An interesting discussion in the International Debate Forum lead to this topic.
France: Ban of religious symbols and clothing

To be brief France is likely to pass a ban on "conspicuous" religious symbols worn by students including, headscarves, yarmulkes, "large" crosses, etc.

I presume this to be a violation of basic human rights, and frightening to see in a "civilized" country.

Never one to criticize others while ignoring my own backyard, this story came to my attention this morning (don't bash "conservative" talk radio, a lot of independent thought is voiced and I was glad of it today.)


Driver license rules anger Muslims
While certainly on a much smaller scale than the French law, the motives behind this act are equally frightening.

...but I already know what I think so...

Do you believe governments should make special considerations for their citizens religious or cultural traits? Not, for instance, forcing them to remove articles of religious headgear when one would be asked to remove a baseball cap.

What do you feel in the motive is behind these laws?

Very good questions.

1. I support a fully secular government, with as much religious freedom for individuals as possible. Each case needs to be decided on its own merits. Does the government have an overwhelming need to deny a particular person a particular religious freedom? I suppose you can call this "special consideration" but I would rather think of it as strict neutrality. In the particular case at hand, it seems that the government should not require anyone to remove headgear when getting photographed for a driver's license, as long as the headgear does not prevent identification of the individual. As has been pointed out, hair is a very poor source of identification, so covering it should not be a problem. There was another debate here a while back about a woman who wanted to be fully veiled while being photographed for identification. The opinion of the government, and the consensus here, was that the government had a legitimate reason to require her to remove the veil. When in doubt, err on the side of maximum individual religious freedom.

2. It's hard to determine motive. In this particular case, I'm willing to accept that this was a policy designed with no intent of religious discrimination. Did the events of 9/11 make certain people employed by the government a little more zealous than necessary? Would the issue have been raised if a woman wanted to wear a scarf to cover her heir loss from chemotherapy? I can't say, but I can wonder.

Here is the thread you are referencing: Unveil or be Suspended. I'm not sure it will really help answer any of the debate questions, but it's nice to have a point of reference.

I don't see a problem with head coverings that do not mask the face. But I also don't see why it should be allowed for religious and medical reasons and nothing else. If it doesn't hide your identity, then it should be allowed. Whether it's for religious reasons, to cover hair loss due to cancer, or because you're a huge Yankee fan seems irrelevant and shouldn't have to be explained.

Minnesota has the right idea when it comes to this issue! Link (PDF)


I don't honestly believe that the requirements have anything to do with religious intolerance or discrimination. I don't think the requirements were changed post 9-11, these cases in the news were just discovered after going back over records because of 9-11. The requirement should be relaxed a bit for everybody, so long as the face is not covered.

There are other cases in which Muslim women are fighting to wear veils that cover everything but their eyes, and I can't agree with allowing that. An ID photo has to be able to identify a person, after all.


Edited to let everyone know the link goes to a PDF document.

And then the government jumps off the deep end the other way:

Miller bill would fight Ten Commandments rulings



So... which method of acknowledging God will be permitted? The Christian one? The Islamic one? The Rastafarian one?

Government needs to acknowledge religious freedom, but not accomodate religion. Once you try to give one religion more rights than others, we end up with favoritism based on whoever is running government, which doesn't work.

I'm wondering if the French are using this "looking more uniformly French" ploy instead of saying that they cannot guarantee Muslims that they will be safe if they continue wearing their traditional religious garb. Perhaps they feel it is a face-saving measure to declare their nationalism rather than admit that they cannot keep all of their citizens safe at home.

I know--how about having Muslim girls wear the blue, white, and red colors of the French flag for their headscarves and making it permissible for both sexes to wear the scarves on their heads? That would encourage some uniformity and proclaim nationalism while not specifically designating who is Muslim.

Hmmm, good question... I think the best way for a government to allow religious freedom is to stay as far away from religious issues as possible (ala marriage, sex practices, ten commandment statues, etc), but what happens when a religious practice directly affects the workings of the government - like getting your ID picture? as Victoria said, its best to err on the side of max individual religious freedom. Obviously, a full veil - or anything - obstructing the view of the face would be out of the question, as this defeats the purpose of the ID picture. This is also reasoning behind baseball caps - since, depending on how they are worn, they can obstruct the view of the face. THus it is easier to ask people to remove them to take the picture. But the veils in question here do not obstruct the face, so it is ridiculous to force women to remove them. In the case of a full veil, I think the state should be somewhat understanding - ie, have a female photographer and take the picture in an area that is not in full view of the public (like all of the VA DMVs photo booths are). This would allow some measure of sensitivity while still fulfilling the need of the state for an ID picture.
It makes more sense to allow the women to wear the veil, just as they allow people to wear wigs and fake hair pieces, because this would be the way they would normally look - thus allowing easier identificaiton... which is what the picture is for.

It is funny to think I could go and apply for a new ID picture wearing a bride of frankenstein wig and a groucho marx mustache, but in Alabama I couldn't get a picture wearing a head scarf. It seems to me, a picture with me in a headscarf would make it easier to identify me in a crowd than a picture in the wig and mustache.

To be honest I agree 100%...
However, I wanted to take the discussion beyond either individual case. For instance let's mix the two. I have only a small problem with school enforcing a rule on non-religious headwear in the classroom. While I personally don't see why it is disrespectful I am willing to allow that social standard to be enforced.

However (here's where the "special consideration" comes in) I would have real problems with a student being ordered to remove a yarmulke under the same rule. I feel that in this case as Victoria Silverwolf put wonderfully: "When in doubt, err on the side of maximum individual religious freedom." A school should know the difference between a hijab and a cap and should respect the cultural and religious sensitivities of it's student body when doing so harms no one. This is what I mean by "accommodating" religion.


Of course that isn't really what were discussing here. We are in fact discussing whether or not government should neutrally accommodate religious expression by it's citizens where doing so is reasonable and safe. No favoritism on the board at all.


The two examples were simply to frame the debate, this one already has a wonderful thread and one that has discussed your particular concern already (I talk a lot in that one...)
Link to post in question
I think I will address your particular solution in that thread, we have discusses similar issues but I think it will be useful to point out why this is an unnecessary and undesirable "compromise".

As for motive, maybe 9-11 heightened sensibilities, but I believe that rather at being directed at likely threats they are being directed at Islam as a whole. In both the France and Alabama cases, I smell xenophobia.

One of the many reasons individual religion expression should be accomodated.

In a way, we are discussing the same thing. Let's say that I'm an evangelical Christian and I hold a position of power in the town council. And I want to proudly display the cross in the corridor outside my office. Should the government "neutrally" accomodate my wishes? I'm a citizen too!

What is "reasonable" anyway? In my example's mind, what I'd want is reasonable, because my faith tells me I must evangelize to everyone around me. Why can't government accomodate what I want too?

(Just a note, I'm not any of the above; I'm just playing devil's advocate here, since this topic of religion and government comes up all too often in the South)

Critical distinction time! (I love these).

There is in fact a very key difference in what we are discussing. In both examples used to begin this thread the persons whose religious were being violated were private citizens making use of public facilities.

The example you bring up is about an agent/employee of the government on the job.

As such official has a duty to his/her constituents to reflect the religiously-neutral ideals appropriate for a secular government. Thus her/his display of a religious symbol (unless one could practice neutrality by displaying every religious symbols known to man) should be removed. Because he/she is the government in this case.

This does not mean that a visiting constituent in a hijab should be forced to remove it on public grounds...

We are indeed discussing two vastly different subjects.

Thanks to the gay marriage thread, I learned something from Amlord that I'd like to pass on to you: our government is not secular. President Bush can proclaim his faith as obnoxiously and as frequently as he likes, as long as no laws are passed that favor his religion, or discriminate against others. So as he can display all the religious symbols on his own body, invoke the christian god in his speeches, and all the other wonderful things he does, so can every other employee of the government. There are no religious restrictions on them at all but not making laws that reflect the ideas I stated above.

Yes, even on the job.

Fair Enough

Although I would consider such actions inappropriate and unwsise, I will agree it is legal...

The thrust on my argument is not on the legal level, however, but on a more personal level. I pointed out that distinction only to make perfectly clear this thread is not discussing religious expression by agents of the government, but individual citizens.

Allowing for clothing differences in the case of an individual's practice of religion is less damaging than the concept of a government forbidding people from their exercise of religion by way of their apparel.

As long as one's religious display is not obscene (like chicken parts) or intentionally derogatory, debasing another's religion, the individual should be able to wear his/her religious symbol.

I guess I don't see the point in considering religion in this argument. If you are wearing something that doesn't cover your face (bottom of your jaw to the top of your forehead) then photograph it. If you want to further define forehead, then let's say 2 inches above your eyebrow. Identification is called identification for a reason, so accommodating more than this would be ridiculous, IMHO.

It shouldn't matter whether it's religious or not.