[lit-ideas] Re: Religion & Public Reason
- From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 01:05:09 +0700
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
Other related posts:
