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

[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.