Why is religious belief privileged?

[chickenfeet]

I find the debates over the wearing of veils interesting. Generally speaking I think that if someone wants to wear a veil they should. Not because it's part of their religion but because I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't. I note though that the debate is couched almost entirely in religious terms. That prompts me to ask the question why religious beliefs should be held to justify behaviour that would be be banned or discouraged if indulged in because of other beliefs, however deeply held. For example, why should a committed nudist not be permitted to meet Mr. Jack Straw or attend a lecture at Imperial College in a state of undress? They certainly couldn't be held to be a security risk! It might be argued that nudity offends some people but that, of course, is precisely the argument used against veils.

Comments

[dyddgu.livejournal.com]

One of Straw's cronies was on the radio when this all broke saying "It's socially unacceptable and rude to speak to someone when wearing dark glasses", and essentially said that it was the same thing with veils.
(just reporting, like. I have not formulated a view of this all yet)

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Someone should tell that to the police around here. They always wear shades.

[dyddgu.livejournal.com]

I have to say, it was the first I'd heard of this reportedly really obvious point of etiquette...

[sabotabby]

I'd just flip it around to talk about Western constraints on female appearance. It's offensive that (professional) women still largely have to wear heels, make-up, and skirts of a length somewhere below the knee but above the ankle in order to be seen in the public sphere.

If a male politician were to say that masking one's face with make-up—which, after all, disguises many facial nuances—discourages honest and straightforward community dialogue, we'd all think it was pretty odd.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

It's offensive that (professional) women still largely have to wear heels, make-up, and skirts of a length somewhere below the knee but above the ankle in order to be seen in the public sphere.

Is that really so very different from the equivalent male 'uniform'? I'd argue that in fact professional women have a lot more clothing options than professional men. Things have changed a bit in the last ten years but for two decades for work I wore a suit (with few degrees of freedom of design, pattern or colour), a long sleeved shirt with collar and tie and lace up black Oxfords. That's a more rigid dress code than most professional women face.

[sabotabby]

It's been awhile since I've worked anywhere that required a business dress code (retail aside, and that's a class issue rather than a gender issue). I think the clothes themselves, in terms of individual creativity, are more restrictive for men, but the physical alterations (make-up, high heels, and the plucked eyebrows I railed about recently) are more demanding for women.

But I brought dress code up because the sorts of comments that Straw made often degenerate into "oh, aren't those poor Mohammedan womenfolk so oppressed with their funny veils; we need to save them from themselves," and that sort of faux-sympathy makes sense only from a culture where standards for masculine and feminine appearance are equivalent. Which isn't ours.

I never know if this anti-veil sentiment is more of a gender thing or a race thing, not that the two are mutually exclusive. As you mentioned above, no one says anything about a (presumably white and male) cop wearing shades that disguise his eyes. But so many people get the vapours over women (presumably of colour) in hijabs.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I think the veil/headscarf debate leads into very muddy waters. No question that it brings out some very ugly attitudes and some rather patronising ones, both of which tend to be concealed behind woolly rhetoric.

[liadnan]

I'm too tired to comment properly and in any event have no particularly coherent thoughts on the point, but I went looking for the ECtHR case on the Turkish headscarves/education case earlier, so have the link to do with as you will:
http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?skin=hudoc-en&action=html&table=1132746FF1FE2A468ACCBCD1763D4D8149&key=11423
(That should work, the ECtHR searchable database is incredibly irritating about providing stable sensible permanent links). Some interesting points, particularly in the dissent at the end.

"Religious freedom" is singled out in the EConv.HR and, if I recollect correctly, the Universal Declaration (and various constitutions and the like). The question is, what is "religion" or religious belief for these purposes: in the Turkish case it was observed that the right has been of use to atheists.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I found the dissenting judgement much more cogent and compelling than the majority opinion. The majority seemed to be taking a 'spectre at the feast' line. No evidence that a woman wearing a headscarf actually posed a threat to anybody was produced, merely the argument that someone might feel threatened. It seems to me that the 'someone might feel threatened' line of reasoning could be used against the exercise of just about any freedom.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

... because a woman apparently needs a religious 'excuse' to tell men not to bloody stare at her and stay out of her clothes closet while they're at it?

OK, that's a bit overstated. Blame it on one too many discussions about the veil that take all of three seconds to degenerate into bitching about how Muslims don't 'let' 'their women' wear normal clothes and date outside their race and and and... it's enough to make a person want a headscarf. For wearing or for throttling, either.

More on topic, we do put 'freedom of conscience' into a higher category than 'because I feel like it', and I think we have to. And as long as a significant number of people are religious, that's going to get in there.

(And of course, also because it's a time-honoured convenient compromise that allows the law to exempt some people from some laws some of the time rather than either face endless small revolts (and these days lawsuits) and still, for example, stop the rest of us avoiding taxes by claiming we've taken a vow of poverty.

You're right, it's kind of nuts, but I don't see a simple alternative as long as we're descended from a legal system that privileged one religion by default because 'everyone was religious'. Either everyone gets it or nobody does, and it's so entrenched that I can't even begin to imagine the mess there...

I wonder if Straw has trouble telling nuns apart?

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Straw has trouble telling nuns apart?

There ought to be a response to that but I don't think my mind is filthy enough.

"The Mother Superior Doesn't Go In For That Sort Of Thing..."

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

*snickers*

*is ashamed*

*slightly*

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Straw has trouble telling nuns apart?

He used to be really good at it, but then got out of the habit.

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

Nun of your lip, now...

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

You two are not being very sisterly (if you know what I mean)

[commodorified.livejournal.com]

*thwaps you with THE RULER*

*thwaps Benny-the-Rat even harder*

[itchyfidget.livejournal.com]

*wimples*

[a-d-medievalist.livejournal.com]

To be fairer, Straw was not complaining about hijab or any of the veils that cover the head only. He was talking about the niqab and burkah. Apparently, one of the reasons it's a problem for him is that he's rather deaf and lip reads. Women in niqab are hard to lip-read. Interestingly, and I can't remember of it was on the real news (in which case, the Today Programme) or the News Quiz, there was a discussion on the use of burkahs and other almost total veils as ways of criminals to hide. I can see that that could be a problem.

I have mixed feelings about veiling. Because I know that veiling is not a particularly Muslim requirement, but rather a cultural one that has been inculcated into Islam*, I can see situations where a veiled woman might be required to remove all or part of the veil. But if that is to happen, I think it should be done as sensitively as possible, in ways to minimize the woman's sense of her privacy being infringed upon.

OTOH, Since I know that most cultures that practice veiling historically range from the merely patriarchal to the blatantly misogynistic, I can't understand why women living in Western countries should continue to wear the veil. I should also mention that Islam has strictures for men's modesty, as well -- it's just that regular men's clothing, provided the collars are high, and sleeves and legs long, meets those guidelines.

*Veiling goes back to the ancient Near East And Mediterranean. Almost every culture from Mesopotamia to Imperial Rome had some kind of veiling practice. Orthodox Jewish women still veil -- in the sense that they cover their hair (sometimes with a wig, so it's not noticeable), and I know plenty of women who still cover their heads when going to church.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I realise that there is nothing particularly Islamic about veiling. Actually I don't think there's anything very unique about Islam at all. My reading of Ibn Ishaq's Life of Mohammed is pretty much that Islam is a mish mash of previously existing mumbo jumbo synthesised for the sole purpose of giving Mohammed a religion to be boss of. Comparisons with Mormonism and Scientology immediately present themselves.

I think veils are daft but I wouldn't object to someone wearing one if that's her choice. I think kilts are daft but whatever. What I'm less comfortable with is the notion that religion privileges particular choices.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Islam is a mish mash of previously existing mumbo jumbo synthesised for the sole purpose of giving Mohammed a religion to be boss of.

Brilliant summary!

The value of a religion might be judged by how hard people are willing to fight for control of it. If it really presented universal truths, those would be self-evident, so there would be no need to fight over slightly differing views, would there? Yet Islam split immediately upon the death of Mohammed. Christianity was factionalized even while Christ was alive.

Unitarians come off looking prety good by this measure. You don't read much about bloody struggles between factions of them.

[marnameow.livejournal.com]

I think my being such a reluctant and yet complete atheist makes it more difficult for me to *not* be more understanding of religious-based choices above because-I-want-to ones.

(does that even scan?)

I really don't understand, in the deepest of my head, the whole religion and faith thing. I just don't get it. I'll be astounded that seeds grow into plants, and that the sun keeps rising, and that I exist, but that's about the limit of my spirituality. I'd love to be able to believe in some sort of life-after-death, and I'd be a more content person if I did, but I can't.

I don't think it's that I have more respect for people who do believe in more than the mere birth, copulation, and death, exactly. But they believe in something I can't, and me attempting to shout down their beliefs, or belittle them, is wrong, because I'm never going to understand what I'm shouting against.

In return I'd like the freedom to not believe in things and live by my own ethics, and I've chosen to live somewhere that I have that.

Huge disclaimer: obv, there are limits to religious reasoning being given the ok by me - killing, hurting, abusing, or coercing people are the obvious ones, but there surely are more.

Smaller disclaimer: I reserve the right to be more critical of catholic (and possibly other christian) beliefs, simply because I have first-hand experience of those creatures and they wrong they can do).

An aside: this whole veiling thing stinks of fear of the 'other', and ignorance about why women might choose veiling. It's not about religion at all.

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

There seems to be some confusion between clothes that cover the body (the choice is yours) and something that covers the mouth (that among other things prevents you from speaking to someone who lipreads). Moreover, English social intercourse tends to start with smiling at a neighbour at the bus stop of the school gate, and if you don't know if they are smiling back it is difficult to know when you can progress to "Good Morning!"

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Indeed. I have lots of "nod and smile" acquaintances locally. But if they were veiled, how would you even know whether you were nodding and smiling at the same woman?

The chances of me ever getting a veiled student is as near zero as makes no difference, so this is a purely hypothetical problem, but I would not be happy to try to teach someone whose face I couldn't see. How would I know whether she understandood the work or not? I need to be able to see when people are looking baffled so I can leap in and offer help.

[sollersuk.livejournal.com]

Agreed. In many circumstances there are differences between what the speech says and what the face says. Even without leaping in, there are different expressions that can go with "No, I'm fine" which can denote ""Really I'm fine" or "Really I'm struggling"

[rparvaaz.livejournal.com]

Religious belief is privileged because people have been working for centuries to make it that way. And now is is a part of the status-quo. In my less charitable momentd, I call it the institutionalisation of herd mentality.