Why should we have respect for her beliefs? She certainly deserves respect as a person, but what entitles her beliefs to automatic respect? Hell, I would even respect her discomfort with physical contact, whatever the reason. But her beliefs? No.

How can this be? Let me present an analogy. I know someone who is afraid of snakes. I respect her fear and do not expose her to any snakes. But the reason she fears snakes is not rational. I do not respect her beliefs about snakes. So you see, one can respect the odd behavioral needs of an individual without respecting the underlying beliefs that give rise to those needs.

That being said, if you’re going to wear Niqqab (the face veil), don’t insist on teaching children who aren’t used to listening to women in niqaab. It’s common sense. If they can’t understand you, buckle down and figure out what’s more important to you: you’re resolve to wear niqaab or your desire to teach. Same goes in the courtroom. If you’re a niqaabi, chances are you’ll have some difficulty in the Western World if you choose a profession that requires a lot of public speaking. In its most basic elements, religion has nothing to do with it: you’re speaking through a piece of fabric that may prevent others from hearing you well enough to understand you.

But hijab in drivers license photos? I sincerely don’t understand what the big deal is against it. Hijab doesn’t cover up anything that is used in normal identification procedures. Sure, it covers a woman’s hair, but hair is not a reliable marker anymore as it is: a blonde one day can become a brunette the following day and bad a month later. Even eyecolor can be changed with colored contact lenses. So how, in reality, does hijab take anything of necessity away from a photo ID?

Detroit is doomed!

And what kind of question is that? pffft, I would of course go for the Brave New World jumpsuit.

Wow! Yeah. That sounds like the free society that I want to live in.

Perhaps we could all wear exactly the same thing in order to avoid any controversy.

Which would you prefer:
* The classic Maoist all-black everyman uniform, or
* more of a Brave New World jumpsuit.

Do you not realize that your magic solution to religious restrictions is, in fact, a proposal for a neo-fascist society?

====

As for the police officer and the school teacher, the answer seems simple:

As a private citizen you can wear whatever you want, refuse to touch people, etc. But as an employee of the state you have to fulfill the basic job requirements. If you’re not willing to do that — because of your religion, or due to some other mental illness — then [b]don’t take the job.[/b] Duh. WTF were you thinking in the first place? Why are you wasting our time?

As for the woman in court who refused to remove her veil? She loses. Religious belief doesn’t trump societal necessity. The Amish have to put headlights on their buggies and you have to show your face to the trier of fact (judge or jury). Simple, no brainer.

That would be a short trial:
judge: You are charged with bla bla bla the first witness, your wife
wife: I don’t get it! This is how I want to live, this is how I enjoy my life, why do you interfere?

Of course you could argue that she’s brainwashed, bullied or whatever you like, but in the end she’s a grown up person who is (supposed to be) able to handle herself.

Oh, on an other note, for once I agree with Mohammed. The face cover is not Islamic, it is some Persian tradition(ever saw those half naked dancers who cover their faces?) But the thing about handshaking with men is still Islamic, many women here do it.

Further this by banning any religious restrictions, by defining them as means to control another person. If a man denies his wife walking alone out in the street, or even beside him, then of to court he goes.

I’ve had it with this shit. In my country we have laws that have emerged through critical thinking during the last 1000 years, if you claim you have something that trumps our law then try to get it accepted/included as a general law, do not tempt applying another set of laws for the people close to you.

As it is today we accept this BS because they hide behind the right to follow any religion, but somewhere along the way we forgot that many religions don’t only limit the believer’s actions, but also the actions of the people close to him/her. This should not be accepted because it actually violates the very same principle, since the (usually the wife) can’t believe and act according to what she defines as correct.