In many religions, the use of garments such as the jewish yarmulke or the islamic hijab are not merely worn out of choice, but out of strict ritual or religious obligation. For religious groups, donning traditional dress is not just seen as religious duty, but ties closely with spiritual practice and provides a sense of spiritual identity. Widespread use shows that it has become an integral part to the continuity of multiple religious practices. Provided that wearing religious garments is based on manifesting central religious beliefs(SOURCE), to what extent can a State hinder this expression of freedom? Should this conflict be approached as a matter of individual sovereignty or should a global norm be adopted? Technically speaking, the right to express religious freedom without the influence of government is enshrined in sovereign treaties, doctrines, and constitutions all over the world. It is also addressed at a global scale, specifically in the Declaration of Human Rights(SOURCE). However, this matter would not be necessary for discussion and improvement if there were no exceptions. While the general idea is that this is a basic human right and there should be absolutely no reservations to religious expression, there are certain matters where religion must be regarded behind the interests of national security and individual safety. Soldiers in the military must understand that there are certain priorities such as unit cohesion, safety and uniformity that must come first when facing conflict in different environments. The freedom to express one’s religion and tradition through dress is not a universal right and is subject to relativism depending on the present situation and perspective.
Paragraph: Basic Human right to traditi...
... middle of paper ...
...tural differences and environments around the world. Complete universalism cannot be applied in the case of the military. The influence of relativism can undermine human rights, but is acceptable if used for the right reasons. In the matters of safety and national security, relativism can and should be applied to the rights of those sworn to protect. In the issue of displaying religion through traditional garb, civilian peoples should enjoy the right universally, while national security forces and active military should be restricted. Civilians have the privilege and duty to display their culture and religion towards the purpose of obtaining universal acceptance for religious freedom. But before that can happen, in the tense environment of the battlefield, soldiers must show dedication to the people first and restrict religious clothing with the big picture in mind.
Religion is a part of society that is so closely bound to the rest of one’s life it becomes hard to distinguish what part of religion is actually being portrayed through themselves, or what is being portrayed through their culture and the rest of their society. In Holy Terrors, Bruce Lincoln states that religion is used as a justifiable mean of supporting violence and war throughout time (Lincoln 2). This becomes truly visible in times such as the practice of Jihad, the Reformation, and 9/11. The purpose of this essay is to show that as long as religion is bound to a political and cultural aspect of a community, religious war and destruction will always occur throughout the world. A historical methodology will be deployed in order to gain
State secularism (Laïcit鬬 in France) is rooted in principles put forward by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Voltaire—state neutrality in order to ensure the right to freely express oneself and the right to religious freedom. Contemporary movements to ban the Islamic veil on the grounds of its symbolic value represent a perversion of the original intent of state secularism and infringe upon these basic rights. Our western perception of the veil as a universal symbol of oppression is based in a long history of orientalism (stereotyping),
As previously stated, nations often base themselves and thusly their common laws off the chosen philosophy of the country. For instance, in the United States of America, police officers carry guns. In Great Britain, however, officers are banned from carrying extremely harmful weapons such as firearms and instead carry the classic truncheon. To the average citizen of each of these countries, the policy that their law enforcement adheres to makes perfect and logical sense, while the opposite country’s policy seems to be either dangerous and overly violent or as overly merciful. However, the reason as to why these two sibling nations differ so greatly comes down to one simple thing: the gun policy imposed on American officers are different from those used in Britain because of conflicting common philosophic beliefs found in both of the countries, where America takes on a naturalistic, believing that humans are inherently evil, viewpoint and Britain sports a rather rationalistic, where in which hum...
...spects, as manifest destiny attitudes could spur conflict. Similar to the conflicts of instating leaders into other countries, adoption of American and Western culture has become a mandate for any country seeking further economic progress. France has recently had issues with the banning of wearing a full face veil, religious headwear for women in Islam, while on in public (Erlanger 1). While in the West there are outcries of sexism and discrimination, for the women wearing the hijab, it is an essential part of their religion and taking it away from them diminishes their chances of an afterlife. While the institution of Islam may be sexist, that should be left to the followers. With the tools to make the decision for themselves, removing the hijab can be a possibility, as long as the Western World does not try to make them “see” when so blind to the culture of Islam.
The last decade has brought two blatant changes to American civilizations in particular and Western civilizations in general. The first is a greater concern about Islam and Muslims, and the second is a much highly visibility of Muslims within those civilizations. Numerous people may have imagined that there weren’t many Muslims living in their communities until recently, but now, one can see visibly Muslim persons often in their veils or robes, walking the streets, shopping in the cities, and going to the schools (Saeed, 2007). There is no doubt that the increased visibility of Muslims has been a matter of some interest (allen,2010). The French have banned people wearing markers of Muslim religion, such as the hijab and niqab, in public, and many Americans have protested against mosques and other expressions of the religion. In addition, numerous Westerners have a stereotyped image of Muslim visibility, for instance, assuming that all Muslim females wear the same style and color, of garb (Ameli & Merali, 2004) Many Westerners associate the visibility of Muslims with non-Western and anti-Western culture and beliefs, including the oppression of women, and therefore hold a very negative attitude and view toward it and them (Briggs, Fieschi, & Lownsbrough, 2006).
In the monotheistic religious traditions of Christianity and Islam, one role of God (or Allah) is to limit or control aggressions among humankind. In these religious traditions, God establishes an ideal or standard for the righteous use of force by followers of the faith. These standards, or just war traditions, address details of when to use force to solve disputes, to what extent the force should be employed, and whose blessing is required to insure that the use of force is appropriate in the eyes of God. If a situation satisfies the just war tradition in that culture and the aggression is carried out for religious reasons, the action can be further classified as holy war. Many Americans connect the concept of holy war only with Islam. In fact the Christian crusades during the middle ages were just such a holy war being waged by Christians against Muslims. Whether a particular situation qualifies as a holy war or not, the focus of the just war tradition is to ask God for approval. “Appeals to ‘holy war’ or ‘religious crusade’ in one or another tradition are one type of appeal to divine authority regarding the use of force.” In recent history numerous conflicts, border skirmishes, battles and wars have arisen in which governments have decided to apply military force to varying degrees. Inevitably, politicians, policy-makers, religious and military leaders seek divine authority on which to base the struggle of their population and the loss of life. Have religious ethical values or theological aspects of the just war tradition influenced the nature of these military actions? Have the prevailing religious values kept military actions any more humane than they might otherwise have been? This paper will examine the theological roots of the just war tradition in the Christian and Islamic cultures. In addition, it will try to ascertain how religious ethics, and the just war tradition in particular, has been used between the “war” on terror and the United States. Finally, this paper will dem...
...na, for example, is practiced in many religions throughout the world, but is illegal in the United States. Referring back to Sultaana Freeman, veils for identification photos are forbidden, even though in other countries it may be permissible. These exceptions are chiefly for the safety for the people, for their health, and for protection against violence that may erupt as consequence.
It is ordinary seeing woman in a veil in countries where the majority of people are Muslims. Even though, the picture of “Hijab” is not strange because it was known in previous cultures before Islam, it is considered as a phenomenon especially in the western societies which it still carries many of misunderstood thoughts. Some People who are non-Muslims in United States view “Hijab” as a fundamentalism, fanatics, barbarism, oppression, retro gradation, and terrorism image. Wearing the veil raises many controversial questions such as: Why do Muslim woman wear the veil? Is wearing the veil a cultural tradition or religious practice! What exactly is “Islamic Dress Code” and is it must be altered in its qualities from periodical time to another in order to be acceptable! Does “Hijab” isolate woman from interacting normally within society? However, all facts behind this issue will be revealed throughout the discussion of its meaning, the purpose of practicing it and seeing Hijab within references and historical context. This would unveil the mystery.
The author of this essay thinks it is ridiculous that women cannot wear their hijab in certain places around the world. Many people think the hijab is not necessary. However, it is part of what Muslim women believe. She explains in her essay, "So next time you hear about a hijab ban think about your best pair of jeans or your faded t-shirt with the logo of your favorite band" (Fakhraie 461). A hijab is just like every other piece of clothing that covers up the body. It can be part of their religion, or they can wear a hijab just because they like how it
The United States of America: once a small colony, now one of the world’s most powerful nations; a nation that has been fraught with wars, protests and continuous conflicts between religion and state. This essay will investigate the relationship between the religion and state, discuss the states declaration’s about this relationship and the practice of these declarations. Americans, after the September 11 attacks, have marginalised the Muslim community, which is largely due to their Christian origins and misinterpretations of Islam.
One issue that has presented itself is when cultural relativists and the adversaries of universalism fail to recognize the contingency that Nussbaum writes about. Although universalists place all humans in one category with equal rights, they recognize the difference between the upbringings of individuals. It is helpful to look at certain practices through a cultural lens in an attempt to understand that practice, but it is also crucial to step back and view that same practice in order to discern whether it is morally right and just. Universalists do not aim to restrict cultural practices or activities unless those activities violate informed consent and the harm principle set forth by John Stuart Mill. Mill believes that an individual should have the liberty to do as he pleases, except when that act intentionally harms someone outside the scope of consenting practitioners. Another issue with universalism is when countries and individuals alike misconstrue it to mean conformity and sameness as opposed to what it truly is - equal rights and concern for all humans. In The Politics of the Veil, Joan Wallach Scott argues against the French’s decision to outlaw the veil. This decision may have been surrounded by less controversy if the French government provided a right of exit for those who feel oppressed by the veil and fear the consequences from the men of their family and community, as opposed to outlawing the practice as a whole. As mentioned above, the veil has provided a zone of comfort for many women for a long time. Although the original undertone of requiring women to wear the veil was the intent of demonstrating male domination, it has recently simply become a piece of clothing and a part of some women’s identity. In outlawing the veil, the French were appealing to their own ethnocentrism, and goals of assimilation and
There are many militaries throughout the world but the US Military is seen as the most professional and capable military in the world. We are perceived this way due to our rules and regulations that have branched from our fundamental principles and doctrine. Uniformity is one of our leading regulations in the military. Uniformity is what makes the military have a professional image. It is the basis of our instructions and regulations concerning the dress and appearance of our military personnel. Recently however, the Pentagon has decided that it is more important to accommodate certain groups of people then to have a professional and uniform military. On January 22nd 2014 the Pentagon passed a new policy that is easing up on the existing regulations by allowing beards, turbans, headscarf’s, tattoos and piercings of religious nature to be worn while in uniform (Pellerin, 2014). This new policy has started a heated debate about whether this is a good idea or not. I myself believe that this policy should not be allowed because it is undermining basic military values, lowering our standards on regulations, and it is a start to a new undesirable military force.
Through this essay I hope I was able to illustrate how even though a state does have sovereignty and jurisdiction over the people residing in it, cultural relativism becomes irrelevant or nonexistent when it fails to protect its citizens from violations of their basic human rights. People all over the world are becoming more and more connected and close to each other than ever before. After the WWII atrocities the world became aware of its humanity and how important it is. Humans are the most evolved most intelligent creature in the world, we have the ability to make conscientious decisions, to think rationally, and to question the world around us. This is what makes us human, we are human first, we belong to cultures second.
The American army is a unique and rare opportunity where many nationalities, beliefs, and ideals come together in one place and must unite for a greater cause. This diverse population, which reflects the larger American population, allowed for the government to experiment on the management of religion for the nation. The Army consisted of many different religious views and chaplains were used to facilitate and regulate these religions. During the WWII, the 1940’s, the majority of people in the military were either Protestant, Catholic, or Jew...
To begin with, students should have the freedom to choose their own clothing. The schools systems should use a dress code, since this will not completely suppress one’s creativity. This plan gives students a chance to express their imagination and personality through their own clothing. Moreover, it teaches students to have their own judgment about what type of clothes are appropriate or inappropriate. What is equally important, a student’s religion. If students are religious, they should not have to break their traditions because of uniforms. For instance, some religions require students to wear special headdresses or specific articles of clothing. In other words, once uniforms are established, they cannot wear them. They should not have to ask for it to be allowed, religion is their life. Furthermore, students are able to feel more confident and comfortable in their own clothing. Having confidence is important to students because it inspires them to keep moving forward. Therefore, instead of forcing uniforms upon the students to be worn everyday, schools should enforce a dress code instead.