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

explorations & activities after leaving Mormonism: nudism, & Temple Square protests

explorations & activities made after leaving Mormonism: Protests at Temple Square in 1999 and 2002. Nudist group experiences. Nudists claim their activities have nothing to do with sex. Such a claim is a lie, and an indicator that Puritanism infects even this aspect of American culture.

By the term "girl" I mean an attractive woman. References:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/girl
"2. a young unmarried woman; lass; maid"
"4. Informal a woman of any age"


12-24-2014 addendum:

In response to the question posted in a comment below, regarding have I ever been to a nudist event:

Yes I have. Some of the leadership of those activities are very highly hipocritical. Claiming that events are "non-sexual," when they themselves are self-proclaimed "sex goddesness." But the truth only comes out after a while.

The general American nudist position on sexuality shows how they are very much afraid of sex and how they are inhibited. Adding and stating many extra rules for behavior when people have their clothes off - rules never ever stated when people are at parties with their clothes on - it's all nn indication of their being completely and fully inhibited while lying about being uninhibited. This is the general state of nudism in America today.

It's a fundamental lie to assume that sexuality is ever disconnected from an activity when *adult* humans are together naked. To claim this, to think this, and to require that others think this as a condition of participation, is abusive, hypocritical, just plain crazy, and an indication of some type of Puritanical memetic disease pervading nudist culture.

Nudists in America express even more fear of sex, when their clothes are off!

Uninhibited? I don't think so.

Related thoughts from others:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.nude/9Say7QWoaT4[1-25-false]

Anyway, there's something particularly perverse about asking humans to get naked, and them playing mind games with them and with yourself by claiming that when adults get naked the activities are "non-sexual." That's just plain bullshit. Utter abusive bullshit. A lie. And why? One may well ask. Perhaps nudism as it stands today is really a playground for liars, so long as they keep up what they're doing & claiming.

Adult humans are sexual animals. Taking your clothes off can mean "being free," but don't ever claim that your nudist event where adult humans can see each other naked is "non sexual." If you do, you're a liar.