North of the Shire

To give credit where it is due I first heard this story on Al Kresta’s program on EWTN radio this afternoon. Apparently there has been brewing in official France the desire to ban the wearing of the burqa by some Muslim women, based on a political fear, ie., that this is a sign of radical Islam which seeks not to live in secular France in peace (or secular anywhere for that matter) but rather ultimately seeks control of the nation by an Islamic theocracy. In other words, within Islam, if not throughout the religion, there is an understanding of Church and State that does not reconcile with the Western model of separation.

At the outset, before arguing the merits, it may seem a little surprising, shocking even, that France would feel empowered to do such a thing in the first place. However, if we look back at the revolution in France and since, it is clear that the government has never had any compunction with seizing control of Church property or ordering about the clergy, and otherwise making demands upon religion that most Americans, at least, would see as unthinkable intrusions beyond the legitimate power of the state. So now, when there are numbers of them that feel threatened by the immigrant invasion of Islam, they are beginning to respond as they did once to the Catholic Church. In that sense it is not new nor outside of the normal parameters of French political thought.

Let’s discuss the merits. For the record, Al Kresta was for the ban, and he used a discussion of the nature of Islam as a justification, essentially supporting the French fears of Islam’s intentions. The argument itself I would not dispute, and I agree with his contention that Islam cannot be counted in the same category as other religions because intrinsically it is more than just religious but also political, and leaves no room for the separation of Church and State as does Christianity in almost all of its forms.

However, there is still the nagging issue of government intrusion into religious expression. Insofar as the secular world categorizes Islam as a religion and Christianity, in particular Catholicism, as a religion also, in the secular mind, there is a parallel between the two. Thus, the imposition of the secular will on one religion is the precedent for another imposition on another religion. To me it is a clear illustration that there really is no neutral ground, and the noble secular state cannot exist in freedom, and will not exist at all for very long, before it lapses into some sort of tyranny.

The best argument against the burqa is the human argument. In the past, I have made the point, and I still think it is a valid one, that Islam does have an issue with respect to the secular west and modesty as the video illustrates so well.

However, v of Vox Clamanti in the comments of this post makes the very best argument, that the burqa takes away the identity of the wearer because it covers the face. It removes the personhood of the wearer in a way that the nun’s habit,

or the head scarves and other modest clothing of many other cultures and religions do not. And that is the best argument against the burqa, in my opinion. Here are v’s comments;

I too find modesty appealing, and headscarves and hijabs beautiful for what they represent … for what they reveal (although not revealing) about the soul of the woman who wears them.

Naturally, a headscarf or a hijab has to be matched by equally modest dress. There is nothing so ludicrous as seeing a young Muslim girl in skin-tight jeans, belly-baring blouse, and a hijab. Hypocrisy, it seems, is not limited to our faith.

However, I must take issue with you on the merits of the burqa. While I esteem and respect the hijab, I find the burqa repellent, revolting, and person-hating. No one who has kissed a picture of a loved one or venerated an icon can tell me that the face revealed is meaningless. Without faces, we have no identity. We are masked, automatons, hidden, outlaws.

God made Man in His image, and He called it good. God further gave our humanity - our mortal flesh - His stamp of approval when He condescended to take on our flesh and become one of us. When we hide our features, we wipe out our identity and, more importantly, desecrate the image of God.

- V.

However, I am still uneasy about the prospect of governments banning any religious garb. The only justification it may have is the political one that France has made, but that justification could be easily stretched to fit any situation with a little imagination.