[MD] What is the intellectual argument about Islamic veil wearing?

[Laird Bedore]

Hi Arlo,

I'll preface my responses by saying that I don't think this issue has 
anything to do with the religion of Islam or persecution/fear of it, 
except by displaced coincidence. I see this as merely a conflict of 
social conventions where some people are using the religious argument as 
a bargaining chip for their views. Damn shame, really.

> [Laird]
> If the perception of public risk reaches critical mass, I believe it is
> moral for the host society to pass a law enforcing the minority to comply
> with its social requirements.
>
> [Arlo]
> First, I have no problem with society enacting laws to protect itself 
> from
> legitimate threats. And this is where intellect must be used. Just 
> because
> a majority "perceive" something to constitute a risk, does not mean it 
> is.
> This is "rule by fear", honestly, where law panders to the emotional whim
> of the citizenry. Politicians have learned to manipulate this, and so
> bombard us daily with fear rhetoric, to were now I am supposed to believe
> "veils constitute a threat to our culture". This, quite frankly, is 
> absurd.
>
[Laird]
At this point, you're moving past the social order into intellect very, 
very quickly - quicker than those who are perceiving a threat and thus 
making the public outcry for something to be done. The stimulus-response 
of the legal system is responding to a social stimulus, and reacting 
with a social response. Yeah, it's definitely rule by fear, which (like 
it or not) is much of the basis of social rule- legal, religious, or 
otherwise. In these fine modern times, we try to temper our social 
edicts with use of intellect, as I agree we should. That isn't to say we 
always succeed, though.

> [Arlo]
> Khaled has spoken on the many reasons, worldwide, people choose to wear
> veils. None of these, in any stretch, can be said to "threaten 
> society". I
> have asked, if we outlaw veils, do we also forbid by law a disfigured
> person from concealing their face in public, if they are not comfortable
> otherwise? Or is it only Muslims who would be forbidden from wearing 
> veils?
> Is it just the face? Or do we ban the entire headcovering? If, as the 
> Dutch
> say, "veils work against assimilation", do not Muslim headcoverings as
> well? If we really want to "force assimilation", why stop at the veil? 
> How
> is of the entire Muslim cultural dresscode, only "veils" the evil we must
> forbid? Why not the robes?
>
[Laird]
What you're suggesting is that we consider the things that have 
intellectual analogues to veils. Wouldn't it be more accurate to 
consider the things that have social analogues to veils? Western 
European culture sees people with face-coverings as generally 
threatening (the guy with the ski mask robbing a store). People wearing 
combat boots or with big beards or long hair are often seen as 
threatening too, with the same lack of intellectual reasoning behind the 
feeling. I've been on the 'wrong end of the gun' plenty of times with 
those social stigmas. It sucks, and I can sympathize. These social 
stigmas change with time, and eventually these strange things become (to 
some degree) accepted.

> [Arlo]
> You see, there is no intellectual or logical framework at play here. Its
> just fear, plain and simple. And pandering to emotion. I don't want my 
> laws
> based on that, Laird. For as much as society has a right to protect 
> itself
> from legitimate threats, this conform-by-law culture that some argue 
> for is
> immorals.
>
[Laird]
You're right! I agree with you! But my main effort in this exercise has 
been to show that there's more underneath our intellectual assessment 
that needs to be addressed. We've been choking on our intellectual 
arguments because the underlying social arguments have been taken for 
granted, worse yet, differently by different people.

> [Arlo]
> I see women in veils and/or headcoverings often. I am not afraid, nor
> threatened, nor insulted because their social dress customs differ from
> mine. Now, if they are being _forced_ to wear it, then that's a whole 
> other
> issue. This is as immoral as forbidding it.
>
>
[Laird]
Intellectually I have no issues with people wearing a veil in public if 
it suits their culture and upbringing. Particularly in the US, where 
freedom of religion and freedom from religious persecution was a major 
founding premise, it is sheer hypocrisy to act otherwise.

However, there are certain times when unveiling is necessary and should 
be enforced. Identification for a Driver's License, to a police officer 
or airport travel security agent, are all mandatory actions for all 
people, citizens or not, pretty much across the world. Those who take 
the holier-than-thou approch "no I will not take off my veil for my ID 
photo, for an officer, or at an airport" need to realize that they're 
directly, explicitly choosing NOT to cooperate in the society that they 
have explicitly chosen to live in (or at least visit, for airports/etc). 
Just as local laws are still enforceable upon me if I visit the UAE or 
Saudi Arabia, the laws that require unveiling for identification/etc 
should still be fully enforceable upon all when they visit a 
non-veil-wearing place. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. It's 
courtesy, common sense. As we should act with intellect, so they should 
as well. That's my only stipulation on the intellectual side.


-Laird