In response to kaki bangku at kakiblog.com, which in turn is in response to a post of mine on morality police. This is a point by point response and thus, kaki bangku’s complete post is here.
First point:
_earth @ hafiz,
Thank you for the instant response. Of course, your liberalism-atheism-islamophobe reaction was not a surprise at all.
So, basically, you are of the opinion that individual liberty is of the utmost importance rather than servitude to Allah Most Merciful. Fair enough, considering your secular stance.
Islamophobe?
I wonder what happens to civilize exchange. Somehow, it doesn’t escape me that whenever an exchange involves a person with conservative value, it’s likely that it would come down to name calling. But worry not as I’m determined to demonstrate that morality is independent of religion. Thus, I shall actively refrain from responding to that and hence, ironically, it’s me that’s taking the moral high ground, not the supporter of morality police.
On atheism, this has nothing to do with atheism. It seems, this is more to do with you trying to label the person that disagrees with you disparagingly.
Second point:
But you say that we should let moral standards drift to the lowest common denominator. I don’t think this is entirely a good idea because the lowest common denominator would be Western secular-materialist values. Please consider how distasteful MTV culture really is, let alone undocumented underground vices.
Again, distasteful to you, not necessarily to everybody. The problem here is that you assume everybody agrees with you. You assume your moral values is superior to others’ and that others agree that your values are superior to others’. So, it’s natural for you to be shocked when there’s an disagreement to your values, as your assumption is flawed in the first place.
Point to note: those that disagree with you don’t plan to impose their values on you. You on the other hand are trying to impose your values on others. This is the issue, not whether you find any value distasteful. Don’t get distracted.
I myself don’t really mind if whatever values you have as long as you don’t impose it on others, especially on me. Respect is all being asked here, not submission. You instead demand submission. Hence, this exchange arises.
Third point:
So my suggestion to one who adopts a secular view would be that, at the minimum, a non-punitive moral policing in public should be carried out in order to contain moral standards as well as satisfying the conservative Muslim community’s demands to have a decently behaving public.
You missed a point that I’ve written down earlier. This is why it’s better to do a point by point examination of the other person’s comment. It’s so that you wouldn’t miss anything that has been said, hence avoiding embarrassment.
Coming back to point, I’ve said the same thing, but with specific point for you to ponder:
However, I agree that “bad behavior” in public is unfavorable. Indecency in public is unwanted. In my dictionary, having sex in public is indecency. Holding hand in public is okay with me. Not wearing headscarf is okay with me. Women wearing bathing suit on the beach is okay with me. They pay tax too you know.
Point to note is that, the term “bad behavior” is opaque at best. Killing could be a bad behavior too. So, what is your definition of “bad behavior”?
If you can’t stand seeing ppl holding hands, don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.
Define indecency. I myself agree such things as explicit sexual activities in public is unsuitable for public spaces and would amount to indecency. But who would have the authority to say that?
It’s the citizens that make up the society. This is where democracy comes to play. But it’s important to avoid tyranny of the majority. But democracy is irrelevant to you, isn’t it, because mostly likely than not, you’d say that god surpasses everything in authority, including democracy.
Fourth:
I mean, come on. Surely you ought to be concerned when your 7 year old daughter comes out to play in the playground and witnesses a couple groping and kissing each other!
C’mon. Surely you read what I wrote?
Since this is dependent on the previous point, it’s flawed by default.
But I’m sure that if the parents and the couple could come together in good faith rather than with mob mentality (like what had happened with the fake sms in Penang, the Papal speech and the cartoon on the prophet), an agreement is reachable without morality police which would infringe people rights regardless if the place is a common like a playground or private space like a motel.
Fifth:
As for limited governance, you adopted a libertarian one. I would definitely not concur with you on this. The reason being is that, firstly, one’s public displayal of immorality has a social conditioning affect on others. Harming other people’s conservative values is consequently a violation of the harmed person’s conscience. This “License” is not the same as “Freedom”.
You wrote that a person can’t do a particular action if that action offends your sensibility. If that’s the case, should the person be thrown in jail or his rights curtailed to satisfy your sensibility or your values? Should the person be punished just because he disagrees with your values?
In your logic, because your values prevent you from consuming pork, non-Muslims should be prevented from consuming pork too to satisfy your value?
Charming.
Again, notice the trend: you are trying to impose your values on others. That’ what I’m disagree with here. That’s what the main issue between us. Don’t run away with it.
The opposition to moral policing has nothing about moral per se. It’s about a person trying to dictate others’ values so that it fit into the person’s values while trying to eliminate others’ values.
That my friend, is the hallmark of intolerance.
Sixth:
As to your statement that the government doesnt have a right to set moral standards, is it derived from your libertarian principles or are you arguing from a constitutional point of view? If it is the former, I don’t give a rat’s ass (as mahaguru58 puts it). If it’s the latter, you ought to show me some black-letter quote.
If you don’t give a rat ass, why are you responding at all then?
Odd, isn’t it to claim you don’t care but your action reflects otherwise?
Furthermore, when you advocate for moral policing, are you arguing from a constitutional framework? Where’s your black and white that says then?
If not, are you arguing from your conservative principles?
The ball’s in your court.
Seventh:
Lastly, your claim that giving license to promote immorality promotes better economic growth is embarassingly a non-sequitor. Then, your claim that carrying out moral policing obstructs economic prosperity is a false distinction. Oops! What happened to our Mr. Rationalist?
I didn’t say that. That’s a straw man argument. Even if I did write that, where is your reasoning that it’s a non-sequitor?
Alas friend, calling an argument a non-sequitur without proving that it’s a non-sequitur is non-sequitur…
For your convenience, I shall reproduce what I’ve written at your space as well as mine:
Attempt to unilaterally increase that standard and enforce it – like many religious conservatives – would cause the society to concentrate pitiful p[e]tty issues and not on education, economy, the environment and other important issues that push the society well-being higher [than] previously. That’s why, conservative religious societies are backward compared to the more liberal societ[ies].
Religious conservative societies are too busy controlling everybody’s life that in the end, most resources are given to religious institution to control people’s [life] and not too much left available to bring people out of poverty and make the world a better place.
In a nutshell, I said conservatives are too hung up on morality that it fails to mind economic growth 101.
Please don’t imagine what I write. Read what I wrote instead. So, don’t worry. Mr. Rationalist is still here, Mr. Irrationalist.
Finally:
Expalantion: Moral policing can be carried out by religious officials while businessmen and economists steer the economy. One does not disturb the other. If you can, name me some examples of where a morally liberal society does better than a morally conservative society on a level playing field. If not, then it is mere conjecture devoid of empirical support (ooh.. where’s your empiricism yada yada??)
Since this particular paragraph of yours is dependent on the paragraph that was wrongly inferred, by default, it’s flawed.
Regardless, empirically, did you notice that the overzealous morality police in Langkawi has just cost Malaysia a fraction of Malaysian economy? The American couple has canceled their plan to take up the Malaysia, My Second Home program. Imagine the word of mouth that has traveled across the globe. To pretend that fiasco doesn’t affect the economy is naive.
My reasoning is not devoid of empirical support. It based on something that you missed.
And yes, talking about proof, where is yours? So far, you’ve demanded proofs from me but yet, you yourself haven’t proven anything to back what you’ve written. Or did god grant you the freedom from the onus of proof?
Before I end this entry, let’s agree not to be insulting to each other onwards with all those personal attacks (and yada, yada, yada thing), okay? Let’s focus on the issue instead of the person.
p/s – also, kaki bangku, if you plan to do a rebuttal, please inform me that you’ve done so. It is an act of bad faith for you not inform me of your earlier reply directed at me and then declared “victory” just because my reply was absence, whereas that absence was caused by me not knowing that you had replied and were waiting for a reply rather than me being unable to response to your points.
