Headscarves Case

A religion’s “rules” must stay between the devout people only as taboos; implication of sect into the legislation system and governance not only threatens the wellbeing of country’s own citizens, but it also prevents any kind of brain drain into the country which is an essential source of progression for any community. Therefore, governments should only be serving for the well being of the citizens, peace and democracy among the country; the youth should embrace the values United Nations strictly recognizes and be aware that it is best when the religion is separated from governance. Secularism must be recognized which is a case only possible if there is a massive change in the governments of these religious countries; citizens must be informed about inconveniences caused by religious laws more frequently since the censorship in media is extremely common in these

There has been debates about whether the Islamic face veil should be banned in countries. The arguments that governments of countries that have banned the Muslim face veil (France, Syria, Netherlands, Spain, and Belgium) argue that the full-face veil is oppressive, degrading towards women, and goes against values of each country. However, many Muslim women believe otherwise and strongly disagree with the banning of the veil. I strongly believe that the Islamic face veil should not be banned because it is a complete violation of religious and expressive freedom and forces them to conform to an alternative culture.

Unfortunately these concepts of religious liberty and of freedom have now been changed drastically and even set aside entirely in many instances. Os Guinness’ argument is that, to paraphrase Lord Acton, “Freedom is not the permission to do what

When I was first introduced to the topic of France’s ban on the veil, I disagreed with the law. I took a position based on my customs as an American citizen which differs completely to those of France. International critics began to argue that France is violating what people call “Freedom of Religion”, which I agreed with at first. As a foreigner from America, I am accustomed to the American governments definition of freedom of religion. Protected by the First Amendment “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (Religious Freedom). You can express your religion in public, during church, mass, or religious meetings. So the presence of religious items such as the

“When "religious freedom" gets invoked in the United States, it can be a mixed bag. It can be a term legitimately be used to describe the right of Americans to express their faith how they choose and associate accordingly, provided they don’t violate the rights of others. Or it could be invoked

The Canada (Attorney General) v. Big M Drug Mart (1985) case is an example of a case that could not be tolerated because it began to harm people around. The moment it harms people is when it should not be tolerated. They found that the government could not force individuals to conform to religious practices or follow certain religious beliefs (Canada v. Big M Drug Mart, 1985). Also, in the case of Canada (Attorney General) v. Edwards Books and Art (1986), we notice that the state has the duty of religious neutrality. It applies back to being tolerable with religions and having the state stay neutral between religions and society. Therefore we should be tolerating all religions and not excluding religions because one should not feel obligated to compel to certain

The biggest issue with this ban is that it does not impact all religions equally. A person in Buddhism can still live their lives without much of a change, but a person following Islam will have a harder time adapting to these changes, reason being is that Islam has more visible symbols than most other religions. Some examples of of symbols in Islam include Hijabs, Burqas, Chadors and the crescent moon and star. Whereas, in Buddhism for example, you have the Dharma wheel, Buddha, or orange robes if you happen to be a monk. As you can see Islam has more visible symbols since most symbols are clothing or headwear. The clothing that the women in Islam wear are symbols of modesty, you can’t simply wear a smaller Hijab or a smaller Burka. Whereas in Christianity you can wear a cross in a non visible way, in Buddhism you can wear a small Dharma wheel necklace if you

respect to religion: the right to be free from government-imposed religion and a right to practice

In The legal status of the Islamic headscarf in Bulgaria, Kristen Ghodsee discuss the case of regulating religious symbols in public schools specifically and explore the local politics informing the headscarf cases in Bulgaria. This paper will review Ghodsee’s article as well as her main arguments, and will focus on any areas of weakness within the article.

Within the Middle East, the largest population of the men and women are Muslim. The Muslim religion suggests that women wear a veil or hijab, which is a head scarf that only exposes a woman’s eyes, accompanied by a burqa which is a full body cloak. The sole purpose of the clothing is to cover a woman’s feminine features from men’s eyes. The Qur’an, an Islamic scripture, supports and slightly obligates the uniform by saying that women are to be conservative, “let them wear their head covering over their bosoms, and not display their ornaments.” (Qur’an). It could be inferred that women wear the burqa and veil willingly because of their geographical location. However, when Muslim women are withdrawn from the Middle East, and are placed

It is not the role of the State to decide which religious beliefs were valid. A society that is truly free allows for different beliefs, codes of conduct, customs and tastes, a blanket ban would come in place of other less restrictive methods. The interests of women like the applicant in S.A.S v France , who had to decide between wearing the veil and breaking the law, were much more seriously affected than the interests of those who disapproved of women wearing the veil. Further, the ban punished the women it was meant to protect by imposing criminal sanctions on

Here in the United States, some individuals think that by wearing a hijab you are you enforcing the belief that Muslim women are being forced to wear one despite the reason that some of these women wear it’s a sign of freedom. Therefore, it appears that to some women, the veil is unjust; while other women feel it is not unjust but a decision they made on their own in dedication to their religion. Still, for many women especially the ones in Western countries, they have no choice and for that reason alone, they are being made to wear a

The historical context of Islamophobic decisions in France can be traced to the year 2004 when the French national assembly proposed a ban on Islamic headscarves as well as other visible religious symbols in public schools. The proposed law was debated by the French Senate on 2 March 2004 and got a massive support from the legislators (Chalabi n.pag). Although most of the legislators considered the law as a move to avoid religious dominance in the public schools, the Human Rights Watch viewed the law as an unnecessary infringement on the right to religious practice. According to the Human Rights Watch and other opponents of the law, the wearing of the headscarves among the Muslims is not about religious expression but religious obligation. In other words, the banning of the headscarves is equivalent to infringement of the rights to freedom of worship which the constitution offers to every French citizen (Chazann.pag).

In many religions, the use of garments such as the Jewish yarmulke or the Islamic hijab are not merely worn out of choice, but out of strict ritual or religious obligation. Donning traditional dress is not just seen as religious duty, but ties closely with spiritual practice identity. Widespread use shows that it has become an integral part to the continuity of multiple religious practices. Provided that wearing religious garments is based on manifesting central religious beliefs, to what extent can a State hinder this expression of freedom? Should this conflict be approached as a matter of individual sovereignty or should a global norm be adopted? Technically speaking, the right to express religious freedom without the influence of

We need to pay close attention to the effects of secularism: confining the role of religion to the private domain of the individual and creating a dichotomy between "religious" and "worldly," between "private" and "public." It denies religion and its mediating institutions any public function and influence in shaping matters of public policy.