Some justify the burqa ban by insisting that fundamentalist Muslims who demand that women wear the full veil are misogynists. I certainly sympathize with concerns about what the burqa says about women’s dignity and rights. But we should not allow the government to act as a religious judge: keeping the government out of religion’s business is the historic heart of what church-state (or mosque-state) separation has meant. It never traditionally meant aggressive state-imposed secularism, at least not in the United States. Of course, we cannot tolerate religious violence ”” “honor killings,” terrorism, and other vicious practices of certain fundamentalist sects can never be accepted, as they cross the line from religious expression into criminal acts.
The ban on the burqa, at root, is about France’s discomfort with the increasingly visible presence of a disliked religious minority. France is catering to the tastes and comfort of the traditional French majority, composed largely of Catholics (many of them nominal) and secularists. But remember, when you do not honor religious liberty for one group, the freedom of all believers is in jeopardy.
We’re all for forward thinking and diversity…provided its diversity we can control.
Along with burqa go crucifixes, stars of David and other “offensive” religious symbols.
It is not necessarily true that banning the burkha is only about “France’s discomfort with the increasingly visible presence of a disliked religious minority.” The state can demand reasonable accommodations of a religion even if such accommodations do impact religious practice. The state does have a valid interest in being able to publicly identify its citizens. That requires visual access to the face. A citizen cannot opt out of this general requirement of public safety on religious grounds.
It is also true that some non-violent religious requirements will be overturned simply because they offend the public conscience. Mormons had to discard polygamy in order for Utah to be admitted into the Union. This was a clear establishment of Christian conceptions of marriage. Polygamy was illegal in the US because of its religious heritage. In fact, as Christian marriage in law is presently being legally dismantled, the reality of legal polygamy is once again re-emerging.
The reality is that there is no neutral basis for determining law. There must always a religious basis (broadly defined) because the law must instantiate some concept of the Good, the Right, the True. The extent to which religious minorities are tolerated is a reflection of the extent to which they do not threaten the underlying concepts of Good, Right, and Truth. In the US, a Mormon could be a Mormon but not a polygamous Mormon. In France, a Muslim is being told he is not allowed to propagate a form of Islam into France that threatens the underlying secular presuppositions of the Law. A few Muslims in burkhas wouldn’t matter. But when one-tenth of the population is Muslim (and that part of the population is the part actually having children) then the practice is perceived as a threat. Is that religious discrimination? Yes it is. But every culture practices it. France isn’t interested in becoming Algeria, and it is taking steps to make sure that doesn’t happen.
This conflict isn’t going to get better. It’s going to get worse as the Muslim population increases and the secular indigenous population becomes increasingly desperate to prevent the consequences of increasing Muslim power.
carl
Carl makes some rather good points above. That said France has been waging war on religion since the Revolution. And it is not exclusive to Islam. Recall it was Napoleon who was the last European despot to imprison the Pope. Relations between church and state in republican France have in the best of times been little more than a chilly armistice.
I regard the Revolution as one of the five greatest disasters to befall Western Civilization in the last 1000 years.
Its so much more simple than any of these arguments. In France, as it should be here, if you want to be French, you are welcome to assimilate; but you are a guest in the country. If you want to stay you must conform to French norms. If you want to be an Arab, that’s fine, but you just can’t do it in France.
It’s a tough issue to be sure. The folks at 1 and 2 have valid points, as do the ones at 3-5. I lean toward the latter myself. Muslims, whose worldview is toxic to Western civilization, will have to be forced to either assimilate or leave, IMO.
As I understand it, the Quran doesn’t mandate the burka, it is a cultural requirement, not religious.
And it is clearly not required in many Muslim states.
Aaarrgghhh! Irritating ignorant journalists!
The burqa is the full-body covering. It has not been banned in France, because it doesn’t cover the head at all.
The Hijab is a scarf-like covering of the head. It has also not been banned in France because it doesn’t cover the face.
The Niqab is what has been banned in France. It covers the face.
MichaelA, a burqa is an all-in-one head-to-toe covering. It does cover the face along with everything else. The niqab also covers the face, and would be included in this ban. I think you may be referring to the abaya, which covers the body from the neck down, and which is usually combined with a hijab or other head covering. The only part of that rig which would be prohibited would be the niqab, if used.
The covering of the face in public, especially where enforced by social and familial pressure, including violence or threats of violence, is something that should be banned, in my opinion. It is a sign and symptom of severe restrictions of women’s rights and freedom of movement. An observant Muslim woman can follow all the requirements of the Qur’an and sunna and still show her face in public.
Katherine,
To the muslims I know, the burqa is distinct from the hijab and the niqab, and the view I expressed above is taken from muslim friends.
However I am not saying you are wrong.
After reading your post I had a look at the wikipedia article, and I notice there that although the authors mainly distinguish the burqa from the niqab, there are a couple of times where they do refer to a burqa as a single enveloping garment. So it may well be that in some parts of the arabic world, that is its meaning. I appreciate that words may be used with some variation in different parts of the arab world.
MichaelA, I speak from experience living in a Muslim country, in Egypt. Also, like many, I have seen the photos of women in Afghanistan covering with burqas, all-in-one garments with screening for the eyes. There, they seem to be blue, for some reason; in airports in the Middle East, and even in shopping malls in the Gulf, one can see women in burqas and also in abaya, hijab and niqab; in Arab states these garments are normally black. The most bizarre costume I have seen was in Dubai where some women wore black abaya, hijab and a metal half-mask that covered the top half of the face, with eye openings. This allowed them to eat and drink without removing the mask.
The abaya (what you are calling burqa, I think) and hijab are mandatory in Saudi Arabia. (I haven’t been there; my husband has.) The niqab is often added to this, by choice or family pressure. However, the niqab or the all-covering burqa are PROHIBITED for the Hajj by religious decree, which puts the European Muslim use of these in perspective. This is a political statement, an indicator of strict Islamism.
I can see one sound reason for refusing to allow a flowing full body covering: this is an ideal place to hide explosives for the suicide bomber.
Now it may be in France such a prohibition i needless, but I have my doubts.
And to Katherine, I say what I have said before, women will will such clothing as long as they choose to do so. Can men force them to wear what they do not want to wear? They can try and they can punish offenders, but women in force (as the Tunisians in force) will have their way. Is it easier and safer for women to wear such clothing? If it is the easy and safety they value most, then they will continue. Freedom from all repression comes at the price of blood; it you are not willing to pay, then you have earned your chains. Larry
Larry Morse, I have often wondered how long Muslim women, who can see on television, Facebook, etc., what freedoms western women enjoy, will tolerate the restrictions they live with. One problem is that the video evidence of western freedoms comes with lots of immorality and licentiousness. It is horrifying to find how many Middle Eastern and South Asian people think that all Americans really act like the people in American sitcoms. But it is also hard for us to imagine, if we haven’t seen it, what women in Muslim societies live with. In countries from east and north Africa right across to large parts of central and south Asia, they are mutilated as children to make sexual pleasure impossible. They are married by the will of their male family members, often to cousins or other connections within the same social milieu, and they can be divorced at will if they do not please their husbands or if they do not obey them, including in the matter of clothing choices. Their holy scripture specifically authorizes their husbands and fathers to use physical force against them if necessary to ensure their obedience. Under these conditions intelligent women will choose their battles carefully. It’s not nearly as easy as we think for them to say, “I’m just not going to wear this thing any more!”
I don’t know about all the religious issues or definitions. I just know that we don’t want people to wear masks.
I applaud France for being sensible enough to forbid masks for people, no matter the faith.
Christians should not miss an opportunity to denounce this wicked law whenever possible…
Christians should definitely applaud this marvelous law whenever possible.
; > )
Its been discussed in Australia. As I note above, the muslims that I speak to here talk about the niqab as being the issue (they don’t seem to use “burqa” to refer to a head-covering garment). But whatever, we may yet come to this, and some muslims seem to think that banning face covering is a good idea. Others see it as an attack on their traditional values.