To veil or not to veil

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Ps104_33, May 30, 2003.

  1. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
  2. trying2understand

    trying2understand
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    3,316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Driving is a privilege, not a right.

    States have the right to set the requirements for holding a drivers license.

    If she is unwilling to meet those requirements, she is choosing not to have a drivers license.
     
  3. Kathryn

    Kathryn
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,252
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. Driving is not a right. She needs to unveil, or not drive. It is her choice.


    God Bless
     
  4. LaRae

    LaRae
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Make that 3 for "she should unveil".

    Driving is a privilege, not a "right".


    If there's not a picture that can identify a person on the liscense then why even take one in the first place?

    LaRae
     
  5. neal4christ

    neal4christ
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    1,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ditto. [​IMG]

    Neal
     
  6. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree totally, It will be interesting to see how the judge rules. This has been playing out on Court TV if anyone is interested.Some of the defenses' arguements have been the fact that not all states have photo liscences and they can drive through Fla without them. ( Kinda silly, but ACLU lawyer ya know....)

    Another question Popped ito my mind and I'd like to get some feedback on it as well. There was a school teacher in the news recently who was fired for not removing a cross that she wore around her neck. ( we are talking about a small inconspicuous one)

    What if a Muslim or a HIndu wanted to teach in a public school with a turban on. Would that not be considered a religious symbol as well?
     
  7. dianetavegia

    dianetavegia
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    If an AMERICAN can get arrested for wearing a mask to a costume party while driving....

    Lose the Veil or Lose the right to drive!

    Diane
     
  8. Ps104_33

    Ps104_33
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2001
    Messages:
    4,005
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another question:
    Would a muslim woman in Saudi Arabia for example who adhered to a faith as rigid as one who would make her wear a veil in public even be allowed to drive a car?!
     
  9. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Having spent a couple years in Saudi, the Saudi women are not permitted to drive...Period. Our American Forces women were also not permitted to drive our own vehicles, except on the compound property.
     
  10. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually there was a case of a Christian woman who was told to remover HER VEIL for her drivers license and she ended up not removing it, for a few reasons.

    The first reason is that she always wears the veil so that is what she looks like. And a picture of her without the veil would be a mis-representation of what she looks like. I look very different with my veil on and off.

    The second reason is that it is religious persecution. As a Christian woman who veils I feel I am not properly covered without my headcovering and I do not go out in town in front of men without a veil on.

    A Christian legal ministry fought for this particular woman and she ended up wearing the veiling for the picture.
     
  11. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    What Christian teaching is she adhering to?
     
  12. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
  13. hsmom3

    hsmom3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2002
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    0
    HCL,

    Did the veil cover her face? If so, I can understand them wanting her to remove it. But if it was her head only, I think she should be allowed to wear it. What about Jewish men who where the small little caps? Do they make them remove them too?

    Thank you!
    hsmom3
     
  14. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    HSmom,
    Oh, I see. I actually did not read the article the first time I posted. I agree with you that the face needs to be seen.
    The case I am speaking of was a Christian woman who had only a headcovering on and was asked to remove it.
     
  15. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Did you also not read 1 Cor 11:16?

    You see, Paul in verses 2-15 Paul is discussing an existing custom prevailant throughout the regions. He says that in accordance with the custom it is proper to be veiled and have heads covered. But in verse 16, he states that the churches of God do not have that custom.

    That is, it's OK if you want to practice that custom, but the churches of God do not require veils and head coverings.
     
  16. MEE

    MEE
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/me3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the key word in verse 16 is 'contentious.' Why would Paul teach that a woman's long hair is her covering..vs 15..or a veil and then say we have no such custom?

    I think he is saying that if a man is contentious about the fact that a woman is covered or veiled, *that* is what Paul is opposed to, not that what he just wrote can be tossed aside.

    MEE [​IMG]
     
  17. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    If you have noticed, during the Iraq war, there were scenes shown where the Muslims were praying. Routinely the men have their heads covered, but when praying they uncover their heads. That is a tradition among the religions at the time Paul was preaching and writing to the Corinthians, as it is today among many of the non Christian religions.

    Paul was not teaching against the custom, but instead, explained the custom. He concluded by saying that if you want to be contentious, I tell you neither I nor the churches of God have that custom. That is, we don't require that women wear veils or head coverings, but if you believe it right, go ahead.
     
  18. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems this is the samething as amna wearing a hat, which my son has one on in his drivers license picture, they say if you wear one all the time then you can elave it on, but if you don't and just so happen to be wearing it the day you got your drivers license pic then you have to remove it. So they can't make her remove it since she wears it everyday.

    As for the mulim woman, drivieng is not a constutional right, so if she can not follow the rules for having a license then she doesn't need a license. The purpose for having the picture on the license is for identifying the person. If she wear a veil over her face and gets stopped by the police then how can she prove thats her in the picture, or that it's even her license? Anyone could wear a veil and use it as an ID.
     
  19. Headcoveredlady

    Headcoveredlady
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mee,
    I completely agree with you that Paul would not have spent fifteen verses explaining the neccessity of the practice and then take one sentence to say, "Don't bother, we have no such custom." The no such custom is that of being contentious about it.
    This is supported by the fact that headship and creation order is an eternal principle, not a custom only to be followed in one generation.
     
  20. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    First Paul does not say it is a necessity, He explained it's purpose. I disagree that Paul is arguing that contentiuousness doesn't exist, but that for those who want to be contentious I say that I and the Christian church does not have the custom he just explained.

    Headship is relative to "position" In the Christian Church the order of headship is Jesus Christ Himself over the Bride of Christ, then in the familiy, the husband over the wife. That is the principle Paul teaches through out his writings about headship. Why would it be different in this passage?

    Finally, all one needs is a trip to a Muslim dominant country to see that this custom exceeds one generation. It existed during the time of Christ and the Apostles. It exists today! There is much reason to believe that the custom has been continuous over the intervening period, and will continue.

    It remains a custom, and not a tenet of the Christian faith.
     

Share This Page

Loading...