[MD] Intellect battles the (immigrant) barbarians

[Ham Priday]

Hello Arlo--

> With regards to this conversation, then, there is no
> "moral" aspect to veils and tops, and both laws to
> either could be seen as "moral" within a cultural-dominant
> setting where the majority has determined that
> concealment should occur.  In Iran, then, its moral for
> them to force women to wear veils. In American, its moral
> for us to force women to wear tops.  The real issue,
> as you see it, is when they come here, or we go there.

Certainly the rules of a culture stem from its morality, but this isn't the
issue that concerns me.  I believe that all men (and women) are inherently
free, whatever their cultural tradition dictates, and Western civilization
has progressed (or "evolved") sufficiently to embrace that belief.
Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, the Islamists have never advanced
beyond the nomadic morality of tribal survival.  Since the time of Mohammud,
Islam has not established an authority to unite its people, nor a
reformation movement to settle religious differences amicably.  Basically,
these are warring people who are sorely in need of intellectual
enlightenment.  Now that they are emigrating in large numbers to other
countries, their moral intransigence has become almost as much of a global
problem as their brutality.

> Here in America, since we don't have a problem with faces,
> we won't criminalize the exposure of faces, should even the
> Muslim woman rebel and go veil-less. But you want to take
> this a step further and demand that they never wear veils
> when they are here. I assume then you'd also argue that any
> American woman traveling to a Muslim country should HAVE
> to wear a veil. Correct?

That has been the usual custom.  When in Rome....

 [Ham, previously]:
> they have a moral (and legal) obligation to learn the language,
> obey the laws, and follow the dress code of their adopted country.

 [Arlo]:
> To clarify, Americans living in other countries should also do
> all these things?

If they expect to become citizens of those countries, yes.

[Arlo]:
> And your point is that everyone should adopt the cultural
> practices of wherever they live, even if they believe differently?

If people's beliefs are so sacrosanct that they cannot adapt to socially
acceptable standards of another culture, they should not consider living
there.

 [Arlo]:
> Veils make women unequal, but tops do not?
> Can you explain that? Aren't both the forcible concealment
> of a body part of one sex, based on the sexual proclivities
> of the other?

Going topless is not even on the table here, so why do you want to argue the
point?  I find the phrase "forcible concealment" an impetuous reference to
public modesty that reflects the social mores of a civilized culture.  If
you feel your freedom is restricted by  conventional dress codes, I suggest
that you join a nudist colony.

 [Ham, previously]:
> Understandably, it is considered rude and offensive in
> Europe and America for individuals to hide themselves
> when relating to others.

[Arlo]:
> Why is the "understandably"?  Why then do other cultures
> not see it "understandably"? We are smart and they are stupid?

Understandable by social convention, of course.  Civilized people no longer
wrap themselves in animal skins or loin cloths.  Have you noticed?

[Ham]:
> 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?)

[Arlo]:
> We do all the time. Here in the forum, and in online shops.
> Do you want to see my face, Ham? Does it matter? I'm
> partnering as we speak for design work for people in West
> Virginia. I've never seen their faces, and they've never seen
> mine. No one has any problem with this.

I'm willing to bet that should you see them in person wearing a mask, you
would have a problem.  (Unless, of course, it was at a Halloween ball.)

> So the real issue is not that everyone assimilate,
> just those ones we are afraid of.  I'm not sure what the
> Jewish population in Sweden is (the country of question
> from Platt's initial email), but I imagine its not the majority.
> Should Jewish immigrants be banned from wearing
> kippots? Or do I correctly assume that since we are not
> afraid of Jews, they can wear whatever they want.

I don't know what a "kippot" is.  If it's a kind of hat, like the Hasidic
Jews wear, I see no problem.  But if it conceals the face, it generates
anxiety.  As usual, you're grasping at straws just to drag out an argument.
The question is, does the foreigner want to be accepted in his new community
or not?   If not, then it's deceitful and immoral to seek admittance.

> So much for Tibetan Buddhists moving to America...
> or would they be allowed to keep their customs?

I don't envision a massive influx of Tibetans to this country, but see
little difference in their wearing apparel from the Hari Krishna cult which
appears to be well tolerated.

 [Arlo]:
> I pity that future world.

I pity you, if you think America's problems are limited to the social
inflexibility of certain immigrants.

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

 [Arlo]:
> You mean until they renounce Islam, or at least stop practicing it.

Americans are guaranteed freedom to practice any religion they choose, so
long as it does not threaten others.  They are not guaranteed freedom to
walk the streets nude, dehumanize women, or appear shrouded in public.

Enough already!
-- Ham