On Religious Freedoms:

The question of religious freedom is a relevant one today. What religious acts are considered acceptable and what others are not? A tangential question, which I raise here for rhetorical value rather than to engage in a prolonged discussion on ths object, is what religious speech should be condoned/permitted and what denied (if any)?

But to religious freedom. I raise the topic in the context of the Muslim veil - worn by most Muslim women in some form or other. There are a variety of different veils, ranging from the recognizeable hijab (headscarf covering the hair but leaving the face exposed), to the more commonly known (at least by name) burqa (which covers the entire body, as well as covering the face with a mesh so as to conceal even the facial features of the wearer). These iterations hail from different subcultures within Islam and are typical of different regions. It should be noted that there are other customary veils worn in
other parts of the Muslim world. I will leave it to the reader to explore the details of this religious practice on their own time.

For now, I wish to consider the following news from the BBC (for poignant review of the BBC as an institution, I would direct you to read some of Melanie Phillips's comments about it).

The Islamic veil across Europe
Comments by British cabinet minister Jack Straw are the latest episode
in a Europe-wide debate on the Islamic veil.

Mr Straw said he asked Muslim women visitors to his offices to remove their veils to facilitate communication.

Countries across the continent have wrestled with an issue that takes in religious freedom, female equality, secular traditions and even fears of terrorism.

The piece continues to provide a list of some European concepts of how to approach the question of the veil.

FRANCE

A ban on Muslim headscarves and other "conspicuous" religious symbols at state schools was introduced in 2004.

The measure received overwhelming political and public support in a country where the separation of state and religion is enshrined in law.

However, headscarves can be worn in Muslim schools, and at university level, where the law on religious signs does not apply.

TURKEY

For the past 80 years Turks have lived in a secular state founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who rejected headscarves as backward-looking in his campaign to secularise Turkish society.

Even so, it is estimated that as many as 65% of Turkish women cover their heads with a scarf.

Nonetheless, scarves are banned in civic spaces, including schools, universities - state or private - and official buildings.

In November 2005 the European Court of Human Rights ruled the ban was legitimate.

BRITAIN

There is no ban on Islamic dress in the UK.

However, schools are allowed to forge their own dress code.

The courts were forced to rule when a schoolgirl complained that her school sent her home for wearing a jilbab, which covers the entire body, except for hands, feet, face, and head.

The courts said the school made sufficient concessions by allowing the Islamic trousers and tunic.

GERMANY

In September 2003 the federal Constitutional Court ruled in favour of a teacher who wanted to wear an Islamic scarf to school.

However, it said states could change their laws locally if they wanted to.

At least four German states have gone on to ban teachers from wearing headscarves and in the state of Hesse the ban applies to all civil servants.

RUSSIA

Russia's Supreme Court has overturned a 1997 interior ministry ruling which forbade women from wearing headscarves in passport photos.

ITALY

In September 2004 local politicians in the north of Italy resurrected old laws against the wearing of masks, to ban women from wearing the all-over burqa.

In July 05 the Italian parliament approved anti-terrorist laws which make hiding one's features from the public - including through wearing the burqa - an offence.

BELGIUM

The city of Maaseik, on the Dutch border, has banned the niqab, which covers the whole body except for the eyes.

So why would countries impose a ban on religious garb? Is this something that the U.S. should ever consider?

This is a difficult question. In a day when individual identity is easily changed, stolen, or otherwise abused I believe it is absolutely essential that the government be able to issue ID cards and papers (think passports, driver's licenses, voter registration cards, etc.) that accurately reflect and represent the individual carrying them. Even foregoing the counter-terrorism argument, I believe that photo IDs are a necessary requirement for people inside any country as a means of facilitating the execution of State (i.e. laws of the nation in question) law. To this end, I think that the Italian approach ought to be adopted here in the USA.

But what about the question of religious freedom that is a cornerstone of our country? As a feature that has drawn wave after wave of immigrants, and allowed them to create a comfortable life here content with their own freedom to worship whatever, whomever and however they so choose, I am loathe to suggest even the smallest infraction on such liberties. Perhaps a sort of compromise could be created such that veils like the burqa or other Muslim veils or other religious garb that similarly conceal the features of the wearer could be legally worn, yet be removed in the event that identity must be established. That is, perhaps such garb could be permitted unless there is a need to identify the wearer, at which point she must legally remove the veil to the extent that her features can be identified and compared to the photo on her ID.

This seems a fair compromise, but does raise the specter of violating religious freedoms in certain instances. Is this something that we can or should accept? I am struggling to find a reason why not.

Feel free to weigh in...

~JDS

UPDATE October 24, 2006: I note that the subject of the veil has become a point of controversy elsewhere in the world - viz Egypt. It seems there does exist doubt that some of the more concealing forms of the veil worn by Muslim women is required by Islam. As previously indicated, I believe that the right to individual freedom of worship in America is one of our truly great societal innovations, but in a world facing threats of terrorism, violence from previously docile civilians motivated by ideology - the greater good must permit us to place some VERY (can I emphasize this any more?) modest restrictions on this freedom to permit those we task with maintaining our peace the ability to carry out their duty.