We see this occurring in the UK where some knuckleheads think it's perfectly congruent to have both Western law and Islamic (Sharia) law operating within the same country. Hmmm, let's think about that for a moment: one law for me, one law for you. Gee, d'ya think there'd be some issues with consistency and conflict??

This, I think, in part, is where the French are coming from with their move to ban the burqa. Such a distinct dress sends a message that the French state is not the authority to which a Muslim woman is prepared to submit as a French citizen. I'm certain that if all Muslim women in France (for argument's sake, let's call it 50% of the six million Muslims presently there) started wearing the burqa, the political climate in France would go up a few notches.

My friend believed that the burqa banning was disrespectful to Muslim women and the Muslim religion in general, adding that “people are entitled to practise their religious beliefs and customs.”

My response is as follows:

I do not think that the banning of burqas (etc) is a religious issue, and attempts to make it one miss the point. It'd be like me getting into trouble for taking my Bible into a work meeting and reading it while the meeting is on. Reading the bible is after all a very important religious custom of mine, so perhaps I should be permitted to read it wherever and whenever I want?

In any case, I just don't see why certain behaviours and practices deserve more freedoms just because you can attach a “religious” label to it.

A good example of this distinction is mentioned by Mathew in the article. Why should women be permitted to wear burqas into a bank when motorcycle riders have to remove their helmets? To cite their religious belief as the key distinction that affords or removes rights, is absurd in my humble opinion.

Also note the claim that “people are entitled to practise their religious beliefs and customs.” This is not an argument but an assertion, and a false one at that; to say that people are entitled, rather than people ought to be entitled, which is perhaps what was meant by the statement. If you think about it long enough, I think you'll realise that we cannot simply allow any and all behaviours just because they are part of someone's religious system. This goes especially for Muslims who, if they had their way, would set up an Islamic Theocracy tomorrow.