Burqa Ban? No, thanks- I'll take equality instead.
Daylight Atheism has a post from a month ago called Simo Says that I have been wanting to blog on for a bit. (If you follow that link, trigger warning for possible hateful language towards Islam and Muslims and dramatised hatred of Jews.)
Now, I identify neither as Muslim nor a woman, but I am vehemently opposed to France's proposed ban on wearing the burqa in public places. Let me repeat that- it bears emphasising- vehemently opposed. There is not enough "No" in the world for how much I dislike it, and particularly the language used to debate it. I am opposed to this type of law in any country. Government cannot regulate clothing in the US- clothing being a form of expression- and I think that is right. In the US in the 1960s, police would raid gay bars and check to make sure that "men" and "women" had at least 3 articles of clothing of the "right gender." Male-bodied person in a skirt? Arrest them. Female-bodied person NOT in a skirt? Arrest them, too. This does not happen (officially) any more, and if it did there would be riots. The choice of clothes is a right. The ability to wear what one wants without being harassed by police is a right.
The Independent ran an article here that cites Immigration Minister, Eric Besson, as saying that this ban would "be 'ineffective' and counter-productive, stirring up racial and religious tensions and reinforcing a sense of persecution among some Muslim communities." I agree, and I would go so far as to say that this would not only reinforce a "sense" of persecution, but would increase actual persecution against Muslims from their non-Muslim neighbours. My first exposure to this proposed law was when I read this article in the Telegraph. A 60-year old lawyer insulted a woman wearing a burqa, suggesting she covered her features because she was ugly, and then, in a fit of "burqa rage," ripped the veil off her head. It soon came to blows. Tell me this is not about religion. Tell me that it is reasonable for a stranger to rip an article of clothing off of your body in a public place- in any place- because they dislike that article of clothing. This is unacceptable, but I bet the lawyer gets a slap on the wrist.
This proposed law, while clothed in the language of ending the oppression of women by their husbands, is really about discrimination against the Other and fear/hatred of a particular religion. Some women are forced to wear the burqa by their husbands, yes, but others choose it. The burqa, like the kippa or the rosary, is a symbol of devotion to deity. Additionally, it is an article of clothing that in and of itself harms no one, and cannot thus be banned on any rational grounds.
Women's rights are important, are vital to an egalitarian society, and a law against men forcing their wives to wear any article of clothing is a good thing- but this is not that law. This law applies only to the hijab and burqa, and it imposes a fine on women who choose to wear them. This is a religious choice for some women, and fining them for exercising their religious freedom- a human right- is wrong.
Here is a choice sampling of what I found issue with in the post on Daylight Athiesm (emphasis mine):"It confirmed many of my worst fears about the fate of humanity and the utter incompatibility of religion and the survival of our species."
Oh really? I have some religious friends who would disagree. Just because you are athiest doesn't mean you can force that on someone anymore than they can force their religion on you."One of the women's rights activists would get up to speak. He or she would speak about secularism and gender equality and gender desegregation as the foundational pillars of a safe and egalitarian public space in which all citizens enjoy equal rights and equal protection under the law in a democratic republic."
Careful, your heinous bias is showing."Then, one of the Islamists would respond by telling us what Mohammed said or did as was recorded in the Quran or the Hadith and how wonderful Islam is for women, because it gives them rights according to their differentness. And, sum up with a lovely comment about how Jews are pigs or something or other and the speaker is an anti-immigrant racist who hates Muslims and is in league with the Zionists."
There are no words."Then, a veiled woman would tell us that she really likes being the property of her husband, because that's what Allah commands, and no one can tell her that she shouldn't be a slave."
Check that privilege at the door. If this veiled woman is saying I choose to wear this veil because my deity commands it, respect that. If you choose instead to hear "I'm a slave to this evil garment and I need you, the Enlightened Activist, to save me from the oppression of my husband and religion..." well, you're probably wrong and you need to keep that shit to yourself."Did the Islamists really expect the secularists to acquiesce after a little Quranic exegesis? Oh, ok, well if Mohammed said it or did it, I guess that settles that.
Refusal to consider the religious viewpoint in the context of secular, democratic governance is not bigotry; it is not racism; it is not intolerance. It is common sense."
First, mockery of a religious viewpoint does not an egalitarian discussion make. Your words here put the lie to your stated goals of equality. Equality for some is not equality. You have the right to be atheist. They have the right to be religious. You don't have to like it, but you don't get to mock them for it, just as they don't get to mock you.
Also, considering the religious impact is not the same as creating law from a solely religious viewpoint, no matter how much you want to conflate the two. These people are defending their female members' right to wear this veil, from a religious stand. This is because the veil is a religious symbol. The burqa does not exist in a vaccuum- it is a religious item, and you cannot take religion out of a discussion of it."This is why freedom from religion IS freedom of religion."
Well, I'm pretty sure freedom of religion is freedom of religion, but don't let me stop you from sounding like an utter ass. Really, carry on."Islamists are called Islamists for a reason. They really do want to impose Sharia upon the societies in which they reside, and not only upon the Muslim populations within those societies. For them, there is no compromise. There is no other viewpoint worth considering, other than the Islamic viewpoint.
This is the result of brainwashing and indoctrinating and inculcating in religious cults. These people were incapable, quite literally incapable of allowing for a society structured on any other principles than those enumerated in the Quran and the Hadith. It was simply inconceivable to them that someone would not accept and conform to the example of the Prophet. [...] The notion of the irrelevancy of Islam to the conversation about good democratic governance left them without an argument. They didn't know how to respond. In their desperation to respond to such a blasphemous suggestion, they short-circuited and the unspent energy exerted itself in eruptions of violence. It was scary. [...] Not because of the violence, but, because of the futility of the exercise. For that debate to have actually taken place, in any sort of realistic, credible, viable manner, years of religious deprogramming of all participants would have had to occur first."
This right here is the crux of my argument: the burqa ban is based on religious hatred. Why bother listening to those wacky religious folk when they will just get violent. Never mind their valid point that we are destroying a part of their religion, let's just go ahead with what we want. If they don't like it, they can leave, because we don't want them here anyway. I just want to point out that some of the many (read: millions of) people affected by this proposed law are actually French natives, for what it's worth."Imagine a society in which we brainwash all children to believe that they can fly. From the moment they are born, all children are taught that, if they jump off any sufficiently high precipice, and they are worthy and morally sound, they will be able to flap their arms and take flight, saving themselves from a deathly plunge. With the modernization of society, many parents have ceased to inculcate their children in this belief, having realized its fallacy. And, of those who persist in perpetuating the custom, most reveal the hoax to their children before they are old enough to test its claims. Others have reformed the tradition, advising their children that they best not attempt to test the belief, given that few are so worthy. But, regardless of the claims of modernity, the custom persists, and, as young adults, a certain percentage of our youth attempt just such an act, resulting in many needless deaths.
[...]
Obviously, I think it is a waste of time to try to reform Islam into a gender-friendly, or, even, a gender-neutral doctrine. I think women would be better off rejecting religion all together. Trying to find a place for gender equality in the context of religion is like trying to find a place for racial equality in the context of Nazism."
Grr... So religion is like being a Nazi?"It was an impossible situation, and a perfect metaphor - law and order standing between the secularists and the violent Islamists."
Here, let me edit that sentence for you: "law and order standing between the" cool, calm, perfect, rational "secularists and the" horrible, evil, hateful, "violent Islamists." There, that sounds a bit more like what you meant to convey.
I read this blog post and my anger at this asinine law got worse. If these are the kind of people arguing for the proposed law and running the government, then maybe the Muslims should leave France- for their own safety! I know that is not a good solution, not feasible for most, but I am ready to knee the entire support for this law in the crotch. But I guess that must be because I am a horrible violent person who hates atheists and women. Oh, wait! No, it's because I am an egalitarian who believes in religious freedom AND gender equality.
Now, I identify neither as Muslim nor a woman, but I am vehemently opposed to France's proposed ban on wearing the burqa in public places. Let me repeat that- it bears emphasising- vehemently opposed. There is not enough "No" in the world for how much I dislike it, and particularly the language used to debate it. I am opposed to this type of law in any country. Government cannot regulate clothing in the US- clothing being a form of expression- and I think that is right. In the US in the 1960s, police would raid gay bars and check to make sure that "men" and "women" had at least 3 articles of clothing of the "right gender." Male-bodied person in a skirt? Arrest them. Female-bodied person NOT in a skirt? Arrest them, too. This does not happen (officially) any more, and if it did there would be riots. The choice of clothes is a right. The ability to wear what one wants without being harassed by police is a right.
The Independent ran an article here that cites Immigration Minister, Eric Besson, as saying that this ban would "be 'ineffective' and counter-productive, stirring up racial and religious tensions and reinforcing a sense of persecution among some Muslim communities." I agree, and I would go so far as to say that this would not only reinforce a "sense" of persecution, but would increase actual persecution against Muslims from their non-Muslim neighbours. My first exposure to this proposed law was when I read this article in the Telegraph. A 60-year old lawyer insulted a woman wearing a burqa, suggesting she covered her features because she was ugly, and then, in a fit of "burqa rage," ripped the veil off her head. It soon came to blows. Tell me this is not about religion. Tell me that it is reasonable for a stranger to rip an article of clothing off of your body in a public place- in any place- because they dislike that article of clothing. This is unacceptable, but I bet the lawyer gets a slap on the wrist.
This proposed law, while clothed in the language of ending the oppression of women by their husbands, is really about discrimination against the Other and fear/hatred of a particular religion. Some women are forced to wear the burqa by their husbands, yes, but others choose it. The burqa, like the kippa or the rosary, is a symbol of devotion to deity. Additionally, it is an article of clothing that in and of itself harms no one, and cannot thus be banned on any rational grounds.
Women's rights are important, are vital to an egalitarian society, and a law against men forcing their wives to wear any article of clothing is a good thing- but this is not that law. This law applies only to the hijab and burqa, and it imposes a fine on women who choose to wear them. This is a religious choice for some women, and fining them for exercising their religious freedom- a human right- is wrong.
Here is a choice sampling of what I found issue with in the post on Daylight Athiesm (emphasis mine):"It confirmed many of my worst fears about the fate of humanity and the utter incompatibility of religion and the survival of our species."
Oh really? I have some religious friends who would disagree. Just because you are athiest doesn't mean you can force that on someone anymore than they can force their religion on you."One of the women's rights activists would get up to speak. He or she would speak about secularism and gender equality and gender desegregation as the foundational pillars of a safe and egalitarian public space in which all citizens enjoy equal rights and equal protection under the law in a democratic republic."
Careful, your heinous bias is showing."Then, one of the Islamists would respond by telling us what Mohammed said or did as was recorded in the Quran or the Hadith and how wonderful Islam is for women, because it gives them rights according to their differentness. And, sum up with a lovely comment about how Jews are pigs or something or other and the speaker is an anti-immigrant racist who hates Muslims and is in league with the Zionists."
There are no words."Then, a veiled woman would tell us that she really likes being the property of her husband, because that's what Allah commands, and no one can tell her that she shouldn't be a slave."
Check that privilege at the door. If this veiled woman is saying I choose to wear this veil because my deity commands it, respect that. If you choose instead to hear "I'm a slave to this evil garment and I need you, the Enlightened Activist, to save me from the oppression of my husband and religion..." well, you're probably wrong and you need to keep that shit to yourself."Did the Islamists really expect the secularists to acquiesce after a little Quranic exegesis? Oh, ok, well if Mohammed said it or did it, I guess that settles that.
Refusal to consider the religious viewpoint in the context of secular, democratic governance is not bigotry; it is not racism; it is not intolerance. It is common sense."
First, mockery of a religious viewpoint does not an egalitarian discussion make. Your words here put the lie to your stated goals of equality. Equality for some is not equality. You have the right to be atheist. They have the right to be religious. You don't have to like it, but you don't get to mock them for it, just as they don't get to mock you.
Also, considering the religious impact is not the same as creating law from a solely religious viewpoint, no matter how much you want to conflate the two. These people are defending their female members' right to wear this veil, from a religious stand. This is because the veil is a religious symbol. The burqa does not exist in a vaccuum- it is a religious item, and you cannot take religion out of a discussion of it."This is why freedom from religion IS freedom of religion."
Well, I'm pretty sure freedom of religion is freedom of religion, but don't let me stop you from sounding like an utter ass. Really, carry on."Islamists are called Islamists for a reason. They really do want to impose Sharia upon the societies in which they reside, and not only upon the Muslim populations within those societies. For them, there is no compromise. There is no other viewpoint worth considering, other than the Islamic viewpoint.
This is the result of brainwashing and indoctrinating and inculcating in religious cults. These people were incapable, quite literally incapable of allowing for a society structured on any other principles than those enumerated in the Quran and the Hadith. It was simply inconceivable to them that someone would not accept and conform to the example of the Prophet. [...] The notion of the irrelevancy of Islam to the conversation about good democratic governance left them without an argument. They didn't know how to respond. In their desperation to respond to such a blasphemous suggestion, they short-circuited and the unspent energy exerted itself in eruptions of violence. It was scary. [...] Not because of the violence, but, because of the futility of the exercise. For that debate to have actually taken place, in any sort of realistic, credible, viable manner, years of religious deprogramming of all participants would have had to occur first."
This right here is the crux of my argument: the burqa ban is based on religious hatred. Why bother listening to those wacky religious folk when they will just get violent. Never mind their valid point that we are destroying a part of their religion, let's just go ahead with what we want. If they don't like it, they can leave, because we don't want them here anyway. I just want to point out that some of the many (read: millions of) people affected by this proposed law are actually French natives, for what it's worth."Imagine a society in which we brainwash all children to believe that they can fly. From the moment they are born, all children are taught that, if they jump off any sufficiently high precipice, and they are worthy and morally sound, they will be able to flap their arms and take flight, saving themselves from a deathly plunge. With the modernization of society, many parents have ceased to inculcate their children in this belief, having realized its fallacy. And, of those who persist in perpetuating the custom, most reveal the hoax to their children before they are old enough to test its claims. Others have reformed the tradition, advising their children that they best not attempt to test the belief, given that few are so worthy. But, regardless of the claims of modernity, the custom persists, and, as young adults, a certain percentage of our youth attempt just such an act, resulting in many needless deaths.
[...]
Obviously, I think it is a waste of time to try to reform Islam into a gender-friendly, or, even, a gender-neutral doctrine. I think women would be better off rejecting religion all together. Trying to find a place for gender equality in the context of religion is like trying to find a place for racial equality in the context of Nazism."
Grr... So religion is like being a Nazi?"It was an impossible situation, and a perfect metaphor - law and order standing between the secularists and the violent Islamists."
Here, let me edit that sentence for you: "law and order standing between the" cool, calm, perfect, rational "secularists and the" horrible, evil, hateful, "violent Islamists." There, that sounds a bit more like what you meant to convey.
I read this blog post and my anger at this asinine law got worse. If these are the kind of people arguing for the proposed law and running the government, then maybe the Muslims should leave France- for their own safety! I know that is not a good solution, not feasible for most, but I am ready to knee the entire support for this law in the crotch. But I guess that must be because I am a horrible violent person who hates atheists and women. Oh, wait! No, it's because I am an egalitarian who believes in religious freedom AND gender equality.