| |
|
Okay, instead of arguing over the wearing of Ninja PJs (geez, I'm sorry I started that meme), let me see if I can I tackle this question from another direction. If the issue is, at the base of it, a religious one, how should (ideally) government deal with it? What does "freedom of religion" really mean, anyway? (in America)
1)The tack taken by the majority of posters supporting Freeman's right to have a license while in niqab is that as a profession of her religious faith, the government is obliged to support her in this. In effect, freedom of religion means that laws must be put in place (or modified) in order to accomodate/allow the following of any faith in the U.S.
2)The tack taken by the majority of posters against Freeman's right to have a license picture in niqab is that the privilege (not the right) to drive is under the control of the state, which has an overweaning interest in making sure only people eligible to drive can drive. While it would not be objectionable for Freeman to drive while wearing a veil, she must submit to positive ID ( a picture) in order to drive. In effect, freedom of religion means that the law is blind to whether or not the person bound by it follows a certain religion; the law does not care whether you are a Muslim, Xtian, etc.
Arguments against (1) hinge around a minimal-government model, that the fewer laws, less information held about the individual by the state, the better. A classic libertarian (some would say neo-conservative) argument.
Argument against (2) would say that it is impossible for the law "not to care" about the religion, as law is a human aritfact, in this case put in place by Christian men to guarantee the rights that were/are important to them without necessarily thinking about people who don't believe as they do. It is arguable that this power grab was intentional (the conspiracy boogey man), but it is de facto there, and to ignore it in favor of liberal (in the classic sense) platitudes is to ignore reality.
So what does "freedom of religion" mean in the post-liberal U.S.? As what used to be known as a secular humanist, I'm biased towards 2, but as a nanny-stater I have sympathy with 1. What type of governing philosophy best balances 1 and 2? |
|
|
