This is a good post, Phil. Here's a view I read recently that invokes some of your lines of argument but in the end concludes a ban (of the burqa, in this case) is prudent and necessary. http://article.nationalreview.com/438941/ban-the-burqa/claire-berlinski Ed Farrell Livermore, California Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 11:05:09 AM, you wrote: > Eric wrote: > "To follow your non-serious strategy ..." > I am not sure how my 'strategy' is non-serious. > I am interested in the role religion plays in liberal democracies. I > was interested in Walter's post where he suggested, in a semi-serious > fashion, that the Canadian government should make clear to new > immigrants some of the limits Canada puts on religious beliefs. I > responded, in a serious manner, that it would be more consistent if > the government ignored the religious beliefs of immigrants but rather > made clear that all people in Canada are expected to obey the laws of > the land. I argued, humorlessly, that in liberal democracies, > governments should be blind to religious beliefs but see only the > general good and the manner in which laws contribute to this good. In > that same post, I pointed out the problematic nature of the French ban > on the niqab, in that the French government seems to be involving > itself in the religious beliefs of Muslims. > In a decidedly non-serious reply, Eric commented on how costumes and > disguises can become a threat to the public safety, suggesting that > the niqab could be used to conceal a bomb. This possibility leads > Eric to the conclusion that women who wear the niqab might not be > quite sane. I replied, seriously, that there is a difference between > wearing the niqab as a costume and wearing it from religious beliefs. > I also pointed out that while some costumes include dangerous weapons, > such as a Zorro costume, a niqab is only a piece of cloth and I don't > see how that is a danger to anyone. > It is possible that what Eric means is that the danger of the niqab > lies in it being used to conceal something dangerous. However, the > idea that using a niqab in N. America to conceal a bomb is a > non-serious one considering how conspicuous such an individual would > be. How many women wear the niqab in the U.S.? I doubt the number is > more than a thousand. And how much attention would the niqab attract > in public given the paranoia some Americans are now exhibiting towards > anything Muslim? Surely, if one wanted to deliver a bomb, a winter > coat or over-sized sports jersey would effectively conceal the device > and be inconspicuous. If the issue Eric is raising is one of stopping > people from concealing bombs on their persons, then it would make more > sense to focus on people who wear over-sized clothing like winter > coats and sports jerseys. > But I would like to return to the issue of the relationship of > religion to government. It seems to me obvious that a law banning the > wearing of the niqab is directed at religious beliefs. If the issue > is one of public security then the law would prohibit any clothing or > accessories that could conceal a bomb or conceal one's identity. That > is, a legitimate law would apply to any citizen rather than a specific > group. The fact that Muslim women are specifically identified by, for > example, the proposed French law, reduces the legitimacy of the law as > a law. Furthermore, the fact that a minority are singled out by > virtue of their religious beliefs puts into question the nature of > that democratic system. > The virtue of a liberal democracy lies in the commitment to allowing > individuals the liberty to pursue their own visions of the good. It > is understood that sometimes individual pursuits of the good may > infringe on the pursuits of others, and so it is necessary to have > laws that fairly constrain all individuals in order to allow for the > maximum amount of liberty. For this reason, most liberal democracies > avoid giving advantage or disadvantage to particular religions, > insofar as religions represent particular pursuits of the good. Where > the government has a legitimate role is when religious beliefs > unreasonably interfere in the lives of others. However, in order to > maintain fairness, religions are restricted, not on the basis of their > religious beliefs, but rather according to general laws. So, > returning to Walter's post, people in Canada are not allowed to kill, > must identity themselves in order to drive, and must wear helmets when > driving a motorcycle. These laws do not consider why some people > might kill, refuse to identify themselves or refuse to wear a helmet, > but rather they give general constraints on all people in Canada in > order to maximize the liberty of all people. A law that constrains > only a specific group for the sake of others cannot be considered a > legitimate law. For this reason, I think that the proposed French > law, and any law that aims to punish Muslim women for wearing the > niqab, lacks legitimacy. > Having said this, I would like to distinguish between the issue of > laws restricting the wearing of the niqab and the issue of wearing the > niqab. While I am opposed to any law that singles out Muslim women, I > also believe that there are good reasons for arguing against the use > of the niqab. I just recently returned from Iran, where I was > participating in a conference. One of the speakers, a former Speaker > of the Parliament, informed us that all Iranian women love to wear the > hijab. This is humorous for several reasons, including that it is the > law so women don't have a choice and Iranian women don't even wait > till the doors of the departing airplane are closed before they take > their hijabs off. It is this disconnect between how religious > authorities see the practice of covering and how the covering is > ordinarily practiced that suggests a problem. It may be illiberal to > ban the niqab, but I do think it is very much in the spirit of liberal > democracies to argue that the Islamic practice of covering is socially > unacceptable. > Sincerely, > Phil Enns > Indonesia > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html -- ><(((º>¸. ·´¯`·.¸., . .·´¯`·.. ><(((º> -------------------------------------- Edward W. Farrell // ewf@xxxxxxxxxxx -------------------------------------- http://www.edfarrellphotography.com -------------------------------------- Plato for Research Management http://www.zorbasoft.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html