outside the will can hinder or harm the will; it can only harm itself. If then we accept this, and, when things go amiss, are inclined to blame ourselves, remembering that judgment alone can disturb our peace and constancy, I swear to you by all the gods that we have made progress.'
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Sarah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 111


« Reply #189 on: May 14, 2006, 01:24:19 PM »

How far do we take this?  If a woman has a very colorful, intricately patterned scarf on, does that not call attention to her as much, if not more, than no head covering at all?  What if she has a beautiful smile?  Guess we better cover that up as well.  We can't forget the eyes.  The only solution is that women will just have to be covered from head to toe in solid black in the winter, solid white in the summer.  Hope there will be a small peephole so I don't trip!

The monkey of self-control and modesty is, or should be, on the backs of both genders.

Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,456


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #190 on: May 14, 2006, 02:06:35 PM »

To change the topic a little...

All that talk on prior posts about wedding gowns, etc. and cultural dress codes got me to thinking. 

Today I accidently payed attention to the comunion prayer "Recieve me to day..." and before that part of the prayer there is a section refering to clothing:

"How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment;and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me."

If our clothing will accuse us (and yes I know its metaphorical) then we should pay attention.  I do not think this is JUST a metaphor.  I think that its a real assessment.  Maybe i'm taking it too far though...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Tsarina
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 121

St. Anastasia Royal-Martyr


« Reply #191 on: May 14, 2006, 03:15:29 PM »

We are not Gnostics (or at least I am not), sexuality and sexual desire are not wrong, lust is wrong...lust is to sexual desire what gluttony is to eating.

You seem to have missed my point, which was that the modesty of one's neighbour will have no impact on one's self-control. Let me post that quote from Epictetus again, with italics for emphasis this time:

'Nothing outside the will can hinder or harm the will; it can only harm itself. If then we accept this, and, when things go amiss, are inclined to blame ourselves, remembering that judgment alone can disturb our peace and constancy, I swear to you by all the gods that we have made progress.'

I should've put it in other words when i spoke of the girls that i mentioned thinkint that the skirts were not sexual. I mean to say, "lustful" to men.

I read your post to fast, and i did miss the point. Lols, thanks for refreshing me up on that.  Tongue

How far do we take this?  If a woman has a very colorful, intricately patterned scarf on, does that not call attention to her as much, if not more, than no head covering at all?  What if she has a beautiful smile?  Guess we better cover that up as well.  We can't forget the eyes.  The only solution is that women will just have to be covered from head to toe in solid black in the winter, solid white in the summer.  Hope there will be a small peephole so I don't trip!

The monkey of self-control and modesty is, or should be, on the backs of both genders.





There you go! Now you can't see her eyes or her smile. How's that? Oh wait, her fabric is too bright, that might bring too much attention?

I'm kidding dude.  Tongue Cheesy

To change the topic a little...

All that talk on prior posts about wedding gowns, etc. and cultural dress codes got me to thinking. 

Today I accidently payed attention to the comunion prayer "Recieve me to day..." and before that part of the prayer there is a section refering to clothing:

"How shall I, who am unworthy, enter into the splendor of Your saints? If I dare to enter into the bridal chamber, my clothing will accuse me, since it is not a wedding garment;and being bound up, I shall be cast out by the angels. In Your love, Lord, cleanse my soul and save me."

If our clothing will accuse us (and yes I know its metaphorical) then we should pay attention.  I do not think this is JUST a metaphor.  I think that its a real assessment.  Maybe i'm taking it too far though...

Thanks for sharing that, i find that rather interesting. I'm starting to think about it too now.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2006, 03:20:06 PM by Tsarina » Logged

"Orthodoxy is life; one cannot talk about it, one must live it."

St. Nectary of Optina
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #192 on: May 14, 2006, 04:54:43 PM »

I should've put it in other words when i spoke of the girls that i mentioned thinkint that the skirts were not sexual. I mean to say, "lustful" to men.

I read your post to fast, and i did miss the point. Lols, thanks for refreshing me up on that.ÂÂ  Tongue

Ah, but lust, like gluttony, is not external, it's purely internal. It is a sinful reaction towards good and beautiful things. Thus the purpose of the quote I have twice presented, lust and gluttony are both corruptions of that which is inherently good, this twisting of the good is what makes lust and gluttony vices. To condemn food for gluttony, or your neighbour, no matter how immodest, for lust is essentially gnosticism. It is blaming matter and creation for evil, but matter and creation are good, they were created good by God, evil is the result of an improper alignment of the will, it is purely internal and cannot be turned to evil by matter which is inherently good, it can only be turned to evil by itself.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,836



« Reply #193 on: May 15, 2006, 12:31:19 AM »

About a year ago this was a topic being brought up by women in our parish. The following is an article that I wrote for our newsletter that presents both sides of the story and what the Antiochian view of the issue is, as I understand it:

The Tradition of Women Covering their Head when They Pray

For nearly two thousand years, Orthodox women, according to the words of the holy Apostle Paul, have gone to God's church with covered heads.  Until recently, this custom has been kept by faithful women and has been handed down from generation to generation. It is a custom not only of the local churches, but also in world-wide Orthodox churches,  whether one is in the Greek, Antiochian, Russian, eastern European, or African Orthodox Church, women in the church have their heads covered.

In the United States since the 1960s ( after the Roman Catholic decision of Vatican II that women did not have to cover their heads), some Orthodox women have chosen not to follow this custom.  They have felt that it was dated custom that had no place in the practice of modern Orthopraxis. While head coverings are still the norm in the "old World", the response to this is varied by the jurisdictions in the United States.  In most Russian and Slavic Churches, head coverings are still required and a woman is not communed without a head covering. In the Greek, Antiochian, and many OCA parishes head coverings are not required and the practice is left as a pious custom that women may use or not use as they wish. Many parishes, like ours, have head coverings for women who wish them but do not require them.

SCRIPTURAL BASIS FOR WOMEN COVERING THEIR HEADS
We find the basis for this pious custom of covering the head in Sacred Scripture itself, in the New Testament. The Most Holy Virgin Mary covered her head in the holy temple from her young years. According to tradition, her veil (head covering) in the Jerusalem temple was light blue; therefore, on the feast days of the Theotokos, Orthodox clergy often wear light blue vestments. The Most Holy Theotokos wore a veil (head covering) as a sign of her humility and submissiveness to God's will, which was manifested on the day of the Annunciation. Later the Apostle Paul reiterated the importance of this when he addressed the model for men and women as they prayed: 
"Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man [c.f. Genesis 2-3]. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor the Church of God [i.e., if anyone want to complain about this, we have no other way of doing things, this is our practice; all the churches believe the same way]. Now this I ordain: not praising you, that you come together, not for the better, but for the worse. " (1 Corinthians 11:1-17)

According to St. Paul, Orthodox Women veil themselves as a sign that His glory, not theirs, should be the focus at worship, and as a sign of our submission to authority. It is an outward sign of our recognizing headship, both of God and man, and a sign of our respecting the presence of the Heavenly Hosts at the Divine Liturgy. In veiling, we reflect the divine invisible order and make it visible. This St. Paul presents clearly as a practice of all the churches of his time.

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST HEADCOVERINGS
Faithful Orthodox women who choose to not cover their head in church note that they believe that St. Paul was speaking as a man of his time, and that this ordinance no longer applies in modern context.  They view this often more as a custom from the old world and not one that translates well into modern life. An example given is that in the "Old Country", Orthodox married women always had a head covering on to identify themselves as married and to help them protect themselves from the elements (much like to bonnets of pioneer women in the early US history). Women who choose not to wear a head covering note that several jurisdictions in the United States no longer require this custom after 1960s choosing to leave it a practice of personal piety.  As a result of these issues they see no mandate for the continued veiling of American Orthodox women.

Often the detractors of those women who choose not to veil will judge them by saying their only reason for not veiling is that "veils and headscarves are not in style" or "I don't want to spoil my hair style". The reality is that for the faithful Orthodox Woman, who chooses not cover her head, there is no spiritual value to their covering their heads and so they choose to not cover their heads.

THE ARGUMENT FOR HEADCOVERINGS
Faithful Orthodox women who choose to wear a head covering (veil) believe that in doing so she recalls the image of her who was vouchsafed to carry the Savior Himself. If the Most Pure and Most Blessed One herself had a covered head, shall we really consider the imitation of her as foolish or old fashioned?  To these women every outward action, accompanied by the correct Christian inward disposition, brings benefit to the soul. The action of wearing a head covering is one of obedience to the Holy Scripture and the tradition of the Church. The act is so rich with symbolism to these women. They often note that it is a "submission to authority", "a surrender to God", "an imitation of the Most Holy Theotokos as a woman who uttered her "fiat!"; "the covering of my glory for His glory", and a sign of modesty and chastity. Many converts feel that the veil is a symbol of their adoption into the Holy Orthodox Church through all of the ages and the women who are their spiritual ancestors and examples.  One person interviewed noted that in all the icons of Holy women, the one common point of most is the covering of their head by veil or scarf.

Just as there are detractors for those who choose not veil, those who choose to cover the head in church have their detractors who will judge them as "old fashioned and out of touch with the modern church", or " too legalistic".  The reality is that for the Orthodox Woman, who chooses to cover her head, there is real spiritual value and identification with the Church in the covering of their head and so they cover their heads.

TO VEIL OR NOT TO VEIL?
The Antiochian Archdiocese does not require women to cover their heads in church. Our bishops have wisely determined that this act is a voluntary pious act that has meaning to one who does it and understands why they do it. They do not require it, as an act of obedience, for those to whom it has no spiritual value. The greatest danger to our spiritual life is not whether a woman chooses to veil or not veil herself when praying, but lies in our judging her decision to do so, for when we so judge we put our own  salvation in peril.

IN Christ,
Thomas


Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Tsarina
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 121

St. Anastasia Royal-Martyr


« Reply #194 on: May 15, 2006, 03:28:24 PM »

Thomas, that's really interesting, and thank you so much for sharing that!

I once learned that back in Byzantium days women were not seen without their head scarfs at all. I'll have to look into that, i forgot where i heard or read that.

Infact, is the head covering thing a "custom" as mentioned? or "the way?"... that's a question everyone asks now a days.
Logged

"Orthodoxy is life; one cannot talk about it, one must live it."

St. Nectary of Optina
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #195 on: May 16, 2006, 10:59:43 AM »

Ebor

You stated that my point "does not apply universally".

I am a member of the Holy Universal (catholic) Apostolic Church Orthodox in the Lord. I think about everything in accordance to the teaching of the Holy Church which is the guide in my life in all matters.

Since others have had some thoughts here that disagree with yours, I would suggest that your guide is your *interpretation* or that of your priest or particular jurisdiction.  That doesn't make it applicable to all EO or OO, as can be seen by some of the posts here since my last by persons who are EO and disagree with your blanket assertions.

You have now narrowed your scope since you in fact were making sweeping statements about all women or including muslim women, who by no means may be counted as following EO or OO strictures. 

Quote
Therefore teachings outside the Universal Church for me are non-truths....only fact and non-fact. The idea or reality of absolute truth is judged by the Holy Church Universal-Orthodox.

I'm sorry. It is not clear to me what you mean by this passage.  Fact/non-fact?  "non-truths"?  To make statements of mathematics or science or even about ordinary things that are true and factual is possible whether any Church is involved at all.  What is your definition of "truth" and "fact/non-fact" please?

Quote
THUS.....

If my point or points do not apply within the above described universiality than I have erred hugely.

Are you saying that "universal" may apply to your concept of correct in EO/OO?

Quote
If you mean that my points do not apply "universally" as in 'globally' as in around the world.....than you are right!

I noticed all your clips which you researched and I appreciate your enthusiasm. But I am speaking within the Holy Church.

You are speaking your opinion or preference from within your jurisdiction, it seems to me.  You are not the Voice of Orthodoxy, nor is anyone here.  You made statements about "women" and did not qualify them as being "EO/OO" women.  Your assertions included muslim women.  How do you justify making such statements and saying that they apply because you are "within the Holy Church" please?

Quote
The resources best suited for me would have been teachings from your local church library or pastoral lectionary or teachings on the scripture from the Holy Fathers as they relate to the subject.

Since I am Anglican, I don't know that you would have accepted anything from my parish/Church library or our lectionary.  For that matter, if I have some of the same books in my library that are in a parish library, why would location matter? Wink

Quote
I have no need for the secular and non-Orthodox research you provided. I am sure it sheds light on the broader subject of what women wear and why. I am not concerned about this. This thread is about modesty in the Church not on earth.

I'm sorry.  Reading back in this thread, you are the one who was making statements about "women" and "average wedding dresses" and what women are supposed to wear without any qualifications or confines of a certain group.  You are now claiming that your statements only apply to EO/OO women.  But there are EO/OO people here who do not agree with you.  Why should anyone accept you as an authority or *your* dictum in this matter?

Research about real history and how real people did things and what real customs were or meant are "secular" or "Non-Orthodox" and may be discounted if they disagree with someone's opinion?

You say this is about 'modesty in the Church not on earth".  The "Church" isn't on earth? If this is only about women who are EO/OO then who are you to make remarks about clothing of women you see in public who are not members of your Church, please?

Ebor




Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #196 on: May 16, 2006, 11:29:51 AM »

I expect to be able to pick an Orthodox Christian woman out of a crowd on a Manhattan street in the middle of July using my eyes first. She will be the only woman walking without a tattooed butt crack showing, and her belly and flabby "love" handles hanging out over her tight jeans.

The only woman?  Somehow I seriously doubt that that is true.  Roll Eyes People dress in many different ways.  One wonders why this particular dress is so noticeable to some, when there are women wearing all manner of clothing.  Perhaps one is only looking for examples to be shocked about and does not see those who are not.  Maybe exaggeration such as this is a particular "style" of arguing, but since it can be seen to not be true, how would it help to make a point, one wonders.

I have to say that in going around even in Summer, none of my neighbors are showing tattooed derrieres or anything in that region at all and none of them are EO/OO.  Neither is it common in public here. Nor in my Church is such display seen. 

Quote
She would be very well covered and very beautiful in her essence and energy since this is the only part of her that she reveals (her clothing emphasises this).

Very Well covered?  the only part she reveals?  How does one reveal an essence or energy?  Does this mean no hands or face showing either such as is done in Saudi Arabia and some other muslim countries (but not all)? 

Quote
Regarding head covering; women have to make a choice...the Church supports and encourages head covering on females. It is virtuous; a crown for her, a special blessing. Seeing the head coveing any other way is in my opinion a lack of understanding.

To hold a different opinion then yours is " a lack of understanding"?  And if someone were to say that if you disagree with them that it is just a "lack of understanding" on your part?   You have your opinions on how things should be.  Other EO disagree with you and seem to understand things well.   

Quote
If so; than what distinguishes an Orthodox woman from protestants and RC's? These women are clear that they are free from all the previously church grounded Holy traditions and have moved forward refusing to up-hold them any longer today going thier own way.

On what authority or experience do you now make blanket statements about protestant or RC women?  How many of them do you know personally on such a level that you make remarks about their religious beliefs and practices?  Why do you feel the need to make sweeping assertions about other Human Beings at all?

Quote
Orthodox by meaning = Ortho = Straight and Dox or 'Doxa' = word or way

Not to be too much of a pedant here, but I was told (by life-long EO) that it is "ortho"- right and "doxa" as either 'worship' or 'glory'.  Perhaps there is come confusion with what you are writing if English is not your first language?


Respectfully,

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #197 on: May 16, 2006, 11:42:48 AM »

Where should we draw the line between modest and immodest clothing? Again: if a woman happens to be curvy, should her only choice be something that resembles the Muslim jilbab? I am not trying to be ironic - I have been thinking about this issue quite aÂÂ  bit lately because of this thread. Clearly, a jilbab-like dress would be the only option for some.

The reason for my using the jilbab as an example is my impression that the reason for the head covering and modest dress is not quite the same in Christianity as it is in Islam1. To me, it is clear that we should not disrespect God, but the thought of a woman being covered to protect her from the lustful looks of men sounds rather alien to me. In that case, a woman should not be allowed to be alone with a man who is not a relative.

We all sin - lust is a bigger problem for some than for others, but I was under the impression that the modest dress and head covering was mainly the result of wanting to honour and respect God. I hope you can see what I am trying to get at. Smiley

1 Sorry to be raving on about Islam, but it is a religion known for its strict rules on modesty.

For some interesting insight into the *enforced* wearing of abaya (the long robe) and hijab the headscarf and the veil the "Religious Policeman" blog is very interesting.  The writer is a Saudi gentleman living now in England who is very much against the real "Religious Police" in S.A. and how they bully women who *they* deem to be immodest, hitting them with sticks, arresting them. 
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

The 'long and loose" is used there very much as control over women.  Women in S.A. are not allowed to drive.  The claim is, with the veil and all that covering, they couldn't see well to drive safely. Women who have done so have been arrested, and called terrible things.   Never mind that boys are tearing around driving and wreaking havoc on the roads there. 

Sometimes, things are used to keep other Human Being subordinate.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #198 on: May 16, 2006, 11:51:22 AM »

I don't think the dress code should become the most important thing in all of Orthodoxy living, they're other aspects we all need to work on and all are equally important.

But how another person dresses can be an "easy" target and a temptation to us for "cheap righteousness" maybe.  Along with temptations to lust there's pride "look at *that* person, not like me" sort of thing or envy "They have nicer clothing.  That's not modest" or other things.  Please note I am not saying that you or others are doing this.  It is a thought on how there are other sins and temptations.

Quote
You don't think it's too much to ask for the females to help our fellow brothers by dressing modestly? For some it's too much to ask for, they will argue, other's will understand, and some just realize that short skirts are appealing to men.

Well, there's "What is 'modestly'"? Knee-length? Mid-calf? Sweaters?  Some here would seem to be saying that floor length is needed or "long and loose" or nothing showing?  How are slacks not modest if they are from the waist and not skin tight?  They are *not* just "male" garments".  There's more to it then just "short skirts" and midriffs, it seems to me.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #199 on: May 16, 2006, 11:55:37 AM »

Thomas, that's really interesting, and thank you so much for sharing that!

I once learned that back in Byzantium days women were not seen without their head scarfs at all. I'll have to look into that, i forgot where i heard or read that.

Infact, is the head covering thing a "custom" as mentioned? or "the way?"... that's a question everyone asks now a days.

That is where the History of Clothing and Culture would come in, with such questions as "is there a practical reason to cover the hair" (hygiene, lack of washing frequently) does it apply to the general populace or just subsets?  Is it for certain times or rituals?  What is the climate?  and so forth. 

Imho, these do matter in looking at a question and it doesn't matter if the data is "secular" as long as it is real true data.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,456


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #200 on: May 16, 2006, 12:53:04 PM »

I just wanted to post here so that Ebor wasn't the only one posting  Wink   Tongue

Also I wanted to add a question.  maybe its already been asked, but i'm gona try to ask it in a different way. 

Should the people conform to what traditionalists would say is "orthodox" or should the church conform (on this one issue) to the people?

Maybe conform is a bad word for the church, maybe we should say amalgamate? 

If I were a priest (which i'm not by any stretch of the imagination) I would ask my parishoner to find a middle ground.  We should not lead other people into sin with our clothes, but that does not mean that modern forms of dress are completely unacceptable.   

Maybe 1 sunday out of the month that woman could wear slacks, etc.  That is, if she comes every sunday in the first place.  So you see, there are bigger fish to fry than just clothing...
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #201 on: May 16, 2006, 01:04:57 PM »

For some interesting insight into the *enforced* wearing of abaya (the long robe) and hijab the headscarf and the veil the "Religious Policeman" blog is very interesting.ÂÂ  The writer is a Saudi gentleman living now in England who is very much against the real "Religious Police" in S.A. and how they bully women who *they* deem to be immodest, hitting them with sticks, arresting them.ÂÂ  
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

The 'long and loose" is used there very much as control over women.  Women in S.A. are not allowed to drive.  The claim is, with the veil and all that covering, they couldn't see well to drive safely. Women who have done so have been arrested, and called terrible things.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Never mind that boys are tearing around driving and wreaking havoc on the roads there.  

Sometimes, things are used to keep other Human Being subordinate.

There is ultimately very little difference between the so-called 'Orthodox' fashion/modesty police and the Islamic advocates of Sharia law. Both desire to absolutize a past culture. Both desire to be undeserving inheritors of power or honour derived from the subjugation of women, the greatest injustice and atrocity in the history of the human race. Both are Gnostics, believing that which God ceated good to be inherently bad. Both refuse to take responsibility for their own fallenness and passions, blaming others for that which is only the fault of themselves.

So as I have said before, I will say again, why don't people who insist on maintaining social anachronisms just convert to Islam, at least that way we can begin to contain the damage.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Tsarina
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 121

St. Anastasia Royal-Martyr


« Reply #202 on: May 16, 2006, 07:20:59 PM »

For some interesting insight into the *enforced* wearing of abaya (the long robe) and hijab the headscarf and the veil the "Religious Policeman" blog is very interesting.  The writer is a Saudi gentleman living now in England who is very much against the real "Religious Police" in S.A. and how they bully women who *they* deem to be immodest, hitting them with sticks, arresting them. 
http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

The 'long and loose" is used there very much as control over women.  Women in S.A. are not allowed to drive.  The claim is, with the veil and all that covering, they couldn't see well to drive safely. Women who have done so have been arrested, and called terrible things.   Never mind that boys are tearing around driving and wreaking havoc on the roads there. 

Sometimes, things are used to keep other Human Being subordinate.

Ebor

Oh, and you forgot one more thing. The women are not allowed to chew either, because it's considered "whorish".
Logged

"Orthodoxy is life; one cannot talk about it, one must live it."

St. Nectary of Optina
Tsarina
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 121

St. Anastasia Royal-Martyr


« Reply #203 on: May 16, 2006, 07:24:52 PM »

That is where the History of Clothing and Culture would come in, with such questions as "is there a practical reason to cover the hair" (hygiene, lack of washing frequently) does it apply to the general populace or just subsets?  Is it for certain times or rituals?  What is the climate?  and so forth. 

Imho, these do matter in looking at a question and it doesn't matter if the data is "secular" as long as it is real true data.

Ebor

The practical reason during the Byzantium period? Havn't looked into it, although i told myself i would.. i guess i forgot. Thanks for reminding me.
Logged

"Orthodoxy is life; one cannot talk about it, one must live it."

St. Nectary of Optina
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #204 on: May 16, 2006, 07:46:58 PM »

Oh, and you forgot one more thing. The women are not allowed to chew either, because it's considered "whorish".
If by "chew" you mean chewing tobacco, I don't see this as a good thing for guys to do, either.  The spitting is nasty, and it makes a big mess when it's not contained.  Tongue
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #205 on: May 16, 2006, 08:06:11 PM »

If by "chew" you mean chewing tobacco, I don't see this as a good thing for guys to do, either.ÂÂ  The spitting is nasty, and it makes a big mess when it's not contained.ÂÂ  Tongue

And, plus, a pipe is so much more enjoyable Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Kizzy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229



« Reply #206 on: May 16, 2006, 11:44:33 PM »

there is an interesting analysis of Paul's comments on headcoverings. I post the link below but I am not sure it will automatically connect.  The article very carefully analyzes the text from several possible interpretations and reasoning for Paul's use of the word exousia (which is not the word for veil, but word for freedom).  the basic theme is tha Paul was challenging the Corinthians' logic and practices in his statements...

http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/034/Headcoverings%20and%20Women%E2%80%99s%20Roles%20in%20the%20Church%20-%20A%20New%20Reading%20of%201%20Corinthians%2011_2-16%20By%20Laurie%20C%20Hurshman%20and%20Christopher%20R%20Smith_034__.htm

I quote only one paragraph (it is a long paper).. but the whole paper is very interesting:
"To summarize, we have seen that there are no valid reasons to translate the word exousia as "veil" in 1 Corinthians 11:10. Instead, that verse should be translated, "a woman ought to have freedom over her head." This reading does not make sense in the context as it has customarily been understood, since the consensus interpretation finds in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 an argument that women should wear veils. However, it is quite reasonable to reconstruct the historical context for this passage. Here the Corinthian community was actively discouraging women from wearing veils, on the grounds that "woman is the head (source) of every man." Paul's comments can then be understood as spoken initially from their perspective; he is assuming the Corinthians' premises only to demonstrate their inconsistency with both the biblical creation narrative and their own rejection of female head-shaving. Once he has accomplished this, Paul is free to state his own conviction, which is consistent with the grace-laden themes of his entire theology: "a woman ought to be free to wear a veil or not, as she wishes."

In XC, Kizzy
Logged

In XC, Kizzy
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #207 on: May 17, 2006, 10:04:26 AM »

Oh, and you forgot one more thing. The women are not allowed to chew either, because it's considered "whorish".

That is *way* down on the scale of things that women are not permitted to do in Saudi Arabia. Among the many restrictions:  They aren't supposed to go out unless they have a male relative (father,husband, brother, son etc) with them.  They can't drive themselves, so they have to depend on said relative or a taxi (with relative) or a hired driver (commonly from another country and male).  Most are not allowed to have a job. If they go to school it is segregated.  A meeting last year on women's education had any women present in a seperate room listening over an intercom; the official photo of that showed only men.  Husband's and father's are thought within their rights to beat or lock up "wayward females".   In case of a divorce, the children "belong" to the father (like the laws in the US and Britain prior to the rise of Women's Rights). Some men arrange for "temporary marriages" for a set time and then cast the woman (or young girl) off.  There are still arranged marriages in S.A. often with a young woman being married to a much older man.   Imported maids and servants are not exempt from being used/abused by their employers either. 

Just today, the "Religious Policeman" has an entry about Wahabhi objections to womens *faces* being in the newspapers.  Just their faces, they are fully covered otherwise with robe and scarf/hijab. and farther down about a charming custom called "Misyar marriage" in which males get the benefit of access to a female while not having to maintain her as they would with a formal wife.

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

 Al-hamadi, the man who writes the "Religious Policeman" blog started it:
"In Memory of the lives of 15 Makkah Schoolgirls, lost when their school burnt down on Monday, 11th March, 2002. The Religious Police would not allow them to leave the building, nor allow the Firemen to enter."

The muttawa prevented anyone from helping the schoolgirls and would not let them leave either.  They said it was "sin" to help/touch another human being just because she wasn't fully covered or not related.  Angry

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #208 on: May 17, 2006, 10:13:41 AM »

I just followed a link from the "Religious Policeman" comments.  The king of S.A. had said that lingerie shops should have all female employees since the items are being sold to women.  This law has not only been delayed, but has been denounced by clerics as it would lead to "immorality and hellfire".  Apparently 10,000 women applied for the jobs.  It would seem that working women, even in segregated all women environments, are not to be allowed.  How far will someone's call for "modesty" on the part of others, particularly women, go?

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #209 on: May 17, 2006, 03:57:58 PM »

As for westerners.. let's remember the white is to 'keep away the evil eye'...at least that was the original intent..

Could you please give a link or other documentation to this?  I'm interested because in my historical studies, white only became fashionable for a wedding dress during the time of Queen Victoria and her marriage to Prince Albert of Saxe-Coberg in 1840.
http://www.fromtimespast.com/wedding.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedding_dress
http://www.weddinggazette.com/content/004568.shtml

Since clothing was made by hand and one wore one's clothing for a long time, a woman's wedding dress was her best or would be in the future oftentimes.  To have a *white* dress is very impractical when laundry is also done by hand and white shows dirt so easily.

Practically and necessity is often a part of why styles of clothing are worn. 

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #210 on: May 17, 2006, 03:59:08 PM »

I just wanted to post here so that Ebor wasn't the only one posting  Wink  ÃƒÆ’‚ Tongue


 Cheesy Grin Cheesy

Sorry.  Didn't mean to take over the conversation.  Wink

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
suzannes
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



« Reply #211 on: May 17, 2006, 07:28:49 PM »

Just one comment Ebor as to the SA "lingerie shop" issue; I HATE seeing guys in the lingerie department.  It sounds nuts, but it does offend my sense of modesty, although I'm not sure why.  I guess I just don't like strange men seeing what um, underthings I might buy.
Logged
Tsarina
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 121

St. Anastasia Royal-Martyr


« Reply #212 on: May 17, 2006, 09:14:47 PM »

If by "chew" you mean chewing tobacco, I don't see this as a good thing for guys to do, either.  The spitting is nasty, and it makes a big mess when it's not contained.  Tongue

I'm talking gum, not tobacco. Muslim women in Pakistan, Turkey, Arabia and other countries, are beaten up and called "whores" for chewing 'GUM'.

That is *way* down on the scale of things that women are not permitted to do in Saudi Arabia. Among the many restrictions:  They aren't supposed to go out unless they have a male relative (father,husband, brother, son etc) with them.  They can't drive themselves, so they have to depend on said relative or a taxi (with relative) or a hired driver (commonly from another country and male).  Most are not allowed to have a job. If they go to school it is segregated.  A meeting last year on women's education had any women present in a seperate room listening over an intercom; the official photo of that showed only men.  Husband's and father's are thought within their rights to beat or lock up "wayward females".   In case of a divorce, the children "belong" to the father (like the laws in the US and Britain prior to the rise of Women's Rights). Some men arrange for "temporary marriages" for a set time and then cast the woman (or young girl) off.  There are still arranged marriages in S.A. often with a young woman being married to a much older man.   Imported maids and servants are not exempt from being used/abused by their employers either. 

Just today, the "Religious Policeman" has an entry about Wahabhi objections to womens *faces* being in the newspapers.  Just their faces, they are fully covered otherwise with robe and scarf/hijab. and farther down about a charming custom called "Misyar marriage" in which males get the benefit of access to a female while not having to maintain her as they would with a formal wife.

http://muttawa.blogspot.com/

 Al-hamadi, the man who writes the "Religious Policeman" blog started it:
"In Memory of the lives of 15 Makkah Schoolgirls, lost when their school burnt down on Monday, 11th March, 2002. The Religious Police would not allow them to leave the building, nor allow the Firemen to enter."

The muttawa prevented anyone from helping the schoolgirls and would not let them leave either.  They said it was "sin" to help/touch another human being just because she wasn't fully covered or not related.  Angry

Ebor



This is so depressing! On top of that, i'm trying my best not to become angry.  Embarrassed
« Last Edit: May 17, 2006, 09:17:01 PM by Tsarina » Logged

"Orthodoxy is life; one cannot talk about it, one must live it."

St. Nectary of Optina
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #213 on: May 17, 2006, 09:25:04 PM »

I'm talking gum, not tobacco. Muslim women in Pakistan, Turkey, Arabia and other countries, are beaten up and called "whores" for chewing 'GUM'.
Okay.  Now that IS ridiculous!  Roll Eyes
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #214 on: May 18, 2006, 08:08:42 AM »

Just one comment Ebor as to the SA "lingerie shop" issue; I HATE seeing guys in the lingerie department.ÂÂ  It sounds nuts, but it does offend my sense of modesty, although I'm not sure why.ÂÂ  I guess I just don't like strange men seeing what um, underthings I might buy.

Well, as Alhamadi and other sources have written about, since women aren't allowed to work there, and no Saudi man would hold a job like that (or very few) that is another area where, in this case, male workers from other countries like the Philipines, India, Pakistan etc are imported to do the work.  But, according to the news bits, there is a declaration that women sales clerks would lead to immorality and "hellfire".  Then again, another blog, by a woman, reported that she's seen a cleric declare that 'underpinnings' are haram that is "forbidden" or immoral because they 'change the natural shape.  Undecided

Another point on the ex-pat male salesclerks: since they are not Saudi if there is some kind of problem they are often arrested by the muttawa and are not treated with any ummm courtesy shall we say.

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Tsarina
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 121

St. Anastasia Royal-Martyr


« Reply #215 on: May 18, 2006, 04:24:48 PM »

Okay.  Now that IS ridiculous!  Roll Eyes

I know, isn't it!? It's depressing at the same time.

Oh and, suzannes, about the lingerie shops and guys being inside of them, i know how you feel like. It really makes me uncomfortable when I'm bra shopping and some creep is trying to look over my shoulder to see what I'm buying.
Logged

"Orthodoxy is life; one cannot talk about it, one must live it."

St. Nectary of Optina
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #216 on: May 19, 2006, 05:08:55 AM »

I'm talking gum, not tobacco. Muslim women in Pakistan, Turkey, Arabia and other countries, are beaten up and called "whores" for chewing 'GUM'.

It's their law, what is so horrible about it? A criminal is a criminal.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,144


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #217 on: May 19, 2006, 06:02:16 AM »

I'm talking gum, not tobacco. Muslim women in Pakistan, Turkey, Arabia and other countries, are beaten up and called "whores" for chewing 'GUM'.   

I'm not even funny or sarcastic enough to come up with a line for this.  Sheesh!
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,150


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #218 on: May 19, 2006, 12:20:35 PM »

It's their law, what is so horrible about it? A criminal is a criminal.
You're being sarcastic, right?
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #219 on: May 19, 2006, 02:39:14 PM »

It's their law, what is so horrible about it? A criminal is a criminal.

How do you know that it is a real *law* and not just some people deciding that their righteousness or opinions allow them to accost women? 

This was about more then just S.A. and their 'muttawa' (who from the things I've read tend to not require any "law" to accost people there).  Other countries were mentioned.  And in the absence of any data or evidence that there is a legal code that allows people to beat others in the streets for something like 'chewing gum' such behaviour is mob violence, imho.\

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #220 on: May 19, 2006, 02:46:56 PM »

Oh yes, and there's always the chance of false accustions or mistaken identity or not realizing what the person one is beating actually was doing. 

There were towns in this country declared themselves "Sundown" towns, that is, no minority persons were allowed to remain within the city limits after dark under threat of violence.  Is that not "horrible" to harm or kill another human being who unwittingly has come into such a town, because it is the "law"?   Undecided

Ebor
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Tsarina
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 121

St. Anastasia Royal-Martyr


« Reply #221 on: May 19, 2006, 03:13:57 PM »

It's their law, what is so horrible about it? A criminal is a criminal.

It's just sad, that's all. The last thing a criminal is to me is a women who likes to chew her gum in public.

You're being sarcastic, right?

Lets hope.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 03:14:51 PM by Tsarina » Logged

"Orthodoxy is life; one cannot talk about it, one must live it."

St. Nectary of Optina
OrthodoxAndrew
Unworthy of being called Orthodox
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 124

St. Andrew the Apostle


WWW
« Reply #222 on: May 19, 2006, 04:04:51 PM »

It's their law, what is so horrible about it? A criminal is a criminal.

By that standard the early Christians were criminals for being Christians when it was illlegal. So therefore killing them was fine.
Logged

"Do what you want in order to send me as soon as possible from this transient life to eternal life. I am Christ's slave, I follow Christ, for Christ I die that I may live with Him!" - St. John of Decapolis before his martyrdom at the hands of the Turkish Muslims.
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #223 on: May 19, 2006, 07:46:34 PM »

You're being sarcastic, right?

No, I am not.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #224 on: May 19, 2006, 07:48:58 PM »

By that standard the early Christians were criminals for being Christians when it was illlegal. So therefore killing them was fine.

I never spoke on the ultimate morality, only that it was their right to enforce their laws. It certainly doesn't violate Christianity not to chew gum, does it?
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Tags: proper behavior modesty 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.176 seconds with 71 queries.