Let Them Wear Headscarves II: A Response

My call for dropping the ban on wearing headscarves, for those women who wish to wear them -- even on campuses in Turkey, in governments buildings in Germany, and in schools in France (where crosses are allowed) -- generated a considerable set of comments [here]. The following is my response. Given the variety of the responses, it is not possible to react to each single comment; instead I will try to deal with issues raised by several commentators.

I agree with those who see the headscarves as more than a piece of cloth, as simply a symbol of devotion to Islam. However I strongly differ from those who argue that Islam is a theology of violence that calls for killing gays, raping women, and dominating the world. I provided 50 pages of dense text to show that from this viewpoint Islam is not different from other religions or even secular belief systems such as socialism. ALL can be and have been interpreted as condoning, indeed promoting, violence, but they have also been interpreted as the spring boards of peace [for more, visit here]. Indeed the majority of Muslims, especially those in Indonesia, Bangladesh, and North Africa, reject terrorism and surely world domination. My main point is that we should see in these nonviolent but religious Muslims as allies rather than push them into the adversary's camp. The importance of allowing the headscarf, which is hardly a dagger, is to show that we will not equate being religious with being violent.

Several of the commentators are concerned about the slippery slope, that we shall start with allowing the wearing of headscarves, and soon women will be wrapped in burkas and their rights will be denied. The fear of slipping down the slope is often raised when change is suggested or has just taken place. Earlier generations used to fuss about premarital sex, which they claimed would lead young girls to prostitution. And there are still those who are sure that most everyone who smokes a joint will end up being a drug addict. However, if one follows this line, we cannot change anything or experiment with anything. Instead of being afraid of the slope, we must first examine the intrinsic merit of the suggested change, and second, notch the slope, set a clear marker for how far we are going to go and where the line which we are not going to cross is--newly drawn.

In the case at hand, allowing women to wear what they want, including religious symbols, should be fully allowed (as it is in the United States). Separation of state and religion means only that the state will not promote any one religion; however, each individual is free to practice his or her religion, Islam included. What we should not tolerate in free society is for anyone to be forced to wear anything, including religious symbols. Hence, the comments that soon women will be attacked if they do not wear headscarves points to the place the line should be drawn. Violence to enforce ideology or religious beliefs by Muslims should not be tolerated any more than we should tolerate the burning of black churches or the bombing of abortion clinics.

The issue, I am the first to grant, becomes a bit more complicated when we deal with social pressure rather than coercion. In some parts of many European cities, where Muslims live, there is considerable social pressure for Muslim girls to wear headscarves, wear modest clothing, and not take swimming classes with boys. Up to this point, such pressure is all too common. Women (and men) are subject to pressure to wear or not to wear all kind of things. When (at age 79) I run around on the university campus wearing jeans, a baseball cap, and sneakers, I am often teased by my senior colleagues. And I hear that some first year students are being mocked for still being virgins.

However, when social pressure is ratcheted up to the point that individuals do not dare to show their face unless they conform to the community's norms, the time is due, indeed overdue, for public education campaigns on what citizenship in a free society entails. It requires tolerance for differences.

When all is said and done, it makes no sense to replace one kind of intolerance with another. Muslims who terrorize others to make them conform to religious dictates should be stopped whenever possible. (I speak about free societies; I would hardly invade Muslim nations to make them more liberal). Muslims (or any other groups) that puts excessive social pressures on their followers to "behave" should be subject to dialogues about what a civil society entails. However those who chose to wear a religious (or political) symbol, even if the choice is promoted by their friends, families, and communities, should be free to do so.

****
For a somewhat dense but very insightful novel, focused on headscarves, read Snow by Noble Prize-winning Turkish author, Orhan Pamuk.

Amitai Etzioni is a professor of international relations at The George Washington University and the author of The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society and The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda. To contact him, email [e-mail].
www.securityfirstbook.com

Comments

[FogBelter]

Religion will be the method of Man's suicide.

[TXfemmom]

Headscarves are not the issue. The issue is that much of what Islam believes is just diabolically in comflict with the humanism of Western Civilization, which is the basis of a Democratic, free society.

I have read and studied the Koran, with several books written by Islamic scholars, in order to understand the English translation and the cultural and other meanings lost in the translation. Islam requires that Muslims be Muslims first and foremost, and obey it above any laws of man, such as a woman's testimony in court is worth half of that of a man, not that of our courts, which is based upon the honesty of the testimony and the character of the person. It teaches that men can divorce a woman and control her well beyond what our Constitution, laws, and customs dictate. It teaches that Muslims may sign contracts and make agreements with "infidels" and have no intention of keeping those agreements and still be good Muslims.

My feeelings are that whatever the religion, be it Islam, Catholicism, Evangelical Christian, or Judaism, if they are in this land, then they must believe in and act in accordance with the principles of this land, or they should not dwell here. That is not too much to ask. Study the laws and customs of the land, and if the religion is not willing to accept that they must obey, follow, and respect them, then they should not be here and expect others to conform to their prejudices.

[ordinaryguy]

i only have a problem with the headscarves in places in which security is a necessary evil such as government buildings because they obscure identification.

[luziannagirl]

Dropping a ban on headscarves seems fine, but dropping a ban (if there is one) on covering any part of one's face in public should be upheld for security and law enforcement reasons.

At the same time, if any laws are broken involving pressure and predjudice against women who choose not to wear a headscarf in public, the perpetrators should be agressively prosecuted. I mean toothy fines and sting operations. Those coming from more repressive theocratic and cultural traditions need to know that some things will not be tolerated, and that a free society's freedoms may not be used against it or its people.

At some point, however, it has to be about victims choosing to use the legal tools at hand to stand up for themselves. I mean, look at the West Texas polygamy sects. If a woman never lodges a formal complaint about her husband having 10 other wives, none of the children ever end up needing public assistance or the help of anyone outside the compound, and the polygamy isn't official so never comes up in court for any reason because this is a whole community living "off the grid" making their own national laws, essentially, then what's to be done? Somebody has to complain, don't they? We can't make people complain if they are oblivious to their status as victims.

I suppose the only thing we can do in those cases, is educate.