[MD] What is the intellectual argument about Islamicveil wearing?

[hzeytin at gmail.com]

Dear all, its first day on the list, and my apologies where I speak out of ignorance of this groups past.
Summer 2005 was my reawaking to Pirsig by reading Lila after a long delay. Read ZAMM over again afterwards.


Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device  

-----Original Message-----
From: Laird Bedore <lmbedore at vectorstar.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:08:58 
To:moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] What is the intellectual argument about Islamic
	veil	wearing?

Platt, Arlo, everyone:

I'm taking quite a few steps back here, apologies but man you guys just 
go berzerk on weekends while I'm busy taking my a priori (and 
not-so-a-priori) motorcycle through the backroads at 
legally-questionable speeds, reconnecting with my own 'spirit of the 
valley'...

We started by talking about Islamic veil-wearing. In particular, we 
narrowed it to the wearing of said veils in places (read: cultures) 
where face-coverings are not generally accepted.

[Platt]
 >Noted in today's NYTimes:
 >NIJMEGEN, the Netherlands, Nov. 17 — Five days before a national 
election here, the
 >center-right government announced Friday that it planned to introduce 
legislation to
 >ban burqas and similar garments in public places, saying the full-body 
garb worn by a
 >small number of Muslim women in the Netherlands posed a grave security 
threat.

On an on this discussion has wandered, about the morality of wearing, 
allowing, or banning said veil-wearing in general terms. The problem is 
that some premises of the general terms have been disagreed upon without 
being acknowledged. Platt, for one, has followed a line of thought I've 
seen him do on many threads over the last 2 years I've followed MD- 
Looking at the situation exclusively within his own mythos. Arlo, from 
what I can gather of his position, has argued from a perspective that 
tries to be strictly universal in its treatment of the mythos (plural) 
involved, trying to maintain the position of intellect over society. I'm 
doubtful that either approach can talk to the other one.

Let's take the Nijmegen example. How many mythos-cultural baselines- are 
involved in the situation?
1. Islamic culture supplanted into a foreign culture
2. Western European culture
3. Our own cultures, the observers and judges of this piece of news, 
arguably quite similar to Western European culture

When I see this, I see patterns of one culture (Islamic culture) being 
forcibly transplanted into another (Western European) culture, and an 
incompatibility has arisen. The Islamic culture-bearers are trying to 
maintain their culture in a new land while the natives are trying to 
maintain their own culture. The "fear of Islamification" of western 
europe is a fear of these newly-transplanted patterns overtaking the old 
ones. SQ fighting SQ while crossing cultural boundaries. Looking at it 
from just one culture's perspective, they're each doing the "right 
thing". Muslims maintaining their cultural propriety by wearing the 
veils, Dutch maintaining their social identification and public safety 
framework by demanding that their faces be visible and identifiable.

Most cultural differences are rather minor. Different hand signals mean 
VERY different things from one country to the next, and something that 
is innocuous in one place is offensive in another. We deal with these 
things. The veil issue is interesting and so keen to debate because it 
has such a magnified contrast - the position holds great importance for 
both sides of this cultural merge. Some see a Personal Choice vs Public 
Safety argument, some see Religion vs Intellect, on and on it goes. I 
see Cultural Minority asking for change vs Cultural Majority asking to 
stay the same.

My take on this situation is that a minority of people are moving to a 
new country with a different and incompatible culture. The "Rules of the 
Game" (citizenship) generally require that immigrants shed cultural 
patterns that are strictly incompatible, as they are asking to become 
part of a different culture. If they're not willing to join, embrace, 
and extend (through their own cultural patterns) the society, they are 
not playing by The Rules and have alternatives (find a more compatible 
culture, it's easy these days). There are laws and lawmaking bodies to 
decide what is to be done about those who break The Rules. That is true 
of both cultures, and is to be expected by all. 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.

Worldwide we are sitting near the point of critical mass on this issue, 
debates are undoubtedly heated, and the Netherlands will probably not be 
the last country to pass such a law. Other countries will take the 
stance of accepting and embracing the differences of Islamic culture. 
Within their own viewpoints, each culture will be making the right 
decision, and we should be cognizant of that.

Can we at least agree to consider the argument from the perspective of 
each culture, each mythos, before we shower each other in a shitstorm of 
political dogma? This would be good practice for us to follow in all 
discussions here. Who knows, maybe someday we'll get back to talking 
about philosophy and philosophology more than politics.

-Laird

pholden at davtv.com wrote:
>> [Platt]
>> Ban a religious sect dedicated to murdering everyone but their believers?
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> Many, many wear veils who are not part of this sect. But at least you appear
>> ready to drop the inane "ban on veils" and say what you really want. A ban on
>> Islam. Just be honest, amigo.
>>     
>
> Who wear veils who don't sympathize with radical Islam? Do you hear any veiled
> women speaking out against their radical compatriots?  
>
>   
>> [Platt]
>> Would you allow the KKK on your campus? If not, why not?
>>
>> [Arlo]
>> I wouldn't personally_want_ them there, but I support their right to speech. I
>> don't try to censor fools, Platt, they do a good enough job proving what morons
>> they are by speaking.
>>     
>
> I don't mean coming in to give a speech and leaving. I mean living on campus,
> attending classes, teaching classes, eating in campus facilities, attending college
> sports events, being around and about you night and day dressed in their KKK
> regalia. You wouldn't support a campus regulation banning their dress? How about
> Nazi military uniforms? Or no clothes at all? Come on, Arlo. Just be honest, keemosavi. 
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>   

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/