The author’s point is missing some seriously important elements.
- the wimple of nuns are a historical tradition arising from common dress of the day when most of the orders were founded.
- Chapel veils and mantilla are not signs of being subject to man, but to God and the Tradtion of modesty
- the Hijab is often worn such that it conceals identity
- proving sexual assault under the sharia is hard; it’s darned near impossible under some Muslim dominated non-sharia civil law systems. (4 male witnesses required to have seen the act!)
Rejecting the wear of obscuring religious wear in public systems of education makes a certain amount of sense… as a teacher, I need to know who is in my class and to whom I am speaking. Locally, the schools have said that the hijab must not cover the face for students to be admitted.
And in France, violence by Muslims has been a real threat.
But neither the wimple nor the chapel veil, nor the "babushka scarf"obscure the wearer’s identity. (Ok, some late 1800’s wimples doubled as blinders…)
Mother Theresa’s was very practical: it kept her hair clean and out of her way, but let her charming face be seen!