Decius wrote:

I think this is a really interesting issue. A woman was fired from her teaching job for wearing a full face veil. She is suing (of course), but the Prime Minister got involved and made some comments about the need for dialog about the integration of British Muslims into society.

On the one hand, you've a right to freedom of religion. But I think it goes without saying that wearing these things goes beyond simple religious expression to the point where it becomes deliberately anti-social. I've been told that Muslim women want to wear them. I'm concerned that this is a bit like the arguement that southern slaves were comfortable and didn't want to be free. The objective truth about the social position of these people is not justified by the fact that they have grown accustomed to it and find it comfortable or even desirable.

I think its probably reasonable to ask that these things not be worn in particular professional contexts. If my religion required me to wear a dead rat on a chain around my neck I imagine I would also have trouble getting a job.

From my understanding, it's both optional and a personal choice. Sort of a personal level of commitment to the religion. Wouldn't this also be a privacy issue as well? Can we make christian teachers take of their blouse?

It might be a mark of separation, but why are they not allowed to have the freedom to retain their culture? If you think about the cartoon war, depicting muhammad's face is a speech issue. If Muslims force everyone to depict Muhammad as holy, this would step on the beliefs of everyone else. There is a philosophical gap in regard to speech between muslims and western culture. Forcing Muslim women to remove the veil makes it worse because it shows the west as hypocrites. It says to them that our freedom of expression stops when it comes to Islam because it's not okay to be a muslim. This is the type of thing that helps recruit terrorists as they start to see the government as evil. It also sways the moderate view to be much more sympathetic to the terrorists.

terratogen wrote:
From my understanding, it's both optional and a personal choice. Sort of a personal level of commitment to the religion.

It certainly wasn't a personal choice in taliban controlled afghanistan. Religiously optional, yes, the koran, unlike the bible, has no specific decree requiring women to be veilled. Whether its really a matter of personal choice even in the west is debatable. Theoretically these women could choose not to be muslim at all, but how would this impact their relationships with their families and communities. Coersion takes many forms.

Wouldn't this also be a privacy issue as well? Can we make christian teachers take of their blouse?

Can I claim a privacy right to wear a ski mask while teaching school children?

It might be a mark of separation, but why are they not allowed to have the freedom to retain their culture?

You see, this is why I find this matter interesting. I understand your perspective. This cuts very close to freedom of expression, and challenges the boundaries. Certainly they've a right to retain their culture, in private. The question is whether the public's defense of their rights extends to acceptance or approval of something which is objectively evil? Certainly, I can burn straw men to demonstrate that there is a line. Saria law involves stoning people to death and cutting their body parts off. No western society ought to permit this, even if it is a part of their culture. What must society permit public employees to do, while at work, in respect for their culture? The question is, where is the line, and what side of the line are these veils on? Would you not find it difficult to communicate with a teacher wearing these, day in and day out? Is religion a valid exception to any kind of work dress requirement? Why don't other forms of expression get treated with similar deference? Why can't my political t-shirt trump the dress code at the office?

Also, does the minority community, in return for the fact that they live in a society that repects their culture, not owe some respect for the social contract in place in that society? (For example, by not throwing a public protest in Westminster in which they threaten to murder people if they depict the profit?) I think there is a political dimension to this in which tolerance for things like the veil is darkened by the fact that it symbolises a domestic group which can and has murdered people and threatens to continue to do so.... If everything else was fine and happy here it might not be the same, but I think here the government is taking a stand that is within their rights to take, but which they otherwise might not take, to show this group that there are limits to their hospitality. (I'm not, BTW, totally sure that I'm coming down on the right side of this. If the answers where clear it wouldn't make for a good discussion...)

Decius wrote:
It certainly wasn't a personal choice in taliban controlled afghanistan. Religiously optional, yes, the koran, unlike the bible, has no specific decree requiring women to be veilled. Whether its really a matter of personal choice even in the west is debatable. Theoretically these women could choose not to be muslim at all, but how would this impact their relationships with their families and communities. Coersion takes many forms.

Coercion through culture is much different than coercion by law. At least with culture you have the option to dissent. In england or here, there's no one putting a proverbial gun to wear the veil and there are plenty of Muslim women who choose not to. Especially among converts.

Can I claim a privacy right to wear a ski mask while teaching school children?

If you feel that showing your face is no different than waving your cock around to gesture to things on the black board, I'd say don't show your face in the class room.

You see, this is why I find this matter interesting. I understand your perspective. This cuts very close to freedom of expression, and challenges the boundaries. Certainly they've a right to retain their culture, in private. The question is whether the public's defense of their rights extends to acceptance or approval of something which is objectively evil? Certainly, I can burn straw men to demonstrate that there is a line. Saria law involves stoning people to death and cutting their body parts off. No western society ought to permit this, even if it is a part of their culture. What must society permit public employees to do, while at work, in respect for their culture? The question is, where is the line, and what side of the line are these veils on? Would you not find it difficult to communicate with a teacher wearing these, day in and day out? Is religion a valid exception to any kind of work dress requirement? Why don't other forms of expression get treated with similar deference? Why can't my political t-shirt trump the dress code at the office?

I don't really see wearing a veil as objectively evil. Even the religion of Islam itself and most of its followers are not evil. I can give you a great reason why the freedom of expression is more important than forcing Muslims to compromise their beliefs. There's already a belief among many that the Muslims in many areas are being oppressed. Many are not taking the option to use their freedom of speech to educate, instead people are bombing things. If you start ripping down the Muslims rights to expression, you don't leave to many options for Muslims to peacefully dissent.

As far as the workplace goes, if they tried to rip the yamika off of a jewish teachers head for wearing a hat in the classroom, I wouldn't see that situation being too different from this one. Or even ripping the crucifix off of the neck of a... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

Decius wrote:

this is why I find this matter interesting. I understand your perspective. This cuts very close to freedom of expression, and challenges the boundaries. Certainly they've a right to retain their culture, in private.
...
I think there is a political dimension to this in which tolerance for things like the veil is darkened by the fact that it symbolises a domestic group which can and has murdered people and threatens to continue to do so

wonderful discussion
I have to say I come down on the side of individual expression in this context
a, because I believe in individual liberty except under extreme conditions
b, because we rightly expect Muslims to accept what they perceive as intolerable insults to Islam and so I feel hypocritical not to similarly defend their rights to the hijab or veil
c, for the more practical reason that Muslims already feel persecuted in our societies and I see no good reason to add fuel to the fire by asking some Muslims to comply on this matter when it adds little to our society and causes a great deal of damage to community relationships. I think things like this fuel terrorism.

These woman are free to choose the veil or not (in law if not in custom depending on what tradition they come from) very often it is a deliberate religious and political statement. There is pressure from elements within the community for women to do this but it is wrong to suggest that many do not make a very deliberate and conscious choice.
I absolutely agree that the debate is "darkened by the fact that it [the veil] symbolises a domestic group which can and has murdered people and threatens to continue to do so". My first reaction was to think of Snow Falling on Cedars. We attack the symbols of our fears. Symbols are very important. On the one hand the veil is symbolic of fundamentalist Islam's treatment of women where in Afganistan women were denied access to little more than a cursory education. It is a symbol of being apart and seperate. I think Muslims have every right to assert a distinct identity as do Jews or the Amish ( the latter being interesting because they physically and culturally exclude themselves -- but they do not fly into buldings or bomb buses). This is about threat and the appropriate response. I say attack Islam on the basis of its treatment of women, homosexuals, the barbarity of certain aspects of Sharia law as exibited in Saudi Arabia and politically the democratic deficit in most Muslim States (although I'm with Fukuyama you build structures and the bedrock of democracy and let it grow from below rather than impose it).
A symbol is under attack and I want to see Muslim women reject that symbol, not because of any coersion, but because they choose to reject Islamic fascism and inferior status but I believe this is only something the Muslim community can decide and specifically Muslim women. I think encouraging a seige mentality only helps the extremists.