Well, it's now been two weeks since Blackburn MP Jack Straw (the former Foreign Secretary and current Leader of the House Of Commons) penned his now-infamous column regarding the wearing of veils ( niqab ) by women adhering to a certain interpretation of the tenets of Islam. Perhaps surprisingly and perhaps not, the debate is still rumbling unabated .

In the past fortnight, we've had stories of teachers suspended for wearing the niqab and British Airways workers sent home for wearing the cross ; We've had claim and counter-claim, windbaggery of all hues, pompous opinion-mongering from every conceivable angle and the capitalisation thereon so, seeing as everyone's making fat-headed comments on this, one more seems like a grain of sand on a beach of indignance.

This issue is political dynamite precisely because you can spin it to touch on any of a number of "great issues" troubling the world today that you might be keen to debate. If you want to talk about immigration, you can use it to that end; the war on terror likewise; ditto the debates on religion and secularity; the issues of spin and political expediency also; the cynicism and power of the media; the rights of individuals versus those of society; the power of the state etcetera etcetera ... It's a blow-hard's charter. Party on, Garth!

I've read and listened to these debates in a state oscillating between those of cynical, misanthropic stoicism, detached analysis and livid bluster. Billy Connolly used to do a routine about the F-word, stating how all his portable radios ended-up "furry" as they became "pebble-dashed with muesli" from reacting to broadcast fatuity: " FFfffucking ... Bwarstar ... Bllloody ... " etc. This week, I know what he means.

Firstly, there's the natural frustration that this issue is still occupying a disproportionate share of the nation's media bandwidth; it's not that it isn't worth discussing, but it's been something akin to a DDOS attack at times. Secondly, there is the disheartenment felt when, yet again , someone hijacks the issue to talk about something related, but not the issue being discussed. Thirdly, there is just bad logic; Clifford Longley, on this week's Moral Maze [ Real Audio which, like messages in Mission Impossible, will self destruct after one week] rather sneeringly referred to the reaction as being to do with a rising tide of "aggressive secularism". How any religious adherent who doesn't secretly harbour dreams of theocracy could ever be against a strand of robustly-defended secularity is beyond me; it's "aggressive anti-theism " you need to be worried about, bro'.

At its core, the issue has only ever really been about the collision of two noble but only semi-enshrined liberties: The right to wear what one likes versus the right to interact with other people how one wishes (both within "reasonable" limits: The "wearing" of automatic weapons is frowned upon, as is having people interacting with your fists etc.).

I hate suits. One of the few times I've agreed whole-heartedly with Tony Blair was when he spoke wearily of "the tyranny of the tie". Fortunately, I often work from home, which means that you'll frequently find me shoe-less, unshaven and wearing baggy jeans (in various states of shabbiness) and a sweatshirt. I don't expect to be able to get away with such louche couture in the office, however. Likewise, I'm sure my line manager would rather accept the delusion that I'm up at 5:30am, dressed with militarily crisp cleanliness and working diligently for the greater corporate good.

These trivial examples hide a serious point. The right to wear what we want is only a "soft" right as is, equally, the right to deal with people on our own terms. Your right to swing your arms ends at my face etc. The issue becomes complicated, however, when public money and services get involved. My bank and my employer can largely choose the terms upon which they wish to deal with their customers and employees, but there is no consumer market in governments, although money is taken for services rendered just the same. This is when these vague types of right seem to become overbearingly important.

When the French debated the wearing of the hijab in schools a couple of years ago, we watched with fascination as a French minister told Jeremy Paxman that the idea of children wearing the hijab " is a kind of violence to us ". France is perhaps the most avowedly secular society in the world; their organisational departements are the result of a rational division process (much as it also served to disintegrate feudal loyalties); the metric system was originally a french product and yet they see no inconsistency in declaring the wearing of the hijab "a kind of violence". One could debate for hours what that comment meant, but I think most people can understand it in a socialist (with a small 's') context. I'd remind you that they were talking about schoolchildren , not the wider cultural liberties. Despite being so avowedly secular, religion of many stripes flourishes in France, especially in the south.

When I read Jack Straw's original article (linked above), I remember wondering what the fuss was about. He is well within his rights to ask, and his constituents are well within their rights to refuse. The reaction to the whole affair, though, speaks of a country ill-at-ease with its cultural priorities. Nothing in our laws or cultural heritage justify either the bloviant accusations of racism aimed at Mr. Straw or accusations of militancy, terrorism and fanatical intransigence directed towards the niqab-wearers. Taking a leaf out of Mr. Sartre's book, what we have here is a situation where the crime is actually a failure to choose ; a dithering hope that things will sort themselves out in the wash without society-level proclamations of principle.

We don't do society-level proclamations of principle very well in this country; they are something akin to "a kind of violence" to us. We're British. We "muddle through". We find a happy medium. We have "stiff upper lips" and "quiet determination". We drink tea. Well, that last bit is true, at least. We are a secular nation, albeit one with an official religion. We are a democracy, albeit one with a sitting monarch. We believe in freedom of the press, but doubt the public value of what they print, We have over a thousand years of law and heritage, but no constitution. It's a compromise. It's a mish mash. It's a hack. It's a mess. It kind of works, though.

Except when it doesn't.

Israel is drafting a new constitution with the goal of it being in place for the state's sixtieth birthday. Apparently Israel is not governed with a written constitution. In any religious state there is always the issue of secularisation:

The real obstacle that has impeded a constitution for 60 years is not the Arabs, but the disagreements between the secular and the religious. If a decade ago it was clear that a constitution would mean a separation of religion and state, says Abramowitz, now the discourse is on a constitution the religious can live with. And why should the religious agree? In order to change the status quo, where the Supreme Court determines its own jurisdictions, by determining the Knesset's and the court's jurisdictions in advance.

While it may be politically sensible, it is constitutionally unwise to allow religion into the constitution or have any constitutional role in government - especially the judiciary.

The article continues:

Ben-Sasson will propose to the religious the solution suggested by the Israel Democracy Institute: that certain religious laws be protected from High Court of Justice intervention. Regarding some issues of religion and state as well, it may be stipulated that the Knesset can override High Court decisions with a relatively small majority, 61 votes.

Which is worse than the Muslim courts in Malaysia and more like the exalted position religion gets in the Iranian government. If this occurs it will be a poor constitutional decision by Israel that will lead to conflict and distress between secular governance and religious self-interest.

Mitt Romney's speech on his religion and politics identified 'secularists' as the enemy within the state.

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

This is grist for the mill of the sensationalists who adore the facetiousness of the 'war on christmas" and other absurdities. Romney is arguing that secularism has no place in constitutionalism.

Republicanism views liberty as an intrinisic property of being human, not as a gift from a nether world, nor an unprovable religious form.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty.

he is also incorrect in characterising this to the American founders, who were in reality a mix of atheists and deists. The latter finding the idea of an omnipotent or omnipresent god repulsive.

Andrew Sullivan is insightful when he comments that and issue with the speech is that, "The first [issue] is the absence of any notion that religious freedom includes the freedom to have no religion whatever."

Romney's speech ahas to be taken as pandering to the evangelical base of the modern American Republican party. The evangelicals seem to not understand the basis for modern constitutionalism and want the injection of religion into political life. History has shown over and over again this is a bad idea which leads to dysfunctional governance if not tyranny.

It is particularly ironic as Romney did not make religion an issue in Massachussettes in his time as Governor there. The US North-East is a very liberal area of America that does not make decisions on religion, race, ethnicity or other discriminative components. Individuals are judged on their merit.

If Romney chose to run under the banner of liberalism he should be ahead on the US Republican side of politics as on merit he helped introduce one of the few working universal health care systems. Yet because he chose to pursue the evangelical base he has to run away from merit as his platform and instead embrace the uniting of God and Politics.

Very foolish in my opinion.

Andrew Sullivan links to a Ron Paul statement on the issue:

The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends."

In other words, a candidate should be judged on merit. Very republican, and very liberal.