Let’s stop this debate before it gets veily nasty

What to do with religious symbols? Wherever you stand on this debate – iconoclast or iconodule [crazy word, crazy guys…] – it’s obvious that this subject has attracted a volume of debate considerably beyond the subject’s value. In short:

- in the Islamic corner, the debate rages: should women wear the veil? If it’s not an explicit precondition of Islam, doesn’t it have value as modesty-wear? Besides, if women want to wear it, who are we – the so-called liberal west – to complain about the discomfort we feel when they choose to live or dress a certain way?
- in the Christian corner, an employee of a major company wears a crucifix. Naughty, naughty! It’s a visible sign of religious affiliation, and the employee must remove it or be suspended. She chooses suspension. To make matters worse, we howl, it’s supposed to be Britain’s favourite airline!!

The real points of interest have been obscured by the reddest of herrings. These include such enlightening points as:

- we’re supposed to be a Christian country. Who do these people think they are, asking US to integrate with THEM? (The spirit of Alf Garnett lives on.)

- this is all about people positioning themselves for the sous-Assistant-to-the-Deputy-Prime-Minister’s job? (Find me someone who cares.)
- this is failed multi-culturalism – we’re bending over backwards to accommodate minorities, and we’re discriminating against our own;
- in my opinion, worst of all: we must never impose our value-systems on other groups. “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it!” (Not only was this not what Voltaire said, but it’s repeated hilariously often by people who – let’s be honest – would probably watch the EastEnders omnibus rather than take to the streets to protest against the stealthy removal of civil liberties)

So, what is the debate really about – and what are the core issues?

To my mind, we should return this to first principles.

- first, to ask: what is the worth of the icon or symbol? If it’s a requirement of a faith – locks (dreadlocks) for Sadhus, Sadhvis and (arguably) Rastafarians, for example – then we should respect that, and make as much effort as possible to accommodate it;

- second, assuming the symbol is optional/voluntary. Why not just do some relative cost-benefit analysis? Does wearing the veil diminish your ability to be a bilingual teaching assistant – probably. Is wearing a cross over your uniform rather than under it a required part of faith – no.
- third, trying to find some set of values that we agree are important. To date, the debate has focussed on “Britishness” – that indefinable quality of being at one with the universe only when you have a cricket bat in one hand, a warm beer in another, and a stiff upper lip. Not much like the England I call home.

Whatever these values are, they should be ones of conciliation and bridge-building. Better to focus on what unites, rather than make capital from what divides.