Carol points out that freedom of religion is not absolute in America. This is true enough. However, there are legally established guidelines for when “not absolute” applies, and a veil ban would fall outside of them.

The Supreme Court was most direct in 1971′s Lemon v. Kurtzman, when it laid out a three-prong test for laws that come up against religious practices: They must have a secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not promote excessive government entanglement with religion. Who knows what the last one means, but the first two make sense and have dictated much law since then.

For example, stopping drug use is a secular goal, and drug laws primarily affect secular drug use, so it’s not an interference with religion to ban peyote. By contrast, laws against animal sacrifice specifically discriminate against a religious practice, and the government has no secular goal in stopping the killing of animals as such — so that’s unconstitutional.

A veil ban in America would have the sole purpose of stamping out a non-disruptive religious expression. There is no way it would survive court scrutiny. Thus, the U.S.’s lack of a veil ban says more about its Constitution than about its willingness to confront Islam.

Now, there are other examples here, often legitimate — hygiene and basic courtesy are secular purposes, so a ban on foot-washing in sinks would probably be OK. Bans on female circumcision are obviously fine; I’ve praised them in print. And Carol is right that Muslim assimilation is happening slower than immigration enthusiasts promised.

But I don’t think we should laud foreign governments for telling people they can’t wear the clothing of non-approved religions.