In October of 2019, a case involving a nation, Ghedi, caused a storm all over the international arena. The Ghedian parliament had just passed a bill barring individuals from concealing their faces in public areas. As the legislation applied to all Ghedians, and all forms of face covering, it became known as the Ghedi’s “burka bill” because the rhetoric engulfing the law targeted Muslim women who wore the burkas. In explanation, the burkas are the ascetic clothing adorned by female Muslim devotees that conceal their faces and body in public.
Indian parliamentarians argued that the legislation was vital for the separation of religion and state and the liberation of women. Related to the 2013 law that prohibited religious emblems from learning institutions, as well as Muslim headscarves, and Christian crosses, this bill sought to further abolish religious expression and iconography from Ghedian public places. Some Ghedian legislators argued that was a detrimental sign of gender inequality that made women assume an obsequious status to their male counterparts in public. From those parliamentarians’ perspectives, the law freed women from a prejudiced, paternal subculture.
Nevertheless, some in the Ghedian Muslim community viewed the legislation as an infringement of religious liberties and an act of cultural expansionism. They argued that the Ghedian parliament was imposing their notion of gender impartiality onto their culture. A great number of the Muslims, including some women, expostulated that wearing burkas freed the women from the fleshly objectification which was frequent in non-Muslim cultures. For instance, one of the ladies castigated the bill saying that her quality of life had deteriorated since the ban on burkas and yet the politicians were claiming to emancipate them. To her, the politicians were banishing them from the social sphere. Later, when the human rights groups and activists saw that the government was not relenting on the ban, they went to the International Court for Human Rights to challenge the law. Presently, the court is yet to determine the case that challenged the “burka bill”.
One of the greatest ethical issues that are evident in this case of the ban on burkas is discrimination. As in the case, the Ghedian parliament came under attack for passing a law that is deemed to infringe on the religious rights of the Ghedian Muslim girls and women. The legislation was deemed to be discriminatory toward the Muslim religion because many legal pundits, who are opposed to it, view the bill as an action that causes Muslim women to receive unfair treatment. Notably, the legislation was also regarded as a tool to lock out Muslim girls and women from the public spheres including their areas of employment. Not only was it prejudice against their religion but also a restrictive measure to ensure that they remained locked in their homes for fear of arrests and court actions. Therefore, religious and cultural prejudice is an issue that is conspicuous in this particular case.
Another ethical issue that arises from the case of Ghedi’s ban on burkas is the state’s repression of freedom. From a critical analysis of the case, the Muslim girls and women are under the impression that their religious rights are being infringed. While the government, through the legislature, is viewing its action as an initiative to end practices that made women seem to be subservient to men. The legislation creates an ethical issue because the government is expected to create laws that protect all its citizens from harm while the citizens are expected to live within the confines of such regulations. However, this case is challenging to the state because of two reasons. Firstly, the legislation is also intended to help in curbing acts of felonies such as terrorism where suspected criminals could be concealing their faces to avoid arrests. Secondly, the Ghedian government needs to assure its citizens of its commitment to the rule of law by upholding justice and equity for all citizens. In conclusion, the case is a perfect example of the tussle that exists between respect for freedom by the state and rights repression.
A biblical worldview to approach the ethical issues, in this case, would suffice. From the biblical perspective, a leader is expected to be wise in making the decisions that affect his subjects and his judgment should come from God’s commandments. From Apostle Paul’s teachings, covering of the head by women was permissible if her hair would not be kept short (New International Version Bible, 1973/2011, 1Corinthians11:6). It means then that the leadership of the Ghedian government did not meet the biblical expectation of abiding by the scriptural teachings.
As well, deism as a worldview can be used in approaching the moral issues raised in the Ghedian ban on burkas. But it should be appreciated that deism ethics is based on the notion that human beings have an inbuilt capacity to gauge the difference between what is right and wrong (Sire, 2009). As such, if the Ghedian parliamentarians were to repeal the act, then they would have acknowledged the Muslim women as having the capability to discern what is good for them. On the other hand, if the legislation is upheld, then the government would abrogate the deism notion of ethics by assuming total control over the Ghedian people to make their personal decisions. On assessment, a pure deist would advise the Ghedian legislature to rescind the bill.
While deists and Christians would possess similar views on the issue of Ghedi’s ban on burkas, naturalists would hold a different view. The reason for this divergent view is that naturalism ethics is grounded on true principles of morality and as such human beings do not need any knowledge of deities (Sire, 2009). More precisely, naturalists base their ethical arguments on common sense only. On analysis, naturalism would support the Ghedian legislature on banning the burkas as the garments are considered religious attires. The support emanates from the fact that naturalists do not believe in the effect of religion on human values but rather the environmental factors and science (Sire, 2009). Inarguably, the naturalist view on the case would be formed by the cause-and-effect notion of the science to humans.
The application of the values-aligned leadership model would require that the state considers different ethical principles. The precepts of morals such as beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice are regarded in this case. Beneficence would mean that the government act for the benefit of all its citizens and initiates laws to protect and defend the rights of all. As evident, the legislative act violates the religious liberties of Muslims. It means that the value of beneficence, in this case, has been disregarded. Additionally, the ban has also ignored the ethical doctrine of autonomy and the legislature has assumed that Muslim women have no intrinsic worth to make rational decisions thereby treating them unfairly. Nonetheless, the law of ban on wearing burkas in public places takes into account the principle of non-maleficence. To the Ghedi state, the law acts to prevent and protect the entire nation against a form of criminality that may arise from the suspects concealing their identities in addition to freeing women from subjugative practices. The law does not conform to most of the principles of ethics and thus the application of the value-aligned leadership paradigm would have it quashed.
As an instructor one would expect the students to raise different issues in this specific case study. It is expected of the learners to raise matters such as gender equality and how women have been the center-focus of the matter. I also expect the students to talk about an issue such as terrorism and how the state is determined to fight it by ensuring that the suspects do not hide under the guise of religion to perpetuate it. Moreover, some elements of traditional ethical theory would be incorporated by the students. Deontology and utilitarianism are more so expected in understanding the logical basis for understanding the state’s duties concerning its citizens. To add, I expect the students to include some aspects of Christian theism in the discussion. I anticipate them to talk about the nature of God as being sovereign and that all laws should reflect His presence (Sire, 2009). The nature of humans as created in God’s image and thus having intelligence and morality is also expected to surface (Sire, 2009). Briefly, many issues are expected in this case study, but the mentioned ones act as a guide to others that are not included.
Biblically, social responsibility is an important term that outlines a human being’s obligations towards others. The scriptures explain various patterns of social responsibilities that can be effectively applied to our lives as Christians. Not only are they useful to our daily lives, but also to our cultures and actions. Apostle Paul in his letter to the Corinthians teaches that although Jesus Christ was rich, for the sake of our iniquities he became poorer (2Corinthians8:9). Clearly, the verse should be applied to our lives by being selfless and being ready to sacrifice our interest for others betterment, just as he did Christ. Further, Paul stresses the importance of equality among Christians at Corinth (2Corinthians 8:13-15). At all times we need to practice equality and fairness in society and uphold high standards of morality because that guarantees peaceful coexistence. In essence, the Bible encourages love, fairness, and sacrifice as aspects of social responsibility.
Indeed we learn a lot of positive things from our early Church brethren. Firstly, we learn that it is important to be part of the fellowship. Apostle Luke had noted that all the brethren were united in heart and soul (Acts 4: 32). Therefore being in fellowship with one another encourages unity of purpose in Christ. Also, we learn that sharing our earthly possessions brings glory to God as it is a manifestation of our faith in Him. In the Bible, the disciples are witnessing the resurrection of Christ and thereby sharing all their worldly possessions with those who lacked (Acts: 4: 33-34). As evident, the Bible was teaching the importance of sharing what god has given to each one of us in a manner that shows our obedience to Him and also our gratitude for His provisions.
References
New International Version Bible (2011). New International Version (NIV).
Sire, J. (2009). The universe next door (5th ed.). InterVarsity Press (IVP).