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

[Laird Bedore]

Hello,

Welcome! Thanks for chiming in. The MOQ provides us with a fascinating 
perspective, allowing us to spin bits of current knowledge on its head 
and see it differently, fresh. To me (and I assume everyone else on MD, 
otherwise they wouldn't be here), the expanded and different perspective 
is engaging, exhilarating, inspiring. But it's horribly difficult to 
constantly look at the world through a different lens than those around 
you. Resolving and translating the differences takes it toll. I think 
it's very hard for us to maintain this alternate perspective, and that 
difficulty leads to the difficulties we see in commnication on this 
list. In some strange romantic sense, I suspect we're all a bit like the 
brujo, dancing outside peoples windows at night, on the fringe of 
society in our own ways. Given enough time we'll stretch the boundaries 
of our societies to more easily accommodate those who think with a 
similar perspective. It takes a lot of patience, though.

There's a reason they call patience a virtue. It's a real pain in the 
ass sometimes! Just try to stick with it and remember that everyone here 
is struggling a bit to expand themselves, then find common ground, in a 
cyclic dynamic-static fashion. It's hard work!

We'd be honored if you gave us a name to call you, though. :)

-Laird

hzeytin at gmail.com wrote:
> Apologies for the interruption, pressed on send by mistake...
>
> I signed up for intellectual stimulation and finding a home to exchange my own reflections on MOQ. Until I read Laird's below comment I was quite ready to quit. Not that I found the discussion points uninteresting, or the comments poor. In contrast, I was happy that Iraq and the veil and the economic tools and power, democracy in US was discussed. But, more that I felt the discussion didn't seem to build up - build up towards and understanding of truth. Isn't MOQ supposed to be a way of understanding the real or the un-real we live in a better fashion?
> I do have much to say about these topics - my wife was a couple hundred yards away from the WTC on 911, we were in London in 7/7, I come from a country where we had to deal with veils and radical islamists for years, am an atheist that is very much respectful but recently as much in anger against the dominant major religions. So I won't be shy...
> But can we please, discuss these same topics using whatever method is relevant from your reading of the MOQ and I will try to learn from you all and shape my thoughts accordingly.
> My bio-social-intellectual capacity is limited for intaking that much unstructured info as I have seen here - maybe this applies to many more that might be silent just because of that...
> Am I welcome?
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device  
>
>
> [Laird]
>
> 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
>
>