In a recent vote in France, the Burka, the Muslim veil, was banned in public places in an astonishing majority of 336-1. This is obviously a controversial matter and some worry and claim that this move is unconstitutional as many wear the veil "out of choice".
I take serious issue at the use of the word "choice" here, as if, presented with all the facts since birth, presented with every religious world view, every explanation for who we are, evolutionary theory, intelligent design, Allah, Jesus, Buddha, and the tooth fairy - as if, having being presented with ALL the facts and possible avenues of religious belief, these women have "chosen" Islam and subsequently the veil.
Yes, within the religious framework that they believe in, they have made a choice. But that's not a genuine choice by any means. Faith wasn't introduced to these women when they were critically-minded adults free to make their own choice. It was, rather, introduced to them as it was to the overwhelming majority of people who practise any faith, at a very young age - an age when you are still "Santa-elligible" (Stanhope).
Put simply, I doubt there is an equal number of atheists wandering around Paris wearing a niqab as there are Muslim women (perhaps if there were then we would have cause to reconsider the constitutionality of the recent vote). That's because, free of any religious influence or doctrine, almost without exception, NO man or women would choose to hide his or her face in public, perhaps with the exception of the late great Michael Jackson and that chick whose face was ripped off by a monkey last year.
So again, what "choice" has been made? At best, a choice made under the heavy influence of doctrine introduced when they had no choice. I've learnt Japanese to a decent level, so I can choose to speak Japanese if I want to. But that does not therefore imply that everyone in England is speaking English out of "choice". Nothing introduced to you at birth is.
And finally as to the constitutionality of this policy; you'll note earlier I (very deliberately) wrote "NO man or women would choose to hide his or her face in public". Men and women. If this were truly a matter of constitution, the French vote would have included a ruling over men wearing veils as well. But it didn't precisely because it is in reaction, not to a civil convention, but rather to a religious practice that, almost a priori, treats women differently.
If there were a belief that women ought to stay in doors (I'm sure some cult somewhere might believe that), having a vote on whether or not women should follow this law out of choice would simply be treating the symptoms and not the cause. The real issue here is the differentiation between men a women, which is, of course, unconstitutional.
As open-minded as I wish I could be, I just can't accept religious faith as an acceptable basis for creating one set of rules for men and another for women, even if those rules are out of "choice". I can accept biological reasons, but not faith-based reasoning (isn't that an oxymoron?) introduced from birth.
If the French wanted to be rid of the veil in a more agreeable fashion, they should ban the introduction of religion before the age of consent, which IS unconstitutional. Then, out of real choice, I'm sure you would see the number of veils being worn reduced to almost zero within a generation.
---------------
These are my opinions: I'm open to discussion, just don't get all offended just because I criticise something that's precious to you. It's not precious to me. I'm not sure why. Blame God for making me an atheist.
No comments:
Post a Comment