Russell Hammond
Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2005
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I think this is an interesting topic for discussion. The Dutch government may soon pass a resolution that would ban the use of the burka (the full body covering, leaving only the eyes visible, forced upon women by Islamic fundamentalists).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4170940
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1823334,00.html
According to the Times of London (second article), one of the major proponents of the ban is Rita Verdonk, the Integration Minister of the Netherlands. She is citing it as a safety measure, because terrorists could use the garb as a means of conducting terrorist acts. The Netherlands and the fundamentalist Muslim community have collided after film-maker Theo Van Gogh (decendent of the painter) was murdered by a fundamentalist for Van Gogh's criticism of the treatment of women in the Muslim community.
Should we ban burkas in our country?
On the one hand, banning burkas in public means that women entrapped in the fundamentalist community will be forced to live as slaves in their homes. On the other hand, these women are already slaves and one could argue that society should not tolerate every act done in the name of religion.
We ban multiple marriages, we ban ritual killing and certain forms of animal sacrifice, we ban some types of drug use in religious ceremony.
This is all done, however, for religious neutral reasons. If I remember correctly, Scalia wrote the opinion in a ritual drug use employment discrimination case, and he argued that because a general ban on drugs is purely for secular reasons (note: whether we should ban drugs at all is a completely different topic), the fact that the ban had some incidental effect on religion was irrelevant. Yet, banning the use of Burkas walks a finer line, and the argument that we are doing so for reasons other than discrimination against a religious viewpoint is a little thin. Also, acts of state that discriminate against religion are subject to strict scrutiny, so we would need a very good reason to enforce the ban.
(For example, the Times of London article cites a Dutch case upholding a ban in a childcare and social work class because children need to be able to see their caregivers.)
France has also banned the use of hijabs (like a burka, but the face is visible) and burkas in all public buildings and in schools.
I support a ban, especially in schools. I find the very idea of the burka to be abhorrent and it's disconcerting that there are countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that so trample on the rights of women. I think there are times when human dignity should trump the freedom of religion. I also think Tony Blair had it right when he recently said (about Britain), that if you come to our country you agree to abide by our values.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4170940
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1823334,00.html
According to the Times of London (second article), one of the major proponents of the ban is Rita Verdonk, the Integration Minister of the Netherlands. She is citing it as a safety measure, because terrorists could use the garb as a means of conducting terrorist acts. The Netherlands and the fundamentalist Muslim community have collided after film-maker Theo Van Gogh (decendent of the painter) was murdered by a fundamentalist for Van Gogh's criticism of the treatment of women in the Muslim community.
Should we ban burkas in our country?
On the one hand, banning burkas in public means that women entrapped in the fundamentalist community will be forced to live as slaves in their homes. On the other hand, these women are already slaves and one could argue that society should not tolerate every act done in the name of religion.
We ban multiple marriages, we ban ritual killing and certain forms of animal sacrifice, we ban some types of drug use in religious ceremony.
This is all done, however, for religious neutral reasons. If I remember correctly, Scalia wrote the opinion in a ritual drug use employment discrimination case, and he argued that because a general ban on drugs is purely for secular reasons (note: whether we should ban drugs at all is a completely different topic), the fact that the ban had some incidental effect on religion was irrelevant. Yet, banning the use of Burkas walks a finer line, and the argument that we are doing so for reasons other than discrimination against a religious viewpoint is a little thin. Also, acts of state that discriminate against religion are subject to strict scrutiny, so we would need a very good reason to enforce the ban.
(For example, the Times of London article cites a Dutch case upholding a ban in a childcare and social work class because children need to be able to see their caregivers.)
France has also banned the use of hijabs (like a burka, but the face is visible) and burkas in all public buildings and in schools.
I support a ban, especially in schools. I find the very idea of the burka to be abhorrent and it's disconcerting that there are countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that so trample on the rights of women. I think there are times when human dignity should trump the freedom of religion. I also think Tony Blair had it right when he recently said (about Britain), that if you come to our country you agree to abide by our values.
Last edited: