Folks, good article in the National Review August 16 issue. It's entitled Ban the Burqa, by Claire Berlinski.In it, Ms. Berlinski makes some very acute observations regarding the use of burqa and other kinds of whole-body coverings, which may include face-coverings, practiced in most Muslim societies throughout the world. For example:
Let’s be perfectly frank. These bans are outrages against religious freedom and freedom of expression. They stigmatize Muslims...The argument that the garment is not a religious obligation under Islam is well-founded but irrelevant; millions of Muslims the world around believe that it is, and the state is not qualified to be in the business of Koranic exegesis. The choice to cover one’s face is for many women a genuine expression of the most private kind of religious sentiment...All true. And yet the burqa must be banned. All forms of veiling must be, if not banned, strongly discouraged and stigmatized. The arguments against a ban are coherent and principled. They are also shallow and insufficient. They fail to take something crucial into account, and that thing is this: If Europe does not stand up now against veiling — and the conception of women and their place in society that it represents — within a generation there will be many cities in Europe where no unveiled woman will walk comfortably or safely.One more quote I think is noteworthy:
It is nearly impossible for the state to ascertain who is veiled by choice and who has been coerced. A woman who has been forced to veil is hardly likely to volunteer this information to authorities. Our responsibility to protect these women from coercion is greater than our responsibility to protect the freedom of those who choose to veil. Why? Because this is our culture, and in our culture, we do not veil. We do not veil because we do not believe that God demands this of women or even desires it; nor do we believe that unveiled women are whores, nor do we believe they deserve social censure, harassment, or rape. Our culture’s position on these questions is morally superior. We have every right, indeed an obligation, to ensure that our more enlightened conception of women and their proper role in society prevails in any cultural conflict, particularly one on Western soil...Banning the burqa is without doubt a terrible assault on the ideal of religious liberty. It is the sign of a desperate society. No one wishes for things to have come so far that it is necessary. But they have, and it is.Claire Berlinski is a freelance journalist who lives in Istanbul. She is the author of Menace in Europe: Why the Continent’s Crisis Is America’s, Too, and There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters.
A great, illuminating piece. Buy the issue or subscribe online and read it all.
Posts
3 comments:
This is dangerous clap trap that is being thrown around by people who are increasingly in the grips of a growing xenophobic hysteria. It reminds me of laws in the 19th century pushed by Protestants in many parts of the United States against Catholics who were a clear and present danger to the Christian Culture of America. Fortunately there is almost no chance of such an egregiously unconstitutional piece of legislation passing much less surviving court challenges. If Burqas make people uncomfortable (and they have that effect on me) then too bad. This is the United States of America, not the Protestant Evangelical version of Iran. We do not regulate people's religious beliefs or practices here.
If we start down this road, where does it end?
John,
I think you make a good point about this being the USA and that we can't allow these kinds of restrictions on the free exercise of religion to take place here. I agree with that.
But I don't agree with your introductory statement about the "...dangerous clap trap that is being thrown around by people who are increasingly in the grips of a growing xenophobic hysteria."
Author Claire Berlinski lives in Istanbul. You know, the city where Hagia Sophia is located, once the most beautiful temple in Christendom and then turned over into a mosque which, technically, it still remains. For not wearing a veil she has been called a "whore" in the streets of Istanbul.
Ms. Berlinski's argument - and you have to read her entire piece - manifests her clear understanding of the assault on individual rights a burqa ban entails, yet her understanding of the European situation as well as her own experience have convinced her of the righteousness of the ban.
The American situation is different, still, she thinks that we will be faced with the question sooner or later.
Personally, I no more object to a woman wearing a hijab than a nun wearing a traditional Discalced Carmelite habit. Yet, the latter is clearly voluntary but the former seldom is, despite disclaimers to the contrary. And that's where Ms. Berliski's argument lies.
I was unable to post the entire, lentghy article without exceeding copyright, fair-use considerations. I invite you to read it and then ponder her "what if."
Yours in Christ,
-Theo
Still, this makes you wonder a bit about womens head coverings in other countries/cultures/epochs. Here in Europe women would formerly go about their business with their hair caught up in a scarf or other such things. Of course there were practical reasons for this (not getting the hair dirty during agricultural work, for example), but it seems to me that women that wore loose hair were considered loose women (I may be wrong, but it seems to me that formerly it was an almost universal practice among civilized peoples for women to "hide their hair"), so the "hiding" of the hair was not really something voluntary, was it?
Post a Comment