Veiled threats?

The article talked about a decision taken in Spain, were the use of Muslim burqa in public places was banned. In consequence of that decision, other countries like France, Belgium and Germany havetented to enact a similar law. The article explains the arguments that are commonly made in favor of this ban and the two philosophical traditions that try to give a solution to these kinds of issues.I think that everyone agrees with the idea that government must treat human dignity with equal respect, but problems come when government has to decide in areas touching religious beliefs,because those religion beliefs may represent the ultimate meaning of life for someone. So the problem becomes bigger when people are prevented from outward observances required by their beliefs, and whenpeople are forced to affirm convictions that they may not hold or agree with beliefs they don’t support, guiding them to an ontological shock.
According with the last paragraph we may think thatany religious belief and any religious practice should be accepted in a society, this idea is wrong because some reasonable limits might be imposed on what people do in the name of religion. That iswhy government must analyze every case separately, really carefully and in concordance with the set of norms or rules designed to regulate and govern the conduct of humans with one another, with otherliving creatures, and with their environment. There are several patterns of political engagement and it doesn’t matter which one a government is implementing they must assure the treat of all humanswith an equal respect.
In the case of the Muslim burqa, all the arguments used to ban its use on public places are discriminatory; they don’t have any kind of openness, honesty or criticalintelligence. Arguing that it is insecure to cover your face in public places, this is ridiculous; because that
means that in winter we should not use caps and scarf to cover our face. Also, Arguing...