"Seeing beyond the hijab"

Ramadan, the annual month of fasting observed in the Muslim world, got underway Saturday in North America, so I was pleased that we offered readers a timely essay by local writer Tom Krattenmaker titled "Seeing beyond the hijab."

Tom is a former journalist, with an interest in issues involving Christianity in public life, who is now an associate vice president at Lewis & Clark College here in Portland. He continues to write for USA Today, the Los Angeles Times and The Oregonian, among others, and has a book that's coming out in October on Christianity in professional sports.

Anyway, Tom wrote a thoughtful piece stemming from the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act, a new law that ensures the rights of employees to practice their religion by wearing certain religious apparel at work and taking holy days off.

As he notes, however, the measure upholds an exception for school teachers that's been on the books since the 1920s. The exception was upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court in the 1980s in a ruling that sought to make a distinction between religious apparel that merely expresses one's faith and clothing that has a more overt proselytizing effect.

"Because of the way the ban has been interpreted and enforced, its practical effect has mainly been felt by Sikhs, who wear turbans, and Muslim women, many of whom wear the hijab, or headscarf," Tom reported. Meanwhile, Christian teachers wear less-conspicuous cross necklaces or lapel pins and Jewish teachers wear yarmulkes, with no evident repercussion.

Tom concedes that the hijab and turban stand out, but raises a larger question by asking where is the line that separates legitimate religious expression from the unconstitutional promotion of religion. During an online chat Monday morning that I orchestrated for OregonLive.com, a handful of readers and I joined Tom in exploring some of the issues raised by that question:

1. If one favors the separation of church and state, why should we allow any religious apparel (including jewelry) of any kind in our public classrooms?
2. If one allows the hijab, do we also permit T-shirts that depict Jesus or quote a Bible verse? Do we allow a T-shirt that promotes the Wiccan religion?
3. Which carries more weight? The intent of the wearer (who knows what, if any, meaning is attached to the wearing of an article of clothing) or how it is perceived (and possibly misconstrued) by another party?
4. If we hope to encourage tolerance for the increasing diversity in our society, shouldn't we allow the hijab in the classroom, on the theory that the more familiar we become with it (whether in schools, airports, grocery stories or doctor's offices), the less mysterious or threatening it becomes?

After mulling Tom's article and participating in the half-hour chat, I'm still conflicted. Generally, I don't favor injecting religion in any form in public settings, whether the classroom or the workplace. Yet I'm sympathetic to an individual's freedom of self-expression as well as to the rights of religious or ethnic minorities to assert their beliefs.

If you pressed me, though, I think I would generally be permissive. allowing people to wear whatever they like, as long as the attire is not profane, does not intimidate and does not cause an undue distraction.

Thoughts, anyone?