[MD] Intellect battles the barbarians

[Ham Priday]

Arlo, Platt --


> [Arlo]
> Apparently Platt still refuses to do nothing but offer rhetorical,
> and distortive, filler. How silly of me to think otherwise.
>
> "He has no objection to laws against indecent exposure."
> Why are we moral in demanding women cover parts of their
> body we find "indecent", but Muslims are immoral for doing
> the same? In what way is the breast "naturally sexual", so that
> OUR laws are based not on cultural but something "objective",
> while the sexual provocativeness of faces to Muslim men cultural?

May I chime in here?

I think you're both viewing the dress problem from the wrong premise.  The
issue isn't "indecent exposure"; it isn't an "intellectual" or "sexual"
problem.  It's the tradition that women are subservient to men and should
not exhibit themselves as equal to men.

For hundreds of years Catholic nuns have worn long black habits with hoods
in public.  Was this to prevent "indecent exposure"?  No.  It was to convey
the very idea that the nun represents -- "none", "nothing" in the eyes of
God.  As the bride of Christ, the practicing nun must be subordinate to the
Master, and not be seen as displaying herself.

The real problem, as Tony Blair has recognized in the UK, is assimilating
such people into Western culture.  Understandably, it is considered rude and
offensive in Europe and America for individuals to hide themselves when
relating to others.  We are an open society; we want to see the faces of
those we deal with.  (Would you do business with a customer who approached
you wearing a mask?)

When immigrants seek citizenship in an open and gender-equal society, they
have a moral (and legal) obligation to learn the language, obey the laws,
and follow the dress code of their adopted country.  Failing to do this is
tantamount to showing disdain for the society that has accepted them.  When
women from an Islamic country that is known to harbor terrorists isolate
themselves from society in this way, it is looked upon as secretive,
uncivil, perhaps threatening behavior.  We would have similar problems with
the Amish here in Pennsylvania, except that they run their own schools and
businesses, and have earned respect as a peaceful people.

My personal opinion is that the U.S. should not grant citizenship to any
immigrant who refuses to adapt to American culture -- even if the customs
they insist on following have a religious basis.  This is not a violation of
religious freedom.  Freedom is the right of naturalized Americans, not
would-be immigrants; and as a free sovereign nation, we have the right (and
the responsibility) to refuse anyone who cannot accept our moral and social
standards.

Until the Islamists are willing to assimilate, the problem isn't ours but
theirs.  As I see it the ball is in their court.

Regards,
Ham