Should Islamic head coverings be banned in public?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IHF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In Canada we call the traditional Nun headwear and clothing “a habit” or “the habit”.

The habit cannot be worn in any public place in North America and Europe. I think you two should know this.

Now please stay on topic and weigh in on the original question please.
Where on earth did you ever get that idea? There is no ban on religious habits in North America!
 
The driver’s license issue constitutes a safety concern. In that case it is legitimate to ask the person to uncover their face or head.

When the Daughters of Charity wore coronets, many states refused to give them driver’s licenses because the wings on the coronet blocked the rear view. That was a legitimate safety concern which the Daughters corrected by replacing the Corontet with a smaller cap for driving. It looked like a shower cap. This was before they went to the short blue veil in the picture above.

The same can be said about going through airport security and so forth. Those are safety issues.

Other than that, we have no laws in the US that prohibits religious garb in public.

In New York City Public Schools, Sisters were not allowed wear a habit to teach, but Jewish male teachers were not allowed to wear a Yamulke and other faiths were not allowed to wear their religious garb. Eventually the courts in New York City said that this was unconstitutional.

JR 🙂
Yeah, my reference to a Darth Vader mask was because some crackpo – er, eccentric woman insisted on wearing a Darth Vader mask to get her drivers license photo taken and fought the case in court (she lost). She argued that it was a religious issue because her religion was Jedi and she worshipped Darth Vader. Which of course is absurd: if she worshipped Darth Vader, her religion would be Sith. Didn’t she even pay attention to the movies she’s built her life on?
 
  1. Habits are not banned in public.
  2. No, Islamic head garb should not be banned, either.
  3. What should be banned are those tissue-paper T-shirts I’m seeing everywhere. :dts:
 
In schools? Hospitals? They are banned in those places.
Sr. Madeleine Grace who teaches at the University of St. Thomas and at St. Mary’s here in Houston wears a habit all the time in public. I have a great aunt who does the same, including when traveling interstate. I met a nun a couple of weekends ago who was in Houston representing an apostolate that works with prostitutes and victimized children. She wore a habit.

Wearing habits isn’t banned anywhere in the U.S., which is part of North America. You’re quite obviously mistaken.

And, to answer your question, no, such head covering should not be banned.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
The First Amendment provides for the “free exercise of religion”. That means you are Constitutionally protected in wearing religious garb, and so are Jews and Muslims. Certainly our political correctness police, and many of our politicians do not like any public display of religion. That’s too bad for them.
 
Let’s get this right. Let’s define North America.

North America = Greenland (Denmark), Canada, USA, Mexico, and Caribbean.

Where, besides Mexico and Cuba are religious clothing banned?

There is not such law in the USA. I don’t know about Canada or Denmark. There is not such law in the Caribbean nations.

Why would we want to ban Muslim garments if Christians and Jews are allowed to wear religious garb. Isn’t a yamulke a religious piece of clothing?

I grew up Jewish and converted at age 20. I always wore a yamulke (kippah). Sometimes I still wear it in public, when its appropriate or expected, just like Brother Bob Fishman on EWTN.

The Daughters of Charity run Providence Hospital in Washington DC. They wear their blue.

The Franciscans in our parish wear their habits when it’s cool enough.

The Orthodox Jews here wear their kippahs everywhere, not just for holy days.

No, religious garb is not forbidden for anyone iin he USA so why should Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and other eastern religions be targeted?

It’s unconstitutional and also un-Catholic.

JR 🙂
 
IHF,

I don’t know anyting about Canadian law. If you say that a habit is banned in Canada, that does not constitute all of North America.

That is not the case in the USA.

As to Canada, why would they ban a habit and not ban a Roman Collar or Islamic, Muslim or Buddhist dress?

What does your Constitution say about freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

Maybe it’s different from that of other countries.

JR 🙂
 
The idea that religious garb is or should be banned seems terribly wrong. Some Conservative Friends still wear “plain clothing”…it is a religious “habit” of sorts. The Amish and some Mennonites and Brethren in Christ wear “plain clothing” of a very particular design…a “habit”…some Orthodox Jews wear distinctive clothing…not to mention many priests, ministers and deacons who wear the collar.

I would be very interested why…WHY anyone would want to ban Muslim/Islamic religious garb…I’ve seen Buddhist monks and Hare Krishna’s in the airports in their saffron robes. I’ve seen Sikhs who wear their distinctive head gear in public…why would nuns have their habits banned?

The nuns of the Sister’s of Mercy in my area do not wear religious habits…well some older nuns do but it is not the traditional habit seen in movies.

No religious attire should be banned for any reason…IMO. For those who have claimed that nun’s “habits” have been banned…I’d really like to see the source.
 
In the US nuns are not forbidden to wear habits. Most of them choose not to. So we should not forbid head coverings for Islamic women. This is freedom of religion that is covered in the Constitution.
 
In Canada we call the traditional Nun headwear and clothing “a habit” or “the habit”.

The habit cannot be worn in any public place in North America and Europe. I think you two should know this.

Now please stay on topic and weigh in on the original question please.
:confused:
Hrm…I could have sworn that I read this someplace…recently.

Didn’t they ban the original Nun outfit?

Anyway’s, I’ll wait for my next chance to bash these liberals…
Who’s they? The government or the Nun’s order?
 
I’m afraid this thread is a red herring. Anybody else notice the OP hasn’t posted since the very beginning? :whistle:
 
As long as a garment does not prevent visual identification of the wearer, the garment is suitable attire in public. To this end we allow the Jew to wear a yarmulke, the Sikh a turban, the professed religious a veil. Other religiously identifying items such as rosaries, crosses, crucifixes, tallis, phylacteries, etc. should similarly not be banned.
The banning of such items is either overtly or covertly discriminating against other faiths. While we would like to convert others to our own beliefs, such banning of traditional clothing will only be counterproductive to the efforts of evangelization.

Matthew
 
In Canada we call the traditional Nun headwear and clothing “a habit” or “the habit”.

The habit cannot be worn in any public place in North America and Europe. I think you two should know this.

Now please stay on topic and weigh in on the original question please.
The sisters wear their habit all the time here. There are some religious that don’t wear a habit they wear modest street cholthing.
 


Some head coverings look quite respectable.

But face covering (such as the top right picture) should be banned. We wouldn’t allow men to walk around with balaclavas, would we?
 
I think even the face covering should be allowed. It is not our right to limit cultural diversity.
 
I can see that you are trying to hijack my thread.

Please explain to me where you have seen the habit worn recently?

In schools? Hospitals? They are banned in those places.

So instead of hijacking my thread please answer the original question.
My Gynecologist is a nun. I know she’s a nun cuz she wears the nun stuff. Yes my OBGYN is a NUN! Don’t laugh at me. I can’t get way with nuthin!😊
 
It’s not illegal in Canada.

One, it’s nowhere in the Criminal Code.

Two, if it had ever been made a law, it would have been all over the papers. And whatever you might think about the leftward-ness of Canadians, we do have our traditionalists out here – like most of Alberta – and not even the avowedly socialist NDP would dare to even *propose *such a law.

As a mater of fact, if there had been a ban, don’t you think the Vatican might have passed some comment?

I myself have seen the following since I have come to Toronto, all in their clerical/religious garb:
  • Capuchin monks
  • Jesuits
  • Nuns/Sisters in a full head-to-toe blue and white habit (all in a minivan – whenever I saw them, they were always laughing at something…)
  • Orthodox monk (I used to see one in my apartment building all the time…I don’t think he spoke English, but he was always smiling, with a smile that went right up to his eyes)
  • Unidentifiable priests/ministers in Roman collar
  • Jews with kippah
  • Hassidic Jews
  • Amish
  • Sikhs
  • Muslim women with hijab and with burka
  • Buddhist monks and nuns
  • a Pope
Hrm…I could have sworn that I read this someplace…recently.

Didn’t they ban the original Nun outfit?

Anyway’s, I’ll wait for my next chance to bash these liberals…
It’s obvious this poster is merely looking for something to “bash liberals” with, without even bothering to verify the information. This is the kind of nonsense that allows the opponents of Traditionalists to smear all Traditionalists with the same brush – that they are knee-jerk liberal-conspiracy theorists. And I know not all Traditionalists are of a piece.

And that is coming from a Vatican II baby who’s never been to any other than a Novus Ordo Mass.
 
Hrm…I could have sworn that I read this someplace…recently.

Didn’t they ban the original Nun outfit?

Anyway’s, I’ll wait for my next chance to bash these liberals….
You guys smell a big red herring, too?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top