Dalia Mogahed is an abusive Puritan and cult member

In my view Dalia Mogahed is an abusive Puritan and cult member. Advocates for the hijab / niqab / burqa are basically Puritans. Liberals just hate Christian-originated Puritanism, but they love Puritanism which emanates from any flavor of Islam (eg: the widespread worldwide Saudi-funded & CAIR supported version), or when it comes via any idea that counters or casts doubt on any aspect of the dominant leftie paradigm.

Video interview of Dalia Mogahed on the Daily Show:

short url: http://on.cc.com/1RnSWKp

longer: http://www.cc.com/shows/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah/interviews/lnkifi/exclusive-dalia-mogahed-extended-interview?xrs=synd_FBPAGE_20160108_326082216_The%20Daily%20Show_N/A&linkId=20219197

Response to the following point made by Dalia Mogahed:

---quote begins

What a Hijab does is it basically privatizes a woman's sexuality.

So what are we saying when we say that by taking away or privatizing a woman's sexuality, we're oppressing her? What is that saying about the source of a woman's power [in the media]?

---end of quote

My response:

13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection has not "selected for" a privatization of female human sexuality.

Maryam Namazie's response to the hijab, a most excellent response!:

World hijab day - as celebrated by Maryam Namazie, the way the day should be celebrated (ie: without a hijab):

http://web.archive.org/web/20150906062424im_/http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/files/2013/02/maryam.jpgfrom http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/02/01/world-hejab-day/

In my view Dalia Mogahed is simply a member of an abusive human spirit destroying cult.

Women within Islam are not free to go without the hijab, even in Western countries:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/21/as-muslim-women-we-actually-ask-you-not-to-wear-the-hijab-in-the-name-of-interfaith-solidarity/

Why is Puritanism ok when it's expressed by a Muslim woman who's in a hijab, but not ok when it's expressed by a conservative Christian?

Puritianism is abusive in it's own right, whether that Puritanism is expressed by someone like Dalia Mogahed, or whether it's expressed by past Mormon prophet Spencer Kimball or by John Harvey Kellogg.

Maajid Nawaz, a near lone truly-liberal Muslim voice, on the hijab:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/29/the-great-hypocritical-muslim-cover-up.html

Quote: "...Even when adopted through individual choice, it is the religious-conservative assumption, this modesty theology, that women who do not wear headscarves are somehow sinful, less modest and not pious, that we liberals must critique. For at the root, it is this same attitude that is invoked in honor killings, and heinous acid attacks..."

Women in Iran who sneak & go without the scarf:

https://www.facebook.com/StealthyFreedom/photos_stream

The hijab is abusive, abusive for exactly the same reasons why Puritanism in general is abusive: It/they attempts to warp human sexuality into something it is not by default and by (evolutionary) design: hidden.

Because their are Islam-run countries which force women to hijab, and because mosques worldwide force women to wear it, it's abusive. It's also abusive because it separates men & women into an inherently abusive and unnatural state & relationship status.

Women should be showing their hair & necks, in public, to men & to other women. Period. And if you see value in "privatizing" the normal natural healthy human sexuality expressed via women's hair, necks, and faces, you are an abuser. And if you're a cult member who believes there's value in such covering, you are an abuser.

More on Dalia from Sam Harris:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZmAmok5M3s

As a Muslim woman, I see the veil as a rejection of progressive values Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/muslim-woman-veil-hijab

The science of swearing, by Steven Pinker:
http://harvardsciencereview.com/2014/01/23/the-science-of-swearing/
...relates in my view to how some humans also don't enjoy "sexual system" activation in their brains, not-at-all!

Tawfik Hamid talking about how Puritanical Islam fucks up the brains of young Muslim men:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxfo11A7XuA

Why do desert tribes hate sexual system activation? Clothes on humans may well be natural. Otherwise abusive body mutilations humans engage in within various "aboriginal" "native" tribes (eg: male & female genital cutting aka circumcision) may also be "natural." Religions are natural. But not everything that's natural is good nor do all natural things make humans happy generally nor cause them to thrive.

In any case puritanism is abusive regardless of it's source, whether that source is Islam, Islamophiles, lefties who love Islam & the hijab, your local Saudi-funded mosque which forces women to be segregated and to hijab, or Mormonism, or Catholicism, or etc.

Somewhere between letting it all hang out and hanging people for doing so is where humans are happiest and thrive the most. But the hijab is more on the hanging-people side of things than any other.

Related post:
whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/09/whitewashing-history-sex-obsessed.html

response to Rory Patrick's 100 day masturbation abstinence - the pain and sorrow of having genitals

A man (Rory Patrick) abstains from touching his penis for 100 days. Supporters then express solemn tearful solidarity with him.

An interview of the man:

http://www.vice.com/read/our-interview-with-a-guy-who-didnt-masturbate-for-100-days-722

Quote from interview: "...On April 5, 2014, Rory Patrick announced to his Twitter followers that he was going to stop masturbating for 100 days. Soon, a hashtag was started: #Rory100. Friends and supporters cheered him on, sent him messages of encouragement..."

Respondents from his supporters as found at #Rory100: "...solidarity. we love you..." "...I believe..."...in my heart I believe in u & ur miracles..."

My response to all:

Oh the pain & sorrow, of having genitals. The great solidarity raised by three fingers, of others, offering great & wonderful support to the protagonist.

As I viewed the people's responses at #Rory100 I felt amazed, annoyed, and sick. My fuck what did the guy do? Abstain from touching his penis for 100 days? That warrants tearful wondrous support for the guy? WTF?

In any case:

The left bemoans the fact that we have genitals at all, nearly as much as the right does.

The left is unhappy that genitals can be used to make babies.

The right is unhappy that genitals can be used for things other than making babies.

And both seem to get pretty upset when your average sexual urge interferes with your ability to do other activities.

Oh, if there were just a way to separate out this part of our brain, right?

But, to do so is IMO abusive. For example the Mormon flavor of abusiveness:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm
and http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html
and http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml

And then there's Islam:
http://nowscape.com/islam/Islam_masturbation.htm

These religious prophets, leaders, and scholars hear you Mr. Patrick. They've got their three fingers up in solidarity with you. So do the Victorians and Puritans.

100 days without masturbating? Who gives a flip (rephrase in the common Internet colloquialism as you please).

I fully agree there can be some value in abstaining say for a few days, or maybe for up to two weeks. So that you can, for example, focus on finding a real in the flesh date or mate. But concepts like Karezza are in my view dangerous and abusive.

And the "solidarity" expressed sort of reminds me of World Hijab Day supporters. An excellent response: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/02/01/world-hejab-day/

And then there's cancer:
Masturbation 'cuts cancer risk'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm

And more recent health benefit articles:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2518802/Masturbation-good-health-prevents-cystitis-diabetes-cancer.html

Yes perhaps our moods would be more even if we didn't have genitals. But if we didn't have them we wouldn't be here. So don't look too closely at the mouth of this wonderful gift horse (if that's a good analogy - whatever).

Yes it's good that sex results in kids, and it should. The childfree life has a higher probability of being an empty one.

But it's also mostly ok that outliers like gays can have sex. They can contribute to society, and sex can help their lives be more happy. That's fine too. So both sides are wrong, and right, on these issues.

Potentially related posts:

Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html

Subverting normal human sexuality: Mormon Church's principal crime
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/subverting-normal-human-sexuality.html

whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy
and explorations & activities after leaving Mormonism: nudism, & Temple Square protests
at http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/puritan

Karezza is dangerous & abusive - reuniting.info: teaches us to be afraid of orgasms, very afraid
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/karezza-is-dangerous-abusive.html

Issues with being "childfree:"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/childfree

Announcement: Ok, I'm not opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/09/announcement-ok-im-not-opposed-to-gay.html

the sexual, mostly positive, but sometimes negative, art of Mihály Zichy

The sexual, mostly positive, but sometimes negative (but honest), art of Mihály Zichy

Mihály Zichy (1827 to 1906).

Born in Hungary.

Drawings as in the book Liebe (the quality of love, pleasure, joy, favor, love).

Full title: Liebe. Vierzig Zeichnungen

http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy-mih%C3%A1ly
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/2
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/3
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/4
http://scanzen.tumblr.com/tagged/zichy+mih%C3%A1ly/page/5

A few of the drawings are a bit disturbing, in that they show the more deviant (justifiably-lockable-up) side of human sexual behavior. But there's healthy depictions in other drawings.

It's worth making note of the truth (and locking away the abusers when necessary). Celibate the good & healthy. Lock up the abusers though. His drawings show both sides.

Found a few copies of the book:
http://www.en.zvab.com/advancedSearch.do?title=Liebe++Vierzig+Zeichnungen&author=Zichy

Federal Appeals Court: Gays Have Right to Marry, And Everyone Has AIDS!

Federal Appeals Court: Gays Have Right to Marry
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/court-utah-gay-marriage-ban-unconstitutional-24298290

And everyone has AIDS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StPTCo5qk8E

The extreme naivete of Unitarian Universalism, expressed yet again by having one of their churches headed up by a freakish extreme outlier:

http://archive.sltrib.com/images/2009/0619/gayunitarian_0620~3.jpg

...a particularly & acutely unattractive woman to man experiment.

How else UUs are naive:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-new-creed-of-unitarian-universalism.html

Heard that Mohamed was an advocate for social justice crap at the SVUUS.

This guy is welcomed into the gay community:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695261750/Secret-shame-Predator-was-coach-Scout-chief.html?pg=all

Gay "marriage" is a key indicator of how the left is in near complete denial of human nature, and evolutionary history.

It's still Duck Dynasty Pride Month:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/duck-dynasty-pride-month.html

And with the passing of Christopher, his brother Peter is becoming more appealing every day, even if he himself doesn't accurately identify where his own morals come from:

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/im-in-hitchens-camp-christopher-before.html

Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea is one key: Religion is a natural phonomenon. Thus fully natural & useful human morality exists within religion.

We need protection from the pitfalls of human nature. Protection from outliers. Yes religion & culture help manage all this, for very natural & reasonable & rational & evolutionary reasons. An evolutionary response to how evolution has set us up.

So, judges can be incredibly naive. Even conservative ones. Outliers naturally come about. But they need to be a.) classified & identified for what they are, and b.) curtailed when they're destructive or dangerous. Not forcibly treated as "equal" in all venues IMO. For example maybe a child needs a mommy & daddy, ideally, for it's own best welfare & development - as a normal non-outlier child. Can the left (& libertarians) question their own presuppositions? Are they in denial about human nature also? I have observed that they are.

"Freaks Welcome Here." This is the key motto of the SVUUS, and of Unitarian Universalism / leftistism / atheism plus / most atheists groups. De facto.

But outliers won't inherit the Earth.

http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/06/breeders-will-inherit-earth-problems.html

I agree with Adam Corolla on this point: "...I don’t want to be lying on my deathbed and realize gay marriage and legalization of marijuana is all I discussed the last half of my life..."

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/19/adam_carolla_where_are_all_the_jewish_roofers/

The UUs and their kin keep up the pressure.

Apartments? Ok. Jobs? Ok. Being funny? Yes please. Making art. Ok, good.

But raising kids? Not so fast.

When two John Thomases or two hoohaws can produce babies naturally, then there will be gay marriage.

Kids may well need a mommy & a daddy. 13.8 billion years of evolution by natural selection. Is that enough "proof?" Hey at least let's be skeptical of ripping children away form this long established fully natural non-outlier more-healthy norm, ok?

Even Dan Savage says that gay men are "pigs." Should two pigs raise a kid? Where's the naturally moderating force of a female human? The lesbian friends of the Dan-Savage-gay-couple? I don't think so.

Many gay "marriages" cheat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Is a cheatin' marriage a good healthy place to raise kids?

A fully rational response:
https://4simpsons.wordpress.com/tag/same-sex-marriage/

And more general fully rational & reasonable responses:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Seculars-Against-Same-Sex-Marriage/293011477509961

http://secularpatriarchy.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/marriage-is-masculinity-and-coverture/

http://www.amazon.com/Conscience-Its-Enemies-Confronting-Institutions/dp/1610170709

Gayness is not a race:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/

Neither is Islam:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/08/islam-is-not-race-not-ethnicity-salt.html

Gayness is a side effect of how sex gets set up in humans. A side effect. Not a primary effect. The primary effect results in reproduction. Children come from reproduction.

Any oh so natural vegan, and Whole Foods shopper, should recognize the high value in raising children in a more natural & healthy way. And adopted kids should have an environment which most closely matches the natural & health way.

Not a single woman who has no intention of having a man around, knocking on the sperm bank door.

Not two men, or two women, knocking on the sperm bank or adoption agency doors.

Leftist denial of human nature & evolutionary history, all so they can claim to be protecting everyone's rights. What about the right of the majority to be protected from dangerous or destructive outliers? Indeed. We have that right too.

many atheist groups ARE religions: gay marriage & liberal dogma

Example of the new de facto religion present among some atheist groups:

"Genuine Atheists and Illegitimate Christians Support Gay Rights."
...by Minnesota Atheists

Shaming. Fear-mongering. Belief Maintenance. Do people in China read the Christian Bible? Not much at all. How about in Russia? Not much. Also, once again, since religion is a natural phenomenon human morality CAN be and IS expressed in religion.

Video response then more commentary:

Quote of comments posted on the Minnesota Atheists page:

Sounds like a religion to me - the religion of the left. "You're not a 'true' atheist or humanist if you don't agree with 100% of the homosexual agenda." Indeed.

Dogma. Heresy. Excommunication. Sounds like a religion. Since religion is a natural phenomenon perhaps we need a new term. How about: "Meme set backed up by dogmas, heresy trials, witch hunts, and virtual or de facto excommunication courts."

Having examined the gay "movement" first hand for several years via a gay nephew & an uncle who died of AIDS, I can attest to the fact that it's rather highly unsavory & petty. It's also, in my view, a "death cult" - part of the more general "death cult" of the left, which embraces other views such as how concerns about overpopulation should mean YOU should not have any kids. A religious dogma that leaves you childless - sounds like a bad one to me.

...speaking as an atheist, and an enlightened humanist & naturalist.

Humanism / naturalism / atheism / science & Enlightenment advocacy does not mean embracing the homosexual agenda 100%, nor the other dogmas of the liberal death cult - not to me, as a human who values life, how we got here, and not wasting the little speck of time we have here.

Examples of atheist groups that are actually religions:

Minnesota Atheists
American Atheists
American Humanist Association
Atheist Community of Austin
Center For Inquiry

We already know Unitarian Univeralism is a religion. It's just that these other groups have now become one also. Leftist religion - still a religion nevertheless, with unquestionable dogmas, elders, and de facto heresy & excommunication trials.

The "gay marriage" question has become a watershed issue, showing not which destructive outlier human behavior "deserves" the "right" to indoctrinate all and suck children into the cult of homosexuality, but rather, to show which supposedly "objective," "skeptical," "free thinking" groups actually, in fact, have any real connection to reason, objectivity, skepticism, free thought, and what could be called: honest true enlightened humanism and naturalism.

Human groups have taboos against destructive behaviors for some damn good reasons. This fact seems largely lost on the naive leftist new-atheism-religionists.

According to a political compass I'm still a leftie in some respects, largely on economic and social welfare issues (eg: the dole, social security, and advocacy for single payer healthcare). On abortion I think it should be discouraged, but legal before viability. On gay marriage I'm against it. Contractual allowance via civil unions - maybe. But marriage's primary focus is and should remain children and continuing the human species. Homosexual sex is inherently non-reproductive, and homosexual culture is generally speaking destructive & petty. Children should not generally speaking be exposed to such culture.

Still a leftie?

Well, since I don't agree with gay marriage, according to the lefties I've spoken with I'm now in the same camp as the ultra-right. Ok, well, on that issue maybe I am - and maybe that fact speaks to the bogusness of the above scale. Maybe "post-modern?" But reportedly post-modernists agree with gay marriage. So it's all rather too simplistic. How about: Honest human?

Take in enough data & maybe you'll change your mind. An honest human would & should do that.

more references and links:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html

8-19-2013 4:44pm