Religion & American Law

In this post, I will discuss different types of symbols and freedom of religion. There are various symbols throughout the world that express faith, history, victory, remembrance, etc. According to CBC News, there is a ban in Franceon religious symbols such as Muslim headscarves, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and large Christian crosses etc.  However, I think there is not only one type of symbols. But, France banned all symbols by considering them as the same. Some symbols are created by people. Certainly, they are originally symbols of something, but not religious then people attach different meanings to them. For example, in the Roman Empire the crucifix was not a religious symbol before Jesus' death. But after his death it was accepted as a religious symbol. The crescent and the star are not originated in Islam, but they have been adopted by Muslims over time. On the other hand, some religious rituals are considered as religious symbols. They are not originally religious, historical, national or regional symbols. For example, hijab is not really an Islamic symbol, but it is an observance of Islam. However, today it is being treated as an Islamic symbol for some secular countries like France.  

A related question is why these symbols are prohibited by some secular governments without considering their origin. Also, how can the secular government consider these symbols as religious even though it can evaluate them as historical, national, or regional symbols? For example, although there is a difference between Christian cross and Jewish yarmulke or Muslim headscarves in terms of their origin, for this discussion is a theological issue, the secular government regards all of them as the same. In this case, if the government makes the distinction that Muslim headscarf is a ritual rather than a symbol, it makes a theological decision. If a government does not make this distinction, it makes a decision that restricts freedom of religion. This is what the French government fails to see. It is indeed a dilemma in secularism.

Another issue is whether a symbol promotes the religion. For example, if an officer of Air Force wears yarmulke, a Muslim woman wears hijab, or a Christian government officer hangs a cross, it does not affect their religion positively in any way. However, if these people are not allowed follow their religion, their rights are being restricted.  For example, in Turkey, the ban on wearing hijab at public institutions has been effective for approximately 40 years based on the reasoning that in a secular country a religious symbol cannot be allowed at such institutions. According to people who support the ban, if the government appoints, say, a female teacher or judge wearing hijab, it means that the government supports the religion. In contrast, in the US which is a secular country whose citizens are largely Christians, there are many Muslim women who can freely wear hijab at work and nobody make such groundless claims.  

Finally, the issue of identifying a symbol as religious is a very complicated one. Therefore, banning them violates both human rights and freedom of religion because even if what is called as a religious symbol is not religious originally, people have the right to embrace them. If what is wrongly labeled as a religious symbol is indeed a rule that followers of a religion have to obey, then banning the 'symbol' is against freedom of religion. I think a court must first refine what a religious symbol is before introducing a ban on a given practice.