June 23, 2007

Dawkins, Truth, Hijabs and Freedom

Posted at 12:23 am by Richard and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Popularity: 14% [?]

Dawkins (we all know him, right?) is suggesting that, while we all are aware of the threat to science by creationists and religious fundamentalists, there are other threats which must also be taken seriously.

“I think we face an equal but much more sinister challenge from the left, in the shape of cultural relativism - the view that scientific truth is only one kind of truth and it is not to be especially privileged.”1

Sure, Dawkins has a point. While I certainly would disagree with his implied (correct me if I’m wrong) view that scientific truth is the only legitimate form of truth, suggesting that scientific truth should not be privileged above that of, say, religion or even philosophy would certainly be a mistake. Religious “truth” seems almost an oxymoron, but philosophical truth does have some merit. Perhaps we could also talk about “personal” truth (gotta love Dr. Phil). Of course, if science and philosophy (or science and my “personal truth”) were to ever disagree, I’d side with science - no question.

That said, I found the link to Dawkins’ quote from Atheist Revolution, who seems to take Dawkins’ argument to some strange extreme. I started reading:

For a more current example of Dawkins’ concerns, we turn to Philadelphia where police officer Kimberlie Webb sued her department for their refusal to allow her to wear a hijab while on duty…

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission actually concluded that the police department had violated Webb’s rights by prohibiting her from wearing Muslim garb while on duty.

Fortunately, federal judge Bartle had more sense2

Now, the judge’s reasons might have some validity - he suggests that (and this is me paraphrasing) by disallowing “religious symbols and attire” puts officers in a better position to deal with varying cultures/religions of people who they have to interact with.

But, I digress. My issue is not with the judge’s decision, as I clearly don’t know enough about the facts to disagree with him. I do, however, take issue with the comments made on Atheist Revolution:

Why must freedom to practice one’s religion become freedom to practice one’s religion in public?2

Isn’t that exactly the point of the legal right to practice one’s religion freely? Things that we do in the privacy of our own home are protected by the mere fact that the government cannot enter our homes without a warrant. The only practical benefit of providing a legal freedom to practice one’s religion is to allow people to freely do this in public.

  1. Dawkins, Richard (2007) Quoted in Dawkins’ Christmas Card List by James Randerson of the Guardian [↩]
  2. Dawkins Says Threats to Reality-Based Community Not Limited to Right @ Atheist Revolution [↩]

June 14, 2007

Response to “The Veil is Dehumanizing”

Posted at 7:06 pm by Richard and tagged , , , , , . Popularity: 9% [?]

I’ve just finished reading a post by the Daylight Atheist which I’m not quite sure how to respond to. I totally agree that all religions have a lot to answer for in the ways they oppress certain groups or ideas - I find the negative attitude of certain denominations of Christianity towards homosexuality disgraceful, for instance. But I find this issue slightly more complicated. The Daylight Atheist suggests that:

Burqas, Hijabs and other such “garments oppress women and are an affront to human dignity. By design, they are dehumanizing and degrading, and remain so even if the woman freely chooses them for herself.”

Afgani BurqaThis is a really difficult one for me, because while I agree with most of what is said, I think taking it to the point where any veil is dehumanising “even if the woman freely chooses them for herself” might be taking things a little far.

I think it’s certainly possible to argue that in these cultures it is not possible for a woman to make free choices about such issues. Perhaps societal pressures are so great that even a woman who thinks that she’s choosing it for herself, in fact, isn’t. But if you assume that it’s possible for a woman to make a free choice about these matters, then I don’t think you can judge her, her religion, or her culture for allowing her to make the choice. If I don’t feel like parading around in a pair of speedos, I’m sure you’ll allow me some modesty by wearing some board shorts and a t-shirt when I’m down at the beach. How is this any different?

Even today in the most liberal societies, we have certain modesty boundaries which are not to be crossed - try walking around the streets in a borat-style swimsuit (possibly not safe for work), and see what kind of dirty looks you get. The point is, while the exact location of the “line not to be crossed” might differ in every cultures, every individual should be allowed to choose what they wear (within certain boundaries), even if it might seem a little strange.

When a group of powerful individuals (e.g. religious leaders) make the decision for you against your will, however, we have a problem.

Close
E-mail It