A French parliamentary committee has recommended banning Muslim headcoverings. The committee’s report claims that it “is the symbol of the repression of women, and… of extremist fundamentalism.” [1]
BBC reports that many in the UK also want this ban, claiming that it is “not British.” There is obviously a racist underpinning to such a statement, but I’m not even going to go there for now. What really unnerved me was what the journalist was implying about freedom of religion: “In a country [France] where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law, a parliamentary committee report ruled the veil as “contrary to the values of the republic’…” [2]
And now begins my rant.
My first issue is with how the BBC journalist defines separation of state and church religion (incidentally, is this also “enshrined as law” in the USA?). Freedom of religion assumes that everybody should have their own freedom to choose and follow any religion. It also assumes that no one religion should be exalted above any other. But if a government claims that any religious practice is “contrary” to its society’s values, then it should be outlawed (so, if your religion believes in cannibalism, the government can and must outlaw it). Effectively, there is an equating of this “doctrine” with a totalitarian system — one that assumes the one god to be worshipped is atheism. If what I believe and practice is contrary to what somebody else believes and practices, and this is true across the board, the only true answer is no belief or practice. All religions cancel each other out resulting in atheism.
My other big issue is with the fact that many Christians love this notion of freedom of religion and have a hatred for any society that does not practice it (e.g., China). First off, freedom of religion never existed before the founding of the USA. The British settlers who first traveled to the Americas were the Puritans — a group of Protestants that were fleeing religious persecution from the Church of England. So, when the country was formed, the doctrine of separation of church and state was established to mean the separation of denominationalism and state — the founding fathers did not want the government to have a state denomination. Secondly, Christianity is a religion that was birthed and grew out of a state of persecution. That’s why so many New Testament letters challenge the early Christians to not compromise their faiths in light of their suffering. Freedom of religion was never taught in the Bible. Thirdly, when many Christians argue for freedom of religion, what is actually desired is freedom of Christianity. Very few Christians fight for the “rights” of other religions. Unless they convert, of course.
So, how is the government to deal with religious pluralism? For starters, not by banning head coverings. That’s just ridiculous. Might as well outlaw any religious practice. But honestly, I have no clear answer.
Related posts
Tags: China, Christianity, Ethics, United Kingdom, USA
-
Interesting point of view on widely discussed topic. I think that in certain conditions (i.e. governmental office, driving, teaching) there should be a ban on full face coverings. Because soon one might want to start their own religion which requires a face covering like this one:
http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/02/10/1202700672_7670/539w.jpg
-
interesting though alex, and interesting response witek.
i suppose in the decision to accept religion, or the search for religion/God, then there’s the possibility of any religion being started up. When does a cult stop being a cult and start being a religion. when does scientology move from fanatical belief to recognised faith?witek’s response is interesting as government needs to bear some responsibility in protecting the public. I suppose the defense of religion is part of that.
In islam the face covering or the hadj is not designed to be a symbol of anonymity, but in witek’s example, the v for vendetta masks are a way to remain anonymous as well as a unifying symbol.
Somewhere in this is a new discussion and thought about privacy laws.
-
The government could hardly operate if anyone could opt out of laws with the excuse that their religion requires or allows it. The U.S. courts have confronted this sort of issue and have ruled that the government cannot enact laws specifically aimed at a particular religion, but if the government enacts laws generally applicable to everyone or at least broad classes of people (e.g, laws concerning traffic, pollution, taxes, contracts, fraud, negligence), it can require everyone, including those who may object on religious grounds, to abide by them.
In rare (one hopes) circumstances, such a generally-applicable law could put an individual in an ethical Catch-22 if it requires one to take actions one considers immoral. This potential dilemma is not peculiar to any particular religion. Anyone–Christian, atheist, etc.–may be put in such a bind. For just this reason, when such binds can be anticipated, provisions may be added to laws affording some relief to conscientious objectors.
-
Interesting comments. Where is Alex?
-
Y’know “conspicuous” religious symbols are already banned in French schools?
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.alex-betty.com/2010/01/27/freedom-of-religion-is-a-farce/trackback/