The true meaning of Secularism
(c) eilifursinreed
Two pieces of news caught my attention last week, and got me thinking about the issue of secularism and the state. The first was of French president Nicolas Sarkozy banning the use of the …
(c) eilifursinreed
Two pieces of news caught my attention last week, and got me thinking about the issue of secularism and the state. The first was of French president Nicolas Sarkozy banning the use of the burka in France. The second was of Belgium’s first veiled MP being elected to the parliament.
In the first case, president Sarkozy decided to make the announcement of the banning of the burka, in the interest of maintaining a secular state which forbids one to show any exterior signs of belonging to any religion. In the other case, Belgium, presumably also secular, allows a Muslim and therefore veiled young woman be appointed to the parliament, just as any other Belgian would be.
Quite a few European countries are secular, and this entails a separation between church and state, where the country is not declared to be of any one religion. This can be interpreted in different ways as both these cases show, but it seems to me that Belgian is definitely the case to follow.
How can a country claim to be secular, and then prohibit people from showing any signs of belonging to any religion, including wearing cross-shaped pendants? What happened to the freedom of expression? Instead, it seems to me that this most recent banning of burkas, and the ongoing polemics over the use of the headscarf, seem more like an attack against Muslims, rather than a strict application of the notion of secularism. After all, people do not complain about people wearing cross-shaped pendants or rosaries, this doesn’t offend them. This does not make women look as if they are being subjected to Christianity. On the other hand, according to M. Sarkozy, the burka is a sign of women being oppressed “imprisoned behind a mesh, cut off from society, deprived of all identity”.
What he fails to remember is that although some women may be forced to wear the burka against their will, others also choose to wear it. It is a choice of theirs, a personal devotion and way of life that they adhere to. Why should they be forbidden from living their lives the way they want to? Who are we to decide whether or not they are oppressed? It seems to me that this is a particularly unfair judgment to be made. As a president, his role is to represent all his people and this includes their beliefs and religions, or in any case support for them.
In my opinion, a secular state is one that would allow its citizens to express their religions, all of them, freely. People should be allowed to wear crosses, turbans, veils, burqas, kippas, anything they like without feeling bad about it, without worrying whether or not they might be offending someone or against the law. This is the case not only in Belgium as this week’s example has shown us, but also in the UK where one can see tube drivers wearing turbans, and policewomen or shop assistants wearing veils.
I am particularly shocked by France’s latest statement, and do not feel that it is appropriate for a world in which we are supposed to be embracing all the different cultures that are around us, and welcoming different people into our countries. Nor is it appropriate for a country that calls itself secular and is home to the largest Western European population of Muslims. As I have mentioned before, France already suffers from social unrest, does it really want to make matters worse for itself by making its Muslims feel even more excluded? Or does this actually count as secularism?
Tweet
Someone has pointed out to me that my opening statement is false: Sarkozy did not ban the burka he has only created a commission to look in to the possible banning of it. I apologise for this false fact. I think elsewhere it is correct. Thanks!
Hmmm…I was writing an article about this, but I may abandon it seeing as it is now up here in the blogosphere.
I feel as though this is somewhat one sided. To be honest, it comes across as a typical piece of apologism on behalf of Islam and extremism. As a defence of Islam and the Burka, it’s a good article. As a balanced piece, no not really. There is no consideration given to why the Burka has been picked on, as opposed to the other items of religious clothing or expression.
It’s really, really simple. The Burka IS a symbol of oppression. As I say this, don’t take it to mean I believe the Burka should be banned – I’m a bit in between on that issue, and it is a separate issue. But the point I am making here is that it is NOT an attack on Islam. Frankly, Islam always thinks it is being attacked. Which is true to an extent, but it is also a measure of how provocative a religion it is. Which I think is the point here. And before I go onto explain a few things about Islam which make it more provocative, I don’t want this to sound like an attack on Islam – because in effect, it is a perfectly reasonable religion, just as much as any other – when applied properly. Extremists have malformed its words. Unfortunately Islam’s flaw is that it is more open to misinterpretation than others.
No other religion subjects women to the treatment that Islam does – and this is why Sarkozy is picking on the Burka. The Jewish equivalent is the shaul – a wig to cover a woman’s hair. Besides, women have equal rights in Judaism. I don’t even know anything about Christianity (a failing of my education as a Jewish pupil at a Jewish school, which by the way, on this tangent, is a very powerful case in point of why religious schools are a BAD thing). But I don’t see any evidence of women being oppressed in Christianity. Islam sees women as half the value of men. You cannot defend this! As a liberal society, Sarkozy is defending the value of women. And right he is to do so.
I’m not sure I agree about it being banned in public. Personally, I think the Burka is perfectly acceptable in your own home, of course. It is your home. And as you rightly point out, you have the freedom to do what you wish in your own home. But the same goes for private property. Private schools and shops etc. have the right not to allow entry to women wearing a veil – it’s their right. This is liberty we are talking about. And as the public is owned by everyone, and government is elected to make decisions on behalf of people, what the government say is acceptable and what isn’t must be respected. Of course there are countless historical precedents of regimes who have abused this right – Nazis, Soviets, half of the Middle East – but France doesn’t abuse its rights. It subjects its population to the same rules – religion is separate from state. And religious items and clothing are not allowed. For ANY religion. It’s not just Islam. Remember, liberty is both positive and negative. Women may have the right TO wear the Burka. Landowners and politicians have the right to not entertain those who wear this clothing, if they so wish, and there are good reasons why they may do so. I personally don’t agree, if a woman entered my home wearing a Burka who I had invited over, I would happily welcome her in. But you know, you talk about liberty and you can’t tell people what to do. You also can’t tell people what not to do. And you can’t tell the French how to run their country!
DG, I don’t write this as an outsider, I write this as someone who lives in France and have done so practically all my life. The reason why I say it appears as an attack on Islam is because France has a large population, in fact the largest populations of muslims in Europe and yet it continues to upset them by finding issues with their religion. First it was the wearing of the headscarf, now it’s the burka, what next? The point is, it really does feel as if they have a problem with all these Muslims living in their country, and so they’re trying to change them so that french people don’t feel so out of place in their own country. I know this sounds/seems a bit extreme, but if you ask the Muslim people here how they feel about it I’m sure quite a few of them will tell you they feel that they are being picked on. Of course there is the other side of the argument whereby Sarkozy is trying to protect these women’s rights, and so if they are being forced to wear the burka then it is better for them to be able to be free of it, but how are they ever going to decide who is being forced and who is not? In my opinion they are taking the meaning of secularism to the other extreme by banning everything as opposed to being tolerant about people’s choice of religion and their way of expressing it.
Leave your response!
Events run by The Vibe
Balloon Debate: What is the best superpower (e.g. the ability to fly)?
Come along to our debate / social with the Central London Debating Society at the Harcourt Arms (Harcourt Street, W1H 4HX) on 26th August at 6.30pm
Debate and Discussion on The Vibe