Beyond the Veil

This properly belongs in the "Information" forum, but it has been my experience that not many people go there.  Besides, it has connections to a recent, long-running thread here.  If fact, (no surprise) I find its appearance in my email inbox to be quite synchronistic.

Here is the basic content of the email, which I have been encouraged to share.  As low as the cost of the webinar it advertises, I am preparing for a trip- by air - to New Jersey.  But perhaps you might find it interesting - or not.

The introductory info, in and of itself, is very revealing (pun intended), and kind of speaks for itself, particularly in its relation to that earlier mentioned thread.  I declined to highlight what I thought were significant passages to allow the original bold printing in the article to stand out.. I reserve the right ot comment later:

Quote :

The veil has emerged in the 21st century as an international symbol that holds a variety of meanings. The veil can able understood as merely the customary dress of Arab women, a religious expression, or a political statement. For some women donning the veil represents male dominance enforced by the threat of beatings or death, for other, the veil signifies self-determination and independence in reaction to the threat of western ideology impacting Islamic culture. The veil powerfully holds the polarity of attitudes and beliefs and invites the projections of the psychological complexes in both western and Islamic societies. These negative shadow projections fuel external and internal conflict between and within each culture. The veil isnot just a female garment to hide, protect or humble Muslim women, but the curtain behind which resides the feminine principle, repressed in both east and west. Beneath the veil resides the unconsciousness of both cultures that become manifested in the politics of today.
 
The impact of 9/11 awakened the North American culture and brought a new awareness of its vulnerability. This event has challenged America's perspective of itself, its culture and its country, within the context of world conflict. The western response to the tragic collapse of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was filled with fear and revenge as the American sense of safety and security dissolved. The American culture was deeply traumatized, requiring defenses from deep within the cultural psyche to protect its profound wound. Most Americans knew little of Al Qaeda or why they were assaulted. There was little inquiry about its contribution to the conflict but, instead, with the label of enemy projected evil, primitive and inferior onto the "other".
 
The Islamic culture, also, felt defeated and threatened after years of war between tribes and countries, western colonialization and exploitation and the reality of globalization that threatens the stability of traditional Islamic society. Islamist figures have arisen as the archetypal defense of the collective wounded spirit. Imaged by Osama Bin Laden, the Mujahideen, Kohemini, Arafat as well as the multitude of other terrorist organizations, the characteristics of avenger and restorer become incarnated. The cultural memory of the lost Caliphate, world dominance and superior Islamic civilizations keep the longing to recreate the glory of a past time that compensates for the powerlessness felt today. The west becomes engaged as the rival defender of justice, freedom for all and God. Islamists protect the continuity and survival of Islam. The dynamics of cultural complexes are unleashed creating violence and destruction. All this hides behind the veil of righteousness and absolute truth.
 
The presentation will try to explore the history which has formulated the Islamic and American complexes and their interaction. Interwoven in this presentation is the figure of Sheherazade the protagonist in 1001 Nights. Known as the Arabian Nights in the west, 1001 Nights keeps Sheherazade alive as well as the women within the kingdom by the telling of stories night after night. By doing so, it also brought redemption to an embittered, violent King. What is suggested here is that when the stories stop, violence and fundamentalism begin. We get stuck where our story can no longer continue. 1001 Nights is a mythical template for better understanding the violence in our own time and one that offers a possible path for its solution. The healing is in the reclaiming of the feminine principle, imaged through Sheherazade, bringing wholeness to the world soul.
 

There is more information, and a repeat of the above text, here.

I heard an interview on NPR in this regard, but not the whole thing.  The point of the interview seemed to be a woman's book about this subject and the religious fanatacism that has engulfed a formerly rich culture in which women and girls were not forbidden to participate in education and were not hidden.

I am thinking on this subject.  A society which won't even allow a woman  to show he her face is pathetic.  On the other hand, think of how time conserving  it would be. LOL

There is a beautiful, very happy looking lady who wears the headdress in my doctors clinic
Her face is visible. I marvel at her.   
She is courageous.  Most people would skip making such a public statement of their  religious convictions.

Why should women from a different country and culture be allowed to ignore the dress standards of other countries when visiting, while visitors to their countries are expected to conform by not exposing too much flesh (shorts, low necklines etc.)?

While it is acceptable for men and women to wear any kind of headgear that does not conceal the identity of the wearer, it is totally unacceptable for women to hide their identity in public. I wear sunglasses even on relatively dull days. Since a child, I've always screwed up my eyes in bright light and now protect them as much as possible. If asked to remove them by anyone in authority or for any specific reason, I would do so without hesitation. Women who conceal their faces should be willing to reveal themselves on request. Religion is often an excuse for all kinds of anti-social behaviour; the veil is just one of them.

Yes, and that is a big part of what this on-line presentation will be about. There is more information on the page I linked at the end of the OP.

6/20/2013
                    There was a case in Florida where a lady who was Muslim wore a veil,
                    she refused to take it off to take a photo for her drivers license, the
                    motor vehicle refused her a license , she sued saying it wsa against
                    her religion , guess who lost ? She lost , the motor vehicle won. If you
                    want a drivers license you have to show your face , now in order to get
                    a drivers license you have to give several documents to prove who you
                    are and they send it to your address......

                                                            Cheers........Joe.......

So, if she chooses to drive a car(a means of extending one's power) she will have to comply. Curious, though,will anyone recognize the woman driving with her scarf on when the photo shows her with it off?

Interesting.  I agree that privacy goes just so far.  Conformity is not an option.  Security demands identity as we discussed in another thread.  People have used religion as a crutch for a variety of issues.  Laws must be obeyed. Conditions for getting a driver's license is just one example. 
While one can respect the beliefs of another, All must respect the conditions of the society in which they live.

Having knowledge of the history of a culture can lead to a better understanding of its customs.  Knowing where another is coming from makes her different perspective more understandable and acceptable.  The metaphorical meaning behind the veil, of course, goes beyond any literal interpretation.  Here is a brief summary of the point of the book, Lifting the Veil, by Jane Kamerling and Fred Gustafson, which will be the focal point of the online presentation being described above,and which can be accessed using the link I provided.

Quote :

Lifting the Veil

Knowledge of history unfolds patterns as well as context. The conflict between the Christian and Islamic worlds, for example, did not start with 9/11 but are evident as far back as the Crusades.  Although history is not stagnant but continuously moves forward, it also has a circular and repetitive motion—commonly referred to as “history repeating itself.” All of  history, all cultures, societies, and individuals have influenced each other over time and have borrowed from one another, exchanging ideas, technology, and genes.

Therefore, the whole of  humankind is all interrelated historically, not  confined to its own time or place while constantly changing, interacting, destroying and creating.  Generally speaking, patterns in religion have swung widely throughout history between the strict and literal interpretation of Scriptures to these same Scriptures capable of flexible dialogue and observance. Political values have moved from individual freedom to authoritarian regimes and back again. Societies all over of the earth have dominated the world stage for periods of time, being the forerunners of  change and/or the oppressors through conquest.

Concepts such as humanitarianism and tolerance have flourished or been repressed over the centuries. Cultures which have lived interdependently with a focus on human welfare and education, may regress to societies where isolation, prejudice, and militancy are the prevailing beliefs. Although these ideas appear conflicting, according to Jung, they are really opposite sides of  a polarity that represent the “whole.” In other words, each side of  cultural conflicting opposites both project shadow and are the recipients of  shadow projections. Yet, these shadow projections, though dangerously exaggerated in content, carry elements of  truth. The difficult task is to extract that truth which each projection carries. To whatever extent this is possible, the paradigm of innocence/guilt, victim/perpetrator dissolves. Individual human beings and cultural collectivities, according to this model, must strive for wholeness. For wholeness to exist, the shadow must be integrated into consciousness or ego. Therefore, at any given time or place within the framework of one side of the polarity, other alternative manifestations automatically exist that will compensate for the current view. Again, for example, if  a person or culture leans too far to the masculine view of  life, the feminine will have a compensatory demand to be accepted into the conscious worldview.
Acceptance of  both establishes a sense of  wholeness. The integrated totality, which is a third non-polarized possibility, fills out the circle towards wholeness. The end result is neither a domination of one nor the other polarity but the union of both. The world, a nation, a culture, a society or an individual all contain conflicting parts, conscious or not, longing for integration against the forces of separation.

Each individual, then, represents a microcosm of  opposing views and feelings that can be experienced as both positive and negative. To the Western worldview, the Islamic world frequently feels foreign and in opposition to a Western lifestyle. This Western shadow is projected onto the unknown “other,” the Islamic world, which then accommodates us by relieving us of  our responsibility for integrating that part of ourselves.

Our work as individuals, societies, and members of a world of humanity is to become more conscious. To that end, we need to understand ourselves psychologically both personally and within the context of our culture. We need to integrate the foreign parts that have been split off and demonized in the “other.”

6/20/2013

                  People have to learn when they live in another country they have to abide
                  by their laws, if they don't want to then go back to their own country....

                                                         Cheers...Joe,....

Please note that Catholic nuns the world over have had religious uniforms. So have monks and priests.  Most women in the 60's wore hats and gloves and certainly covered their heads at church.  We have had hemlines go up and down, with or without religion.  The Quakers, the Shakers, the Ahmish and more wear particular forms of dress and women are generally covered.

I believe there are still people in the bush who are practically naked.  They adorn themselves by what I consider disfiguring their lips, ears, etc.

I think issues of cultural and religious beliefs, liberty to practice them and respect shown for differences are all matters of degree.  It will take more tolerance than the world shows these days for sensible decisions to be made in this regard.

At one time, no one traveled and local habits went unchallenged.  Communication and world travel has made these differences noticeable.

Quote :

Why should women from a different country and culture be allowed to ignore the dress standards of other countries when visiting, while visitors to their countries are expected to conform by not exposing too much flesh (shorts, low necklines etc.)?

You need to ask that of your own Labour leaders. They're the ones who have made a hysterical religion about respecting the beliefs of everyone in England except the English. In fact, I saw an article recently that put "indigenous English" in quotes. Makes sense. If there are no "indigenous English," there are no "other," hence nothing for them to conform to or respect.

It's no better here. Obama was quoted recently in a speech in Ireland saying that having Catholic and Protestant schools was "divisive." No mention of Muslim schools, or the Quaker school that his own daughters attend.