How do Catholics feel about whether countries should ban Niqab/Burka (full face covering) or not?

[Rozellelily]

Having said that, a long-established religious practice from Saudi Arabia wouldn’t be less religious because other Muslims from other countries or other sects don’t practice that way.

Isn’t it a reality though that sometimes some people use religion in a negative way to cover for their own imbalances,rigid or fundamentalist thinking,cultural societal difficulties etc?
This is not exclusive to Islam and can be in Christianity etc too.
For example I remember some years ago there were some articles where some Saudi cleric had somehow came to the conclusion that even Niqab was not modest enough for women in his eyes and that women should wear a “one eye showing only” face covering.
It sounds comical and clearly he represents the extreme end but doesn’t it just show that sometimes religion can be used as a cover up for “personal or societal imbalances”?

Maybe it’s controversial but in my view wearing a face covering can often come from places of imbalance even if a woman chooses it herself.
Should non Arabic societies then support things (including clothing choice) that stem from unhealthy imbalances-whether emotional,psychological,cultural extremism etc or is it better just to allow/tolerate this?

Unbalanced,rigid mindsets and fundamentalistic interpretations are not healthy whether in Islam or Christianity etc but then on the other hand adults have free will to choose whatever choices they want -healthy or unhealthy-so I don’t know?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7651231.stm

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Between stark naked and burqua are two things:

1. Local culture with its own community standard. This is about immodesty being penalized by negative social behavior of others.

If you are deep in Amazonian, the culture there is different than if you are in Japan or if you are in US or in India or in middle east countries.

Negative stare usually enough for women from going any further than whatever limit the society willing to compromise with. For example, from where I come from, some woman would push the boundary to wear mini skirts or shorts. But nobody dare go any further than that, like going topless for example.
And these women nowadays feel uncomfotable going to mass wearing shorts. As less women doing it, it becomes more and more uncomfortable for them to wear shorts to mass. This is letting the community build its own standard.

1. At the level of the law, any sex crime/ sexual harrassment is punishable by law regardless of what she wear.

The law is not the same as community standard. If the law states women must wear a certain type of clothes, this kind of law actually give power to the molesters to make excuses, and getaway with the crime

 

[Rozellelily]

That makes sense but at the same time the Niqab or other face covering may be the cultural acceptance or norm (modesty version) in a place like Saudi Arabia but it isn’t the societal norm in places like Germany,Australia,Us,Slavic European countries etc…
So in the same way as being topless with Amazonian tribes in the Amazon would be appropriate (and not immodest) and wearing a Niqab in Saudi would be appropriate,neither are really appropriate in the above mentioned countries as they are at odds with societal norms.

The law is not the same as community standard. If the law states women must wear a certain type of clothes, this kind of law actually give power to the molesters to make excuses, and getaway with the crime

Does it necessarily?
For example here if someone was drunk and naked and a guy molested them usually the guy would get prosecuted but I have heard some instances in the Us where guys (often footballers) have gotten away with this defence.
The outcome,it probably depends how expensive their lawyer is…

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Well, imagine if the law said women must cover her leg up to ankle. However, this young girl lifted up her long dress as she try to walk on puddles of water on the street.

The man would not need any expensive lawyer to go free because the law “understand” his excuse.

 

[Allegra]

I don’t believe that governments should outright ban them, however, I think there are specific places where they are unsafe or a security risk. I think individual places should have the right to ban face coverings for security reasons.

 

[PetraG]

Maybe it’s controversial but in my view wearing a face covering can often come from places of imbalance even if a woman chooses it herself.

Religious freedom isn’t subject to outside critique, though. This is an established custom in some religious sectors, and so the question becomes whether or not the greater good really requires the religious believer to make the compromise. If not, they ought to be left alone. That is how we want to be treated ourselves, after all.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

There is a bible story where burqua is mentioned in Genesis.

The Story of Judah and Tamar (my summary)

Judah’s firstborn was Er. Tamar was the wife of Er. But Er died before gave Tamar any child. According to their custom, Er’s brother (Onan) had duty to give child to Tamar, in Er’s name. But Onan refused to do so, so God took his life. Now, Judah’s 3rd son (Shelah) was too young. To cut the story short, Judah refused to give Shelah to Tamar because Judah was worry that Shelah would die too. So then read the rest of the story in:

Genesis 38

14 Tamar once took off her widow’s clothes, wrapped herself in veil and sat down at the entrance of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah, for she knew that Shelah was a grown man, and had not been given to her in marriage.
15 Judah saw her, and as her face was veiled, he took her as a prostitute.

This signify the point that face veil was originally to cover the identity of the person.

The story of Judah and Tamar is very important, because Tamar is the ancestor of King David and therefore Jesus.

 

[Rozellelily]

Sorry,I don’t understand the meaning?

It makes sense if prostitutes were wearing a face covering/veil because they wouldn’t want to be identified and ashamed.
I’m sure they probably even do it now in places like Afghanistan
but why other women would then apply it themselves as a extreme form of modesty doesn’t really make sense.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

why other women would then apply it themselves as a extreme form of modesty doesn’t really make sense.

Neither do I understand that.

The passage only shows the fact that this outfit was used by temple prostitutes to conceal their identity thousands of years ago.

The worry over issue of security in certain places is a valid point.

From my point of view as a woman being raised outside middle east, I find it very hard to understand how to remove face from a woman protects her dignity. I actually find it very demeaning and is an unfair treatment toward her.

 

[joyfulandactive]

Jewish Rabbis in Israel banned the burka for Jewish women when a small group of a few hundred women started to wear it. There also talked of a “competitive” modesty when women were trying to prove how pious they were by covering much more than is usual even in the most strictly orthodox groups.

My concern would be also that it may be a choice for some women but if it becomes a majority behavior there comes a point when it is not longer a choice but is imposed upon all women.

 

[John_the_Blind]

I don’t have a problem with veils or even a full-up burqa. However, I do think that the person in question should be required to show their face when it’s a security or identification issue (school pickup, driver’s license, etc.). Do you have a NEED to see the face of that person you just walked past on the street?