"Its like downtown Kabul round here"

I've said really clearly (I thought) that we live in a pluralistic society. I do have to wonder, still, why if you meant 'secular' you didn't just say 'secular' from the start.

Bottom line, and to the point of this thread: two women in headscarves/flowing 'modest' garments, in a crowd of people not wearing those items, does not make a place look like downtown Kabul.
Anyone who says it does is being at best silly, at worst hateful and, yes, racist; and the OP was perfectly reasonable to make clear that she doesn't want to hear remarks like that in her car.

No perceiving about it- this person is a racist!

Do you think we live in a Muslim society?

The irony of the idea that I'm the one seeing something imaginary when I've never mentioned how many women I think cover their faces

And 'not rowing back' – please. You used variations on the phrase 'Christian values' several times, until someone queried it; only then did you say, 'I could easily have said secular'. The obvious question being, so why didn't you?

I haven't rowed anything back, I merely specified at each stage. It is true to say we live in a pluralistic society. We also live in a democracy. We live in a secret society. We live in a Western society with traditions and cultural norms embedded in our collective Christian past AND further back in time. We could arguably be called an inclusive and tolerant society. We are all these things. I hardly see your point. The point is we do not live in a Muslim society, nor a Hindi, Jewish or Scientology society.

The Burka does not form part of the clothing norms of this country. Necklaces are however part of the clothing norms. I think you are looking for disingenuousness where there isn't any. And you are also seeing an imaginary Britain where one in three women are covering their faces for religious reasons.

I do know what you mean. My point is that this is just one small part of why I find Bloo's posts/argument disingenuous at best; and in the context of all the things Bloo says, it does give the impression that she has an issue with one particular group.

Incidentally, on choosing whether or not to wear a burka: I've been acquainted with a British Pakistani Muslim woman for quite a while – she was running/staffing a food stall I used a lot. She always wore a headscarf (using that word as I'm not confident that I can use all the terms correctly).
My DP and I asked her and her company to cater an event for us and when she turned up at the venue with all the food she didn't have her headscarf on. I didn't recognise her and had to do a double-take But the point is, she clearly did choose to leave off the headscarf, for whatever reason.

No just pointing out that wearing a cross, a Star of David or a Hand of Fatima doesn't actually mean you follow the faith those symbols are connected with. Makes it different to say the burka, I don't know anyone who just decides that today I won't wear my jeans but I think I'll wear a burka.

I'm sure there are other symbols but just giving examples.

In my whole post that's what you focus on
You very much miss my wider point. Perhaps you do so deliberately.

Sorry, wasn't being picky. I was just worried that a woman was being undersold if you see what I mean.

I don't think anyone should be shamed, although some of the local schoolgirls wear skirts that are so short I can see their buttocks and that is getting a bit close although if I'm honest it tends to make me want to laugh as it reminds me of my dad referring to my mini skirts in the 60s as "pelmets" and they did actually cover my backside. Not sure what he'd think of skirts that short but you know they are full of confidence and obviously like the look so good luck to them. Bit draughty today though.

Probably too late to edit now but if you look at your post and in the top right hand corner there are three dots, if you click there the last option, if it is still an option, is edit.

Good luck, I'm usually too late to do it.

I don;t like seeing women shamed because of their dress, that's all. We should be looking deeper, not spitting nails at women who wear burkhas in the supermarket.

For the second bit, you would have to read up about Infosys. Co-founder wrong word, perhaps. Investor and currently chair-person of their charitable foundation.

I don't think jewellery denotes religious faith. I'm a Christian but I often wear a Hand of Fatima necklace that was a gift from a Muslim friend.

A sari and gold jewellery is a bit different to a Burka.

A co-founder of her husband's company? Doesn't that make it their company not just his?

Ugh I meant the current PM's wife Akshata Murty's mother. Not the PM. How do I edit on here?

This reminds me of how our current PM's mother, Sudha Murthy, spoke recently about how she is judged when she travels to the UK or the US, because she wears a sari, a bindi, traditional gold jewellery and so on. People think she is a submissive Hindu wife under the thumb of her husband. Actually, she is an engineer, a co-founder of her billionaire husband's company, an author ( albeit terrible books) and a philanthropist. She is no submissive wife. She just doesn't want to wear a polyester dress to fit in.

Well, it is not a 'fact' that 'When a person decides to present themselves in attire that didn't fit the norm… then people will notice.' That's your opinion and maybe your experience.

'The UK is not a Muslim country' is a problematic statement in the context of a society that's considered to be pluralistic. In a pluralistic society it is not meaningful to try to define the society by what you think it isn't.
Your diversions into goth, fetishwear etc are very disingenuous, as is the 'I'm just stating the facts' stance you're taking up now; previously you've expressed a wish for 'more enthusiasm to adopt the ways of the country by people who have made this country their home.' (which again brings us up against the question of, in a pluralistic society, how do you define the 'ways of the country'?)

You repeatedly used and invoked the term 'Christian values' until you were challenged on it and rowed back.

And it is interesting that you've said that 'The veil is hugely visible rather than a private symbol of worship'; how about a Christian working (e.g.) on a supermarket till wearing a cross? You do not mention scenarios like that.

The long and the short of it is, it's hard not to read your posts as posts by someone who has an issue with a particular group of people.

This feels like a fruitless argument rather than a productive discussion because we can't agree on the facts. The UK is not a Muslim country. Google says there are 2.8 m Muslims. Even if half wears a burka (they don't) that makes 1.4 out of 64 mil, or just over 2%. There are likely more men dressed as women than women in burkas. When a person decides to present themselves in attire that didn't fit the norm (be that punk, goth, religious wear or other) then people will notice. How is that controversial? I'm just starting the facts.

Well, I'd say 'discussion', not 'argument', and I thought that was rather the point of being on here.
Your stance on 'norms' IS incoherent, I'm afraid, and trying to bring in sexualised fetishwear just weakens it further.
The women in the OP's scenario are not living in downtown Kabul either; that's just the attitude of her unenlightened-at-best father. Which you are now echoing.

For goodness sake, you're determined to have an argument. Fetish gear is more controversial than burkas, but (as far as I know) neither are illegal in public and both are likely to raise eyebrows. I don't wish persecution on any woman for wearing a burka. I certainly don't think we should legislate against them. However, they do NOT fit the clothing norms of this country. I'm sorry that upsets you but it is true. We aren't all living in downtown Kabul. If you go to downtown Kabul you won't find any women dressed like me.

I suppose it is a bit like puritanism changing things in England and then the restoration and theatres opening again etc. Quite a wild time and then the Victorians having to cover table legs and so it goes on? Of course envangelical Christianity in America is another example as you say.

Thank you, it is very interesting and does explain why the young women in my old city seem to have a much more conservative way of life than their grandmothers did. I suppose it seemed strange to me as those grannies were girls I knew who were very westernised, went to school in the same uniform as everyone else and seemed different to their mothers who seemed to be living a life that was more like their life in Pakistan than their life here. I suppose I would have imagined that the next generation and the next would have become more and more westernised but it doesn't seem like that for everyone. Probably different in other places but it was how it was where I lived. Your timeline fits, I'm looking at it through the eyes of the 1960s so if things started to change in the 70s that seems relevant.

Maybe it is a bit like Irish Americans being more Irish than the Irish in Ireland, like the River Dance guy being the very famous Irish dancer even though he was American.

Thanks for taking the time, sometimes it is hard to ask these things IRL and I don't want to be intrusive but adding to understanding is a good thing.

Thank you for taking the time to explain.

If people feel that 'uncomfortable' about a woman wearing a long flowing garment or having part of her face covered, that is very much their problem.

If someone banded (sic) about their 'private viewpoint' by wearing, say, an 'I Love Kylie' T-shirt, or a 'Save the Whales' tote bag, would that make people as uncomfortable as this hypothetical woman apparently does?
It seems to me that some points of difference seem to be considered OK and some not, and which ones and why is interesting to look at.

Right, so what you're saying is that burkas ARE within the scope of the 'norm' in the UK then?
It's just that previously you tried to say they weren't.

I don't find your stance consistent or coherent.

Oh, forgot to say, all racism should be challenged. In children all the way through to elders. Casual racism, abhorrent, abusive racism and 'nice' racism (for example 'Black people are great at singing/dancing' or 'Aren't those Koreans so good with computers?'). It should all be challenged. Good for you OP!

I'm almost certain that what math means is that her friend gets angry. A bit like 'spitting venom'. A figure of speech.

Apologies if you were being sarcastic.