Religious vs. Secular Arguments

I can't believe yet another person un-friended me on FB because they were offended by my posts. I think I know what's driving people to react this way. An old friend from high school explained it to me. I'm losing people because I'm using religious arguments instead of secular arguments in order to make my point. I need to use facts and reason instead of relying on theological propositions. He is absolutely right. You can't bring faith into a debate. If you do, you will lose a big chunk of the people that you're trying to influence.

But I'm not sure all my arguments were based in religion when I was discussing France's proposed burqa ban in an earlier post. I was trying to use the secular argument that a society ought to embrace diversity. I live in Toronto. When I was attending university, I remember taking a sociology course in my second year, and my prof. Robert Bryme (can't believe I remember his name after 7 years) mentioned that Toronto was the most multicultural city in the world.

I believe that a society has strength in diversity, and people wherever they live should be proud of their cultural heritage. If an Orthodox Jewish New Yorker wants to wear a yarmulke, he should be allowed to do so. I think that telling North African women in France that they should dress less Middle Eastern is kind of like telling a German woman in Egypt to dress less European.

I agree that every society has the right to make whatever rules it wants pertaining to what kinds of outfits are/aren't socially acceptable. Even France. But the timing for this is all wrong in my opinion. It's been only 5 years since they banned the hijab. And that was seen as a really unfair move by Muslims inside France and even Muslims outside of France. And although it wasn't just the hijab that they banned (the ban included all religious head gear), it was still seen as forced social conditioning directed primarily at Muslims.

France is proud of its secularism. I get that. Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, right? But isn't there a difference between secularism and blind secularism? The moment the government starts interfering in people's personal lives (and what one wears is extremely personal), I think that this can potentially harm social cohesion in a society. But I'm willing to compromise.

If Canada were to pass a law that banned Sikhs from wearing turbans or a law that banned Muslims from growing beards, I would question the need for such legislation. But if wearing a turban or growing a beard is causing a problem in specific instances (e.g. being a cop or a fireman), then I would accept a law that bans a turban/beard in those specific instances/occupations.

In the same way, if a burqa is causing a problem in a specific situation (e.g. identifying a person), then a ban is acceptable in that specific situation. But a blanket ban on burqas is like basically saying, "Western civilization is superior to "Ay-rab" civilization." And that's really unfair. There are bounds of reason. If students have a hard time communicating with their burqa-clad teacher, then I would accept a ban on burqas for teachers. I would even accept a law that made it mandatory for a burqa-wearing woman to reveal her face when getting her photo taken for her driver's license.

Heck, I would even accept a law that mandated stricter penalties for husbands/fathers who are found to be forcing their daughters/wives to wear burqas against their will. In order to come up with a policy that is fair and just, the French government (or any government for that matter) really should consult with religious/community leaders who can help them design a policy that takes into account France's secularism as well as respect for Muslim/Arab/Berber cultural/religious sensitivities/traditions.

I'm using completely secular arguments here. For Sarkozy to say that the burqa is a symbol of subservience/oppression/slavery, this is an opinion, not a fact. So if I'm using facts, then Sarkozy should reciprocate by also using facts, and not opinions. I have a certain bias, and so does Sarkozy. But if we can put our biases aside, I think that my argument is a little bit more reasonable than his, a little bit fairer than his, a little bit more just than his, and a little bit more sensible than his.

When I talk about Israel/Palestine, I agree with those that say it's a secular conflict, not a religious one. Nobody is trying to convert anybody; they're fighting over land and rights. But the reason that I'm reluctant to call it an Arab vs. Israeli conflict is that it marginalizes non-Arab Muslims who have a stake in who controls Islam's third holiest site. I wouldn't call it a Muslim vs. Jewish conflict because that would negate the fact that there are Arab Christians/Druze and even a couple of Israeli Jews on the same side as Arab Muslims.

But calling the conflict solely an Arab issue is kind of demeaning to Muslims in Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, etc. since we believe that it's kind of important that we be allowed to worship at the Al Aqsa Mosque some day (if not in our lifetimes, then at least in our grandchildren's lifetimes). As things stand now, Israel does not allow freedom of worship for Palestinian males above a certain age. I'm not trying to use a religious argument. This is a totally secular argument: freedom of worship. If my Friend List continues to shrink, then I'm totally out of ideas.