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

[Laird Bedore]

> [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.
>
>   
[Laird]
Yeah, we agree on these points. I think the viewpoint Platt was 
representing is a sort of "gonzo intellectualism" in action. I hold our 
intellect to a higher standard than banning veils for the sake of 
enforcing an intellectual supremacy over society. My opinions may seem a 
little odd and vague between the role of social and intellectual 
patterns - I'll try to give some background to my position.

In Lila, Pirsig mentions that only in recent times has intellect shown 
it can "hold its own" and sit superior to society. I believe the battle 
for supremacy is still VERY much going on, and will for a few more 
generations. We're in a middle period where both society and intellect 
are leading us, and neither is strong enough to effectively lead on its 
own. Society without intellect is, well, the Dark Ages. And intellect 
without society is anarchy. MOQ without SOM is extreme nihilism (but I 
should save this for another day). In this middle ground, a lot of 
compromising has to be done between social perception and intellectual 
understanding. I'm willing to give a little (and i'm very serious about 
the "little" part) ground to society in order to maintain a healthy 
stability in our static patterns. When these things are stable, 
intellect is free to wander and invite DQ in for tea, further improving 
the world as a whole. And that's my desired direction for the world.


> [Arlo]
> 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).
>
>   
[Laird]
I think it's because of reactionism. We're reacting to what is currently 
"in our face" right now, which is the use of veils in public and some 
people screaming about protecting public security. If we saw a 
widespread rash of people wearing ski masks and causing problems (Fight 
Club's "Operation Mayhem" comes to mind), then I think we'd have a 
similar public (social) reaction. You're looking for an intellectual 
corollary here, but the "pro-ban" side of the fight is thinking 
socially. Truth be told, they're not thinking very much at all, just 
socially reacting.


> [Arlo]
> 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.
>
>   
[Laird]
I'd say that the current state of affairs with ski masks in public is an 
example of unwritten common law. Generally speaking, people do not 
condone it and act accordingly (pressing the silent alarm, etc) to 
prevent it. People feel that these situations can be handled without 
having to pass a bill through congress. Sadly, some people think passing 
such a bill to outlaw veil-wearing would be a good thing, but I think 
it'd cause more harm than good, because (optimism again) our society is 
beyond these petty squabbles. That might not be true for all societies, 
though. The social-intellectual fight for supremacy battles on.


> [Arlo]
> 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?
>
>   
[Laird]
Oh, no, nothing will be obliterated. Culture's just a little slow to 
accepting changes. Having our cultural values change doesn't mean our 
individual choices or actions have to change. It's a matter of what is 
viewed as acceptable in society. In the (not always) far-off past, if a 
person walked up to a stranger in the street and said "Hi, I'm gay." 
they might get lynched. These days they're more likely to get an "Oh? 
Okay, whatever." reaction. People can watch Brokeback Mountain without 
_living_ Brokeback Mountain. Veils have the same fate. Seeing a veiled 
Muslim in the streets of New York in 1930 was STRANGE, but these days 
it's just a bit weird. Eventually it'll be treated like just another 
personal choice someone makes, such as wearing combat boots or having 
long hair.


> [Arlo]
> 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]
I think we've got the social v. social part pretty well covered now - 
there's a common ground to work from, and the intellectual discussion 
has a healthy foundation.


> [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]
Put like that, it sounds like you're seeing the social decisions and 
intellectual decisions as being pretty exclusive. In large part, the 
arguments put forward by the governments, politicians, and people so far 
ARE pretty exclusive... It's stifling progress, as both the social AND 
the intellectual are necessary to reach an amicable solution. And not as 
separate entities, but as inclusive socio-intellectual patterns.


> [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]
The answer you're looking for is reactionism (above). The agendas (that 
word has a very negative meaning to me) being pasted atop this issue by 
politicians certainly do include anti-Islam suggestions... But these 
agendas don't really belong in this issue. Like above, you're looking 
for an intellectual corollary to a social response, but it's just not 
there. Just simple reactionism turning the gears. Sad.

I see the case of disfigured people as a separate, intellectual 
argument. The veil-wearers that are in the spotlight now are generally 
not disfigured, but wear the veils in accordance with their social 
upbringing, and are carrying that pattern of value into another culture 
where it's seen as strange, ominous, even threatening. I look at the 
"agendas" as answers to the wrong question, and because they're 
answering the wrong question, all sorts of innocent bystanders like 
ski-mask wearers, Islam in general, and boot-wearing long-haired bearded 
hippies get caught in the crossfire.


> [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]
Yes. Pandering to fear is not only poor policy, but intellectually 
immoral. But they do need to be aware of the fear in order to quell it 
effectively.


> [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]
In both scenarios, I see the proliferation of hate crimes as a pretty 
clear sign of reaching the breaking point. If people start attacking 
Muslims in public because they're wearing veils, we've got a serious 
problem. Undoubtedly the media isn't helping when it comes to 
fearmongering - they'll say and show just about anything if it'll boost 
their ratings. We rely on the reader's intellect to temper what is shown 
to them and take it with a grain of salt. There goes that optimism 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.
>
>   
[Laird]
(thud) D'OH! (repeat ad nauseum)
Discretion serves us well when confronted with one-off situations. The 
whole trend toward literalism and requiring letter-of-the-law in order 
to determine what's good is a major step backwards in our society.


> 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. 
>   
[Laird]
Indeed. Don't worry, the spring will come soon, and then summer, when I 
have to start hydrating the day BEFORE the ride if I want to survive it! 
Then I can envy your northern climate! Aww, shucks, when summer comes I 
guess I'll have to spend some vacation time riding through the smokey 
mountains again. :)

-Laird