Obviously got you going on this one but do you honestly imagine that the above post makes your case stronger?

Mr. Judd, if you think that Britain or Europe will be improved by the imposition of an unreconstructed medieval vehicle for Arab supremacy then you are either simple-minded or you have already converted.

Of course, the other explanation is that you are neurotic about women's bodies.

The point is it has nothing to do with you or me--it's something they do because Allah commands it for eminently moral reasons.

It's the morality that Europeans find threatening--not the veil.

"It's the morality that Europeans find threatening--not the veil."

What complete gibberish! There is no shortage of religiously observant people in Europe of every stripe and denomination. If you think that the only evidence of 'morality' is where women walk around covered in a tent then there is something wrong with you, not Europe.

There's a terrible shortage, which is why it's dying.

We are told that an angel in a cave commended this practice to the illiterate maximum leader's attention, memorization and subsequest recitation. The custom had utility at that time and place, for the reason discussed above.

It is now severely dissonant with the contemporary milieu in which the muslims find themselves as immigrants or guests. So out of time and place is this custom that we would expect its extinction if it were not coercively enforced. It is this coercion wich is unaccceptable, not the quaint custom itself.

Yes, the customs of piety, humility, modesty, etc. are dead in the former West. That's why Islam is so necessary to Europe.

Heck, I know [people who still believe that guff in the outdated Bible...

Every argument made by you in favor dhimmitude is just as applicable to America and Christianity. If instead of Jack Straw, Condoleeza Rice said she would prefer that women not wear a veil in meetings with her, you would attack her also. Anyone attempting express values in conflict Islam is in your opinion inappropriate and too great a burden on the immigrant. You use the secular an excuse.

Oh an how about jihad, beheading homosexuals, murderous anti-semitism, primitivism, submission, intolerance, death for apostacy and all the other 'benefits' of Islam? Does Europe need those too?

And if Islam is such a beacon of hope, why is it that Muslims are flooding into the West instead of the the other way around?

Mr. Judd, you can afford to entertain this garbage in your head because you are safe behind the borders of a pluralist USA where there is no threat to your comfortable delusions (yet). I assume that you have tenure?

Many, including other Christians, view the ‘life style’ of my small Christian congregation in the same way that they view Muslim customs. All of the families home school their children until they enter the local Community College at age sixteen. The women and girls wear calf length, loose fitting dresses in public. The young people do not ‘date’. At age eighteen to 20 +, they along with their parents discuss the development of a relationship that usually leads to marriage. Child discipline is very strict from about age two or three. One woman with seven children (ages 13 – 26) quips says. “I had a dowel stick over every window and door frame in the house when mine were little”. Since 1979 when I first met them, this group has not had a divorce, birth outside of marriage, and as far as I know no abortions. All of the children have grown up to be very successful in the secular world.

Therefore, I find no fault with the Muslims practicing any life style they believe to be right so long as it is voluntarily chosen. However, there demonstrated desire to use penalty of death to force me into that life style makes me an Islamophobe.

Wow. Orrin, I sure hope you aren't planning to post anything on how Islam commands they feed guests and strangers or everybody around here is really going to blow a gasket.

Yes, Thaddeus, I remember vaguely when we too had notions of modesty and actually enforced them in various non-legal and even legal ways. It was awful. Everybody was chopping everybody else's heads off and you couldn't go to the park without seeing somebody strung up for apostacy. But then we invented muffin tops and everybody gets along just great now.

h:

Exactly. There is no more vreason to follow outdated Christian beliefs than Islamic. Start by banning Islamic practices and end in banning Christian, or vice versa in Europe's case.

Mr. Tremayne:

Yes, here in Judeo-Christian Americva we're unthreatened by piety. The secular Rationalists are our enemies.

I see nothing in those words that say cover one's head.

Ancient Arab history?? Before mo?

Tribal customs, Mary wore one, too.

Mebbe cos they lived where it was really, really hot?

And it says nothing about covering your face.

Lou:

Perhaps it would be easiest for you to think of it this way: wearing your baseball cap in the traditional way is "now severely dissonant with the contemporary milieu" yet fanatics insist on it.

Mr. Judd, no-one is threatened by piety anywhere. Islam is not about piety it is about enforced submission and that is a threat to everyone everywhere (as you will discover in due course).

And despite the fact that you have not even addressed my question about Muslim immigration to the West, here is another question: where would you and your readers rather live - secular, decadent Paris or pious, theocratic Riyadh?

All religion is about submission to God's will rather than your own. Modern Europe is the triumph of the individual will.

We live in one of the most pious countries on the planet., which is why Europe hates us:

www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1511812

economist.com/surveys/showsurvey.cfm?issue=20031108

Saudi Arabia's problem is that instead of being a theocracy it is a Western-style authoritarian regime. We'll reform them out of it. But they'll retain Islam, so they have a chance to create a decent society. Europe retains nothing worth building upon.

Once we've given them functional economies Muslims won't need to emigrate to find work.

Mr. Judd, really you must do better. I clearly said 'enforced' submission. Further, I thought that America was a triumph of individualism and Europe was a tragedy of collectivism? Please make your mind up.

By the way, I now count two direct questions that you have evaded. I can only deduce that you have no appetite for even addressing hard questions, let alone answering them (although I sense from the final paragraph of your last comment that the true answer to my second question is Paris).

America is the least individualist most conformist place on Earth.

Europe marks the triumph of individualism, which is what made collectivism possible.

"Once we've given them functional economies..."

You mean they don't have functional economies now? But...but..how can this be, if they have Islam? Do you mean to imply that Islam breeds poverty and backwardness? Surely not.

"Muslims won't need to emigrate to find work.."

Then how will Europe Islamify?

"America is the least individualist most conformist place on Earth.

Europe marks the triumph of individualism, which is what made collectivism possible."

Good grief, do you actually believe that gibberish? It doesn't even make sense on its own terms.

No, Islam isn't sufficient by itself. We'll Reform it.

Because Muslims believe in the future and will continue to have children. Seculars don't and won't.

Statism requires that mankind be atomized and society annhilated so that the individual is utterly dependent on the state. Secular Rationalism with its focus on the self is ideal for statist purposes.

"Statism requires that mankind be atomized and society annhilated so that the individual is utterly dependent on the state."

Finally, a reasonably sane (though arguable) point.

But it begs another question: If Islam is a bulwark against European-style atomization/statism etc (which you seem to imply that it is) then how did Saudi Arabia get its "Western-style authoritarian regime"?

You can't have it both ways, old chap.

The Europeans created the modern Middle East--they're just reaping as they sewed.

We'll fix it.

oj,

Return morality to the peoples' control - aot legislating it from on high via politically correct mandarins - and a non-coercive and balanced modesty would return of its own accord. Why inject dhimmitude where simple hygiene will suffice?

Morality isn't a matter for individuals. Ordered liberty is just the legislation of morality.

Morality isn't a matter for individuals.

Unless you are inadvertently being too clever by a half in your phrasing, the above statement is where we differ.

I suspect it's impatience and frustration, more than reason, that drove your comment. Nonetheless, you are an articulate man so I take you at your word, albeit reluctantly.

Is liberty the daughter or morality, or the mother?

Morality isn't a matter for individuals.

Unless you are inadvertently being too clever by a half in your phrasing, the above statement is where we differ.

I suspect it's impatience and frustration, more than reason, that drove your comment. Nonetheless, you are an articulate man so I take you at your word, reluctantly.

Is liberty the daughter of morality, or the mother?

"The Europeans created the modern Middle East-"

They also created America and much of the modern world.

So let's just recap Mr. Judd's assertions:

1. Islam is the Way and the Light but it cannot manage to establish a functioning economy without external imposition.

2. Europe will submit to Islam without Muslim immigrants because the latter will all be beavering away in their new, US-made economies.

3. Despite all the admiration, Mr. Judd would rather live in Paris than Riyadh.

4. Saudi Arabia is not Islamic but European.

5. Europe molded the Islamic Middle East but Islamic civilisation is superior to European civilisation.

6. Europeans are far too individual and that makes them so collective.

Uncanny. Not one single bit of that contradictory nonsense makes any sense at all. Still, piety is a ready substitute for those who find thinking too painful. No wonder Mr. Judd and his fellow travellers are so seduced by pre-Reformation values of submission and obedience.

Indeed, it does occur to me that the entire 'modesty' theme (with its consequent admiration of the Mohammedism) really boils down to a rage against the mini-skirt.

p.s. How does one impose order from without and call it a form of liberty? I will refrain from describing such wordplay with its usual capital 'O' adjective, but it is certainly a contradiction in terms (not to mention a non-answer of my dhimmitude question).

p.p.s Apologies for my double comment above; if you wouldn't mind, would you delete the first one of the two? I was merely fixing up typos, or trying to. Thx.

Until a short few years back, Catholic women had to cover their heads in church lest they tempt men by exposing their hair. Orthodox Jewish women actually cut off their hair for basically the same reason. Nuns habits are a variation on the burqa and priestly garb is similar to garments worn in biblical times. Hassidic Jews wear the same kind of clothing that was worn by everybody centuries ago.

None of this matters. Moslem women and everybody else can wear whatever they want as long as it doesn't interfere with the laws of our land. If a woman is seeking a driver's license or ID, she must expose her face in the photo. Don't want to do that? Don't get the ID card. We speak English here. Don't want to learn? Bring an interpreter with you when you go out in public.

Had enough? I think so. Modesty, piety, etc. is in the eye of the beholder.

ras:

You're confusing freedom and liberty. Liberty is imposed.

www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1385/

Thaddeus,

Indeed, it does occur to me that the entire 'modesty' theme (with its consequent admiration of the Mohammedism) really boils down to a rage against the mini-skirt.

You may be right. Certainly, in most other matters, Islam today is anything *but* modest: e.g. others are unclean, no room for compromise, suicide attacks to get 72 virgins etc.

OJ would like to see more genuine piety, modesty, humility in society. So would most people. But totalitarianism disguised as a cult disguised as a religion is certainly not gonna get him there, nor will it strike the balance that makes life a joy rather than an obligation.

Mr. Tremayne:

No, the Puritans created America.

(1) No, Islam is wrong. Christ is the way. Islam though is closer to the truth than secularism.

(2) No, it's just a function of demographics.

(3) No, America, then Riyadh, never Paris.

(4) Saudi Arabaia's political system is European, not Islamic.

(5) Europe likewise molded the USSR. There is no European civilization anymore. It's returned to barbarity.

(6) Yes, once you've reduced them to nothing but individuals the State can do whatever it wants with them. Let them die off in comfort and they'll not even struggle.

Mini-skirts are great--it's those shirts that show the fat mid-riff that should be banned.

OJ,

You're confusing freedom and liberty. Liberty is imposed.

The very first line on your referenced citation is this:

"Liberty is the prevention of control by others."

Which is the opposite of what Islam demands.

You too seem to be advocating the imposition of control, in your case in the service of morality via the imposition of control by others under the heading of "ordered liberty" ... yet by your own cited definition, liberty is the prevention of that very thing.

Perhaps I am misreading your comments and you would like to clarify?

Also, if you could directly address my dhimmitude question - as to why dhimmitude is preferable vs simple hygiene from the top-down imposition of moral standards - I would appreciate that. Thx.

Europe has indeed contracted a fatal disease. But jumping back from the fire into the frying pan is not normally considered progress.

Europe and Islam illustrate an inherent paradox between the two societies: one will not support its maximum population on its own and the other cannot. They are mutually dependent and mutually incompatible at the same time, which - absent an external solution! - can neither last nor end well.

Liberty is neither daughter or mother of morality. Morality and his twin, depravity both seek the hand of liberty in marriage. They are her suitors. Each of us is endowed by our creator with liberty. Who our liberty consorts with, morality or depravity, is up to the individual. It's the behavior of morality and depravity that the larger community and society in general regulate. Liberty is a given. The license to use/live in it has restrictions upon it.

Islamicism would be a fire, because corrupted by European rationalism.

Islam traditionaslly afforded a perfectly decent basis for a healthy society.

No, liberty assumes a people willing to be controlled by each other. The more individuals control themselves the lighter the touch of the group can be. That's why freedom is dependent on religiosity.

Is liberty itself endowed by our Creator ... or is it a privilege to be granted or withdrawn at the whim of the powerful?

If the former, then natural consequences, rather than the imposition of top-down morality rules, are to be preferred, are they not?

Islam traditionaslly afforded a perfectly decent basis for a healthy society.

You speak from the heart, not the head, OJ. We both know an Islamic society's weaknesses grew proportionate with their level of conversion.

[And later, perhaps, with the number of written Korans available to more accurately guide the society in Islam's actual tenets. Was Gutenberg Muslims' anchor to backwardation?]

Mr. Judd,

And the Puritans came from where? The Arabian Gulf?

If you try to deny that America is the birthchild of Europe (actually, Britain) then you truly are embedding yourself into the World of Bizarro.

How does Europe get the credit for creating American but the blame for creating the Middle East?

Also do you realise just how much you sound like the flipside of the European bien pensent that you so despise? They blame the failure of Islam on America and you blame it on Europe.

Oj: we all thank you for provoking examination and discussion in this fashion.

Allow me to bring up the disinction between natural law and custom. Wearing the cap askew is a minor matter, but it stands for a great matter, namely, arbitrary non-confomity with nature. The billed cap has a purpose, which is to shield the eyes from the sun. Worn at 4 o'clock, over the right ear, which seems to be the fashion, defies that purpose. This conformity to one's peers through non-conformity to nature stands as an example of doing as one feels without regard to reason.

Now, as to the burka, it may have made perfect sense, as has been implied, in a rough time and place, for the chaste to differentiate themselves from the women of the town. In another time and place, the reason for the rule having changed, we should expect that the rule would change.

Except that, in the spiritual jailhouse, such change is scarcely possible, in the face of doctrinal ossification and in the absence of institutions to guide change. The jailhouse is worse than that, we all know. Would-be escapees are threatened with death.

You seek "third ways?" There is another, other than secular rationalism and other than the spiritual jailhouse. It is the way, the truth and the light.

"You speak from the heart, not the head, OJ."

The natural consequences of piety which relegates the head to the mere government of basic functions.

Lou:

You're arguing as a pragmatist or utilitarian. God is neither. Modesty serves no useful purpose, only God's.

The Puritans came from the Book.

What failure? Islam is fine. The governments need to be changed.

Liberty is just the right to have an equal say in the laws that limit freedom. we're entitled to it as a function of the dignity God endowed us with.

Islamic society weakened when we changed the governance.

"What failure? Islam is fine. The governments need to be changed."

Quad Erat Demonstrandum.

Clitorectomy anyone?

Islamic society weakened when we changed the governance.

Whaddya mean "we," Kemosabe? It was already weakened from within. By virtue of their swift military conquest over more advanced Med cultures, Islamic societies moved well ahead of Euro ones, but then stagnated of their own accord till they were inevitably passed.

Don't you agree?

In the modern age, two heads are not only better than one, they are a necessity. Islam with its emphasis on blind obedience over rationale cannot sustain itself beyond a medieval stage/population; what is left, then, but to grow weak?

It advances today - if we can call it an advance - because the enemies it is trying to eradicate are mostly returning charity and patience for hate. But that's as much a habit as a creed, and fashion can change.

Of course, if we analyze it in just pragmatic terms, we find that as Western women have dressed themselves more like sluts, men have treated them more like sluts. Men no longer feel any responsibility to marry them or act as fathers to the children they get upon them. Women having objectified themselves are mere objects.

ras:

No, not all. If you read the accounts of the Westerners who encountered the Middle East prior to colonization and the World Wars, they found societies that were healthy, happy & decent. They didn't have modern capitalist economies, but the materialism associated therewith ended up destroying Europe, so it's hard to argue that the Islamic world was "behind."

Seriously, OJ. What about clitorectomies? Where and how would you draw the line.

What is the big deal with what the Brits are saying? Having 1/2 of the pop in disguise all the time and refusing to ever be identified is incompatible with civil order. Render unto Caesar....

And w/out a modern capitalist economy, the populations of the ME would also be at medieval levels, so they could again be "moral" on their own only by killing off most of their existing populations and returning to a medieval way of life.

If that's what they want - and so far it is, tho it may yet look less rustic to them from up close than from far away - they are welcome to it. But why should we follow them? We can do much better, as we have done before.

Pepys:

What have clitorectimies have to do with Islam? And please don't hide behind those ambiguous semi-Muslim, semi-pagan African states that prove nothing but our ignorance. Escaping this kind of crap (as well as condom heaven) is one reason Islam is making so many inroads in Africa. Christianity is trying too, but is being held up by the Archbishop of Canterbury and American libertarians.

What have clitorectimies have to do with Islam?

They are a cultural rite that thru repetition and support has become synonymous with the religion, but IIRC, so is the burqa.

Right ras, it's the same thing. Only there is no real civil order objection to clitorectomies as three is with the veil.

And don't give me that semi-Islam stuff. You think that procedure isn't being done in the banlieus of Europe?

Sure, and chastity belts are instrinsic to Christianity.

This is hopeless. I feel like I am arguing about a strange cult that appeared in the suburbs of Des Moines two years ago, not a 1400 hundred year old religion that civilized unspeakable barbarism, spawned four empires and much culture, etc. and has the fealty of one sixth of the globe. Where is the world do you people think this line is taking you?

Peter B,

You're a funny guy. When I agree with you, you argue harder. Is your medium the message?

Chastity belts = veil. You are right there. Except that the belts didn't hide anyone's identity.

I make no claims about Islam qua Islam. I agreee that it would be very convenient for you if I had. That way your non-sequitors about 1400 year old religions etc might have actually delayed the inevitable.

The veil has no place in public in a civil society.

The veil has no place in public in a civil society.

Funny, my grandfather used to say the same thing about the peyot.

So what do you suggest we do, Pepys? Rip them off ourselves or leave it to the police to do it?

The peyot does not obscure the identity.

They can wear it, but should obey the reasonable requirements of the civil society in which they live.

Pose for photo ID. Show their face where required. You don't have to rip the veil off 95% of the time, just don't permit them to do certain things if they insist on the veil.

If there is a reason to identify a person wearing a veil and they will not comply, then I think the police or authorities should physically remove it.

Seriously, what's got into you guys.

Peter B, why are you so eager to attribute extreme views to me?

The question is why anyone would want the kind of "civilization" that is so terrified of displays of humility. That they shame you doesn't mean they should change.

The veil doesn't hide anyone's identity.

Cliterectomies aren't Islamic.

ras:

No, they weren't.

Pepys:

Why stop at veils? If you're so intent on ridding people of everything that separates them and that reminds you that they owe more to God than to you why not ban circumsicion, why allow crosses, ramulkes, phylactories, etc.?

It's funny, all it takes to turn you guys into militant atheists is a religious group you hate as much as the Brights hate Christians.

No, America, then Riyadh, never Paris.

OK, it's step up the the plate time. I'll donate $100.00 to a send-Orrin-to-Riyadh-for-a-year fund. Clearly he needs the education. Who will join in the effort?

Beware of these islamic fanatics when they have one hand hidden behind their backs their hiding a sword

72 comments? Is this a record?

Pepys:

Because you are arguing like an extremist and, together with the majority of the posters here, are determined to explain Muslim dress as anything other than what the post and Islamic scholars suggest it is. It is not a battle flag for jihad. It is not an expression of misogyny (although it has certainly been hijacked in that cause). It has as much to do with clitorectomies as ear-piercings and tattoos have to do with the the Gospels. Nobody here except erp seems to be raising the inconvenient fact that there is no evidence Muslim women are crying out to be saved from it.

These cultural classes over religious symbols are extremely sensitive questions that decent people living together resolve through trial and error and difficult negotiations marked by respect and open-mindedness on both sides. We are rightly worried whether they are capable of this, but there isn't much evidence here that we are either. The solution is frequently irrational and can't be found by deducing from sweeping first principles, especially when the opening first prinsiple on our side is how evil and menacing they all are. I think there are legitimate concerns about the veil and burqua that don't exist with head-coverings and loose dress, but we're not going to get anywhere near that level if we talk about them so contemptuously.

Orrin is bang on here. We have completely shucked any notions of public modesty and are viscerally enraged by the challenge of those who haven't. So we tell ourselves wild tales about their beliefs and practices to hide our insecurity about it all. We did that to the Jews in the Middle Ages too.

Peter B,

You say things like "We have completely shucked any notions of public modesty..." and then have the nerve to accuse others of being extreme.

If your paranoid, absurd assertion was true then everyone would be cavorting around in the nude, wouldn't they. That is certainly not the case in Britain (believe me, I know, I live here) and since I travel to the Continent frequently, I can confirm that it is not true there either. The last time I visited the USA (California) everyone in the street was adequately clothed (even the joggers).

So Orrin is not bang on but bang off. Furthermore, and judging by his own words, the modesty issue is a mere figleaf. His real agenda is to attack anyone or anything that might ruffle the path of his ambition for an Islamic Europe (an ambition he shares with much of the European left). Hence, he explodes into fits of squealing whenever anyone raises even a smidgeon of opposition to this vista. It seems that Mr. Judd, like all democrats, is very down with democracy as long as it produces outcomes he agrees with.

And while we're at it, let's have a closer look at this Islamic 'modesty', shall we. In my country (and elsewhere in Europe) throngs of Muslims regularly take to the streets holding placards demanding (among other things) the extermination of the Jews, the beheading of Infidels and the establishment of a Caliphate (in Britain!!). Well, if that's 'public modesty' then I think I'll stick with string bikinis, thank you very much.

Anyway, I do not for one minute imagine that I am going to change your mind or even give you pause for thought. I am a child of Western civilisation and I will not go gently into that good night for the sake of Mr. Judd's sexual psychosis. It is enough for me to know that he is on the losing side.

Peter

You and OJ win this debate hands down. I now see the light. Cliterectomie, veils any dang thing just save us.

LOL, h-man. I think that must be Orrin's artistic depiction of the Age of Reason.

I am a child of Western civilization...

Yes, Thaddeus, you are exactly what the Pope had in mind when he talked of blending faith and reason. The Athens/Jerusalem synthesis just screams out from your comments.

h-man ... eeeeeeeeeeeek What is that?

It is all about sex. My side has children, yours doesn't. How can you ever win?

Peter:

It is becoming though that we who live in a country that's killed 45 million babies decry the morals of Islam, eh?

"My side has children, yours doesn't. How can you ever win?"

What makes you assume that your children will think as you do?

Orrin:

Indeed. And see a multi-billion dollar porn and sex trade industry as the last word in female emancipation and freedom of contract.

TT, I've been wanting to ask Orrin that question for quite a while too, but it may be of no use.

Until his kids grow up and have minds of their own, he won't believe us anyway.

Where are the attacks on Islam? You and Peter B are acting like complete nutters. It really is disconcerting.

TT:

They always do.

T:

Yes, the insistence that folks not demonstrate their adherence to the cultures is the essence of multi-culti.

Pepys:

Where's our army?

erp:

Kids don't have minds of their own. They have the minds of their parents.

Jim:

Nah, you can routinely get other fanatics, like the Darwinists, to post over a hundred.

They do if you brought them up right.

No, they don't. How you bring them up makes no difference. It's about who you are.