Religious Clothing Restrictions - Essay Example

Religious Clothing Restrictions The debate about wearing of religious clothing has been goingon for some time now; most nations have imposed restrictions on what is appropriate public dressing and what falls out of the allowed dress code. However, these rules and conceptions about what is appropriate vary among different nations. While it is allowed to wear hijabs, burqas and niqabs in Arab countries, countries like France, Canada and the United states are proposing and adopting new rules governing the wearing of religious cloth in public areas. Women make up the larger percentage of being recipients of social hostility when it comes to restrictions on dress code (Connor). This is not fair considering these rules are set forth by men. The enthymeme of this paper is, there should not be restrictions on wearing religious clothing because it is important for people to respect the religious beliefs of the world. This paper seeks to prove that there should be no restrictions on the wearing of religious attire since people’s religious beliefs should be respected. It discusses broad reflections on; what public areas encompass;on wearing religious symbols and clothing; on sensitive and courteous handling of the issues of wearing religious symbols. The paper completely and fairly discusses a counterargument based on the factors that political and social forces put forth while imposing restrictions. By discussing these issues, this paper presents facts and arguments as to why restrictions on wearing religious symbols and clothing should be abolished. Discussion In most cases, the wearers of religious symbols such as crosses, crucifixes and prayer beads, hijabs, burqas and niqabs are genuine religious people with a strong and real personal connection with religion. In other minority cases, people do wear religious symbols especially crosses and crucifixes as fashion accessories while some Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and Jews wear these attire and symbols due to the politics of identity. However, this discussion proves that, a majority of these people who put on these religious clothing are honest followers of their respective religion. It is important for people to respect other people’s religious beliefs, and consequently abolish the restrictions imposed on the wearing of religious clothing; this is because most people wear religious attire as an expression of their respect for their traditions and religion. Wearing these clothes gives people a religious identity, and gives them a sense of self awareness and awareness of the requirements of their beliefs and traditions. Most of these people believe that wearing this clothes enhances their commitment to spiritual life and that affirming this to the public only strengthens their belief (Grimm). It is the work of the followers of a particular religious belief to decide among themselves what religious dress and symbols are appropriate in light of the teachings of their religion. Criticizing people’s policies and religious belief on clothing and religious symbol is usually received as criticism of not only the individual, but the religion as well. Making observations in a prejudiced and uncourteous manner about the religious and traditional clothes and symbols of certain members of society would appear to be racial or religious discrimination which is against civil and human rights. In a democratic society, people should be accorded many rights, religion included. The right to religion translates to the right to express ones faith through actions, belief and even dress code. In Britain for example, the Government has expressed its social commitment to religious by promoting a diverse society with different faiths whose followers are universally treated as citizens of the United Kingdom. In France on the other hand, the government officially banned the wearing of facial veils; this comes at an age where most Muslim women are married to domineering men who force them to wear veils. Some of the women also feel that they are better Muslims by covering their faces while others do so as a rejection of the western social culture (Muller, 2011, 140). The world must understand that people have different traditional, religious and cultural beliefs; in France for example the aspect of Le regard- which means a look exchanged through eye contact – is considered a good thing, compliment for that matter. On the contrary, in Islam, it is wrong for a Muslim man and woman to meet eye to eye in public places or with strangers even by mistake. Imposing new rules on such a rich culture about religious dress codewould be an attack on a whole religion and not the individual alone. The France Interior Minister defends the new law by stating that it promotes equality among all citizens while at the same time defending secularism (Muller, 2011, 141). It should be noted that secularism in Islam is restricted to a man and his wife, and not the public. Diana Wagman, an American Novelist and screenwriter criticizes prejudiced political and social forces in her article, First They’ll Come for the Burqas; she laments the social practice of people wearing indecent clothing in public such as short shorts and skirts or revealing tops. Her article questions the rubric that determines what is unusual or offensive to wear in society; this brings us back to the main argument of this paper that people should not judge Muslim, Indians or other religions based on what they wear (Grimm). It is not upon the rest of the public to dictate what is right for that religion and what is inappropriate. In most cases, there are universal agreements that govern what the followers of a religion can wear. The Orthodox Sikhs for example put on a Turban while many women in Saudi Arabia put on a niqab to cover their faces in public. In other cases, some Christians put on the cross, others the crucifix, other neither; it is totally up to the followers of the religion to determine the rules that govern that religion, the public and other political forces should not judge. In Manual on the Wearing of Religious Symbols in Public Areas, the Council of Europe defines a public area as an area of “public life” and public engagement that is regulated by the state. These institutions constitute work places, schools, hotels, institutions and other public areas such as parks and public squares. While there might be restrictions on certain work places such as the food processing and manufacturing industries, the teaching field or other sector where health and safety is concerned, such restrictions should not in any way conflict with religious freedom. In certain countries, like in the U.K, there has been an allowance for uniform modification to allow for longer and more decent clothing for those employees who are bound by religion. These shows that society can adjust, and exceptions can be made in a way that shows society’s willingness to accommodate religion in every aspect of life. In the teaching field and manufacturing industries, it is unrealistic to wear veils in class, especially as a teacher. This interferes with the process of carrying out the tasks, and the same applies for workers working in factories. Excess clothing prevents one from performing tasks satisfactorily and the burqas and niqabs remain inappropriate in these working conditions. However, in other public scenarios where one is not under any social obligation to perform tasks, it is absolutely irrelevant to govern what they put on since it translates to discrimination. Employers and other authoritative bodies should not impose dress restriction in an unreasonable manner; to do so would translate to unlawful discrimination. Restrictions are only necessary if they can be justified, and at the same time, if they do not interfere with a person’s practice of their religion. Counterargument Other people hold that there should be restrictions on religious clothing due to security reasons, identity, professionalism and health reasons. In some contexts, there exists a need to confirm a person’s identity, which renders such religious clothing as niqabs and burqas unnecessary. According to critics, these reasons call for oneto show their face in public places. Examples of these situations are areas such as when a student is required to confirm their identity in school or other social institution, at airports, while crossing boarders, seaports or appearing in court. Security issues remain the most important argument of critics of religious clothing; in the case of the Sikh kirpan (small sword), it is inappropriate for the individual to carry this knife past security at an airport or on board an aircraft. Other arguments raised in favor of restrictions include the argument that deaf people who lip read would be closed out in a conversation with a veiled person thus inhibiting communication. Rebuttal The wearing of religious symbols and clothing is an important aspect of many people’s religious beliefs; the arguments raised by critics are sensible to a certain extent such that, in matters of health, safety and security and satisfactory execution of employment tasks, a level of compromise is needed. However, any restrictions imposed whether to establish identity, to ensure safety, or according to work policy or requirements should only be imposed if they are absolutely necessary. It is important to ensure careful and sensitive handling of these issues of religious dress code since any insensitive comment is regarded as prejudicial discrimination against a whole religion, which is unlawful.It should be noted, however, that wearing of clothing that is very revealing, or clothing that has abusive slogans, which are usually assumed by many, also affects the way people interact with one another (Muller, 2011, 210). Conclusion This paper shows that, a choice to wear religious symbols or dressing should be an individual’s choice and not that of society; society should respect that choice wherever other overriding factors such as health, safety and security are not in play. If these restrictions should apply, for whatsoever reason, the issues should be dealt with utmost respect so as not to infringe the right of freedom of an individual, and to avoid discrimination. It is, therefore, sensible to conclude that there should not be restrictions on wearing religious clothing because it is important for people to respect the religious beliefs of the world. Works Cited Connor, Phillip. "Quebec considers new restrictions on wearing religious symbols, clothing." Pew Research Center RSS. N.p., 8 Nov. 2013. Web. 6 Dec. 2013. . Grimm, Brian J. "The numbers of religious freedom: Brian J. Grim at TEDxViadellaConciliazione." YouTube. YouTube, 26 Apr. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2013. . Muller, Gilbert H. "Global Relationships: Are Sex and Gender Roles Changing." The New World Reader. Oregon: Cengage Learning, 2011. 140-142. Print. Read More