The veil of ignorance, or ignorance of the veil?

[Qlip]

The 2005 London train bomber wore a burqa to cover up the explosives he had around his belt. I read a story about a group of bank robbers who used the veil instead of a ski mask in their robbery attempt.

If I walk around with a ski mask, I'll be arrested and sent to jail. If a woman walks around in a burqa, nothing happens to her even though both of us are breaking the same law. In essence, the religious person is being allowed to break the law because "it's their religion". This is stupid and has no place in civilized society.

Really? Where do you live that it's illegal to walk around with a ski mask? That sounds pretty improbable.

 

[Randomnity]

I don't think the head covering is any different from that of nuns, or conservative jews/christians. So that's kinda pointless to get upset about, unless you want to go against all religious clothing, everywhere (good luck). There's definitely the sound argument that it demeans women, but the same argument applies to the other religious coverings. No point in discussing that in this thread, though. (And then, most non-religious people will tend to think that chaining yourself down for religion is kinda silly in general. Acceptable, but silly.)

The veil (misc. face coverings) is a far more complex issue, because there you have issues of public safety and security with the concealed face. It will also impede communication (facial expressions) and so on, leading to probable alienation from general society and segregation of women within a generally misogynist culture. It has far more drawbacks than just covering your hair, and not many advantages that I can tell. Banning it is an extreme step to take, but it's a tricky situation to navigate and I can see both sides of it there (whereas banning the head coverings would be ridiculous).

So I think it's important to be clear which you're talking about.

 

[Totenkindly]

Each symbol can have many interpretations unless a literal interpretation is mandated by the death penalty.

I'm not aware that the OP is living in a culture where the death penalty is mandated for failure to wear the covering.

 

[Lark]

I don't think the head covering is any different from that of nuns, or conservative jews/christians.

You know what I'm really waiting for is the juvenile and rebellious zietgheist to swing the other way, feminists, athiests and secularists will adopt it because its prohibited or taboo

 

[Randomnity]

You know what I'm really waiting for is the juvenile and rebellious zietgheist to swing the other way, feminists, athiests and secularists will adopt it because its prohibited or taboo

Lol...that'd be a strange sight indeed. I doubt it would ever happen, but I'm not one to predict fashion, so who knows.

 

[Nicodemus]

You know what I'm really waiting for is the juvenile and rebellious zietgheist to swing the other way, feminists, athiests and secularists will adopt it because its prohibited or taboo

Really, Lark, it is 'atheist(s)' (and 'zeitgeist'). You make that mistake all the time. Is that your way of punishing them?

 

[FigerPuppet]

Really, Lark, it is 'atheist(s)' (and 'zeitgeist'). You make that mistake all the time. Is that your way of punishing them?

He is too cruel if it is.

 

[redacted]

I have no ethical problem with an individual's choice to wear one, but I must admit that I think of it as a small-scale manifestation of a culture that doesn't value equality for women.

From an atheistic perspective (which is really the only way I can think), I think first of the social incentive that would explain any belief structure. I can't think of an incentive for that value to exist besides trying to keep women down. So while I believe in an individual's right to choose, I would probably hear her "closer to god" explanation as a rationalization.

No offense.