In other cases, covering could be seen as an outward sign of an inner commitment to a religious life, or as a comforting symbol of belonging to a cultural and religious tradition. Very religious people often see fit to choose an attire that broadcasts their belief to the world – why is it only in this case that it is seen as insidious and discriminatory?

I think it is assuming too much to decide that women have no voice in the matter.

You state:
“Any one ever asked the christians why their nuns and sisters in priesthood are having their heads covered ever since the christianity exists,”

No Muslim ever asked, because what nuns wear differs widely depending on what branch of Christianity they follow and what particular convent they belong too.
Unlike in Islam in Christianity there is no mandated form of dress for men or woman.
When Muslims would encounter nuns they would not debate over what type of dress they wore, but rather why they practiced celibacy a concept which Islam forbids.
Muslims would also refer to them not as nuns but as maidens or virgins.
Who then would be divided among the Muslim soldiers who would capture such an convent.
A Muslim traveler to the city of Constantinople describes the “nuns” he saw there as all having braided hair with white flowing gowns.

Well I do get worked up about it…I mean, it can’t be an accident that they picked the dick to cut on for their little ceremonial initiation thingee.

The idea that a seven day old infant should find himself surrounded (and held down by) the very individuals he is just learning to love and trust, and then they are going to cut him WHERE??

If it were his earlobe, the tip of his pinky, the end of his nose, it would be clear child abuse.

But it’s ok if it’s just his foreskin? By God, he will learn that pain proceeds from sex, even if (as it does in the inevitable (if rare) “accidental overcut” he is left permanent sexual incapacity, or disease (how about a few cases of herpes from the truly bizarre Hasidic tradition involving the oral-genital “cleansing” of the bloodly stump…)

It’s bad enough to mutilate an infant, sans anaesthetic, but to make a PARTY out of the event?

Give me a break…

Like I said, the Yahwist cults fear and loathe sexuality.

Not a pretty picture, nor one deserving of respect or emulation.

More to the point, would you not agree that all of the Yahwist Cults share a sex negative vision? And, further, that the veiling of women is, however extreme or merely symbolic, a manifestation of that sex negativity. (I believe FGM speaks for itself on this point…

Other examples:

Eg, the obsession with the covering of hair, both in women AND men, in all three of the branches of the Abrahamic faiths (from the yarmulke to the wimple to the shawl to the Pope’s skullcap)

Eg, the pathological *modesty displayed by both sexes in Islamic culture, mirrored among the Hasidim (shall we discuss copulation through a sheet?) and only perhaps slightly less neurotic among New Testament Yahwists.

*whence Abu Ghraib use of forced nudity as a pillar of psychological torture.

Any one ever asked the christians why their nuns and sisters in priesthood are having their heads covered ever since the christianity exists, and no one muslim ever objected nor ever discussed that, muslims proved to be wider in thinking about leaving the nons out of their discussions and even comments, but those ladies specially, claimed as liberated muslim freedom fighters are taking things too much and making big fuss for something that does not hurt any one, as who cares who covers or uncovers some ones head, it is his or her problem to care fore and not for some one to comment and fight and make a social issue out of it for really no reason,

Leave things and the world will be much more simpler and more at ease