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

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Laird]
Before when I spoke of a perceived fear - what I was referring to is the 
perceived fear of a foreign culture's values and traditions violating our 
own (western culture in general).

[Arlo]
I don't disagree there is a perceived fear. I'd say one thing is response, 
the "perception of fear" _should_ not be what drives law.

On that I think we agree. That people DO pass laws based on fear, 
xenophobic or otherwise, is pretty much a given. On that I think we agree too.

What galls me, and started this whole debate so many moons ago, was Platt's 
attempt to frame this as a victory of Intellect over society. That is, the 
passing of laws forbidding veils was _intellectual_. And it has been 
against this debasement of the MOQ that I have responded.

There is another point, however, and that's your belief that this is all 
tangental (my word) to Islam. You mention ski-masks as a intra-cultural 
activity that brings fear. If its not about Islam, then why is there no law 
banning ski-masks? They may make you uncomfortbable, and any reasonable 
shop owner will likely press a silent alarm when someone comes in wearing a 
ski-mask, but did we pass a law forbidding by law the wearing of ski-masks? 
No. Did we arrest KISS back in the 70s when they refused to appear in 
public sans makeup, instead appearing with bandanas and the like.... 
essentially "veiled"? Do we arrest Jacko-Wacko when he appears shrouding 
his deteriorating appearence in public? No. Then why the sudden demand in 
"banning veils" if it has nothing to do with Islam (or little to do with it).

Ham had mentioned before that we become paranoid when we can't see 
someone's face. Okay. But my response is "so what?". When I see someone in 
a ski-mask enter a store, it is NOT because I can't see their face, but 
because the _near total_ experiential correlation between _that activity_ 
and _robbery_. And yet I still don't want ski-masks outlawed.

The other possibility mentioned is that someone letting others wear veils 
will cause our own cultural values to change. Kind of like the notion that 
recognizing gay marriages will make more people turn gay. I doubt anyone in 
our culture will ever don a veil (apart from KISS and Jacko-Wacko), so I 
can't buy into the notion that MY social customs (wearing biker jackets and 
levis) will somehow be threatened because there are some others out there 
who wear veils. So my question is, what cultural patterns do we feel will 
"be obliterated" by allowing people to wear veils?

But on some level I think I am still talking about this from an intellect 
over society position, and I'm not sure how to get into the social v. 
social dialogue without simply acknowledging that, yes, society passes laws 
based on social fear (towards difference and preservation). But once I make 
that claim, there seems little more to do with it except condemn it, and 
work to change it.

[Laird]
And through intellect, we should temper our social judgements, but the 
social judgements cannot be completely eliminated on the basis of reason. 
There are static social patterns of value in conflict with each other, and 
they do need to be addressed. Otherwise, the social structure is being 
weakened by not only the 'threat', but also by our intellectual attempts at 
taming it.

[Arlo]
I read this as "People are afraid, we need to let them pass laws based on 
fear. Rather than attack the law, we should let the law stand until people 
are not afraid anymore, at which point they'll rescind the law." Is that 
incorrect? Is that what we should do when the fearful masses outlaw biker 
jackets, just wait their fear out? I wonder how Platt would react to this, 
as the same logic applies to global warming (from his point of view). That 
is, we should let people pass all the laws they want in fear of global 
warming, and just wait until they are not afraid anymore. Think he wants 
_that_fear to be used to pass laws the same way he uses Islamofascism.

[Laird]
As above, the Islamification argument is political pandering, taking 
advantage of the conflict to spread an agenda.

[Arlo]
If its not anti-Islam, what exactly is the agenda? Why focus only on 
"veils"? Why not forbid ANY facial concealment in public. Ski-masks, 
bandanas (which I wear sometimes over my face when I ride), KISS makeup, 
etc. But I ask again, what about a severely disfigured person (apart from 
Jacko-Wacko) who is uncomfortable and wishes to cover her/his face in 
public? Is forbidding that part of this agenda too?

[Laird]
It's a tricky balancing act trying to maintain social order without 
compromising intellectual values.

[Arlo]
That's why leaders should actively advance public intellectual reasoning, 
rather than pandering to fear.

[Laird on banning biker wear]
I would not support such a law unless public concern reached such a point 
that the consequence of inaction was worse than the ramifications of action.

[Arlo]
When is that point reached? How do we take into account the constant 
advertising of politicians who promise to "protect us from the 
leather-wearing hordes". When every news story is about how a biker, 
somewhere, beat the crap out of some poor kid. When the only pictures they 
show on TV are of biker-criminals, maniac looking and crazy?

What would be the "consequence of inaction" if we do not pass a law banning 
veils? (Or is this Arlo slipping into the intellectual again?)

[Laird]
No favoritism suggested here. I could imagine some difficult situations to 
work out... Say a monk who has taken a vow of silence has to travel, and is 
interrogated by customs and undergoes a polygraph. I could see that one 
being tricky. I'm not sure what to make of that situation.

[Arlo]
I'd like to think that discretion on both sides would prevail. Perhaps the 
monastery could make advance arrangements, or delay the trip until the vow 
is over. Or pay for private accommodations. And I'd like to think a 
polygraph would not be given unless the situations absolutely demanded it. 
And, here the monk makes a conscious choice. Talk and break a vow, or 
remain silent and petition the court (through a lawyer) after being 
arrested. Sometimes the choices we face are indeed a rock and a hard place 
(by the way, on that note, check out the Simpsons Movie trailer ... hehe... 
), and that's life.

Moreoever, Laird, I think we are pretty sympatico on most of this. I'm 
enjoying it as well. And being a bit envious that my ride is sitting 
unloved, while yours is putting rubber to the road. I'm not the biggest fan 
of Florida overall (too hot and too humid for this northern boy), but I am 
envious at locales that have year long riding seasons.