Conservatives Bash Laura Bush for Wearing a Khimar
Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 05:44PM Bottom Line Up Front: Conservatives are on the wrong side of the argument criticising Laura Bush for wearing a khimar if they are sincere about winning the war on terror.
First Lady Laura Bush appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace this morning defending her decision to wear a khimār, a head cover worn by many Muslim women to promote modesty and morality, when she visited Saudi Arabia last week to meet with Muslim women concerning breast cancer prevention.
Conservatives have hammered the First Lady for wearing the khimār, saying it condones the subjugation of Muslim women. Mrs. Bush defended her decision in the interview below:
Conservatives have got to stop stepping into this pot hole of cultural arrogance when it comes to Islam. In an attempt to reject political correctness, we alienate other cultures we depend upon to facilitate world peace and end up hurting the very women we claim to want to help.
The First Lady, along with other dignitaries, customarily shows respect for and solidarity with other people in their HOST nations by adapting their attire. Many orthodox religions, including Catholicism and Islam, use head coverings to promote reverence and respect for God and as a sign of humility. The Amish and Jewish women often wear head coverings similar to the khimār.
Conservatives are playing a dangerous political game when they pick and choose which cultures to honor and which to disrespect. Where was the concern when Laura Bush covered her head to meet the Pope in 2006?
Or when she donned a Japanese scarf in 2005 during her visit to Kyoto, Japan?
Or when President Bush, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada and President Michelle Bachelet of Chile all wore traditional Vietnamese tunics at the close of the 2006 economic summit in Hanoi, Vietnam? Were they condoning communism?
Conservatives are also missing a crucial point; that is, we are all human beings who share the same pain, suffering and joys. The emphasis placed on Mrs. Bush’s respectful head scarf shifts focus from her humanitarian trip to help fight breast cancer in countries where women neglect prevention.
This isn't about justifying evil acts done in the name of a particular religion or validating theology, it's about extending a gracious hand to a different culture in order to help them help themselves.
America is a great nation because we were founded on Christian principles but we are also a country with an annual $13 billion pornography industry, 19 million Americans annually contracting STDs, almost 50 million abortions since 1973 and a 50% divorce rate. We need to really be careful when preaching to other countries about the subjugation of women.
OTHERS BLOGGING: Hot Air Flopping Aces
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1338248
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (22)
Great post Amy! I agree with you, it's not what's on the outside of a person we should be concerned with, it's what's going on in their heart that's the real issue. I call dressing like she has a sign of respect for the country she's visiting.
Great post, Amy. you nailed it. Conservatives everywhere need to be more savvy about other cultures that are even more conservative than our own. The first rule of community is respect. The first family has done the exact right thing in honoring these other cultures. Well done, great write up, extremely relevant issue.
Seems that some of our bretheren and sisteren (is that even a word?) have forgotten an old proverb that begins, "When in Rome...". She was in Saudi Arabia and trying not to play "Ugly American". When I come into another person's home I abide by their customs and practices. If they eat at 8 I don't come in and demand they eat at six. If their practice is to not wear shoes in the house, I comply. It's that simple.
Now if she was running around State side like that, then have at her. But on foreign soil she was right to do this.
I'm extremely disgusted with right wing blogs like Hot Air that let only registered commenters post (and they never let anyone register so its the same old same old) that are slamming the First Lady with idiotically ignorant remarks like:
AND
AND
AND
AND
The cultural ignorance is unbearable, and I'm a conservative. The arrogance to think we in America have THE perfect culture, which is more of a non-culture not defined by any single thing, and with all our moral problems we have the right to judge.
I'm glad that the commenters here seem to get it. You cannot have good relations with the rest of the world by stereotyping it.
Well, the fact that the 1st Lady was there opening up a breast cancer center - openly, without restraint or modesty is straight up, y'all. In fact her scarve confirms in a wickedly clever way America's Assymetrical Hudna with intolerant he man women hating regimes.
Great post, Amy! I see nothing in trying to reach out to these women. This was a sign of respect and the women welcomed and felt comfortable with her.
It was a commendable.
What gives this objection to her headwear legs is that such coverings have become symbolic of submission to Islam and by extension to Sharia. That's the basis of the French ban in schools, in fact. Islamist cultural aggression uses wedge issues very agressively; as one Turk objecting to the relaxing of the turban ban at universities said, "Once turbans are permitted, everyone will have to wear one." No such imminent danger here, but the point is that it has become a form of the message "aslam taslam"; in Arabic, “Embrace Islam and you shall have peace”, simply a two-word pun, which most literally means “Submit, have peace.”
Or else.
I disagree. I will not defend bad religion or bad practice. Period. There are still ways to affect positive change in those religions and win the war on terror, which is my main goal (counterinsurgency).
When Howard Dean wore a kaffiya resembling Yasser Arafat's, it signaled solidarity with terrorists. Laura Bush wearing a khimār signifies solidarity with Muslim women, even those being oppressed. That can only be a good thing.
To win hearts and minds in order to bring about change, you have to show a respect of custom, even if you don't respect the culture. Just as when Lebanese saw the free elections in Iraq they were emboldened to kick occupying Syria out of their country, we can embolden good Muslims to make changes within Islam. And Islam needs changing.
Does it affirm Communism when top world leaders, including Pres. Bush, meet for the annual economic summit in Vietnam in traditional Vietnamese dress?
Brian, if you get a chance please leave your match box and see the world, you might learn a few things. You might learn that head scarfs are not a custom attributed only to muslim women. IT is a cultural practice in other parts of the world within different religions, especially in India. For an uncultured American, it might indicate subjugation in the same sense that anyone with a turban and a funny looking beard is deemed terrorist, but to a cultured person, it is often a symbol of modesty.
"The legislation would outlaw "conspicuous" religious symbols from public classrooms, including Islamic headscarves, Jewish skullcaps and big Christian crosses. It is to take effect with the new school year in September. "
Clearly you don't understand the premise of the ban in France.
For ppl who don't dig this scarve thing - try to look at it this way - the 1st Lady was on their sacred tuf, creating awareness of breast cancer (a major diss in itself) and by wearing a scarf she "...heaped burning coals of shame onto the heads of the muslim ummah..."
SWEEEEEEEEEEEET!
"Brian, if you get a chance please leave your match box and see the world, you might learn a few things. You might learn that head scarfs are not a custom attributed only to muslim women." -- Mavic
Finally a sense of relevance. I have tried to explain to many in my circle, many who are ravagely liberal, that head scarves do not belong only to Muslim custom’s. They try to tell the world around them that only the Muslim culture, ‘mainly,’ wears them "today". Therefore, the practice solely belongs to their social right – finally, they argue, no one else is allowed to wear them. They believe this right is called “cultural now.” It is hard to argue with them, they seem to believe they know everything. And I doubt many conservatives, as well, understand this relevance. They see it as Muslim-cultural semiotic.
Howdy, Amy. Waded over hear from Sweetness-Light.com. You're on my RSS feed now.
Perhaps words alone won't bring consensus among these contentious groups.
One may allow these type of incidents such as what Laura allowed to slide by, attributing this particular incident and any future controversial incidents that will occur to the realization that George and Condoleeza have not in the past, nor to this present day have they articulated to themselves, and their crew, a Western ideological stance towards Islamic influence, vis a vis Western influence upon Saudi Arabia. The best and brightest among us are aware of the Saudi's, and all of the Islamic nations, what their ideological positions are towards Western practices which tolerate those involved with pornography, abortions, STD's, divorce, child abuse, homosexuality, female circumcision, ... and other social issues.
Perhaps if our Laura had cordially and politely said no to the wearing of the khimar, and the administration would have then went on an offensive to suggest that, perhaps in other parts of the world a head scarf is a sign of modesty, but in Saudi Arabia or any other Islamic civilization and culture we perceive it as a sign of subjugation of women. How insulting and unnecessarily disrespectful we would then be perceived as in the minds of those in the free world, or at least in the minds of those who want to weave Islamic thoughts and practices into the very fabric of American (Western) society, and to those benevolent members of CAIR we would now be blacklisted I suppose.
Who seriously desires to have more Islamic influence into the world? I would like everyone reading this post to give a warm round of applause to Mara, and then after watching this video to ask themselves whether our beloved Mara needs anything from Islam as she goes about her walk in life. To know and understand the Islamic religion is one thing, to indoctrinate the likes of a Mara with any type of Islamic nonsense is disgusting, as far as I'm concerned.
Amy, five hundred years from now the entire world is more Western, and not Islamic. And Laura, with George and the rest of the administration, have no plan or compass bearing to lead the world into this future. The Clinton and Bush administrations were and are reactionary, following any wind of doctrine.
What is it I hear blowing around George and his crew these days?
I feel your pain.They may be figureheads of the Western world, but they are not leaders of the free world. And I use the word leader literally, in the true sense of the word.
There do not seem to be any real leaders coming down the pike, rising over the horizon, either.
Amy, you speak of counterinsurgency ...
I'll just spell it out, what I envision to be the future coup de gracé to the Islamic nonsense of today: Perhaps a hundred years from today, in the twenty-second century, when a Western individual submits the paper that will rock the foundations of the world, revealing the secrets to biological cognition.
It will not be a person influenced from the Koran, or reared in an Islamic culture that wrote this paper I speak of now. Most likely this person is from the West. This paper caused Mergatroid to exist. Mergatroid will have a computer system mimicking biological cognition. The culture and institutions responsible for the paper outlining biological cognition, and then later to bring Mergatroid into existence, Islamic thought at this future date is so old and irrelevant. As old and irrelevant as the Mayan or Aztec religions are to people living today.
Amy, remember how Presdident Reagan pushed Star War laser research, this causing the Ruskies to fluster, buckle, eventually to "disintegrate"? We couldn't at the time bring a laser based defense shield to function anytime within our lifetime, but simply talking like we could have done so, this sent the Ruskies down the path to change.
If another, similar type of propoganda ploy were to be thrown upon the Islamic world of today, this ploy to state to the Islamic world that we in the West are taking steps (eg. our media, and school system curriculums are gearing up to bring our youth to understand the challenge of such an endeavor ...) to bring a computer system mimicking biological cognition into existence (think T-100 cyborgs (you know, Terminators. (Schwartzenegger, Hamilton)) really, and truly we in the West are "trying" to learn how to do this in the near future, and perhaps similar to how the Ruskies took the bait and changed, Islamics world wide will quit thinking those rituals and daily practices of Islam are so important.
Amy, the West is already in possession of the entire surface sphere called the Moon, we have our sights on possessing the planet Mars in the near future, and once the Islamic generation of youth of tomorrow hear about these conquests of ours, THEY THEMSELVES will be looking for a toilet for that Koran. How humiliating it will be for Islamic youth to look at their flag, with the crescent and star, and then to realize the generations before them were not part of the team that explored, and tamed the solar system. Islamic men of today, those highly regarded Imams and scholars, why they were nothing more than goofy old men, it will be said.
This idea I've thought for many years. And it needs further thought to clarify exactly how to implement in a practical way. You want a counterinsurgency? I'll give the world a counterinsurgency that will rock the founadations of the earth ...
Geez, if I were the President of the United States, you know what I would do now?
I'm just talking out loud, to myself now. Beating my chest while I clarify some points and things to myself.
Thanks for listening.
CalPatriot, you're right that Muslims don't have the corner on women's headwear. The Amish, Catholics, Jews and other Orthodox religions use head coverings, and interestingly enough, all those religions are also accused of subjegating women. Islam's track record is undeniably bad, but we have to start somewhere.
Rereading my last post ..., and I must admit this one here is one of my better posts I've been posting lately, but wow, I sure did use the name Amy alot, to say what I wanted to say.
I hope nothing else, unusual, happens to me, later on ... 'cause us two definitely came from two different planets. ;.)
Amy, I couldn't agree more. I have been very disheartened and baffled at the conservative bashing of Laura Bush over this. Your post is extremely well said.
well said, Amy! My Dad was a U.S. Diplomat for 40 plus years. I was raised all over the world and there was certain protocol one had to follow in each and every country. Laura Bush too is a diplomat. Most people don't understand the art of diplomacy, which dictates how one conducts oneself in foreign lands. It's incumbent upon anyone traveling or living abroad to follow the customs of their host country, whether they agree with those customs or not. As a diplomat one has no choice, as a tourist you just avoid those countries. That's why I refuse to travel to any Muslim country, I refuse to adhere to their cultural mores.
So you're comparing the wearing of a Khimar with wearing a Japanese scarf and Vietnamese tunics? Please, say it ain't so.
Let me put it to you simply; they force their women to wear the veil, hijab, burqa, khimar etc to oppress them. To keep them inferior. The reason is that Muslim men are not expected to control their sexual urges. It is therefore incumbent on the women to go to great lengths to not show anything that would excite a man. If a woman is raped, it must be her fault, for she must have done something to entice the man. Hence, she is to be stoned or hanged. Women are basically property with no rights in the KSA(Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). It is one of the wonders of the world that so many Western women ignore this.
For Laura Bush to wear that Khimar was to implicity show approval for how they treat their women. And the KSA is as totalitarian as Nazi Germany or communist Russia. Walid Phares has called it "the mother ship of the jihad" (book "Future Jihad")
James Woolsey, former Director of the CIA, said in testimony to Congress that "On all points except allegiance to the Saudi state Wahhabi and al Qaeda beliefs are essentially the same.
The bottom line is that the KSA is our enemy, not our friend, and we need to start treating them as such.
The worst part of our current war is that we can't even call it by it's real name. The President goes around calling it a "war on terror", which makes no sense. He ought to call it a "war on Jihad", or at least a "war on Islamic Radicalism". One of the aspects of that war is freedom from oppression, especially for women. It is to the shame of the administrtion that they have largely ignored the abyssmal human rights situation in the Middle East.
It also distrubs me greatly to see so many Western women defending or excusing the oppression.
As far as the commenters go "Kurt L. Hanson" is the most correct and "incognito" the most wrong.
finally
"The arrogance to think we in America have THE perfect culture"
No, I don't think we're perfect, but we're a million times better than anything in the Muslim world. And my problem is that we're not arrogant enough. We need to tell the Muslim world to stop oppressing their women and gays and shape up.
Tom, I understand why you're saying what you're saying, but couldn't disagree more. Ancient Middle Eastern culture dictated that women be covered. Period. Jews, Christians.... it has nothing to do with the subjegation of women but with modesty during that time period.
I went to synagogue in 2001 to see how Orthodox Jews worship. Guess what! The women wore head coverings and in some synagogues they were separated from the men. In my Catholic Church, some women wear head coverings.
I think we're making too big a deal out of the First Lady's head coverings. There's no way for you to prove that the women Laura Bush met with were subjegated to inferiority.
Please don't swallow the "jihad" pill. True jihad is good (for Muslims and for us). Our problem is with heresy, bad theology and terrorism, not Jihad.
Farewell.
Farewell?
Loose lips sink ships. The manuscript gets published, first, then I roam around looking for those who need these fifteen ten-pound cannon rhetorical broadsides I enjoy throwing around.
Practicing, polishing my debating skills in blogs is dangerous, ... and, there's no financial gain being cavalier with these ideas I have.
My thoughts are too easy to capitalize on, as one's own.
You're blog is an RSS feed. I'm incognito.
Farewell implies permanency, so perhaps, ... goodbye.
Laura Bush, in wearing the khimar, signalizes that she endorses an evil and dysfunctional ideology, paying tribute to the ideology that happens to be the greatest enemy of the civilized world, including the very country where her husband is president. She ought to be ashamed. And so should Amy Proctor for defending her.