Catholics should oppose ban on Muslim veils
Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 at 11:03 PM
RSS 
Recent Posts
- Dialed down St. Patrick's Day
- A first time for everything
- Talking religion in 2011
- The uncertainty of prayer
- Smithsonian should have kept "ant-covered Jesus"
Archives
The French Parliament has approved a ban on face veils in public, in what proponents say is an effort to keep the state secular and detractors say is a grievous affront to religious freedom. The measure still needs to pass the French Senate to become law, but with little open opposition in France, at least from politicians, it is likely to be ratified. The law would fine women for wearing a niqab or a burqa, which both conceal parts of the face, and could heavily fine or jail men who force female relatives to wear such coverings. Other European countries are considering similar bans.
According to the AP, the language of the bill tries to paint it in broad, non-religious strokes, claiming that it applies to everyone, while making exceptions for almost every other instance one can imagine for a woman to cover her face in public, like wearing a motorcycle helmet or costume. No one has to say that it's aimed at Muslims.
The debate over whether or not wearing a burqa is oppressive to woman will never end, and I tend to agree with the camp that places forced covering in a negative light. It always goes back to the tiresome reasoning propagated by chauvinistic men that women are responsible for keeping their hot bodies under wraps because men can't control themselves, and if you're sexually assaulted in the market, it's probably because your cheekbone was exposed and you have only yourself to blame. It's the "short skirt = asking for rape" argument that is so ugly and logically flawed I won't even bother going into it.
At the same time, the reasons women wear burqas and other coverings are complex, and I don't pretend to know all of the arguments. It's also the case that some things are wrong (forcing your wife to wear something she doesn't want to wear, lying, verbal abuse, cutting in line) but not able to be legislated in a free country (although people who cut in line should be scolded severely by the nearest grandmother, in public).
While this raises a whole host of issues (including: Is the burqa making Muslim women fat?), the one I'm most concerned about is the fact that so many people think it's okay for their government to dictate what people can and cannot wear. France claims to have a secular government, but they're not banning yarmulkes or crucifixes. True, these religious symbols don't have the same effect on those outsiders who view the wearers, but they're still symbols of a particular religion.
Islam is not the only religion that, when practiced in its orthodoxy, encourages and sometimes requires extreme modesty of its women. Hello, nun habits? Parents force their children to wear Catholic school uniforms. Conservative Christians wear long skirts and even higher necklines. Orthodox Jewish women don't show any skin aside from the ankles, wrists and neck, no matter the weather. Not all Muslim women wear a full burqa; they wear variations of head coverings dictated by their particular sect of Islam and their regional and cultural heritage. So we can point them out and decry the practice as barbaric, but you know what they say about those who throw stones.
The slippery slope is real, folks. Civil liberties erode and will eventually crumble if they are not upheld forcefully. It's not overreacting or being paranoid or leftist to believe this. If France does it, so might Spain and Belgium. If the European Union does it, so might the United States. And if the U.S. decides that burqas are oppressive, and that we as a country ought to tell women they can't be worn, we will have crossed the already too-blurry line that separates church and state.
In a free country like France, women can choose to practice Islam or not. For some, wearing the burqa is an integral part of their religion. I personally don't agree with that philosophy. No one in the French Parliament has to, either. But banning face coverings isn't going to change an oppressive culture, it's only going to engender even more hatred from radicals who see the West as the enemy, and make life harder for Muslim women.
The Vatican has opposed this kind of ban, for the somewhat self-serving but still valid reason that if majority Christian countries don't respect Muslim minorities' right to practice their religion, Christians in majority Muslim countries could see their own rights taken away. Catholics as individuals are not always so open-minded, but in this case, I'd urge us all - Catholic or not - to side with the Pope on this one. Our right to practice Catholicism - not right now, perhaps not for several generations, but surely some day - will depend on it.
According to the AP, the language of the bill tries to paint it in broad, non-religious strokes, claiming that it applies to everyone, while making exceptions for almost every other instance one can imagine for a woman to cover her face in public, like wearing a motorcycle helmet or costume. No one has to say that it's aimed at Muslims.
The debate over whether or not wearing a burqa is oppressive to woman will never end, and I tend to agree with the camp that places forced covering in a negative light. It always goes back to the tiresome reasoning propagated by chauvinistic men that women are responsible for keeping their hot bodies under wraps because men can't control themselves, and if you're sexually assaulted in the market, it's probably because your cheekbone was exposed and you have only yourself to blame. It's the "short skirt = asking for rape" argument that is so ugly and logically flawed I won't even bother going into it.At the same time, the reasons women wear burqas and other coverings are complex, and I don't pretend to know all of the arguments. It's also the case that some things are wrong (forcing your wife to wear something she doesn't want to wear, lying, verbal abuse, cutting in line) but not able to be legislated in a free country (although people who cut in line should be scolded severely by the nearest grandmother, in public).
While this raises a whole host of issues (including: Is the burqa making Muslim women fat?), the one I'm most concerned about is the fact that so many people think it's okay for their government to dictate what people can and cannot wear. France claims to have a secular government, but they're not banning yarmulkes or crucifixes. True, these religious symbols don't have the same effect on those outsiders who view the wearers, but they're still symbols of a particular religion.
Islam is not the only religion that, when practiced in its orthodoxy, encourages and sometimes requires extreme modesty of its women. Hello, nun habits? Parents force their children to wear Catholic school uniforms. Conservative Christians wear long skirts and even higher necklines. Orthodox Jewish women don't show any skin aside from the ankles, wrists and neck, no matter the weather. Not all Muslim women wear a full burqa; they wear variations of head coverings dictated by their particular sect of Islam and their regional and cultural heritage. So we can point them out and decry the practice as barbaric, but you know what they say about those who throw stones.
The slippery slope is real, folks. Civil liberties erode and will eventually crumble if they are not upheld forcefully. It's not overreacting or being paranoid or leftist to believe this. If France does it, so might Spain and Belgium. If the European Union does it, so might the United States. And if the U.S. decides that burqas are oppressive, and that we as a country ought to tell women they can't be worn, we will have crossed the already too-blurry line that separates church and state.
In a free country like France, women can choose to practice Islam or not. For some, wearing the burqa is an integral part of their religion. I personally don't agree with that philosophy. No one in the French Parliament has to, either. But banning face coverings isn't going to change an oppressive culture, it's only going to engender even more hatred from radicals who see the West as the enemy, and make life harder for Muslim women.
The Vatican has opposed this kind of ban, for the somewhat self-serving but still valid reason that if majority Christian countries don't respect Muslim minorities' right to practice their religion, Christians in majority Muslim countries could see their own rights taken away. Catholics as individuals are not always so open-minded, but in this case, I'd urge us all - Catholic or not - to side with the Pope on this one. Our right to practice Catholicism - not right now, perhaps not for several generations, but surely some day - will depend on it.
68 Comments
15 - 68 | See all comments
MAGHNUS | Aug 17, 2010, 06:57 AM EDT
muhammed ali was a child molester, and thankfully, he's DEAD....so much for being a muslim prophet.
Report abuse
MAGHNUS | Aug 17, 2010, 06:56 AM EDT
"women are responsible for keeping their hot bodies under wraps because men can't control themselves"
or is it because all muslims are child molesters and rapists, having no respect for women and children.....hmmmm.
Report abuse
michaelcollins | Jul 27, 2010, 11:57 AM EDT
religion is the problem full stop....there is no god...when are peole gonna wake up....do you believe in santa and zombies too....god was made up by the human mind we made it up folks
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Jul 18, 2010, 01:18 AM EDT
They can only ride 2 abreast through the ancient streets of Hebron Lad, but they never use motorized transportation between sundown Friday to sunset Saturday. When they reach the wailing wall, they dismount and become stereotypical Hassidics.
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Jul 17, 2010, 11:51 PM EDT
I'd like to see that. Where are they going to get a street wide enough. What would they do when they reach the wailing wall,Cheers Monsoonman.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Jul 17, 2010, 08:35 PM EDT
and furthermore Dennis, there is nothing so awe inspiring than watching a gang of Hassidic Jews on their Yamahas roaring down the street, black hats pulled down tight and their locks flowing behind on the wind....the sight and sound is indescribable.
Report abuse
Monsoonman | Jul 17, 2010, 08:27 PM EDT
I think the French are missing the boat here. Talk about fashion revolution marketing opportunities x billions. The french have done it before with Coco Chanel and her little black dress...How about Francoise Mohammed coming up with a little black burkha that will meet the new strict standards set by the french.
Report abuse
DennisQ | Jul 17, 2010, 08:52 AM EDT
There are lots of people who don't think women should wear high-heeled shoes - which damage women's feet and lessen their mobility. High-heeled shoes are also reminiscent of foot-binding, which actually crippled its victims. Would the French support a law making high-heeled shoes illegal? The difference here is bigotry, not concern for the women. It's surprising that French women aren't resisting the burqa law's implicit claim that the legislature has standing to regulate fashion. Has Simone deBeauvoir been forgotten?
Report abuse
DennisQ | Jul 16, 2010, 10:43 PM EDT
Today's Comment of the Day award goes to Monsoonman for his observation that Jews proclaim their faith with their "black hats and their yamahas." Are you talking about keyboards or motorcycles, M-Man? You ain't seen nothin' till you've seen a Jew on a Harley! Awesome.
Report abuse
Watereskhill | Jul 16, 2010, 08:30 PM EDT
The modern world is fraught will subtle danger and disguise. Using Religious and devotional attire. Drug cartels in South America and Asia successfully shipped heroin and other narcotics duct-taped to women travelling in pairs dressed as Catholic nuns. Whom no-one would suspect let alone submit a nun's habit or veil to being searched at an airport. But for a furtive glance noticing a manicure and nail polish (nuns don't indulge in vanities)--a vast net-work was uncovered. There are realities with the burka and other Muslim veils beyond a religious symbol. Male terrorists have moved effortlessy from one locale to the next in Iraq under this devotional tent. In this instance Megan does not have my 'Catholic' vote. I've been to Paris, Villefrance and Monte Carlo. Albeit on a shoestring over the years. The French do not subscribe to veils unless they are on the runway on models at Fashion Week heralded a 'must have'. I support the ban. There's more to several yards of cloth than meets the eye.
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Jul 16, 2010, 08:20 PM EDT
IandP I believe you are posting here just to demonise anyone who are anti zionist. Notice I say "anti zionist" and not anti Jewish,it gives you the opportunity to do some Muslim bashing.
Report abuse
seanomelbourne | Jul 16, 2010, 08:13 PM EDT
Roseofengland as an atheist I object to your bigotry. Firstly atheist do not prevent you from practicing your religion.Secondly how magnanimous of you to "allow" Muslim women to wear veils but not the burqa.
Are you hiding behind some sort of prejudice and trying sooo! hard to sound so fair.
Report abuse
roseofengland | Jul 16, 2010, 12:39 PM EDT
What a lot of angry, racist,illogical, ill-informed and downright juvenile comments on this site.
The question posed is "should Catholics oppose the ban on Muslim veils"? As a devout Catholic I always listen to the views of the church but also as an adult I can think for myself. The suggestion that this might be the thin edge of the wedge is valid and if other signs and symbols of religious adherence are banned then so might mine be. As it happens the most vulnerable faith in the UK at present is the Christian one which is under threat not so much by other faiths as by secularists and atheists. So it's true we are at risk. But the wearing of crucifixes, long skirts etc as an adherence to individual faith does not pose a threat to anyone else. The wearing of various forms of scarves by Muslim women are just as innocuous and acceptable.
The difference comes with the burqua - firstly it does restrict the vision of a woman, leading to risk to others and also reduces the ability of other women to recognise the gender of the wearer. My main concern is that I would feel unsure and possibly threatened by a fully shrouded figure, particularly in public lavatories. So one person's freedom to wear what she likes is balanced against another person's freedom to be free from fear.
In today's sad and violent world we are all restricted by the threat of violence and are expected to prove our identity constantly. I see no reason why any section of the community, whatever their faith or nationality, should be exempt from this.
Report abuse
ritmomente | Jul 16, 2010, 11:24 AM EDT
Who can drive a car with a burqa on? Is anyone out there a bank teller? Would you give money to someone who's face you cannot see?
Report abuse
68 Comments
Report abuse