http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:24:48 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17467 Matt Wed, 18 Feb 2004 18:02:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17467 What she is wearing on her head may be functional, the desert winds and sun can wreak havoc on delicate skin. On the other hand, she wears a symbolic sword. French echarpe 'sword' Corsican sciarpa 'scarf.' When Boswell visited Corsica, he saw a truly 'savage' dance called the maresqa, a sword dance of great antiquity. Alfor and Gallop consider this a pre-christian symbolic representation of the contest between summmer and winter. The clergy went vehement over another dance, the deadly caracollu. This same maresqa-style dance was witnessed and recorded by one of China's beloved poets, Tu Fu: When Little Miss dance the chien-chi Nine suns fall Therefore, it does not belong to any one ethnicity in particular. In fact, even Confucius has something to say about the headscarf: 'Moreover, to fail to observe a single rule of decorum would make a virtuous girl feel ashamed of herself; how much more should that not apply to a gentleman who has received an (imperial) order! Confucius says: 'Si(my disciples), you are loath to part with the price of the sheep, but I am loath to see the disappearance of the rite,' For what will happen when it is discarded? The government will lose its worthiest men -- that is the long and short of it.'' (Lunyu, 3.17, trans. Lau) 'It is very important to safeguard the immanent presence of the virtual in the actual in order to prevent a Platonic (chorismos)from splitting apart the two faces of the Real.' (Boundas, Exchange, Gift, Theft) Regards, Matt What she is wearing on her head may be functional, the desert winds and sun can wreak havoc on delicate skin. On the other hand, she wears a symbolic sword. French echarpe ‘sword’ Corsican sciarpa ‘scarf.’ When Boswell visited Corsica, he saw a truly ‘savage’ dance called the maresqa, a sword dance of great antiquity. Alfor and Gallop consider this a pre-christian symbolic representation of the contest between summmer and winter. The clergy went vehement over another dance, the deadly caracollu. This same maresqa-style dance was witnessed and recorded by one of China’s beloved poets, Tu Fu: When Little Miss dance the chien-chi Nine suns fall Therefore, it does not belong to any one ethnicity in particular. In fact, even Confucius has something to say about the headscarf: ‘Moreover, to fail to observe a single rule of decorum would make a virtuous girl feel ashamed of herself; how much more should that not apply to a gentleman who has received an (imperial) order! Confucius says: ‘Si(my disciples), you are loath to part with the price of the sheep, but I am loath to see the disappearance of the rite,’ For what will happen when it is discarded? The government will lose its worthiest men—that is the long and short of it.’’ (Lunyu, 3.17, trans. Lau) ‘It is very important to safeguard the immanent presence of the virtual in the actual in order to prevent a Platonic (chorismos)from splitting apart the two faces of the Real.’ (Boundas, Exchange, Gift, Theft) Regards, Matt

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17466 Matt Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:40:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17466 This goes back to the Megalithic faiths, where honor won by cunning and predatory exploit gives way to honor won through the display of wealth. It is worthwhile to study this phenomenon from within other cultures. 'Until very recently, fathers and brothers arranged their(women's)marriages, determined their occupations, with a view always to advantage the family as a whole. It was they who decided whom a daughter or sister should marry, and when, or that another, to save the expense of a dowry, should not marry at all; it was they who calculated that it was worth sending a clever daughter or sister to a university on the mainland, paying her room and board and lodging....If a man so much as spoke to a girl in the village street, or worse, touched her face or hands she was compromised and he had to marry her immediately or a vendetta was declared; to kiss her, even on the cheek, was an outrage. An even more dishonoring gesture was to tear off her headscarf, known as the attacar, it amounted to symbolic rape; the girl, even if she had protested, was considered to be deflowered, and had to be married without delay. The attacar was a common cause of vendettas into the present century....The vendetta is out of date, and to some degree, is marriage, for unmarried couples no longer suffer social exclusion.' (Carrington, Dream Hunters of Corsica, p.83) 'Once the break instituting the symbolic process has been established, what we have called the semiotic chora acquires a more precise status....The semiotic that precedes symbolization is only a (theoretical supposition) justified by the need for description....In the extreme, negativity aims to foreclose the thetic phase, which after a period of explosive semiotic motility, may result in the loss of the symbol function, as seen in schizophrenia.' (Toril Moi, Kristeva Reader, Kristeva on the Chora) At this point, identifying with the majority requires a subsumption, and it is this aspect that the French are so proud of, having spent quite a lot of blood to forge their type of democracy. To continue wearing the hajib in opposition to secular law actually tends to render its meaning different from that of its traditional one. In Shang China(1100 B.C.E.), the sacred and secular were much less-well defined. What you got then was slavery and mass human sacrifice. Schizoid. Regards, Matt This goes back to the Megalithic faiths, where honor won by cunning and predatory exploit gives way to honor won through the display of wealth. It is worthwhile to study this phenomenon from within other cultures. ‘Until very recently, fathers and brothers arranged their(women’s)marriages, determined their occupations, with a view always to advantage the family as a whole. It was they who decided whom a daughter or sister should marry, and when, or that another, to save the expense of a dowry, should not marry at all; it was they who calculated that it was worth sending a clever daughter or sister to a university on the mainland, paying her room and board and lodging….If a man so much as spoke to a girl in the village street, or worse, touched her face or hands she was compromised and he had to marry her immediately or a vendetta was declared; to kiss her, even on the cheek, was an outrage. An even more dishonoring gesture was to tear off her headscarf, known as the attacar, it amounted to symbolic rape; the girl, even if she had protested, was considered to be deflowered, and had to be married without delay. The attacar was a common cause of vendettas into the present century….The vendetta is out of date, and to some degree, is marriage, for unmarried couples no longer suffer social exclusion.’ (Carrington, Dream Hunters of Corsica, p.83) ‘Once the break instituting the symbolic process has been established, what we have called the semiotic chora acquires a more precise status….The semiotic that precedes symbolization is only a (theoretical supposition) justified by the need for description….In the extreme, negativity aims to foreclose the thetic phase, which after a period of explosive semiotic motility, may result in the loss of the symbol function, as seen in schizophrenia.’ (Toril Moi, Kristeva Reader, Kristeva on the Chora) At this point, identifying with the majority requires a subsumption, and it is this aspect that the French are so proud of, having spent quite a lot of blood to forge their type of democracy. To continue wearing the hajib in opposition to secular law actually tends to render its meaning different from that of its traditional one. In Shang China(1100 B.C.E.), the sacred and secular were much less-well defined. What you got then was slavery and mass human sacrifice. Schizoid. Regards, Matt

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17465 Randy McDonald Wed, 18 Feb 2004 06:23:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17465 Mrs. Tilton: <i>But the choice to do it remains mine no matter how great his tyranny - even if that tyranny is so oppressive that none but the most committed would make the choice.</i> That, though, makes the question of choice a mere formality. Certainly it's an unacceptable outcome in a liberal-democratic society. It comes down to the question of what should be done when, in a liberal society, illiberal forces, movements, and people use their freedoms to infringe on the rights of others. If any infringements must be made, they should be made at the expense of the illiberal forces, not their putative victims. It's not my favourite choice; it is, though, the least bad one. And sorry about the multiple posts. Mrs. Tilton: But the choice to do it remains mine no matter how great his tyranny – even if that tyranny is so oppressive that none but the most committed would make the choice. That, though, makes the question of choice a mere formality. Certainly it’s an unacceptable outcome in a liberal-democratic society. It comes down to the question of what should be done when, in a liberal society, illiberal forces, movements, and people use their freedoms to infringe on the rights of others. If any infringements must be made, they should be made at the expense of the illiberal forces, not their putative victims. It’s not my favourite choice; it is, though, the least bad one. And sorry about the multiple posts.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17464 Ophelia Benson Wed, 18 Feb 2004 02:18:11 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17464 Ms Tilton Interesting - I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I've been reading don't, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you're not doing that. But I'm slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free - to declare their apostasy and be killed - why aren't hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that's not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don't agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don't agree - at least you're not skating. Ms Tilton Interesting – I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I’ve been reading don’t, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you’re not doing that. But I’m slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free – to declare their apostasy and be killed – why aren’t hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that’s not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don’t agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don’t agree – at least you’re not skating.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17463 Randy McDonald Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:26:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17463 Mrs. Tilton: <i>I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system.</i> That's a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the <i>hijab</i>) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn't one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice's firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone's done that. If I'm misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don't see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above. Mrs. Tilton: I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system. That’s a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the hijab) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn’t one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice’s firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone’s done that. If I’m misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don’t see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17462 Randy McDonald Tue, 17 Feb 2004 23:25:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17462 Mrs. Tilton: <i>I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system.</i> That's a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the <i>hijab</i>) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn't one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice's firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone's done that. If I'm misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don't see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above. Mrs. Tilton: I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system. That’s a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the hijab) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn’t one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice’s firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone’s done that. If I’m misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don’t see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17461 Mrs Tilton Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:08:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17461 Randy, <i>That’s a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the hijab) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn’t one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing.</i> My statement about freedom to choose even if it means death is much more limited in scope than I think you think it is. It means just that and nothing more. A tyrant may jump up and down and scream and threaten if I do or fail to do X. He may indeed cut my head off for doing it. But the choice to do it remains mine no matter how great his tyranny - even if that tyranny is so oppressive that none but the most committed would make the choice. Randy, That’s a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the hijab) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn’t one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. My statement about freedom to choose even if it means death is much more limited in scope than I think you think it is. It means just that and nothing more. A tyrant may jump up and down and scream and threaten if I do or fail to do X. He may indeed cut my head off for doing it. But the choice to do it remains mine no matter how great his tyranny – even if that tyranny is so oppressive that none but the most committed would make the choice.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17460 Mrs Tilton Tue, 17 Feb 2004 22:01:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17460 Ms Benson, <i>If apostates are free - to declare their apostasy and be killed - why aren’t hijab wearers also free?</i> But of course they should be. Apostates <i>should</i> be free to renounce Islam (or any other religion) and suffer no worse penalty than, perhaps, the disapproval of their former co-religionists. A hijab-wearer should be free to take the thing off, with exactly the same results. But she should also be permitted to keep it on, if she so chooses. <i>that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment.</i> Well, that depends on what you mean by 'secular environment'. If by this one means that the school teaches no religion (as doctrine; I would not be greatly bothered by some sort of comparative survey of major religions and other sorts of world-view, as has been discussed in another CT post); if one means that the doctrines of no religion inform its curriculum (e.g., no creationism); if one means that the school promotes neither religion in general nor any one religion; why, there you have your secular environment, even if half the kids are in hijabs, or yarmulkes, or dreadlocks. But if you mean 'an environment in which no individual may show any visible sign of her belief', I think that goes a bit far. Schoolchildren should be permitted to enter into and participate in a secular learning environment of the first sort described above, even if some of them wear a hijab, or a crucifix, or for that matter an amulet to Thor. Ms Benson, If apostates are free – to declare their apostasy and be killed – why aren’t hijab wearers also free? But of course they should be. Apostates should be free to renounce Islam (or any other religion) and suffer no worse penalty than, perhaps, the disapproval of their former co-religionists. A hijab-wearer should be free to take the thing off, with exactly the same results. But she should also be permitted to keep it on, if she so chooses. that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. Well, that depends on what you mean by ‘secular environment’. If by this one means that the school teaches no religion (as doctrine; I would not be greatly bothered by some sort of comparative survey of major religions and other sorts of world-view, as has been discussed in another CT post); if one means that the doctrines of no religion inform its curriculum (e.g., no creationism); if one means that the school promotes neither religion in general nor any one religion; why, there you have your secular environment, even if half the kids are in hijabs, or yarmulkes, or dreadlocks. But if you mean ‘an environment in which no individual may show any visible sign of her belief’, I think that goes a bit far. Schoolchildren should be permitted to enter into and participate in a secular learning environment of the first sort described above, even if some of them wear a hijab, or a crucifix, or for that matter an amulet to Thor.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17459 Ophelia Benson Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:55:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17459 Ms Tilton Interesting - I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I've been reading don't, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you're not doing that. But I'm slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free - to declare their apostasy and be killed - why aren't hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that's not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don't agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don't agree - at least you're not skating. Ms Tilton Interesting – I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I’ve been reading don’t, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you’re not doing that. But I’m slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free – to declare their apostasy and be killed – why aren’t hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that’s not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don’t agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don’t agree – at least you’re not skating.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17458 Ophelia Benson Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:50:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17458 Ms Tilton Interesting - I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I've been reading don't, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you're not doing that. But I'm slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free - to declare their apostasy and be killed - why aren't hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that's not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don't agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don't agree - at least you're not skating. Ms Tilton Interesting – I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I’ve been reading don’t, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you’re not doing that. But I’m slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free – to declare their apostasy and be killed – why aren’t hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that’s not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don’t agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don’t agree – at least you’re not skating.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17457 Ophelia Benson Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:49:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17457 Ms Tilton Interesting - I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I've been reading don't, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you're not doing that. But I'm slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free - to declare their apostasy and be killed - why aren't hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that's not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don't agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don't agree - at least you're not skating. Ms Tilton Interesting – I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I’ve been reading don’t, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you’re not doing that. But I’m slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free – to declare their apostasy and be killed – why aren’t hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that’s not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don’t agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don’t agree – at least you’re not skating.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17456 Randy McDonald Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:46:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17456 Mrs. Tilton: <i>I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system.</i> That's a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the <i>hijab</i>) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn't one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice's firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone's done that. If I'm misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don't see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above. Mrs. Tilton: I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system. That’s a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the hijab) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn’t one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice’s firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone’s done that. If I’m misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don’t see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17455 Randy McDonald Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:46:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17455 Mrs. Tilton: <i>I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system.</i> That's a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the <i>hijab</i>) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn't one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice's firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone's done that. If I'm misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don't see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above. Mrs. Tilton: I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system. That’s a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the hijab) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn’t one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice’s firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone’s done that. If I’m misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don’t see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17454 Randy McDonald Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:45:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17454 Mrs. Tilton: <i>I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system.</i> That's a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the <i>hijab</i>) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn't one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice's firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone's done that. If I'm misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don't see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above. Mrs. Tilton: I grant you that the consequences of exercising that freedom are pretty appalling. But the choice lies ultimately with the individual, not the religious/legal system. That’s a very problematic argument. Taken to its logical limits, that means that any government action to promote change in traditional (or neo-traditional, in the case of the hijab) cultures is automatically flawed, even if the choice isn’t one that the people concerned want to make but are incapable of doing. So, no action against segregation in the United States in the mid-20th century, given the practice’s firm integration into American (particularly Southern) culture; no action against anti-Semitism or misogyny, since everyone’s done that. If I’m misinterpreting your position, please tell me. I just don’t see how you can avoid these consequences given your arguments above.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/02/13/veil-of-ignorance/comment-page-2/#comment-17453 Ophelia Benson Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:35:06 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1057#comment-17453 Ms Tilton Interesting - I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I've been reading don't, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you're not doing that. But I'm slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free - to declare their apostasy and be killed - why aren't hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that's not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don't agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don't agree - at least you're not skating. Ms Tilton Interesting – I mean seriously: what you say really does interest me. In general the opponents I’ve been reading don’t, much, because they seem to me to just skip past the difficult bits, and you’re not doing that. But I’m slightly confused about one thing. If apostates are free – to declare their apostasy and be killed – why aren’t hijab wearers also free? But perhaps that’s not the point. Perhaps the point is that the state that interferes with either of them is wrong. Well, I don’t agree, because that still leaves all the Muslims and semi-Muslims and would-be-secular-if-they-could Muslims (not to mention all the non-Muslims) unfree to go to school or send their children to school in a secular environment. The trouble is that freedoms are always in tension with other freedoms. But even though I don’t agree – at least you’re not skating.

]]>