security restrictions and religion

I read an article in the newspaper yesterday about the new TSA regulation that all airplane passengers must remove their head covering, be it baseball cap, head scarf, or turban, during the security screenings at airports. This article emphasized Sikh men, who show devotion and commitment to God by never cutting their hair. Sikh men are best recognized, then, not by long hair and beards, but by turbans which hide their hair.

The new security measure is, then, a problem for Sikhs and others, such as Muslim women, who cover their hair for religious reasons.

One the one hand, I can see the plight of the religious observers. I was, after all, a devout wearer of garments for several years, and can empathize with the indignation and embarrassment people might feel in being required to remove a religious article of clothing. Garments, though, are qualitatively different from head coverings, since garments are easily hidden, and are meant to be hidden, under a layer of clothing. Still, I could see how I would have been upset had I, say, gotten a job that denied me the garments, such as if the uniform didn't cover garments.

The head scarves of Muslim women and the turbans of Sikh men are different in that, when taking them off, they are exposing a part of the body that is rarely exposed. Therefore they feel a bit naked, and that's uncomfortable, to be sure. We all get used to our different levels of modesty. Sleeveless shirts used to feel "naked" to me, for example. I've lived in a Muslim area, and gotten used to always having my head covered to the point that I would panic a little if a man entered my house and my head wasn't covered. I can imagine how much more intense that is for women who have been taught since they were toddlers that uncovered hair around unrelated men is sinfully inappropriate.

Then there's the inconvenience. Those turbans take several minutes to wrap, and to have to redo the turban in the public airport is a pain and probably embarrassing as well. Head scarves are not so labor intensive, but, still, it's probably slightly more hassle than having to remove our shoes, like everyone does now at airports.

On the other hand (and here's where I see my secular side coming out, influenced by Dawkins and Hitchens), why should they be given an exception to the security rule? Because their style of clothing is determined by some religious myth? Because centuries ago, a man was worried about the fidelity of his many (more than four!) wives and asked that they be visited from behind a veil? This is, after all, the justification for veiling women: there's a half a sentence in Muslim scripture that could be interpreted in many ways. And Sikhs. The no-hair cutting thing is old, sure, but still just as arbitrary as any religious proscription.

Why should religious dress be granted an exception, simply because it is religious? Because it's based on beliefs so insupportable that we have to rely on faith, against reason, to believe them?


Feel free to debate with me and with each other, but please keep it civil.