Trudeau talks "diveristy" at sexist mosque

[smilesammich 10,727]

val's hard work gives us those.

and processed meats have been found to cause cancer.

food for thought.

[Ban Hammer 12,829]

and processed meats have been found to cause cancer.

food for thought.

thankfully the strychnine reduces that cancer chance

[JayJayH 546]

JayJay, I get your frustration with the nature of PC culture gone awry, but I think you are twisting it in a strange way. I think, for instance, that feminism has been set back a bit, and am saddened that "being kind to foreign cultures" somehow means that we forget the things that we, as the west, have been fighting for for decades. But this mosque is not necessarily sexist just because they separate by gender. Don't you believe that it could be possible that the people attending want to experience history in a material way, and want to participate in worship the way their ancestors did? It doesn't mean that they think, necessarily, that men and women can't sit next to each other in other places, like restaurants, the public bus, or the airplane. They just choose to do their religious service like this.

I mean, monks and nuns live in separate abbeys, do you think that is sexist? I think that there might be value in experiencing an environment with ones own sex only, from time to time. Maybe there isn't. But I don't think it's bad to try and see what happens if the people participating do so with free will.

And I don't "save" my criticism of things that I think deserve criticism in the name of freedom or globalization or whatever. I find hijabs offensive. But this mosque's seating arrangement isn't it.

Harpa, I think you're onto something. I do not necessarily find the practice of praying separated by gender to be 'sexist' by default. If an orthodox church wants to have male priests only, that's their business. If a religious congregation wants its women to wear Victorian dresses. That really is their prerogative. As long as it's strictly your own choice to leave the religion of course.

Do I think strange religious practices should be promoted and normalized? Absolutely not, that's part of the reason I've always considered myself a liberal. I view conservative Islam in the same prism as I view some of the craziest evangelical churches. Yet I see a unified left ridiculing and putting Kim Davis in jail for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, while at the same time applauding the Minneapolis Police Department for altering their uniform so as not to discriminate against conservative Muslim women who insist on wearing hijabs in the line of duty.

I'm sure part of this is confirmation bias on my end. I've been to mosques, I think they're beautiful places. I've been Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum, one of the most beautiful places I've seen. But I really do struggle to find any consistency on the left nowadays - Let's be honest, in what other context would you ever see a 'feminist' head of state saluting 'the sisters upstairs' in a speech about how wonderful diversity is? In what other context would a religious nutjob gun down 52 LGBT people, while the political left's first knee-jerk reaction is a strange mix of "nothing to do with [religion]!" / "All religions are equally bad!"

You mention the hijab, and I couldn't agree more.

"Wearing the hijab doesn't have to be about religious dedication. For me, it is political, feminist and empowering" - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/28/hijab-society-women-religious-political

"Sometimes a Hijab Represents Feminism, Not Oppression" - http://www.teenvogue.com/story/hijab-feminist-statement

"Fifteen-year-old Rayouf Alhumedhi, who now lives in Germany, was disappointed to see no emoji for women who wear headscarves." - http://www.npr.org/2016/09/17/494360201/saudi-teen-launches-campaign-for-hijab-emoji

Most of this is dogmatic religious BS promoted by big money in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Why the political left has chosen to embrace this as diversity, while casting secularists like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider, Ali Rizvi, Faisal Saeed al-Muttar etc. into the proverbial basket of deplorables is beyond me.

Edited September 19, 2016 by JayJayH

[yuna628 9,527]

Jay: Strange religion is in the eye of the beholder. If the religion breaks no laws and the person is participating of their own free will, then what is the harm? Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. Hijabs, are in the same way and reason why a nun covers her head, why a Jew covers their head, the Amish wear caps, and why many conservative Christian religions all use some form of female head covering/modest dress/long hair. Would I go as far as saying it is feminist by definition? No. In many of these religions though, these women choose to cover themselves of their own free will and dedication to their god.

I had a conversation with a friend over the 'burkini' controversy. To some degree, these garments are empowering to Muslim women, who before, may not have been comfortable going to the beach and would have otherwise had much less freedom, experiences, and enjoying themselves. These garments have little difference between 'modest swimwear' used by some Christian and Jewish sects. It may be hard to understand how someone would associate feminism and empowerment with hijabs or even burkinis. In a male dominated fashion society, which tells women they must act, look, dress, and behave a certain way has made many feminists note that it usually resolves around the beautification or sexualization of a female of which a woman must always be concerned with. We must 'put up' with being ogled if we look 'pretty' and must put up with being frowned upon as frumpy if we want to simply be comfortable. If we rebel against these 'norms' we are considered freaks, ugly, weird, or different. In religions that concern themselves with purity and the value of a woman's worth, for them, they believe they are freed by being modest. They are accepted and no longer have to worry about sexualization or seeming unwanted advances. They can concern themselves with how their religion says they can dress the most honorably, and stop worrying about the fear of if they are sinning or causing others to sin, rather than what society says. For the woman in the Guardian article I can understand her position, but at the same time how a feminist chooses to be a feminist is up to her. For most, I suspect, they would say they don't care what people think about how they look, and they shouldn't have to hide behind something for no reason other than how men look at her.

To me a hijab is no different than any other religious head covering or jewelry item of significance. A hijab is no more offensive to me than any of these. The dogma of covering oneself and modesty, comes from the same root in all religions. Why are people so offended by one thing and not another?

We should be not necessarily promoting, but being inclusive to all religions. That is the spirit of freedom of religion.

[JayJayH 546]

Jay: Strange religion is in the eye of the beholder. If the religion breaks no laws and the person is participating of their own free will, then what is the harm? Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. Hijabs, are in the same way and reason why a nun covers her head, why a Jew covers their head, the Amish wear caps, and why many conservative Christian religions all use some form of female head covering/modest dress/long hair. Would I go as far as saying it is feminist by definition? No. In many of these religions though, these women choose to cover themselves of their own free will and dedication to their god.

I had a conversation with a friend over the 'burkini' controversy. To some degree, these garments are empowering to Muslim women, who before, may not have been comfortable going to the beach and would have otherwise had much less freedom, experiences, and enjoying themselves. These garments have little difference between 'modest swimwear' used by some Christian and Jewish sects. It may be hard to understand how someone would associate feminism and empowerment with hijabs or even burkinis. In a male dominated fashion society, which tells women they must act, look, dress, and behave a certain way has made many feminists note that it usually resolves around the beautification or sexualization of a female of which a woman must always be concerned with. We must 'put up' with being ogled if we look 'pretty' and must put up with being frowned upon as frumpy if we want to simply be comfortable. If we rebel against these 'norms' we are considered freaks, ugly, weird, or different. In religions that concern themselves with purity and the value of a woman's worth, for them, they believe they are freed by being modest. They are accepted and no longer have to worry about sexualization or seeming unwanted advances. They can concern themselves with how their religion says they can dress the most honorably, and stop worrying about the fear of if they are sinning or causing others to sin, rather than what society says. For the woman in the Guardian article I can understand her position, but at the same time how a feminist chooses to be a feminist is up to her. For most, I suspect, they would say they don't care what people think about how they look, and they shouldn't have to hide behind something for no reason other than how men look at her.

To me a hijab is no different than any other religious head covering or jewelry item of significance. A hijab is no more offensive to me than any of these. The dogma of covering oneself and modesty, comes from the same root in all religions. Why are people so offended by one thing and not another?

We should be not necessarily promoting, but being inclusive to all religions. That is the spirit of freedom of religion.

I'm not saying the hijab is any different from orthodox Jewish headwear or Amish dresses. I'm not saying that because I personally find hijabs to be ridiculous, they need to be banned. I think spaghetti strainers are a ridiculous headgear as well, but I wouldn't favor a ban. That would be incredibly authoritarian of me.

While I respect that the hijab, niqab, burka etc. is a personal choice for many, reality is that it is forced upon women, either by law or immense social pressure in vast swathes of the Islamic world. They are no more a 'personal choice' than an arranged marriage. I've seen women being hit by religious police for having semi-see-through sleeves. Hijabs are about the sexualization of women no matter how you put it. The reason the word 'modesty' is even connected to the word 'headscarf' is because someone, somewhere, at some time decided that a woman's hair is too tempting for men to be shown in public. The fact that some women feel that they must cover up in order to go to the beach and enjoy themselves says more about the actual patriarchy they live under than it does about anything else.

I don't mind some strange sect somewhere mandating that women wear blue hats on Tuesdays. But I'm in awe when western liberals wear blue hats on Tuesdays in solidarity, celebrate 'world blue hat day' and try to normalize the custom in the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion.'

Edited September 20, 2016 by JayJayH

[JayJayH 546]

Actually, conservative is more in line with black people than anything else. A strong religious background, smaller government(since black people know better than anyone outside of the Native Americans and the Japanese Americans what can go sideways), these things would be music to our ears if the GOP wasn't so damn intent on letting us know how much they can't stand us.

Tim Scott, Michael Steele I can roll with. Even Colin Powell can get some love. The rest of those dudes, can go sit down somewhere. It's so strange to see black people who become GOP darlings by being straight hateful towards their own people. Which for some reason seems to be a requirement.

http://all-len-all.com/dear-gop-dont-ever-send-black-republicans-to-recruit-black-people/

First, black people REGULARLY vote for white people – we have little choice. In my almost 45 years on this earth, I have voted for a black person for President exactly twice. Once in 2008 and once in 2012. In prior elections, I didn’t stay home, I voted for the white man. In 2016, I may be voting for a white woman. In local elections, too, I have mostly voted for white people and have often voted for them over black people.

Second, black Republicans – at least the vocal ones, the public ones, the kind that you see on Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, the ones trying to be spokesmen for the Republican party are, for the most part, terrible people. They have to be, or else, they wouldn’t be black republicans.

Allen West and Larry Elders are repeat offenders. And even though I didn't like Bush, I don't hate him. And I think the racist language Biden used wasn't right, since he played off the racial fears. But I know hating on Carson and the rest of them comes from it feeling like a sign of betrayal when they are spouting the same ####### white people who burn crosses in their yards do.

As for the Alt Right, I can't agree with you on that. I've gone toe to toe with about 8 of them at once, and it's straight about white pride. Matter of fact, the conversation was going good until I mentioned I was black and that Muslims are not an issue here. F******* chimp was my name from then on, then his boys jumped in. Told me black people and Muslims are what's wrong with this country. How anyone who isn't white needs to get out of their country. Janelle came in and she was drug as well. So this Alt right nonsense about them having love for country is half right, it's good if you're white. And if it's wrong, they have an image problem.

If you're calling me an animal that's long been associated with racism, or telling me to get out of a country I was born in, at what point does it become racist?

Few things piss me off more than right wingers telling Americans of various skin colors to 'go home.' African American culture, Chinese American culture, Italian American culture etc. etc. it's all American culture. That's a beautiful thing.

I think the problem with 'alt-right' is that it isn't any sort of established group. Alt-right can be applied to anyone ranging from Jeff Bezos to Milo Yiannopoulos to a random 42 year-old unemployed loser who makes Nazi internet memes in his mom's basement. 'Alt-right' is, for now, what you make of it. You can see 'alt-right' and to you it means the Nazis in the basement, while I see 'alt-right' and it means a rejection of cultural Marxism. More often and more 'officially' I see it referred to as a fragment of the political right that is becoming more and more populist in style rather than traditional conservative. I say "western supremacist" because aside from the obviously neo-Nazi nutjobs, the arguments I hear from the alt-right are generally more in the line of "free speech trumps your feelings" and a dismissal of the more authoritarian side of progressivism and campus activism. I think that's healthy. But the internet also gives the ostracized crazies an anonymous megaphone, an unfortunate side-effect.

As far as black Republicans. You would have to pay me a very generous sum of money to ever vote for a nutjob like Carson. Unless his only opponent was a ranging shameless tumblr feminist, it would not cross my mind in a million years. That being said, I disagree that there is anything wrong what so ever with being a black Republican. Anything more than I think there is anything wrong with being a black golf player, a black violinist or a black Jew. In essence, the entire notion that your skin color somehow makes you puts you on this or that team is absurd.

Jay: the topic of this thread was regarding confusion over why there is no outcry on gender segregated mosques? Well, how do you feel about gender segregation in religion in general? Because it's not just in some of the Muslim faith... but you can find it all over Judaism and Christianity too. If there is freedom of religion in this country, and in Canada too - then this practice is not something we can complain about under the domain of the law. I could certainly explain to you why this practice and others are towards women, and they come from the same shared root in all three religions. It's not some unique thing. Are these 'medieval' instead of modern in nature? Sure, you could make that argument. But so are many aspects we have in all religions, things many simply take for granted and accepted practices even.

I'm not a fan of gender segregation under any denomination, nor do I think any law should be made to force religious congregations to do anything. I would find it curious if Elizabeth Warren went to speak about the wonders of religious diversity at a segregated church in Idaho as well.

sticking strictly to the op here (honestly, because i don't agree with the big picture you're trying to paint and you're sort of all over the place):

1. this is what politicians do, they reach out to all sorts. trudeau is popular with muslims, seems to make sense that he would make such an appearance for eid.

2. speaking of a crude violence filter, should we be applying this to ourselves? our own terror connections and funding and oops did we leave all these weapons and humvees lying about err uh, thanks for the cash?

I have no problem with a politician reaching out to Muslims. I just wish 'progressives' on the left would promote secular Islam. You know, reformist Muslims who face death threats from Islamists and allegations of "Uncle Tomism" from leftists. When was the last time you saw a secular Muslim on MSNBC saying "We need more acceptance of womens' rights and LGBT rights within Islam, and we need an honest discussion about extremism." - You don't. Instead, they tend to end up on conservative talk shows, branded as suspicious Islamophobes.

It baffles my mind that liberal secularists like Maajid Nawaz and Ali Rizvi are usually relegated to short segments on Fox News, while Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider, Faisal Saeed al-Muttar etc. are generally persona non grata everywhere they go in liberal circles.

are you saying that western ideals are white ideals? minorities should get on board or else those ideals are racist? there's so much spinning going on in this thread. specifically what ideals are you speaking of and how exactly are those ideals white to begin with?

No, he was saying the exact opposite. There is nothing racial about the term 'western.' So if I say 'western values' or 'western culture' is superior to anything else we've had in human history, that statement has nothing to do with white supremacy, racism or the like. The only way you can tie 'western' and 'race' together is if you believe inherently that the United States is somehow a 'white nation.' Which of course is pure rubbish.

Edited September 20, 2016 by JayJayH

[Harpa Timsah 13,258]

Harpa, I think you're onto something. I do not necessarily find the practice of praying separated by gender to be 'sexist' by default. If an orthodox church wants to have male priests only, that's their business. If a religious congregation wants its women to wear Victorian dresses. That really is their prerogative. As long as it's strictly your own choice to leave the religion of course.

Do I think strange religious practices should be promoted and normalized? Absolutely not, that's part of the reason I've always considered myself a liberal. I view conservative Islam in the same prism as I view some of the craziest evangelical churches. Yet I see a unified left ridiculing and putting Kim Davis in jail for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, while at the same time applauding the Minneapolis Police Department for altering their uniform so as not to discriminate against conservative Muslim women who insist on wearing hijabs in the line of duty.

I'm sure part of this is confirmation bias on my end. I've been to mosques, I think they're beautiful places. I've been Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum, one of the most beautiful places I've seen. But I really do struggle to find any consistency on the left nowadays - Let's be honest, in what other context would you ever see a 'feminist' head of state saluting 'the sisters upstairs' in a speech about how wonderful diversity is? In what other context would a religious nutjob gun down 52 LGBT people, while the political left's first knee-jerk reaction is a strange mix of "nothing to do with [religion]!" / "All religions are equally bad!"

You mention the hijab, and I couldn't agree more.

"Wearing the hijab doesn't have to be about religious dedication. For me, it is political, feminist and empowering" - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/28/hijab-society-women-religious-political

"Sometimes a Hijab Represents Feminism, Not Oppression" - http://www.teenvogue.com/story/hijab-feminist-statement

"Fifteen-year-old Rayouf Alhumedhi, who now lives in Germany, was disappointed to see no emoji for women who wear headscarves." - http://www.npr.org/2016/09/17/494360201/saudi-teen-launches-campaign-for-hijab-emoji

Most of this is dogmatic religious BS promoted by big money in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Why the political left has chosen to embrace this as diversity, while casting secularists like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider, Ali Rizvi, Faisal Saeed al-Muttar etc. into the proverbial basket of deplorables is beyond me.

But there is something very different about Kim Davies and the police uniforms. First, Davies is refusing to act in her elected capacity to uphold the law, while the police issue is nothing of the sort. Individuals do not have to become police officers; they could quit if they wanted, and if people want to wear hijabs it is their personal decision (let's just say it is for the sake of argument). Further, Davies's action is exclusionary (denying people equal rights under the law) while the uniforms are inclusionary (opening up policing as a career for people who want to wear hijabs).

While we might debate the merit of France's ban on religious headgear in schools, and face veils in public, hijabs would never be banned in the US because we have freedom of religion here, and freedom to wear what we want, however "bizarre." But I also have the freedom to say that "I don't like that."

My husband complains about this "trend" in extreme liberalism, and while I find many aspects of it problematic, I don't think that it has as much sway as he (and you) think. My husband is always saying "oh, in academia it's totally like this" but I am in academia, and I don't see this. I think the news he reads blows things out of proportion and twists things (I know it does, in fact). Unlike you, I don't feel I am being ousted from liberalism in any way.

For an example, this ridiculous "safe spaces"at university thing is already experiencing a backlash. The U of Chicago, I think it was, told their incoming class that they should not expect "safe spaces" from the university because it goes against academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge.

[yuna628 9,527]

I'm not saying the hijab is any different from orthodox Jewish headwear or Amish dresses. I'm not saying that because I personally find hijabs to be ridiculous, they need to be banned. I think spaghetti strainers are a ridiculous headgear as well, but I wouldn't favor a ban. That would be incredibly authoritarian of me.

While I respect that the hijab, niqab, burka etc. is a personal choice for many, reality is that it is forced upon women, either by law or immense social pressure in vast swathes of the Islamic world. They are no more a 'personal choice' than an arranged marriage. I've seen women being hit by religious police for having semi-see-through sleeves. Hijabs are about the sexualization of women no matter how you put it. The reason the word 'modesty' is even connected to the word 'headscarf' is because someone, somewhere, at some time decided that a woman's hair is too tempting for men to be shown in public. The fact that some women feel that they must cover up in order to go to the beach and enjoy themselves says more about the actual patriarchy they live under than it does about anything else.

I don't mind some strange sect somewhere mandating that women wear blue hats on Tuesdays. But I'm in awe when western liberals wear blue hats on Tuesdays in solidarity, celebrate 'world blue hat day' and try to normalize the custom in the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion.'

I would say that yes it is forced upon some women, but for many women it is worn of their own free will. We are all usually brought up with some sort of religion as kids (unless our parents are atheist). At some point in our adult lives we choose to either keep carrying out those traditions without question, investigate and decide for ourselves if holding those traditions and beliefs are legit, or rebel and reject everything. That is when wearing such items or believing certain things becomes a choice. Hijabs and other such items may be about sexualization, or as you say, the revealing of hair being tempting for a man, but it is also about being respectful to a god. I wouldn't certainly say don't simplify the issue, as many might do. Headcovering in all three faiths does involve a woman being submissive to a patriarchy under a godhead. God>husband>pastor. Others argue it's a way to show devotion and respect to a god. That in of itself would certainly offend many people. Somewhere along the way, modern sects of these faiths argued such isn't necessary anymore and that covering one's head culturally is no longer considered a sign of submissiveness. Such interpretations and theological skepticism still actively ignores what the text says in Corinthians for example. I am not the type of person that enjoys theologians who tend to pick and choose what lines of their holy books they'd like to follow for the day, but every religion has them. Still, in many modern churches today, a woman does not give a second thought to wearing a dress instead of jeans or putting a hat on her head when she walks into church.

And yes, it is terrible that we live in a world where a woman has to always constantly worry about how she looks to other people in order to just live her life... but how do we solve this problem? Because patriarchal society doesn't just start with religion. Solve that, and you may suddenly find that more women would choose to wear whatever they want to the beach... but be careful, because it may mean less of us wearing those tiny bikinis. ;-)

There was a time you know, when society said a woman shouldn't go to the beach... then they said, they should only go wearing their best white wool gowns. It was women who fought against it (and were beaten and arrested for it) and rebelled enough to invent the first swimwear for women. To me I see a burkini and modest swimwear as a small baby step in women's liberation. The ability to say, yes you can go to the beach, keep the importance of your faith, and have the freedom to do so. Eventually it may advance enough to change thinking completely.

My argument about normalization is why is it that you think it shouldn't be normal in a free society? If you think something shouldn't be normalized in the name of diversity, then you must on some level find it abnormal or wrong, right? What is abnormal to one is not abnormal to another. When someone passes by wearing a cross do you think that at somewhere and some point our society decided it was normal for a person to wear one, to the point we give it little thought? For those that live around Amish communities, how they dress is normal to see even when they are different.To outsiders, they are a big business tourist attraction, and entire cities make money off of their religion.

Few things piss me off more than right wingers telling Americans of various skin colors to 'go home.' African American culture, Chinese American culture, Italian American culture etc. etc. it's all American culture. That's a beautiful thing.

I think the problem with 'alt-right' is that it isn't any sort of established group. Alt-right can be applied to anyone ranging from Jeff Bezos to Milo Yiannopoulos to a random 42 year-old unemployed loser who makes Nazi internet memes in his mom's basement. 'Alt-right' is, for now, what you make of it. You can see 'alt-right' and to you it means the Nazis in the basement, while I see 'alt-right' and it means a rejection of cultural Marxism. More often and more 'officially' I see it referred to as a fragment of the political right that is becoming more and more populist in style rather than traditional conservative. I say "western supremacist" because aside from the obviously neo-Nazi nutjobs, the arguments I hear from the alt-right are generally more in the line of "free speech trumps your feelings" and a dismissal of the more authoritarian side of progressivism and campus activism. I think that's healthy. But the internet also gives the ostracized crazies an anonymous megaphone, an unfortunate side-effect.

As far as black Republicans. You would have to pay me a very generous sum of money to ever vote for a nutjob like Carson. Unless his only opponent was a ranging shameless tumblr feminist, it would not cross my mind in a million years. That being said, I disagree that there is anything wrong what so ever with being a black Republican. Anything more than I think there is anything wrong with being a black golf player, a black violinist or a black Jew. In essence, the entire notion that your skin color somehow makes you puts you on this or that team is absurd.

I'm not a fan of gender segregation under any denomination, nor do I think any law should be made to force religious congregations to do anything. I would find it curious if Elizabeth Warren went to speak about the wonders of religious diversity at a segregated church in Idaho as well.

I have no problem with a politician reaching out to Muslims. I just wish 'progressives' on the left would promote secular Islam. You know, reformist Muslims who face death threats from Islamists and allegations of "Uncle Tomism" from leftists. When was the last time you saw a secular Muslim on MSNBC saying "We need more acceptance of womens' rights and LGBT rights within Islam, and we need an honest discussion about extremism." - You don't. Instead, they tend to end up on conservative talk shows, branded as suspicious Islamophobes.

It baffles my mind that liberal secularists like Maajid Nawaz and Ali Rizvi are usually relegated to short segments on Fox News, while Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider, Faisal Saeed al-Muttar etc. are generally persona non grata everywhere they go in liberal circles.

No, he was saying the exact opposite. There is nothing racial about the term 'western.' So if I say 'western values' or 'western culture' is superior to anything else we've had in human history, that statement has nothing to do with white supremacy, racism or the like. The only way you can tie 'western' and 'race' together is if you believe inherently that the United States is somehow a 'white nation.' Which of course is pure rubbish.

Marv is gone, so he will be unable to respond to you.

How do you define secular Islam? Seems to me you can find many in secular Islam that still wear a hijab or says she has a right to wear one if she so chooses to, but certainly do reject the other extreme dress.

[OriZ 3,157]

But there is something very different about Kim Davies and the police uniforms. First, Davies is refusing to act in her elected capacity to uphold the law, while the police issue is nothing of the sort. Individuals do not have to become police officers; they could quit if they wanted, and if people want to wear hijabs it is their personal decision (let's just say it is for the sake of argument). Further, Davies's action is exclusionary (denying people equal rights under the law) while the uniforms are inclusionary (opening up policing as a career for people who want to wear hijabs).

While we might debate the merit of France's ban on religious headgear in schools, and face veils in public, hijabs would never be banned in the US because we have freedom of religion here, and freedom to wear what we want, however "bizarre." But I also have the freedom to say that "I don't like that."

My husband complains about this "trend" in extreme liberalism, and while I find many aspects of it problematic, I don't think that it has as much sway as he (and you) think. My husband is always saying "oh, in academia it's totally like this" but I am in academia, and I don't see this. I think the news he reads blows things out of proportion and twists things (I know it does, in fact). Unlike you, I don't feel I am being ousted from liberalism in any way.

For an example, this ridiculous "safe spaces"at university thing is already experiencing a backlash. The U of Chicago, I think it was, told their incoming class that they should not expect "safe spaces" from the university because it goes against academic freedom and the pursuit of knowledge.

Considering your husband is from Israel, and that this thread has hijabs and burkinis in the discussion I found it appropriate to mention that while "enlightened" and "progressive" countries like France and Germany are trying to ban those, in Israel as well as in the US it is perfectly legal and will continue to be so. I myself(as I'm sure he has) have seen many people wearing it there and the beaches are full of burkinis daily nobody says a word to them.