Burkas should be banned in some places because the government is secular

The argument

The burka, on this argument, sits at a point of genuine conflict between two things a European state holds: a secular form of government and the religious identity of some of its citizens. The position does not deny that the conflict is real or that something is lost in resolving it; it argues that secularism settles the matter in certain places. What secularism means here is specific. In a secular society religion has no place in legislative life, not in the sense that religious people may not participate, but in the sense that religion is kept out of governmental decisions and the interactions through which those decisions are made. The state does not reason from doctrine, does not favour one faith, and conducts its business on grounds available to citizens of any belief or none. This is what allows a government to be the government of everyone it serves. If that principle holds, proponents argue, it has consequences for the spaces where governing happens. An overt symbol of religion carries into a government space exactly what secularism excludes from it, a visible declaration of allegiance in a setting meant to be free of them. It therefore seems logical that such a symbol has no place there, and the burka falls under that reasoning as an unusually conspicuous instance. The argument's defenders stress that this is not a rule about Islam, and that it would be objectionable if it were. It would include any brazen religious icon or symbol, so there is no place for crosses or kippahs in a government building either, and a ban that singled out the burka alone would be religious discrimination rather than secularism. What is proposed is a limit falling equally on every faith within a defined set of places. This is also why the position stops short of a general ban. The argument concerns government spaces, where the secular character of the state is at stake, and says nothing about what anyone wears elsewhere. Burkas should accordingly be banned in certain contexts rather than outright.

Context

In a secular society, the government is expected to remain separate from any religious traditions, affiliations or theological influence. As a result, several secular societies, including France, the Netherlands and Austria, do not permit females to wear the burka in government buildings. France and the Netherlands extended the ban further to include all public spaces.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Freedom of Religion and Expression Aren't freedom of expression and freedom of religion also pillars of secular government? A ban on the burka from any sphere of public life would be a grotesque infringement of an individual's freedom of expression and religious freedoms. The principles of a secular state dictate that religion should be kept out of government, but this does not mean religious attire. Nor does it mean that those with religious beliefs cannot express those beliefs through their clothing while in a public office. Islamophobia The fact that limits on religious expression in public offices and buildings is only discussed in the context of a burka ban exposes the anti-Islamic motives behind the ban. We never hear a politician stand up and denounce Christian civil servants for wearing a crucifix around their necks. If these politicians truly feared religious attire and iconography infiltrating public spaces, they would denounce all symbolism, including religious tattoos, necklaces, turbans, kippahs, and headscarves, with the same gusto they attack burkas with. In reality, those calling for a burka ban in government offices are mounting an attack on Islamic culture behind the veneer of secularism.

Rejecting the premises