sex segregated worship: beautiful or disgusting?

[Warren Stupidity]

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	beautiful
	0 (0%)
	disgusting
	3 (75%)
	pie
	1 (25%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[bvf]

1. I changed my

pass vote to disgusting. I wanted to see "pointless" as an option until I realized the point of worship is to subjugate, and this just adds an extra layer.

[Promethean]

2. Disgusting but not suprising.

It is the obvious logical result of following the bible.

[Prophet 451]

3. Disgusting

The only way to believe such a thing is worthwhile is to believe in a sexist god (which I do but have the self-respect not to worship him).

[trotsky]

4. There is little to celebrate in an event that relegates women to 2nd class status.

I am glad no one thinks that is "beautiful." (Yet?)

[Warren Stupidity]

7. I've read elsewhere on du that describing

a segregated service as disgusting is hateful bigotry.

[trotsky]

8. Wow, so calling out misogyny is good unless it's religious misogyny?

Religion wins. Religious privilege right here on DU - how neat!

[rug]

16. You must try harder.

This board needs you to save it from itself.

[rug]

5. Misleading flamebait: beautiful or disgusting?

[edhopper]

9. What adjective would you use

for sex segregated services with woman delegated to a second class position?

[rug]

12. I would a phrase, not an objective.

An ancient culture-based act of worship.

A more accurate description.

[edhopper]

23. Do you have an opinion on

This practice?
Do you condemn others who find it troubling?

[rug]

24. I do.

For starters, I would not measure it by 21st century North American standards.

If I understand it correctly, religious tradition aside, the words, the gestures, the participants, the location of the participants, all of it, reflect an aspect of the religion. And there is nothing in Islam that is explicitly contemptuous of, or mandates contempt for, women, which is the essence of misogyny.

That said, I personally don't like it but I'm certainly not going to tell these women to throw off their veils and muscle their way to the front of the mosque. This is not McSorley's in 1970.

I'm sure you know about Stephen Wise and Reform Judaism. There are lessons there that are more productive that spitting out "Misogynist!" at a photo.

[edhopper]

28. Okay

Though I disagree that there is mysogeny as part of Islam.
As in other religions like Judaism.
Yes, Islam needs a larger reform movement.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. I dont see you offering any additional alternatives.

I re-iterate; disgusting. Vile. Nauseating. Take your pick, I could add plenty of adjectives to the list.

I keep thinking of some sort of analogy along the lines of apologists mooning over Rosa Parks being allowed on the bus at all, skipping merrily past the issue of segregation, daubing tears of joy at the beauty of the 'progress' it represented.

Disgusting. You can't pretend that, as a society, we don't know better, today.

[rug]

13. What is disgusting is your comparison of Rosa Parks to Muslim worship.

I think you've missed the bus.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Not goint to work this time, Rug.

The parallel is accurate as I framed it, not as you are attempting to misconstrue it.

Try again with the data i actually entered, now how you'd like to conveniently reframe it for attack.

[rug]

18. It's about as parallel as a Slinky.

1) Segregation was de jure, enforced with criminal penalties.

2) The Muslims in the photo, male and female, are engaging in a voluntary act of worship.

Let me ask you this: What do you despise more, women worshipping a god or a worship service where men and women do not sit (or bow) together?

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Do not sit together, or explicitly requirsd to sit behind the men?

Don't go all weak kneed on me now, call it like it is.

Segregation in that population is enforced, but that's not my point with the Rosa Parks comparison and you know it. The comparison is that you/apologists will happily moon over a symbolic gesture, while outright explicit bigotry continues right in front of your nose, and you remained silent abut THAT.

Worse, you and yours continue to deflect when called on it.

That photo showed institutionalized misogyny. You oughta know better than wax positive about some aspect of it. Okasha made a big deal out of one of the women addressing the congregation. So what. You can see her blue coat and headscarf in the back row when it came time to perform the prayer.

I'd like to see her try the the front row, so we can all see how that's received, and how much choice she really has.

[rug]

25. The rubric of this group calls for men and women not to sit together.

Is voluntary participation in a group an explicit requirement?

Do you want them to cease being Muslims?

The rest of your post is, simply, rhetorical chaff.

[AtheistCrusader]

30. Not just 'not to sit together'. And you know it.

I have also identified additional qualifiers you have studiously ignored.


"Do you want them to cease being Muslims?"

I don't like seeing people treat women like second class citizens as an institutionalized element of their faith. If they can't stop doing that without 'ceasing to be Muslims', then I would encourage them to find a faith that does not require segregation/specific limitations on women, that appear, to me, degrading.

Are you suggesting they would have to cease to be Muslims to change these individual ideas? Seriously?
Would you cease to be a Catholic if your church adapted and allowed divorced people to marry, SSM couples to marry, or members of your church to use Contraceptives?

You have expressed hope that your church might change on some of those issues, IIRC (laudable, and I believe I commented on that at the time). Why can your church change, yet seemingly, their faith cannot? (Since you offered the either-or, just now)

[rug]

31. This flamebait thread was posted in response to the National Cathedral event, as you well know.

It's not an invitation to the usual Islamaphobia crap that's all over the place.

So yes, that event is what this is about.

If you want to start a screed about Islam, well go right ahead and start a thread. That would have more integrity than trying to wedge it in about this event.

I take it, then, that the answer to my question is yes, you want them to leave Islam. Good luck with that. That's what the Creative Speculation group is for.

As for Islam itself, I know much less about it than Catholicism. Both of these religions are old and have developed in all sorts of ways. I have a better handle on what the RCC should do, imo, than Islam.

But you have prompted me to look. I'll start here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam and get back to you.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Not sure what about a qualifier like 'if they can't stop doing that' is difficult to comprehend.

If their faith can't stop doing that, yes I'd encourage them to leave. Encourage. Just like I encourage them adapting their doctrines as-is, without leaving.

I think it shows a lack of integrity to speak of this event in a positive manner without even acknowledging the obvious problem.

So it seems, again, we may have to agree to disagree.


(Yes, there are liberal movements within Islam, and they should be encouraged. Silence isn't encouraging.)

[Goblinmonger]

26. You forgot the irony quotes around "voluntary"

A culture which stones women for going out in public without a male relative can hardly be described as one which makes such segregation "voluntary."

[rug]

27. There are none because it's not irony.

Make your case for "involuntary".

Start with the last stoning in DC where this photo was taken.

[Goblinmonger]

40. Start with you acting like you don't understand culture.

But even before that, can we both admit that in this picture taken in DC, the women are in the back of the room. In a US city. That, in and of itself, is troublesome and should not be called beautiful.

[rug]

64. I daresay my understanding of culture is demonstrably better than yours.

Regarding the picture, as I said elsewhere, it can be both. Binary thinking is robotic thinking. Everything humans do has a beautiful and a troublesome aspect. I'm very leery when someone says something should not be said.

BTW, do you know any Muslims you can ask about gender segregation during salat? I spoke to a friend of mine this afternoon, a Sunni, who told me that is not the practice in Mecca and Medina.

[hrmjustin]

29. The picture was taken in DC.

[Goblinmonger]

39. And?

Are we going to pretend that someone what happens in the Muslim culture in other countries has no effect? How do you know that none of those women aren't originally from a Middle Eastern country where that happens? How do you know that none of those women don't have relatives that have been stoned to death? How do you know that not one of those women hasn't been burned by acid for her transgressions?

What I do know from that picture is that even though this picture was taken in DC, the women are still in the back of the room. That is reprehensible.

[hrmjustin]

48. Ask them and you will know.

[Iggo]

6. I already have an opinion of worship, segregated or not.

[rug]

15. So does the OP. Hence, flamebait.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. I'm certainly glad we are at least able to ask this question here.

Seems like a no brainer to me, but apparently, I was mistaken.

[rug]

14. Not the first time.

Nor the last.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Oh it's the last all right.

I wont participate in 'safe haven' where the mods concern was that someone pointed out overlooked bigotry, rather than address the actual problem.

They can ban me for fucking ever, I don't care. I'm not coming back in a month.

[rug]

20. Yea, those safe haven blocks are bogus.

[hrmjustin]

21. I am sorry you feel this way but you will be unbanned in a month.

It did not please us to do it.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Yeah right.

Remember this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12644992#post30

I see you similarly climbed Rug's frame for his behavior.
I see you rebuked him for attacking me, over, and over, even though I didn't take the bait.
I see you rebuked him for trivializing the use of 'Fatwa', an actual, complex, and much maligned Islamic faith component.

Oh wait, I don't see you doing any of those things.

Best mod ever.

No, your action against me in that thread, while SOME measure of it was certainly warranted by my tone, clearly didn't pain you in the slightest. I handed you the opportunity you desired.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=162109

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Oddly I see no outrage at overt religious bigotry

Many people have checked "disgusting" as an apt description of segregated religious services, and no outrage? I guess in a forum where positions can be challenged, expressing support for misogyny is not going to happen.

[hrmjustin]

34. Did you expect different?

[Warren Stupidity]

35. Oh look. No outrage Justin?

In the other thread in the other forum you were sputtering and threatening. Why not here?

[hrmjustin]

36. Don't concern yourself with interfaith.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. I'll concern myself with any message posted on DU I choose to concern myself with.

So why no you sputter here Justin?

[hrmjustin]

38. This is not a safe haven.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Safe havens are open to reading and commenting on the contents posted there.

For example: everything posted in A&A and the endless alert trolling that goes on there. But you knew that, right Justin?

By the way, doesn't my mere presence here in this forum cause you enormous upset?

[hrmjustin]

44. Your have made clear your opinion of me and other believers.

Your posting in interfaith only makes it worse.

I take no joy in this.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. You certainly seemed satisfied with the outcome.

I note you didn't say anything when Okasha called me a troll, accused me of being some sort of dynamic duo with GoblinMonger, and some sort of ongoing coordinated disruption attempt accusation.

Well, besides saying how long I was banned for anyway.


I have two regrets. One, that Skinner basically gave you carte blanche to run the safe haven (I assume an implicit 'within reason' but that is not explicitly evident) 'as you see fit', and I feel I didn't make a quality case for my point. Can't do anything about that.

My other regret is that other people are apparently rallying to some level of defense of my post, in interfaith, and I do not wish anyone else to get banned on my behalf.

Especially for an issue that is so bloody blatantly obvious, with the whistling past the graveyard, 'beautiful' etc. Okasha uses a woman addressing the congregation as a damn defense, nevermind she's praying in the back row, with the rest of the women in another photo, as was correctly pointed out.

It's apologetics, which, quite frankly, is offensive.

[hrmjustin]

50. You made your points.

I made mine.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. You know what a good, principled moderator would have done?

Certainly chastised me for being acerbic and rude. I'll own that. Even a month ban isn't actually unreasonable to me. I didn't make a purely factual comment, I was pissed, and it showed.

But there would have been a call for civility from both sides, because calling someone a troll is not exactly the height of civility. Especially since I didn't actually attack Okasha, or even Islam, but the associated social behavior in the group, and the complete non-acknowledgement of it, going so far as to call the scene 'beautiful'. Rug didn't actually answer the question, but I hope you don't feel Islam would stop being Islam if they snapped their fingers and stopped adhering to such segregation today. Mormonism didn't stop when they decided to let black people in the temple in '78. These issues can change. They don't change, without SOMEONE rocking the boat. Without calls to justice, equal treatment, and yes, even pressure. I feel the only sin I committed, was the tone I struck in calling it out, not the material at hand. I got back a direct, personal insult in return, and you said nothing.

A good moderator/host would have handled both issues at the same time.


But that's ok. As I indicated earlier, I have no intention of returning to your sandbox.

[hrmjustin]

52. Well you can either complain here or AA about me all you want.

I am not above criticism but if you think that your post was not about okasha or came off as suuch you are very wrong.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. I know what my post was about. I made it.

Don't presume to tell me what it was about. You might say 'it looks like it was about' XYZ, but you are not inside my head and have no privileged information on my motives.

As I have mentioned before, I have always been honest with you, even if you didn't like what I had to say. Hell, I even corrected myself when I became aware of a meta group outside DU, after I had initially denied its existence. I didn't have to say anything at all about it. But it was fair, and it was right to do so.

Sarcasm is a tool, sometimes employed to get someone to reconsider their position. That was my intent with Okasha's post. Nothing more. It was rude. It was dripping with sarcasm. But that was my intent. I do not consider that a 'personal attack'. Calling someone a troll? Much less subjective. Accusing someone of a concerted meta attack? Even less subjective. Calling out a poster not even involved in the thread, and accusing us of being a tag team? Well.. You see where I'm going with it.

There's nothing in my post, ascerbic as it was, that is as personally insulting as any of that.

[hrmjustin]

55. Well it was not well received.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. Neither was calling that scene 'beautiful' in a venue that atheists are supposedly welcome in.

I don't do a 'cost benefit' analysis of things that come along with a particular faith, that might excuse a particular behavior. If some aspect of an event is outright bigoted, I am incapable of whistling past that. It might strike you that the event was an exception, in that it hadn't happened before. But it's not the first muslim-inclusive interfaith service in that venue. And as we discussed, the church is not free to discriminate and exclude them.

So.

Yes, I will react when you parade something like that in front of me, and call it 'beautiful'.
I do not doubt you when you say it was 'not well received'.

If I had skipped over a detail like that, and someone pointed it out, I wouldn't like it either. (As has happened with other subjects here on DU and abroad beyond DU.)

It's an excuse for 'get to the back of the bus' in awe of the subject audience being allowed to ride the bus at all.
I apparently cannot frame/express to you how offensive that is. And to paraphrase Hitchens, 'I haven't heard enough apology for it'.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. oh boo hoo. Obvious bigotry pointed out not well received.

Oh my. How horrible.

[hrmjustin]

59. You made your point.

[Goblinmonger]

42. So you are going to protect bigotry?

'Cause that's kind of what it sounds like.

[hrmjustin]

43. Who are you accusing of bigoty?

[Goblinmonger]

45. Not you. But saying that that picture is "beautiful" is saying that

a horribly sexist practice of putting women in segregated spaces is beautiful and kind of sounds like supporting bigotry.

Certainly not anything I would expect on a DU site. Regardless of whether it is a safe haven. You said saying those things are OK here but not in Interfaith. If liberal believers are going to be taken seriously, I would think they would need to stand up and say that that practice is horrible. Or, at the very least, at least allow the discussion of that fact.

[hrmjustin]

46. Are you accusing okasha of being a bigot because she said that?

[Warren Stupidity]

58. perhaps she didn't notice the obvious bigotry.

But she sure as shit didn't step up to address it when it was pointed out. her silence is deafening.

[hrmjustin]

60. Are you accusing her of misogyny?

[Warren Stupidity]

61. no. I'm accusing her of being blind to obvious bigotry.

[hrmjustin]

62. I think that is ridiculous.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. of course you do.

because no matter how freaking wrong headed you are, you will just hold fast.

[hrmjustin]

66. Lol that is rich coming from you.

[rug]

67. Why? She's able to read your posts.

[Goblinmonger]

63. Not sure what's confusing, but here it goes a little differently.

1. In the picture there is overt cultural/religious sexism depicted. That's the bigotry that strikes me.
2. You have said in this thread that statements against religion aren't allowed in Interfaith.
3. if that is the case in this instance then calling out clear bigotry in religion means that bigotry is protected in Interfaith.
4. That okasha said it is beautiful doesn't shock me in that I'm sure she was reacting to the fact that Muslims are being included.
5. What does dumbfound me is that when the obvious bigotry in the picture is pointed out, rather than say "yeah, that is troublesome. I wan't trying to indicate that is beautiful," okasha and others just doubled down and went so far as to say that AC is the bigot for pointing out bigotry.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Actually Okasha outright "misspoke" and claimed that the article had pictures of men and women

sitting together. There are no such pictures.

Here: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/11/14/national-cathedral-celebrates-muslim-friday-prayers-photos/#jp-carousel-111982

In each photo women are sitting in the back only with women. There is one picture of a women addressing the audience, but that simply does not contradict the claim that this is a segregated service with women restricted to the back of the hall. That would be because it is a segregated service with women restricted to the back of the hall.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. Women are not permitted to speak during such a prayer when men are present.

That photo of Roula Allouch at the podium, is not part of the salat at all. She did not lead the prayer. Okasha cannot possibly have failed to realize this, but offered it as a backpedal anyway.

Doubling down. Confirming my interpretation of 'beautiful', by making it about ""Beautiful" was intended to refer to the cooperation between the Epsicopal Church, specifically the National Cathedral, and the Muslim community." which is, of course, not better. The photo is simply evidence of the gender based discrimination. Go ahead, make it about the 'cooperation'. That's not better.

It's also not the first interfaith, muslim-inclusive observance in that venue, as the OP's article clearly states. This is just the first time they led themselves in salat. All the while, segregating the women, and all the other issues I raised as well.


All of which are, in fact, not even a religious criticism. I think one could fairly assume it a cultural issue, subject to change without requiring destruction of the Islamic faith. I offered a material comparison; when the Mormon church changed it's doctrines and allowed black people into the temples in 1978. It did not destroy the Mormon church. It did not happen without outside pressure.

But none of that matters. And I can be freely called a troll and other insults, no worries. No worries at all.

I've contributed to every thread on the interfaith front page, that exceeded 15 posts, except one.
It can go back to being an echo chamber. I hope they enjoy it.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. Yes.

If I say something in A&A, I will defend it here.

I would have thought that might be true anywhere.



I will moderate my PRESENTATION based on the differences in venue, but if I hold something true in one place, I hold true at all times.

[ZombieHorde]

53. I don't like children being exposed to sex-segregated worship.

I don't think we do well when we teach children boys are superior to girls. We see where this leads, and it's not pretty, in my opinion.

If adults desire a sub/dom relationship with their faith, then that is their business.