The Islamic full-body dress for women including the face, the burqa, has sparked one of Europe's hottest social debates. Belgium and France have banned them and the British are now engaged in their own debate over taking similar legal steps against the burqa. What makes the debate so intense and difficult is that there are reasonable arguments both for and against permitting burqas to be worn in public. Women's rights activists in particular find themselves on both sides, often ambivalently so. On the one hand, what right does the state have to dictate women's dress as long as nudity is not involved? On the other hand, the burqa is clearly imposed on women and whatever individual women say they feel about it the burqa violates women's rights to full equality with men. There are also cultural issues involved. Again, on the one hand, Muslims in Europe are a minority group that should have its rights protected, including the right to distinctive dress. On the other hand, minority groups must conform to the generally accepted values of the larger society, especially immigrant minorities, and the burqa is widely unacceptable dress in Europe according to those norms. Those who oppose the burqas often cite security concerns and that it is a wedge for militant Islam. Those who oppose banning the burqas say the security issues are minimal to non-existent.Perfectly reasonable people find themselves on both sides of the divide. Feminist Mona Eltahawy has written an emotional op-ed piece for the New York Times arguing against the burqa as a Muslim woman. Liberated young woman, Nesrine Malik, argues with equal vigor (here) for the burqa as a Muslim woman.
The burqa has not become a national issue in the U.S.—yet—but we have our own hot button issues that are debatable because there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Abortion is such an issue, pitting the rights of the unborn against the rights of women. The legal establishment of English, pitting the linguistic rights of minorities against the need for a common public language is another such issue. People become passionate advocates on these issues just because there is a gray area. And we have to make decisions. Either abortion is legal or it isn't. Either we establish one language is the language of legal public discourse or we don't. Either we ban the burqa or we don't. Yes, there is wiggle room for some compromise, but at the end of the day we either do or don't.
Two quick thoughts: first, it would seem spiritually reasonable that it is at precisely these points of intense disagreement that people of faith would demonstrate compassion and understanding towards those who differ on hard issues, including other people of faith. Second, in the real world it doesn't work that way. Some of the worst, most acrimonious fights over hard issues are fought between true believers on both sides of issues such as the role of women in the church, the way we read the Bible, evolution, and homosexuality. People of faith should be better than average at dealing with controversial issues, but it turns out that all too often we are no better or even worse at doing so—with serious consequences for society and for the faith.
