RSS Feed
Hijab Today, Yarmulkes and Crosses Tomorrow
The larger question isn't about France and it isn't about Muslims. It's about whether any state should be able to prohibit the wearing of religious apparel or symbols on the grounds that the government doesn't like it.
As far as I know, the French president isn't suggesting that the burqa not be worn because it represents a security threat (concealed weapons), or that flowing robes might be dangerous in a school chemistry lab (where there might be open flames). It's because he feels the religious apparel conflicts with his particular values and interpretation of what Muslim women want.
Commenting on the hijab, John L. Esposito wrote, "Women who wear the scarf complain that, instead of asking what the hijab means to them, people simply assume that veiled women are oppressed. This assumption, they say, oppresses Muslim women more than any manner of dress ever could...Muslim women often talk about what the hijab symbolizes: religious devotion, discipline, reflection, respect, freedom, and modernity. But too often nobody asks them what the scarf means to them." (What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam, John L. Esposito, page 98).
Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the panel this week has a high degree of unanimity in its condemnation of the idea of a head of state in a democracy imposing his own value judgment. Governments have responsibility for the safety and freedom of their citizens. Sweeping declarations that condemn certain religious expressions in an entire society go well beyond their purview.
Burqa or hijab today, yarmulkes or cross necklaces tomorrow - perhaps even the CTR (Choose the Right) rings that many Mormon kids wear. This is the classic slippery slope that ultimately would justify the forced removal of all symbols of religious expression from schools. Bad idea.
By
Michael Otterson
|
June 25, 2009; 4:41 PM ET
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Burqas, Bikinis and Debasing Women |
Next: The Burqa in France: Freedom For Whom?
Posted by: jplaforce | July 1, 2009 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Before 911 I could have careless what religious garb folks wore.
It is not pleasant standing in line with those wearing Burqa and wondering what else is under that outfit.
I also don't care for those who wear over sized clothes baggy pants and coats on the subway.
So I in reality my concern is not about religion as it is about safty!
Just Common Sense nothing more!
Posted by: Java2 | July 1, 2009 8:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz1Mansouri1
What "Logical fallacy" are you referring to?
If you are referring to the potential loss of religious freedoms, what this country’s founders fought against, that is no fallacy. It’s a real, “slippery slope”.
In comparison, the gun ban advocates cant outright ban guns, so they whittle away at it a little at a time until they achieve their goals. But they don’t seem to realize that the only reason Japan did not attack the mainland in WWII is that they knew every American was armed.
Look at the attacks on Christianity that have happened over the past few years. The secularist minority wants to get rid of all references to it even though ~90% of this nation is Christian. They can’t achieve it all at once so they whittle away at it a bit at a time.
If we allow them to go down this path, the slope will get slippery and we won’t be able to stop it.
Mark
Always seek the truth.
Posted by: volkmare | June 26, 2009 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
GracefulBoomer:
Thanks for the link! You might want to post it on other threads.
This is complex issue that I need to give more thought to. However, at this point, I would remind Mr. Otterson that "slippery slope" is a logical fallacy, arguably, and, ironically, the problem not only with Mr. Otterson's thinking but with that of several of the other panelists.
Posted by: Farnaz1Mansouri1 | June 25, 2009 7:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Please just go to this WSJ site and look at the picture-
Sarkozy Says Burqas Are Unwelcome in France
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124566644926636675.html
I think everyone is well meaning but I also think most people have never seen the garments that Sarkozy is referring to.
Posted by: Gracefulboomer | June 25, 2009 6:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Ever see a yamulka that obstructed a face or an I.D. card? Probably not. A cross? Nope. CTR ring? Ditto. The farce here is that the Muslims scream at us about our religious intolerance, while they spew out hatred toward the Western world and our ways. They use their religion as a shield for terrorist fanatics, while preaching that they are a religion of love. Such a load of garbage. The so-called "moderate Muslims" must stand up to their fanatical brothers. Denounce them and their ways or risk the condemnation of the rest of the world. Muslim women wearing burqas and men wearing them in disguise have used them to conceal weapons and bombs. They used their religion to conceal weapons, bombs and to hurt American soldiers, Marines, countless civillians and to conceal their identities. No more sir. This is no longer a mere intellectual argument Mr Otterson. This is a real world issue. I have sons going into harms way in the immediate future.