Reply #70: Religious dress is neither symbolic nor provocative [View All]

[UncleSepp]

Parent post deleted before the response was done. I wish it had stayed up with that person's name as an example. If you haven't read that post, the poster basically said "Why did no one note that the rabbi was wearing a yarmulke, which some people also find offensive." This post is in response to that one, and is also a response to the concept that wearing a mandated article of religious dress is akin to wearing a symbol of one's religion or ideology.

The wearing of a religious headcovering is not symbolic of one's religion. A yarmulke for a Jewish man, hijab for a Muslim woman, or dastaar for a Sikh man are required. No, not every Jewish man will wear a yarmulke or kippah or even a hat. Not every Muslim woman will cover her hair. Each person decides how to implement the requirements of his or her religion, whatever religion that may be, in his or her daily life. Nevertheless, a requirement is a requirement.

Understand, then, that these are not like the crosses Christians may choose to wear, which are nowhere required for Christians. For that matter, a yarmulke or hijab is not like a necklace with a chai on it or a tee shirt that says "Real men pray five times a day". Neither deity nor priest nor prophet told anyone "you must wear this WWJD bracelet" or "you must hang this Khanda flag from your rear view mirror". Such things are symbols and symbols only. However, the scriptures of many faiths do state that one must dress modestly or even identifiably. The observance of commandments relating to dress is as much religious practice as observing dietary laws or even saying prayers.

To say that a Jewish man's yarmulke is a provocation, then, is to say that a Jewish man being Jewish is a provocation. Do you expect for anyone here to have noted in passing that this man, this rabbi, was being provocative by being Jewish? Do you expect that anyone on this board ought to in all fairmindedness recognize that the sight of a Jew is offensive to some people? Do you expect to find others here who would equate someone being offended by the visible existence of a living, breathing, identifiable Jew with someone being offended by the public display of both symbol and sentiment of the ideology which led to the murder of millions of Jews? Do you seriously think that's reasonable?