[MD] So cometh MOQ, what next?

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Case]
You folks are taking this whole deal about nudity way too seriously. I was not
and find it astounding to hear an intellectual argument batted back over what I
said.

[Arlo]
Case, whereas otherwise you are I are sympatico enough for me to let what I know
are less-than-serious replies go, Platt seems to feel that your comments
justify in part his refusal to analyze his position.

However, getting into this a little more I see a serious discrepancy arising,
and then is at first over the morality of society setting restrictions on
behavior, and second to be a differing set of expectations over "immigrant
conformity" with particular regard to Muslim customs.

To the first, I've argued that while society does indeed have a right, a moral
right, to constrain behavior, it does not have "carte blanche" right to impose
any restriction a majority may see fit (or a minority, as the case may be).
That is, just because its law doesn't make it moral law. And just becaues a
majority act a certain way, that is no moral justification for passing a law to
demand others act that way too.

We've moved beyond the small example of toplessness, and into a greater realm of
social obedience. My contention has always been this, when a clear a present
danger (to use GWB's campaign slogan) exists from biology to society, the
society has the moral right to control this biological behavior. However, that
does not make "biology" a scapegoat to justify any and all prudish and
property-driven laws it sees fit.

What I find funny, again, is that those who argue so vocally for the
"individual" are the first to run in the other direction whenver an individual
may act in a way that's not "western, white and male". Horse has noticed this
too, and we'll see how the so-called "heralds of individualism" respond.

The second I find even more troubling, and that's the idea that because the
Muslim scares us, we are morally justified in forcing a greater degree of
assimilation than the Jew, or the Hindu, or the Hare Krishna. There is, I
argue, no moral difference between FORCING a Mulsim to NOT wear a veil, and
forcing a Jew not to wear a kippot. Despite Ham's paranoic anxiousness at not
seeing faces, people should be allowed to present themselves publically in the
way they choose and are comfortable with. Would we demand that a severely
disfigured person NOT wear a mask if a mask makes her/him more comfortable
publically? (Remember the Cher movie?)

You are right, with regards to punk and goth and country and reggae and
hippiedom and ska and beatnik and all the "non-normal" cultural dresses, there
are within these self-regulated codes of behavior. But that's exactly what they
are. And, of course, they also have to conform to social laws. But that's the
point. Why? Why is it socially moral for me to tell a woman she cannot walk
topless down the street on a hot summer day, when I CAN? Is it because "boobs
are offensive"? Or like Platt implies, is it because as soon as we have public
boobs we'll have fornication in the streets?

Certainly there are local areas where, based on reason and not fear of sex or
archaic property rights, there can (and should) be dress codes. I am all for
minimal dress codes in restaurants, again not out of fear or whatnot, but out
of legitimate health concerns. People riding public transportation, for
example, should be required to wear bottoms because of the spread of bodily
fluids. But this is my point, you see, the law should apply equally to men and
women, and not be based on prudish sexual immaturity, property-rights over
women's bodies, or even aesthetic revulsion (which, if this was the case, I
imagine we could just outlaw ugly people from being in public at all).

As to the Muslim, again I ask, does a small town Christian community have the
moral right to forbid a Jew from wearing a kippot? If not, why does it have the
right to forbid a Muslim from wearing a veil? Fear? Do we set different
standards, and is that a moral thing to do, for those whom we are conditioned
to fear and those whom we do not?