Freedom of religion has its own demands
Print Friendly Version| From Where I Stand by Joan Chittister, OSB | January 23, 2007 |
| Vol. 4, No. 32 |
I found myself staring at a picture on a friend's mantlepiece this week. There they were, seated on a low ridge along an outside wall of a cobblestone street. They looked casual enough.
There were two women, three teenage girls, one child, all of them huddled together, no man in sight. Their bodies were swathed in heavy black abayas, their faces circled in hijabs, veils that covered everything but their eyes, nose and mouth. Underneath each of the long black skirts, in a kind of playful, mocking way, their toes snuck out through the straps of their sandals.
It wasn't that there was anything wrong with the scene. These were, it seemed, average Muslim women resting after a stroll, perhaps, or shopping, or even on their way to the mosque. They were quiet and motherly, calm and relaxed. But they were Muslim. Not simply Muslim believers -- like Methodists or Baptists, Evangelicals or Catholics -- in a pluralistic Christian culture. These were Muslims who represented a part of the Islamic world who find themselves in the midst of an identity crisis in the West.
So what do these women have to do with us?
I have no idea where the picture was taken. All I know is that it is coming soon to a street near you. Traditional Muslim garb, especially for women -- and western reaction to it -- is spreading. France, Holland, Belgium, Spain, Germany, England and now the United States, as well, (See Human Rights without Frontiers International, hrwf.net) have all made attempts in some form or other to ban the burqa or limit the public use of the Muslim headscarf or hijab.
The notion of difference, of cultural separation, symbolized, some feel, by these barriers to "integration and communication" makes many parts of the West uneasy. Based on principles of equality, assimilation, and homogenization -- the kind of democracy that is inclined to reduce differences to the level of the least common denominator -- the very notion of a growing population that is self-consciously "other" raises a whole new set of questions for us.
What is tolerance? What does freedom of religion demand? When is a country really a united country?
Is the religious tolerance we practice based more on a subtle expectation of sameness than on the real freedom to be different? And where does religious "difference" end and public identity begin? Is there a point at which distinction becomes difference, or difference becomes distinction, in the deepest sense of the word and must, therefore, be curbed? In any society? Here and in Muslim societies, as well?
In the global village in which we all now live there is a simmering dis-ease everywhere. You can live here, the world seems to be saying from one end of it to the other, but you must look like us as well as behave like us, behave like us as well as be like us. Whoever "us" is. In some Muslim countries, the expectation is that women -- all women, Muslims or not -- must be covered from head to foot. In the West, on the other hand, those who are covered from head to foot make us uncomfortable.
The fear that there might be developing among us a culture within a culture gets more pronounced everywhere, every day. The power of religion to separate as well as to unite is seen in secularist countries -- meaning those not theocratic or governed by any particular religious law -- as a major obstacle to the development of the state itself.
In the United States, for instance, a Muslim woman in Florida has been denied a driver's license for reasons of security because she refuses to have her picture taken without the niqab, the full face veil of the burqa, even though nine months before 9/11 she had been granted a license regardless.
In 2003, a woman in Pennsylvania was suspended from teaching for one year because she wore a cross to work. The reason, the officials there said, is "to protect people of all faiths from being offended."
The chairperson of the Refugee Tribunal in Ireland, a Catholic, confesses, "This kind of clothing makes it very difficult to relate to these people as individuals."
Clearly the problem is deep-seated, but is it a new one? Even here?
The fact is that Brenda Nichol, the woman suspended from teaching for wearing a cross, was suspended on the basis of Pennsylvania's Religious Garb Prohibition passed in 1895 and upheld in 1990 by the 3rd U.S. Court of Appeals in the case of a Muslim teacher in Philadelphia who wore her head scarf and abaya to school.
In fact, until the 1960s in the United States, Catholic nuns were not permitted to teach, or even to take courses in public colleges, if they wore religious clothing.
So here's the problem. Catholics often speak with reverence and affection about the religious habits commonly associated with membership in a religious order until changes in dress became common for religious after Vatican II. The habit, many insist with fond nostalgia, did not depersonalize nuns. In fact, many would love to see it returned, they say. But if that's the case, what is the difference between habits for nuns in public places and head scarves, abayas or burqas for Muslims? What is the real issue here: security, communication, integration? Or something else? And if it's something else, what is it? Fear or prejudice or national chauvinism? And what does that say about us, about them, about the world around us?
From where I stand, it seems to me that all of us, here and around the world, could all use a good conversation about the role of dress in public arenas and the place of religious dress in secular societies. Otherwise, our commitment to freedom, however it is couched in political terms anywhere around the world, however much we declare ourselves committed to independence and democracy here, takes on a very hollow ring.
| Archives | Signup for Weekly E-mail |
Madelyn B. Your article,
Madelyn B.
Your article, More than fashion, on religious dress in the public arena reminded me of my experience while teaching in Saudi Arabia. Let me tell you the story.
I had been asked to teach at the Islamic Development Bank. In their invitation, they said that the abaya and the hijab were optional. I decided to wear them anyway. It was their country, their culture, and I wanted to show them respect. My greatest fear was that by wearing the abaya and hijab, I would change the manner in which I teach. I am a dynamic teacher, always laughing, moving, and expressing myself in class. Usually, students find this helpful as they learn the topic under discussion. So, the possibility of working differently troubled me. But I decided that respect was still the primary aspect of the decision.
When the day came to put on the abaya and hijab for the first time, I carefully followed the instructions given to me by the salesclerk at the shop near the mosque (I stopped to shop in London on the way.) It took two times to wind the hijab correctly, but I got it, packed my brief case, and went to the classroom. (Yes, I had my own private driver as women can’t drive in Saudi Arabia.) When I arrived, I was immediately into my subject. By the end of the day, I realized that the new garb was no different than any other form of dress I chose to wear in the classroom. I had forgotten that I had it on, and my teaching style remained the same. I was myself. Also, by the end of the day, I had received no less than 3 separate complements on how good the abaya looked on me. The next day was the same. Again, students commented, “The abaya is you!� This continued throughout the week of classes. I realized it was their way of saying thank you.
On the last day, the class voted to give me an A+ on how I wore the abaya and hijab. They asked me how I had learned to wear it so well. I told them I had been taught by the woman in the shop, but as I thought more about their question, I realized that what they saw was the naturalness with which I wore it. As if I had always worn it. What a compliment they had given me.
My trip there has made an enormous difference to me. Because I discovered for myself that I remained the woman that I am even though I was wearing an unusual form of dress, I no longer fear the black dresses. I still concern myself that these women do not have the freedom I feel, but I can imagine their strength of character even as it is hidden behind such copious folds and wrappings.
Your article pointed out so well that it is our own fear that makes us want everyone around us to look, behave, and be like us. The lesson of Saudi Arabia for me was that respect opens doors to knowing others and to knowing ourselves.
anne It seems to me that
anne It seems to me that tolerance must be the matrix which binds us together as a society and that our fear of the "other" is often caused by a perception that we might be somehow dominated by that other if it gets the upper hand. We certainly must honor the Muslim woman's desire for modesty - the Hajib without veil seems perfectly reasonable. But they must understand that they are moving through a culture that values "face-to-face" contact. We "read" each other's faces for signs of what isn't being said. (We'll leave body language out of this for the moment). If they insist on veiling themselves, Muslim will need to accept that they are confining themselves to their own society by choice.
I believe in tolerance in
I believe in tolerance in all areas, religious and secular. The only issue I have w/ the traditional mode of dress for female Muslims is that is was brought about to essentially keep women "in their place" as second class citizens. That is wrong in my opinion, regardless of religious preference. If that is their choice, then I suppose I must accept that. However, as an American woman born in the 50's and raised in the 60's, I find such a choice quite incomprehensible. I pray for understanding of such a mindset, but it has eluded me thus far.
anne It seems to me
anne It seems to me tolerance needs to be a two-way street. We must honor and respect the right of Muslim women to cover themselves. They, on the other hand, must understand that the larger secular and Christian culture, depends on face to face dialogue, that we have long depended on "reading" peoples' faces when we are in dialogue with them. My feeling is that the head scarf (Hijab?) without the veil, head to toe modesty is no problem. It's the total veiling that will keep Muslim women confined to their own society.
Jayne wrote: “I speculated
Jayne wrote:
“I speculated that it had to do with faith, which I still believe is part of the reason.�
I think she hit the nail on the head. I remember this from arguing with a friend of mine who is a fundamentalist about 4 years ago. And she still insists on wearing a scarf in church to cover her head. And I don’t mind except she points out that it’s WRONG for all the other women like in American NOT to cover their heads as Paul directed.(see below) So Pam I hope you do give them a little leeway. We don’t all change at the same time or the same pace. I saw a PBS special on woman in Russia last night. And they have a new show that is very popular among the women that is like our SEX in the City. And woman in Russia right now are in their emancipation. You mentioned the 50’s and 60’s remember when ALL catholic women wore scarves in Church? Do you remember the Women’s Liberation Movement of the seventies? That’s where the Russian women are at right now. And someday the Muslim women will have their day in the sun. But until then we must support them in any way that we can with or without Burkas, Hijabs or any other covering. IMHO
Thank You for bringing this up Pam. It really bothers me too. But I know it will change some day and until then our only job is to love them as Christ Loves us. :-)
God bless you all my sisters and brothers.
1Co:11:6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Co:11:7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
1Co:11:13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Co:11:15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
But if its their "choice"...
But if its their "choice"... how can it be "keeping women in their place"?
Sometimes 'emancipation' is
Sometimes 'emancipation' is used to put people in someone else's preferred place.
I have also had these
I have also had these thoughts, but for myself I find that basically I just don’t know a lot about the Muslim culture or exactly why Muslim women continue to wear a head covering in these times. I speculated that it had to do with faith, which I still believe is part of the reason. I found this short explanation for myself, one of many which you might also find useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab.
Peace of Christ to you.
jayne
JT In Canada, we've been
JT
In Canada, we've been praying for Christian unity this week. Has anyone visiting this cafe done so as well, or, is it politically incorrect?
In our cycle of prayer,
In our cycle of prayer, Christian Unity is observed every Sunday and especially these past weeks.
I make a distinction between unity and uniformity, deriving as I do the uniformity of true communion from Paul's notion of unity in the Body of Christ:
(1Cor chapter 12: "Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot would say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear would say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many members, yet one body.")
Uniformity is either mere social convention or superstition, in my view.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
I visit the Benedictine
I visit the Benedictine Sisters of Erie's homepage for prayer, and there has been a week of Prayer for Christian Unity there. I sure hope it isn't politically incorrect or I'm in big trouble!
jayne
Don't worry! The whole
Don't worry! The whole Church is observing the Week of Christian Unity! :)
Hermeneutic of Continuity
JT I was concerned that some
JT
I was concerned that some might think it too, "Christocentric".
Take heart, JT. One can
Take heart, JT. One can never be too Christocentric. Anyway, you're on homeplate here at the NCR, and the field is yours. How about a homerun?
jayne
The only problem I have with
The only problem I have with the Burqa or the Habit is they are a symbol of living in the past and ignoring the progress made in the present. The world is changing by the minute and no matter how comfortable we may be in the past we must live in todays world.
Ed
My comment was not sad but
My comment was not sad but just a matter of fact based on the status of Christains in those countries where Muslims are in charge. Being love feely does not entertain certain facts.
Comparing my statements to the Nazi's is an transference to discredit the reality that exists in Muslim's countries to disparage Christain involvement.
I can live peacefully with Jews, athesists, gays, muslims, Catholics, Protestants, ants, camels, birds, wind and rain. This is a rather extreme way of saying that my way is not to be enforced on others. Please do not put me in the concentration camp mentality. That is simply an insult to those who know me.
Terry
I must agree with Terry. To
I must agree with Terry. To ignore the fact of the intent of modern Islam is to ignore reality. Our modern western Christian idea of conversion by free choice is absolutely foreign to modern Islam. Our idea of pluralism in religion is blood curdling to a militant Muslim. Under Sharia law, conversion to Christ is punishable by death.
How will all that fit in a modern liberal democratic society? Bush and his cohorts are absolutely without a clue thinking they can "export democracy". When Bush talks about "freedom in every heart", he is right, except he does not know what "freedom" means in Islamic Law.
There is NO example of such a thing as a pluralistic liberal democratic Muslim country. Dissent is death. Ask the Baha'i.
Ricky
Maria Davidson Blessed are
Maria Davidson
Blessed are the peacemakers...
I found this sentence very dangerous and sad in one of the comments I have just read...
"Muslim fanatics are dangerous to western civilization and their aim is to abolish it. We can co exist with our muslim brothers and sisters as long as they are in the miniority in this country."
I guess one can say that about any "minority group" that might grow into a majority and change the status quo. It also makes me wonder if there will ever be peace among people in a democracy like ours. As long as there are suspicions between people that their society is threatened by the very appearance of a majority of strangers who are of a different culture or thought process, there will never be peace and acceptance. Therefore, we might as well stop saying the beautiful phrases that we believe all men are created equal in the eyes of God, because the truth is we don't really believe it.
The holocaust in Nazi Germany began with some arguments that sounded very much like that statement
Let's get the priorities
Let's get the priorities right!
Let's stop worrying about "garb" and instead worry about how much more dangerous the present US administration has made this world !!!
For us - wherever we live on this globe -, for our children, grand-children and for generations to come.
karlotta, your 'garb' is
karlotta, your 'garb' is falsely accusing the present US administration for making the world more dangerous. Obviously, you are ignorant of the growing prominence of terrorism unrelated to this administration. Get your priorities straight -- and it should be blaming those that plot terrorism, not those that seek to prevent it. Get out of your false 'garb' of the deceit you spread.
No one needs to "blame"
No one needs to "blame" anyone for anything, but it is nice to be able to freely express one's opinion. If I were you, I'd get out of my false "Oscar the Grouch' garb and show some softer side of you which you keep hiding.
jayne
No one needs to blame
No one needs to blame terrorists for their terrorist acts? I disagree. And an accurate reading of Chittister will lead one to discover she is always blaming America. I guess I can emerge from "Oscar" and what, embrace terrorism? But you can pass your advice on to Chittister, who really needs to move beyond the blame America approach to all.
Sr. Joan doesn't "blame".
Sr. Joan doesn't "blame". Sr. Joan asks the right questions so that we can ask ourselves as Americans if we are doing the right things and making the right choices. She bravely challenges politicians to act and to think as Christ would. That's what a Christian does. She doesn't need me or anyone else advising her in any way. I always wonder why you can't formulate your own harsh opinions without trying to make it look as if she's the one who put you up to it.
There's a column in Wednesday's Washington Post by Harold Myerson which I think speaks the sentiments of a lot of Americans outside of this cafe. It's about George Bush, his indifference to the American people, and Iraq. It's entitled "Our Delusional Hedgehog". Maybe that would broaden your vision a bit. I found it good reading.
Peace to you.
jayne
jayne, I don't know how
jayne, I don't know how anyone can do a fair reading of Chittister and now see that she always blames America. You are entitled to your own conclusion, but I see no support for it in Chittister's continual tone and words. And for someone who objects to the US so much, it is so ironic that she manifests in us god-like authority over everything. On one hand we have no right to interfere and on the other why did we fail to fix things. It was our fault for how Saddam was executed? It's our fault for not doing anything about Darfur?
Well, let's face it. The
Well, let's face it. The United States is a powerful country. Generations have looked to us for leadership. People have dreamed of making their home in the United States. We have up until modern times had a fairly "god-like" image as you phrase it, or what I might call an image of a free society , or maybe an image of a place where people could come and find fairness under a justice system that was carried out the way it was written.
Right now, our government is teeming with corruption, and one of the corruptions was the decision by the executive government to go to war with a country that did not challenge us or threaten us in anyway. We can say that the threat was present, but until it is manifested in order to be proved positive, it is not in our written powers of justice to retaliate.
Terrorism presents a new threat. But not knowing who the real enemy is or where they are makes it difficult to fight them. By just singling out a Muslim country with a bad reputation and invading it, we are not fighting terrorism. I'd say we are creating more of it. I'd say we used our brawn where we should have used our brains.
Oh no jayne, Chittister
Oh no jayne, Chittister DEFINITELY blames America first. All the time
Hermeneutic of Continuity
I'm sorry, but I won't agree
I'm sorry, but I won't agree with that.
I will say, however, that I think the United States erroneously invaded a country which is steeped in a culture so unlike our own. And now we have this enormous chain of events which follows. We have displaced Iraqi citizens living outside their own cultural habitat as refugees who are being asked to live and breathe and even dress, perhaps, like someone else. Who, if not we, the United States is responsible for this?
jayne
The US is absolutely
The US is absolutely partially responsible for the mess that is Iraq right now. It would be too simplistic to say that the US is wholly responsible. When this war first started I was against it because it was unjust, this is true, but also because the can of worms we would be opening we may not know how to fix. Sad to say, but I was right. Under Saddam's rule, these groups had a common enemy: Saddam. He ruled with an iron fist and there was the type of peace that is not really peace, but a festering violence that would rear it's ugly head once the dictator was removed from office. Then the US steps in. The rest is history. The US needs to take it's share of the blame for this, this is true. But these troubles run much deeper than anything the US could have done.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
Change always inevitably
Change always inevitably opens a can of worms. I wholeheartedly agree with the decision to go to war and oust Saddam. I think, in retrospect, with the Mideast situation as it is today and a Saddam still in power, we would be facing a far worse situation than currently exists. The war was unjust? Unjust for whom? The innocent? War is always unjust for the innocent? For Saddam? Definitely not. He endangered the region and had ties with terrorists. The people of Iraq have a situation that they have to work out, that's an opportunity they didn't have before. Ultimately they will be making the choices. There was plenty of violent death there before, just as there is today. I don't know whether Bush's new plans will work, but if they do or don't that doesn't alleviate the primary blame for what the Iraqi people do from the natives of Iraq. It is their home that they have to account for.
Yes, I agree with what you
Yes, I agree with what you say, Herm. The troubles in that nation were many before we went there, and now it appears things are even worse. So much worse, in fact, that it brings us to this page to discuss it. We Americans end up reflecting on our fears and sorting out our ideas and mulling over who did what, and who said what, and “he said�, “she said�, and etc. At least I do.
I think, though, that by now, what has been done has been done. We can’t turn back the hands of time and undo the invasion. We’ll have to deal with it in some way. And the burden of that will fall to each American citizen, be it in the political realm or the religious or the lay. As a lay person, I will see it as my responsibility to welcome the stranger. As Joan comments, it is coming soon into our midst. I want to be ready. I want to know how to approach the refugee, what they think and believe and how I can make them feel comfortable and be able to live in peace with them. If, as many seem to think, they will come here intolerant of my beliefs, then I want to know how to deal with that peacefully, also.
We came to this page to discuss the roles of dress. It seems that having hashed that over, I’ve decided that the clothing doesn’t really make the person. I want to know what lies beneath the burqa, or the clerical collar, or the habit, or even the Sunday dress or suit. I want to hear “Heart and Soul� playing in the background. I want to learn how to love one another, as Christ loved us.
jayne
Ironically, so do I! jayne
Ironically, so do I!
jayne
Just goes to show that
Just goes to show that there's a place for Oscar.
Tolerance for people who
Tolerance for people who dress differently is not a new problem. Recall the distress of "straight" parents about their "hippie" children in the '60s. Anyone who falls very far outside the "cultural norms" of any society becomes a focus of fear/disdain and, yes, intolerance. It is not shocking or repellent to see, for example, an African-American dressed in kente cloth. It is shocking to see an African-American with a bone in his nose--as I have. We need not conclude that our discomfort with those who look--or are--outside the norms of any culture makes us "evil" people---merely human. Cut us some slack, Sr. Joan, and put some of the onus for tolerance on those whose insist that their differences shouldn't make any difference.
Terry I believe that our
Terry
I believe that our driver liscense picture should be an identification.
That is the law and we should abide by that as citizens.
I believe that if the muslims become greater than all other religions our way of life, particularly the freedom for women, will be curtailed even though Islam, as I understand it in it's purer form, gave women freedoms before Christain women had them.
I also believe that if Protestants had not found bravery the Catholic Church would act very much like the Muslim patrichary. Women would fare poorly which I believe still exists in the Church but luckily they have no real power like in medival times.
Muslim fanatics are dangerous to western civilization and their aim is to abolish it. We can co exist with our muslim brothers and sisters as long as they are in the miniority in this country.
Minnesota muslim cab drivers are leaving weary travelers at the stop if they think they have a bottle of wine from Napa valley and they are leaving blind and hearing impaired people behind if they have a dog with them. This is not an America we want. This is not right.
I go to mass with a woman Catholic priest. I respect those who are divorced, gay, single, women, men. It doesn't matter to me. Only Christ matters and the Benedictines say everyone has the face of Christ and that is wonderful. That said, everyone has to respect me too. Don't force headcovering on me or put me down because I am a woman. I am too old for that.
And, as for you Sr. Joan, I finally got the joke at St. Emma's. I sure didn't know who I met at that time. I wish I had, we sure could have had a great conversation. There was a liberal wandering around that place all along.
Terri
Not quite-with the pope
Not quite-with the pope you'd still be able to drink and draw pictures. And there'd be only one woman for each man, which is a little easier and more rational for a society to live with.
You go to Mass with a woman
You go to Mass with a woman Catholic priest? Sorry, but there is no such thing, at least not in Communion with Rome. She may be a priest, but she certainly is not Catholic.
Hermeneutic of Continuity
When I wear clerical garb
When I wear clerical garb (Episcopal collar and clergy shirt) outside of the confines of my Clericus, Diocesan functions, pastoral calls to the Hospital or prison, or parish functions, I draw "fire", "amusement", "astounded questioning", and all of the other behaviors associated with acting outside of cultural norms.
Women priests, believe it or not, are not all that common.
I usually do not wear my collar in public secular places because of my own sense of how I wish to move in the world in non-liturgical or non-pastoral situations. AND I find that I am able to have more meaningful "religious" conversations with ordinary people I meet on the street if I am not "armored" in the clergy get-up. But I have always had to return home and pray for guidance when those other encounters happen.
Dress is important - how we wear it and how we react to it. It's a lot like speech acts.
Remember the days when long hair & beards, women in pants, and the ubiquitous beads & flowers/tied dyed shirts/sandals-in-winter used to get everybody's goat? (Now THAT should date some of us, eh.) Those were the good ole' days when goat-getting was all in a day's fun. Now there is very little fun anywhere, and a WHOLE LOT OF ENTITLEMENT - as in, "I am entitled not to be afraid of your difference", "I am entitled to feel secure in my expectations for ...". "I am entitled to (whatever I define as) safety", etc. Yet when a cultural expression is legitimately exercised (wearing the burqa, abaya, or Crucifix) a so-called countervailing entitlement comes into play: "I am entitled to not be offended by what you wear/are/say..."
Yet there is a greater civic entitlement, as Joan suggests - the entitlement FOR tolerance, which, to me, is nothing more or LESS than the entitlement for a genuine civil culture.
Maybe I'll start wearing my "habit" in public ... hmmm ...
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
Great column by Sr. Joan,
Great column by Sr. Joan, and very insightful comments about the "entitlement" culture. Very true!
I for one think that you should wear your collar whenever you are in public, if only because people need to realize female priests are part of our social fabric. Perhaps with you and others routinely being seen as female religious leaders and becoming part of the normal social background can people feel more comfortable with approaching you as a religious figure and having those more meaningful conversations.
I think the prohibition against the hijab, and the wearing of large crosses, in France and other countries in Europe is a horrendous step backward in terms of personal freedom. Although wearing the hijab is more of a cultural norm than a religious one, it is seen as a religious practice and thus must be allowed unless it causes direct harm to others.
I can certainly see why all must show their faces for driver's licenses, that I understand. But I also still remember my mother and me wearing chapel veils to church when I was young, years after it was no longer required -- and I feel great sympathy for the Muslim women who are required to remove their scarves.
France in particular, so proud of its "Rights of Man", has to realize that in practice its Arab population is routinely discriminated against. Only when it has laws on its books which outlaw discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and religion (amazingly, it does not at this point) will its society become remotely just to its many Muslim immigrants and native-born Muslims.
I am less concerned about
I am less concerned about Muslims fitting in to Western society than I am about religious freedom for Christians in some predominantly Muslim countries. Muslims have a far easier time being accepted in Western countries than do Christians in Muslim countries. This is not to say that racism or ethnic bias does NOT happen toward Muslims, it does. But we simply cannot deny that many of our Christian brethren are being denied their right to worship as Christians in many Muslim countries.
Pope Challenges Islam on Religious Freedom
Hermeneutic of Continuity
Good point, and one that
Good point, and one that Chittister doesn't raise. Their is the Muslim reaction to Christianity -- what is different -- in their own countries and they react with violence or total banning of its visibility. If that were not their way, I dare say our reaction would be far different. A barka is a symbol of not only subjugation but intolerance. They mark themselves with aspects of threat. I do not believe 'difference' is the problem at all. Americans are very accepting of different. Furthermore, those that come here bearing such appearance and that do not assimilate in any aspect necessarily raise questions of suspicion. Those ways fit awkwardly with an American culture, even one that is veried. The fear that exists in such circumstances is not something of our creation, rather of our concern, especially in light of happenings in France (riots) and England (London bombings by Islamic natives).
A barka is a symbol of not
A barka is a symbol of not only subjugation but intolerance..
You may be correct in cases where such garb is enforced by law. But here in New York City where one regularly sees women in burkas and hijabs, it is a symbol of faith. No city in America has the experience we have had with suffering at the hands of Muslim extremists, and yet here we are all New Yorkers, more worried about habitibility than headgear. What we fear is hate, not hats.
Frannie, a barka here can be
Frannie, a barka here can be more than a symbol of faith. It can be a symbol of support of Muslim extremists. Sadly, in America, there is Muslim support for those that attack America. And there are those who raise money here to make it possible. If you see all as benign, you are misguided.
I think that's a conclusion
I think that's a conclusion based on bias. Would you say that anyone in an Irish American community who wears a cross is symbolically supporting the IRA? Bono criticized Irish Americans whose charitable donations actually went to terrorist bombs that killed Irish folk. There is no doubt demonstrable connections between American dollars and foreign terrorists. But that does not give anyone the right to impugn someone's expression of faith.
So, then, how should we
So, then, how should we stereoptype this situation? All women in burquas are Muslim extremists, or all women in burquas are followers of their own faith filled religion? Neither. We shouldn't really stereotype if we are going to consider answers to the questions of the roles of "dress in public arenas" and the "place of religious dress in secular societies."
My thought, for one, is that if we prohibit religious dress in our society, we must prohibit all religious dress, not just that of Muslims. And then we become somewhat like the historic communist regimes which squelched a person's self identity for the "common good." Is what we consider common always good?
How about people with blue hair and body piercings all over their faces? They look "different." Should we suspect terrorism from them, too? Or how about a man in a shirt and slacks carrying a brief case? The terrorists who boarded the planes on 9/11 were wearing slacks and shirts and carrying brief cases.
Is supression of religious practice a good idea in a democracy? I don't think that's the solution. We must include tolerance in our Constitution. Tolerance for each other.
Believe me, the woman in the burqua will not be the terrorist
jayne
I'm not suggesting a
I'm not suggesting a stereotype, in fact I believe I argued against the one assuming it is an expression of faith. In fact one must remain alert in each situation to discover what is its truth.
Alert how? Suspect anyone
Alert how? Suspect anyone in a hijab of planting a bomb under your chair?
Discover how? Tap her phone? Open her mail? Interview her neighbors? Search her home? Subject her to rendition?
Well said! Hermeneutic of
Well said!
Hermeneutic of Continuity
If giving respect is about
If giving respect is about getting back what we give or do then I guess you are right. But "giving" and "trading" are not totally the same. I would hope that our respect is not conditional upon reciprocity. The latter is politics.
Daniel Loftin, responding to
Daniel Loftin, responding to JT:
"Which western values are we talking about here?"
I'm saying that a Muslim observer might say that we are quite as capable of hypocrisy as anyone else on the planet.
"I think that you might be confusing policy with principle."
No I'm not. Any policy, however, is based on a view of reality which may or may not be accurate.
"Do "horribly unjust wars" occur only when western nations engage in them,"
No they are unjust no matter who engages in them.
""Cultural Colonialism", is one of those political terms which are intended to label, dismiss, and silence, rather than give rise to honest discussion."
That is simply an erroneous statement. It is simply a descriptive term, to which you have assigned a perjorative and negative meaning. You have ascribed a negative motivation where none exists. At any rate, any word is a label, by definition. There was nothing dismissive in my statement. It was a statement, nothing more, and nothing less.