Illustrating Absurdity
by Candice Watters on 04/05/2007 at 4:05 PM
Back in January '07 when Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives, she had this to say,
We have waited over 200 years, never losing faith. We waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But women weren't just waiting. Women were working. Never losing faith, we worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are created equal.
Then just this week, she contradicts U.S. foreign policy during her audacious diplomacy tour through the Middle East, most notably Syria. And if that weren't bad enough, she covers her head in a visually undeniable act of submission.
I'm sure she thought such a gesture of respect was necessary to facilitate her broad agenda of single-handedly brokering the peace deals that have so far eluded everyone else. But we must not forget that she did so in a place where, in the words of Rush Limbaugh "they don't respect our culture. They come here and want to change our culture into theirs."
I don't understand a feminism that spurns any submission in marriage but embraces leftist, totalitarian regimes in the Middle East that are notoriously bad for women, married or not.
What kind of worldview is it where it's OK to submit to terrorists, but not to your own husband?
1. Jethro said the following at 4:24 PM on Apr 5:
Find out how many Republicans have visited Syria in the past month. You may be surprised.
2. xeres said the following at 4:46 PM on Apr 5:
This proves that America isn't that good when it comes to Foreign Affairs. Domestic stuff, it's all good but foreign policy isn't America greatest expertise.
3. Joshua Ohlman said the following at 4:48 PM on Apr 5:
I believe that wearing a head covering in Syria is showing respect for the country. Not showing submission to terrorists, and not showing that that their culture is right, but showing respect for it non the less.
If you have a notoriously bad president, you may impeach him, but you still need to respect his office office and treat him as you would any other president.
4. Chantell said the following at 5:29 PM on Apr 5:
I don't know enough about Pelosi's moral code to see the contradiction that Candice writes about, but I do believe that Madame Speaker succeeded in embarrassing all American women by behaving with extraordinary hubris and acting beyond the bounds of her constitutional authority.
5. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 6:16 PM on Apr 5:
From a Drudge link:
The typical blame America first attitude. Saudi women aren't allowed in that room. They can't run in elections. They can't even vote. Of course, she's not allowed to judge Arabs because that would be insensitive right.
Republicans may have been visiting Syria, but they haven't been misrepresenting statements of foreign governments nor undermining a sitting president's executive authority.
6. Abram said the following at 6:23 PM on Apr 5:
Doesn't the new testament tell women to wear a head covering in church? So if you're taking a swipe at Pelosi for doing this, isn't that a bit hypocritical? Or do you think she should wear one in the States too? I think this blog post stoops pretty low.
7. Rachael said the following at 7:31 PM on Apr 5:
Was it really that long ago that Christian women were supposed to cover their heads? and certainly some denominations still require it in worship services. Ultra-Orthodox Jewish women wear head-coverings as well, although the style is a bit different from a hijab. I'm not apologizing (in the classical sense of "trying to explain/remove blame) for Pelosi's trip to Syria, but I do question the interpretation of her wearing of a headscarf as a sign of submission to terrorists, or to Islam. Of course, most Americans see the headcovering as nothing but a symbol of Islam... but to Muslims see it that way?
8. Darin said the following at 7:44 PM on Apr 5:
This is just one of the many dilemmas that the politically correct face. Feminism is politically correct. Embracing cultural diversity is also politically correct. But what if one of those diverse cultures is oppressive to women?
How can you silly people not understand? Didn't you know that cultural diversity trumps human rights? Unless of course, you happen to be talking about a Christian conservative mother who believes that her primary responsibility is to her kids and not her career. In this case, you throw cultural diversity out the window AND you criticise the stay-at-home mother for resisting women's rights for exercising her right to stay at home and raise her kids.
Then, you criticise Christianity (which is exempt from the protection of "tolerance") for being oppressive to women. (You see, the fact that Christ did more to liberate women than anyone in modern times DOESN'T COUNT. Why? Because he was a MAN of course.)
I really don't know why people have such a hard time understanding this!
9. Laura said the following at 8:22 PM on Apr 5:
Wearing a headscarf in Islam isn't a sign of submission, except of submission to the faith. It's a symbol of modesty that indicates that a woman is old enough to marry, and therefore that her body is not meant to be seen by anyone but her husband.
For an outsider to do this is a symbol of respect for cultures that are different than our own. Women who serve as missionaries in Islamic countries cover their heads, not as a sign of belief in anything the country or the religion stands for, but becuase it's a cultural norm for women to practice modesty and they would deeply offend the local populations if they didn't do so. That's all Pelosi was doing.
I really wish Boundless would stick to focusing on singles' and family issues and stop showing such blatant political bias.
10. Holly said the following at 8:24 PM on Apr 5:
Wow. If a head covering is showing submission to terrorists, then Homeland Security should be notified about some of the churches in the rural areas near where I live. There are women showing submission to terrorists there every Sunday morning and on Sunday and Wednesday evenings, too.
11. Jordan Peacock said the following at 9:21 PM on Apr 5:
Hello Candice. I don't know you personally, and I don't know your background or intentions. Nevertheless, at best I think you've only grasped a piece of the picture, and have made an unfortunate judgment and political statement that, to be frank, Boundless would be better without. The blogosphere is full of political posturing; if we're going discuss that arena of things at all here, let us at least do it with an evenhanded approach and cut out the tragic assumptions.
Addressing the issue at hand; do I agree with Pelosi's actions? In light of current affairs, they do appear to be foolish. I can understand her reasons for doing so, but I don't see it as beneficial long-term or for the U.S. as a whole.
However, that issue, and the issue of her wearing a hijab (and what's with the statement about submitting to terrorists?), are completely different things. Having lived and grown up in the Middle East as a Canadian Caucasian, there are certain things that need to be compromised on in order to communicate effectively. For me, it was learning the language, at least enough so that I could stumble through conversations; people who would not give me the time of day speaking English would carefully help me phrase my questions and comments in Arabic, and then talk at length in English.
Both Americans and Arabs have a lot of lost ground to make up before effective communication and collaboration is going to happen. You as a nation, and you as people only have control of your side of the equation. Your covering your side of the faults does not negate faults done on the other side, nor make up that lost ground, but it is an invitation, and extended offer, and it is equally important.
Political wisdom aside, the steps Pelosi has taken, whatever her motivation, are needed more now than ever, from all parties, or this constant foolishness will never cease, and we'll be discussing this twenty years hence.
12. Bob said the following at 11:24 PM on Apr 5:
What kind of worldview is it where it's OK to submit to terrorists, but not to your own husband?
So you're calling all Arab men terrorists?
13. tomi said the following at 12:30 AM on Apr 6:
I don't really get what you're faulting her for here. Is it for taking the thought to show respect for a country's culture by donning head-wear to conform to that country's religious cultural norm in order to not distract from her attempts at diplomacy? (Also, I saw some clips of her on the news not wearing any head covering at all)
While I agree that Pelosi's actions were stupid, irresponsible, and most likely even counterproductive, I think its a bit of an egregious stretch to say her sad attempt at diplomacy was anywhere near "embracing a totalitarian regime."
I also fail to see how any of this has ANYTHING to do with Pelosi being a woman. Sure, what she did was wrong, but I don't see how its any worse that a woman did it. When a woman/person of color in the spotlight does anything good or bad, instead of evaluating their actions solely on its merits or deficiencies, all discussion and analysis is always at least a little skewed and tainted by filtering approval or judgment of their actions through a genderized and/or racial lens.
14. m Castillo said the following at 1:05 AM on Apr 6:
This isn't low at all man, it's stupid of her to conform her standards to Syria, it's pathetic
15. Jethro said the following at 3:24 AM on Apr 6:
Yeah, this is really rude of you Candice. When in Rome.....
Honestly what if your church had a 'men wear suits' policy and someone rocked up without a shirt, and wearing flip-flops. You would rightly see it as a sign of disrespect. Why should Pelosi disrespect a country and its customs - does that represent the US well?
16. Charles H. said the following at 6:43 AM on Apr 6:
The fact remains that someone who chafes at the slightest hint of opposition to radical feminism had no apparent objection to wearing the hijab -- a covering that symbolizes women's subservient position under Islamism.
But if we want to get into the contradictions with Washington's foreign policy, why not confront China over things like persecution of Christians, financial support for rogue regimes like North Korea, and intimidation of our ally Taiwan *before* we confront them over pirated copies of Hollywood movies or Microsoft Windows -- which we have already done? We're saying with our actions: alright, you may be killing people for belonging to a non-state-approved church, but you'd better not be watching an illegal copy of "300" to get any ideas for how to do it. *rolls eyes*
17. Jordan Peacock said the following at 7:36 AM on Apr 6:
This is the second or third time I've failed to see my comments show up, and I have done my absolute best in being clear, concise, direct but not offensive, personable and not cynical, with well-written remarks. Perhaps there is a valid reason for this, as I would hate to find that you are indeed censoring differing opinions from your blog comments. If that is the case, please at least contact me, so we can talk. Failing that, I will go elsewhere, and only pray that you reconsider in the future.
18. Jonathan from Canada said the following at 8:10 AM on Apr 6:
Women were to wear a covering to submit to God, not to a terrorist.
Latest buzz indicates suggests Pelosi may have violated the Logan Act, a felony with up to 3 years prison time.
Wall Street Journal link
19. Ted Slater said the following at 8:57 AM on Apr 6:
Jordan -- we are in a difficult position with the way we publish comments. In between our other responsibilities at Boundless, we review comments and publish the vast majority of them. There are some "disrupters" from time to time (Focus on the Family, as you can imagine, gets a few now and again), so we're unable to allow comments to publish without our approval.
We are typically in the office Monday through Friday during regular working hours (Colorado time). Often Motte and I (the two moderators) put in time over the weekend or on days we're not in the office (like today, for example), publishing comments so that our readers don't have to wait too long to get in the conversation.
I guess what I'm asking for is a little patience, a little grace. It is Good Friday, after all. Thank you for understanding, Jordan.
20. Justin said the following at 9:00 AM on Apr 6:
Laura Bush and Condi Rice also both wore head coverings when they visited the Middle East.
I would include a link to pictures, but I doubt boundless would approve of the website.
If we're going to talk politics, could we also mention that the Washington Post came out with a story today proving that there was no meaningful connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. A claim VP Cheney continues to make.
21. Mike Theemling said the following at 9:07 AM on Apr 6:
Although I'm not a big fan of Pelosi I do think this is an unfair charactization and a strawman argument. Just because she wears a headdress to Syria does not mean she is condoning terrorism or that she is condoning feudal feminine submission. As pointed out, there were times where she did not wear the headdress at all.
Also, to be fair, I'd like to point out that until 1920 women in this country weren't allowed to vote. None of the founding fathers (framers) were women, etc. Honestly I don't think it was intended to be oppressive; it's just that was the prevailing attitude of both men AND women that men were more involved in the workforce and government and women were more domesticated. It doesn't make it necessarily right of course (take slavery for example), but it does reveal that our attitudes have changed.
22. Adam said the following at 10:47 AM on Apr 6:
I think everyone is missing the point here. The point is that this woman is acting inconsistently with her radical feminism. She will say one thing in opposing the traditional culture of our society that is "oppresive to women," but then will turn around and willingly submit in another culture that is even more radically oppressive to women by doing something that is meant to be suppressive to women.
First of all, the head-covering is, indeed, associated with the abuse of women in Muslim countries. Answering-Islam.org has several articles on the topic of women here:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Women/index.html
One imparticular is found at http://www.iran-bulletin.org/political_islam/punishmnt.html. In this article, they say that:
--------------------------------------
Article 638 relates to crimes against “modesty and public morality”. An addendum says “women who appear without the sharia’ covering in public will be condemned to 10 days to 2 months prison or a cash fine of 50,000 to 500,000 rials”. It is significant that the penalty for inadequate attention to dress code until 1997 was 74 lashes. As we will see later, it was pressure from women which reduced this penalty.
--------------------------------------
So, the question is why it is that a woman who is supposed to be a radical feminist would concede to wear this headdress when, in the past, it could have had her beaten. Not only that, but today it could cause her to be thrown in prision if she did not wear it.
If this had to do with a woman being in the workplace, or a woman being in the military [both of which were customarily frowned upon until the feminist movement], she would be up in arms about how terrible it is, and she would never want submit to simply working at home, or staying out of the military. However, when it comes to issues of political correctness in another country, she totally sets aside her feminism, and comforms the political correctness.
Laura said:
I really wish Boundless would stick to focusing on singles' and family issues and stop showing such blatant political bias.
The problem is, Laura, that the way your live your life as a single, or in a family setting *cannot* be isolated from the political realm. If we isolate these areas from politics, how do we know that the government will not start legislating laws that completely destroy the family? Radical feminism is just such a political threat that has implications for both singles as well as family members.
Secondly, how can a person not have any political bias? Either you believe that radical feminism is wrong, and terribly self-contradictory, or you believe that it is not. Hence, you yourself have a political bias. Neutrality is impossible when you are dealing with an antithesis between worldviews. You might disagree with the fact that this is a legitimate contradiction that we can use against the feminists, but you still have to admit that you, yourself, have your own biases.
God Bless,
Adam
23. Raj Sharma said the following at 11:13 AM on Apr 6:
The reaction to Candice's remarks is a clear indicator of the decline that the western civilization finds itself in. I used to think that 9/11 would wake people up but this need to understand fascism will doom this country and Europe.
Do you people even know what MOST muslims believe about Christians and Jews? What they teach their children about Jews and Christians? Do you know that women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia (never mind..that's a good law..kidding)
If your passport has a stamp from Israel showing that you have been there, NO middle eastern country will let you in.
People, wake up to the hatred. They want to blow you up and you want to understand them and give them Due Process. In most Middle Eastern countries, if you are not an ethnic arab, you cannot own property. Dubai is a new exception and only certain areas have been decreed by the Emir for foreign ownership.
24. xeres said the following at 11:37 AM on Apr 6:
Wow, this is getting weird. I studied foreign relations in high school. I can tell you this that the USA isn't that wonderful when dealing with foreign policy and international affairs. America was historically an isolationist country since it's beginnings until the end of WWII. If anyone knew American political history, you will understand why america was like espeically in the beginning but at the expense, it had done more harm than good for the American people and other countries in the later years of the 19th and 20th century. If anyone knew how WWI and WWII started and the U.S.' role, it really proves my point sadly. I mean, the U.S has to be bombed to participate. I understand that the U.S. just came out of the Great Depression but really. Now, we don't know how to butt out or prioritize international issues. America is very reactive when dealing with foreign affairs.
I'll admit, America is getting better but they are still earning an D- in international affairs. First off, why Pelosi had to visit Syria? We have ambassidors and the secretary of state to do diplomcy or go to diplomcy tours. That's their job. It's not the speaker's role to do such a thing. Plus, Pelosi is displaying some of level of conflict of value, which can send mixed messages. I don't have much say in the whole head cover thing but I do say this; American politicians need to know their place as whatever kind of politician they, whether it's congressman, senator. I think Pelosi is trying to show some level diplomcy but it is not how it should be done since she's not at a position to do what she just did.
25. P&P said the following at 12:09 PM on Apr 6:
The head covering is not an act of submission, it's respect. When I go to a business meeting anywhere in the world I always wear a conservative outfit even when the office is "casual."
If you look closely at the role clothing has played throughout history, you might not be so judgemental. Most of these countries are fairly arid with high winds. If you look at what is considered "traditional" dress, it's really away to adapt to the climate. By keeping your hair covered, you're protecting your hair from the elements as well as the cooking fires that are still commonly used in underdevoped areas. Heck, the early women settlers in the United States coverd their hair for similar reasons!
Also, a scarf can be a way to express one's self - a form of adornment and creativity. I was on the subway recently and I saw a muslim woman wearing a very conservative outfit: full length skirt, long sleeved blouse, but with the most beautiful scarf I had ever seen. I walked right over to her and asked where she got it. I think she wasn't used to a non-muslim being so friendly (esp. on the subway!), but after her initial surprise, she told me that her grandmother hand-embroidered scarfs. She said it was her favorite because it was one of a kind and made her think of family when she wore it.
Somehow I don't think that she felt it was an act of submission.
26. Ariana said the following at 1:44 PM on Apr 6:
Well, while there is inconsistency in speaking feminist rhetoric loudly at home, but being equivocal about it abroad, I think that is the reality of politics. I'm sure that Pelosi (and everyone else in DC) knows that she equivocated on that question regarding women on the Council. And yet everyone would have considered her politically daft to do otherwise.
That is not to say that people ought not to stand by their principles. But it is to say that in politics, people purposefully do and say a lot of things in order to keep a connection wtih the people they are talking to. That is disingenuous most times, it seems. At the same time, at least something like it is necessary if we actually are going to do politics with people who disagree with us.
And it really depends on the import of the question. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I guess that Pelosi would not have equivocated on a weightier issue such as female genital mutilation, wherever she was. But regarding other issues, even if she is a feminist, she may well realize that some issues just are not life and death, and even if they ought to be different, they do not have to be pushed at this very moment. Women on the government council, and women wearing headscarves is definitely such an issue.
27. S said the following at 1:55 PM on Apr 6:
Pelosi was preceded on the road to Damascus by Rep. Frank Wolf, a prominent Virginia Republican who led a GOP delegation to meet with Assad, and she was soon followed by Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican whose remarks after seeing the Syrian leader were sharply critical of the Bush White House.
Less powerful Republicans make this trip: no outrage. Pelosi makes it: outrage.
She wore a scarf during a visit to a mosque and a market.
The Umayyad Mosque which Pelosi visited contained a shrine believed to contain the head of John the Baptist, a revered prophet in both Islamic and Christian traditions. Nancy Pelosi is a practicing Catholic and made the sign of the cross in front of The Baptist's shrine as an act both of personal religious pilgrimage and solidarity with Syria's million Christians, who have at best a tenuous relationship with the Assad regime.
Adam,
What is "radical" feminism? I mean, what tips the scale and makes feminism radical, and not just feminism?
28. LauraZ said the following at 3:58 PM on Apr 6:
Wow! It seems like Candace was more trying to make a point. I think she was saying that we live in a frustrating world where if it is written in the BIBLE, it should be ignored, but if it is cultural, we should of course be sensitive...
29. Jethro said the following at 4:01 PM on Apr 6:
Adam, could your tell us what about Pelosi's feminism is so radical? I think this term gets thrown around alot with much thought. Really, if we all understood feminism we would all be in favour of it.
30. Alina said the following at 5:59 PM on Apr 6:
I've been to the Middle East and I'm going to make this very clear.. for her not to wear the head covering would be an act of disrespect to Syrian WOMEN. I don't believe she suddenly became contrary to her ideas of feminism because she wore a head covering. She had the intellegence to know what's important to the syrian women...and I'm sorry you can't magically make a culture that lowers the value of women turn Americana in their views over night.
While I don't agree with her politics I do believe that if you go to someone elses country you respect their ways. It doesn't mean that you're disalining yourself from your own personal beliefs only respecting others.
Our international relations suck because we fail to respect other cultures and force ours on them. If you go to any middle eastern country you'll find that when you treate a muslim with respect and friendship they will love you for life. You care about their values and they will care about yours.
Also I think when it comes to writing about politicians and everyone else we critizes too much and love to little. How does God want us to treate others? How does God want us to speak of others?
31. Adam said the following at 10:39 PM on Apr 6:
Radical feminism is the belief system that states that there must be total equality between men and women such that there cannot be any differences in the social roles between men and women.
Second, S, you are evading the issue. This is a woman who would be up in arms over the forbidding of women to be in the workplace, or in the military. And yet, there are women who have been beaten and thrown into jail over these headcoverings, and she decides to wear one?
Now, I am not saying that everyone always lives consistently with what they profess, but in this situation, there is no way she can be consistent with her feminism. The political correctness of feminism is coming up against its view of women, and the contradiction is showing in a very practical way. That is the outrage. The point is that you can say you are a feminist, but you can't live that way. God is your creator, and you have to live in his world whether you agree with how he laid it out or not.
Second, she might be a practicing Catholic, but there are branches of Catholicism that don't even believe in the inerrancy of scripture and are pro-choice. For you to say that she is a Catholic, without recognizing the tremendiously broad theological landscape of the Roman Catholic Church, is rather unhelpful.
Thirdly, Jethro, I have looked into feminism, and even dialogued with some feminists online and at school, and I can honestly say that it is something which we should clearly avoid. God made men and women differently to perform different roles, and that is clearly laid out in the scriptures. These women would even like to see women become pastors, which is something clearly forbidden in the scriptures.
The question is really whether or not we want to lean on the authority of God's word, or the authority of political correctness.
God Bless,
Adam
32. Random said the following at 9:29 AM on Apr 7:
No, no, no. I don't like Pelosi at all (and don't approve of her trip to Syria), but you've got the facts wrong. She wore a scarf when she went to a *religious site,* which seems like a legitimate way of showing respect--it's not like she wore a burqua to her meetings with politicians. And at other points during her trip, she did not wear a scarf, and was photographed wearing knee-length skirts, which is hardly calculated to appease "terrorists" or hard-liners.
33. Darin said the following at 1:29 PM on Apr 7:
I've noticed an abundance of posts proclaiming (in some form) the message of "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Well, that saying doesn't come from the Bible...but nevertheless I do find it to be valid as it applies to matters of basic style.
Where we run into trouble is when we apply it to matters of conviction or our allegiance to God. For example, let's consider the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. It was expected of them to bow down to the false gods of their captors...but they refused. Now, it would have been very easy for them to make excuses like, "Well, we can go ahead and bow down...just in the name of diplomacy. After all, WE know where our allegiance is even if they don't." But they knew; that wouldn't be acceptable to God so at the threat of death they refused to bow down.
Likewise, consider Daniel. Scripture tells us that he "resolved not to defile himself with their royal food and drink". Was Daniel just a finicky eater? No, the royal food had likely been offered to idols and Daniel resolved himself not to defile himself with a symbol of their worship.
Now back to the case of Nancy Pelosi. First we have to ask, "Where are Nancy Pelosi's allegiances?" Well, I don't know anything about her religious affiliation. But what I do know is that she has taken an oath to serve this country and the American people. I also know that she is outspoken for the feminist cause.
Now, was her visit to Syria in the interest of serving this country and the American people? Perhaps she believes that disrespecting the chain of command and undermining the mission of our troops is helpful??? I don't know.
And what about the headscarf? Some say that it's merely a sign of respect. I wonder IN WHAT WAY is it a sign of respect? Is it a sign of "respect" to male authority? Is it a sign of respect to the Muslim faith? I'm not an expert in Middle Eastern culture like some people here claim to be...so I don't know.
I'll give Nancy Pelosi the benefit of the doubt in regards to her intentions. But at the same time, I find her politics very destructive.
34. m Castillo said the following at 3:53 PM on Apr 7:
According to Muslim law, the fact of not being a Muslim itself is punishable by death, so her wearing a scarf would have not made a difference.
35. Jethro said the following at 4:30 PM on Apr 7:
Raj Sharma,
If we try and spread our 'wonderful democratic lifestyle' to the middle east and deny people due process, one of the fundamental tenets of the rule of law, which is of course central in our society, then really we shouldn't bother at all. You're worried about Pelosi's hypocrisy in wearing a head scarf, but I think perhaps there lies a far greater hypocrisy in what you are asserting.
36. Annoyed said the following at 11:25 PM on Apr 7:
I though boundless was supposed to be a God centered webzine not a political shout board geared on relationships and such. All this blog's been about is politics, and bad politics all around...and a lot of self-righteousness - and bad witness. I'm not going to say anything about Pelosi outside of saying that she's a human being who falls short...like the rest of us. Instead of talking crap about her and arguing about her choices we all should be praying for her, all the other leaders of this nation, and everyone else.
God's commanded us not to have the same opinion but to love one another as he has loved us. Christ gave his life for our redemption. The smallest act of Godliness is to at least pray for one another - whether or not you like the other person.
Happy resurrection day
37. bill zouhary said the following at 9:41 AM on Apr 8:
Candice:
Great Piece. I am amazed at the Pix of Nanci Pelosi you posted. There is absolutely NO light coming out of her eyes.
38. Mike Theemling said the following at 5:20 PM on Apr 8:
Darin,
I understand your post but I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
The Bible makes it clear that we are to obey God first and foremost (Acts 5:29), but the Bible also teaches that we should "Make every effort to live in peace with all men and to be holy" (Heb 12:14). Paul also states clearly in Rom 13:1-3 that we MUST submit ourselves to the governing authorities in which God Himself has established.
With the examples you gave in the book of Daniel, obedience to Nebuchanezzar was in direct violation of God's laws (eating meat that was probably sacrificed to idols and worshiping a God other than Yaweh).
However, in the case of Rep Pelosi I doubt she was violating her personal convictions (which I won't comment on), nor do I think she was condoning the regime style (as pointed out earlier other prominent Republicans did the same thing). It was probably simply a respect/diplomacy issue.
Was wearing the scarf hypocritical with her feministic views? Possibly (depends partly how people there view the scarf). But I think you'd be hard pressed to claim Elmer Gantry strength hypocracy with just one trip and instance.
39. Irene M. said the following at 11:30 AM on Apr 9:
First, has anyone considered that for a rich, white, American woman to publically denounce the hajib and refuse to wear it, would make the culture even more hostile to Syrian feminists who are fighting against the oppressive dress codes? If Pelosi acted in such a manner it would make Syrian women's dress an issue of national and religious pride, making Syrian feminists' battles even more difficult.
"there are branches of Catholicism that don't even believe in the inerrancy of scripture and are pro-choice. For you to say that she is a Catholic, without recognizing the tremendiously broad theological landscape of the Roman Catholic Church, is rather unhelpful."
Adam, as a practicing Catholic I do not know of any branch of Catholicism that believes in *total* Biblical inerrancy. Individual Catholics might, but that is not how Church theology approches the Bible. Also, it is called the "Catholic Church", not the Roman Catholic Church. Roman refers only to the followers of the Latin rite, not followers of the various Eastern rites or the official Catholic Church.
40. Mandi said the following at 12:29 PM on Apr 9:
Christ is Risen!
It is truly dumbfounding how many Christians in North America are unaware of the presence of Christians in the Middle East, considering the roots of the Faith.
Where do people get the idea that it's alright to discuss Syrian culture in a way that assumes it's Islamic, even if Christians are outnumbered there? If nothing else, such talk serves to further ignore the history, crosses, and very existence of the Christians there. When Pelosi wore a scarf, she was paying "respect" only to Muslims, ignoring the people whose rights are more maligned than others by virtue of their faith. But Pelosi doesn't care about that. But then, neither do people who'd prefer to discuss Syrian "culture" using the sweeping assumption that it's non-Christian (and in the same breath criticize the observation that most terrorists come from particular backgrounds). Whose "culture" do you think you are defending the dignity of here? Just non-Christians'?
And for Heavens' sake, would people please distinguish between what the Bible says about women in worship with Islamic head garb? The Bible commands women to cover their heads during worship because a woman’s hair is a source of glory to her, but God’s Glory is what we’re concerned about in church, not our own. (Candice cited Isaiah 3:16-24 in a blog about this once, which relates to this importance of hair to women. The modern booming industry invested in women’s hair shows this source of a woman’s esteem runs throughout the ages, not just Isaiah’s.) This is VERY different from the reasons given in other religions. It matters not just what you do, but why you do it too.
Thank you to the person who quoted from the Koran, above. North Americans shouldn't think they know more about what the Koran "really" means than what's plainly written there. *That's* imperialistic.
And, Irene M., without meaning to cause a firestorm, many would beg to differ with you, including myself, about referring to the Roman Church as "the Catholic Church".
Gosh, I could say much more but mercifully I'm off to the dentist!
41. Irene M. said the following at 7:20 PM on Apr 9:
Mandi,
No need to worry about a firestorm. These terms are certainly up for a friendly debate and you are more than welcome to disagree.
I'm just saying as a Catholic who regularly attends the Byzantine rite and has many Byzantine Catholic friends, that is how individual non-Latin rite Catholics choose to identify themselves. I don't mean any harm and recognize that, as Christians, we all belong to the catholic (universal) church.
42. Leah said the following at 2:16 AM on Apr 10:
"And if that weren't bad enough, she covers her head in a visually undeniable act of submission."
What the? I visited a mosque in Sydney a year and a half ago, and wore a headscarf out of respect for the Muslims who worked there and those who might be praying. Does that mean I was submitting to terrorists?
There doesn't seem to be anything suggesting Pelosi was doing anything other than being respectful to the people of Syria. I'd understand if you got on your soapbox if she wore a hijab during a government sitting (sorry, don't know the right word for it in America :P), but I applaud her for putting aside American pride and showing respect for the country she visited.
"But we must not forget that she did so in a place where, in the words of Rush Limbaugh "they don't respect our culture. They come here and want to change our culture into theirs.""
Very true. But what happened to "turn the other cheek"?
And how, by wearing a headscarf, does she "embrace leftist, totalitarian regimes in the Middle East that are notoriously bad for women"?
And no, I have no political agenda here seeing as I pay very little attention to American politics :P I have enough to worry about in my own country.
43. Darin said the following at 11:45 AM on Apr 10:
Mike Theemling, I don't think that you read my post very closely. What I was responding to was the danger of carrying the "When in Rome..." argument too far (i.e. I was not referring specifically to the case at hand. Thus no "apples and oranges" comparison).
At the end of the post, I stated that since I don't know the true meaning behind the headscarf, that I would give Nancy Pelosi the benefit of the doubt.
Now, in regards to "making every effort to live in peace" and "subjecting yourself to the governing authorities"...I challenge you to show me where I suggested violating those scriptures.
And yes, those scriptures could be taken too far as well. For example: A missionary visits a tribe of natives. He eats grub worms and goes through various other gestures to demonstrate his respect. Then the chief of the tribe passes him a pipe full of hallucinogenic drugs to smoke. Now there are no DIRECT commandments in the Bible telling him not to smoke dope...so should he "submit to the governing authorities" and smoke drugs in order to "keep the peace"?
Or suppose that a Native American converts to Christianity. A short time later he's asked by the chief to attend a sacred sweatlodge ceremony. There are no DIRECT commandments concerning sweatlodge ceremonies. So should he participate in this religiously symbolic ceremony?
Likewise with the headscarf. What does it symbolize? I don't know. All that I'm saying is that depending upon how you answer that question, it could conceivably be wrong. You can't simply plead "When in Rome, do as the Romans do" in every situation.
44. Hype-Jersey said the following at 12:47 PM on Apr 29:
Lots of republicans went over to Syria just as Pelosi did. You didn't mention that in this blog.
And pelosi is showing submission to terrorists because she wears a head scarf when going to a foreign country? C'mon. That's just really reaching.
You wouldn't expect pelosi to wear a head scarf had she been on her own turf. By even going to negotiate, Pelosi was showing her pluck. I applaud her.
45. Mandi said the following at 2:46 PM on Apr 29:
Hype-Jersey,
This business of Pelosi wearing a scarf as being respectful of Syrian culture is most exasperating.
Please don't make the insulting working assumption that because Syria's Christians are not powerful or in a minority that they're not there.
The Church in Syria is one of the oldest in the world.
What about a little respect for that?
46. Leah said the following at 6:47 PM on Apr 29:
Mandi, they weren't making comments about the Christians of Syria. However, I think you'll find that even Christians in Syria where the headscarves too. Headscarves are not just a muslim thing. I don't think Pelosi did anything wrong. She's showing respect for their culture. It's like if I visist a mosque, I wear a headscarf and take off my shoes. It's just being respectful, that's all.