In
this post, I will discuss different types of symbols and freedom of religion. There
are various symbols throughout the world that express faith, history, victory,
remembrance, etc. According to CBC News,
there is a ban in France
on religious symbols such as Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps
and large Christian crosses etc. However,
I think there is not only one type of symbols. But, France banned all symbols by
considering them as the same. Some symbols are created by people. Certainly,
they are originally symbols of something, but not religious then people attach
different meanings to them. For example, in the Roman
Empire the crucifix was not a religious symbol before Jesus'
death. But after his death it was accepted as a religious symbol. The crescent
and the star are not originated in Islam, but they have been adopted by Muslims
over time. On the other hand, some religious rituals are considered as religious
symbols. They are not originally religious, historical, national or regional
symbols. For example, hijab is not really an Islamic symbol, but it is an
observance of Islam. However, today it is being treated as an Islamic symbol
for some secular countries like France .
A
related question is why these symbols are prohibited by some secular
governments without considering their origin. Also, how can the secular
government consider these symbols as religious even though it can evaluate them
as historical, national, or regional symbols? For example, although there is a
difference between Christian cross and Jewish yarmulke or Muslim headscarves in
terms of their origin, for this discussion is a theological issue, the secular
government regards all of them as the same. In this case, if the government
makes the distinction that Muslim headscarf is a ritual rather than a symbol,
it makes a theological decision. If a government does not make this distinction,
it makes a decision that restricts freedom of religion. This is what the French
government fails to see. It is indeed a dilemma in secularism.
Another
issue is whether a symbol promotes the religion. For example, if an officer of
Air Force wears yarmulke, a Muslim woman wears hijab, or a Christian government
officer hangs a cross, it does not affect their religion positively in any way.
However, if these people are not allowed follow their religion, their rights
are being restricted. For example, in Turkey , the ban
on wearing hijab at public institutions has been effective for approximately 40
years based on the reasoning that in a secular country a religious symbol cannot
be allowed at such institutions. According to people who support the ban, if
the government appoints, say, a female teacher or judge wearing hijab, it means
that the government supports the religion. In contrast, in the US which is a
secular country whose citizens are largely Christians, there are many Muslim
women who can freely wear hijab at work and nobody make such groundless claims.
Finally,
the issue of identifying a symbol as religious is a very complicated one.
Therefore, banning them violates both human rights and freedom of religion
because even if what is called as a religious symbol is not religious originally,
people have the right to embrace them. If what is wrongly labeled as a
religious symbol is indeed a rule that followers of a religion have to obey,
then banning the 'symbol' is against freedom of religion. I think a court must
first refine what a religious symbol is before introducing a ban on a given
practice.
5 comments:
The CBC article referenced provides the rationale behind the French law, which is surprisingly similar to the US establishment clause. The article states, “France has placed an emphasis on laicite, or secularism, in modern society. As part of this desire to separate religion and government, religion is given no special status though is respected and can be freely practiced.” Although this position resembles that of the US government, a law that banned religious symbols would not be successful in the US. Promoting secularism could be seen as the government implicitly establishing a religion, or in this case a non-religion.
The French government has been consistent in its desire to keep religion strictly separate from civil society in the interest of the secular state. The government’s ban on religious dress and signs in public school is broad, inclusive, and also a bit vague since it pertains to ‘overt’ religious items. Established secular states do not wish to accommodate or exempt religion to the extent that the U.S. has. However, this ban in the name of political neutrality places the greatest burden on religious articles which are considered an obligation rather than a choice by religious adherents.
i think religious people ought to move out of France because there is no way one can not wear or embrace their religious symbols at all times or any time. Like Sikh's, their religion is to wear a turban on their head. How is a Sikh supposed to follow his religion?
Religion today is so deep into the lives of people that i don't believe the law in France can tackle.
I believe that banning such symbols in secular palces is a violation of human rights. Looking at it in a religious angle if a object emulates a religious symbolism then banning it would violate the free-exercise clasue and religious freedom. Keeping these symbols out of secular spaces is saying that a religious person can not wear there religion in public.
Post a Comment