What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself.
— Milton Friedman (July 31, 1912 – November 16, 2006)
A brilliant mind is lost forever.
A continuation of exchange between me and kaki bangku.
Point 1:
It wasn’t a disparaging remark at all because I am well aware that you are comfortable with upholding those labels. Merely an attempt to set out the different frames of reference that shape our differing opinions. Terasa kah?
Then your assumption is false. As false as your others assumptions. It’s just plain name calling, needless to say, unethical.
If some xenophobic calls you an extremist-Islamist-terrorist kafirphobe, regardless the faulty assumption of his, would you “terasa kah” too?
Rule is simple – do unto others as you would have others do unto you. If you respect others, others would respect you. If you start throwing mud at others, others would throw back mud at you. That’s one of the basics in morality. If we fail basic morality, let’s not talk about the higher morality, okay?
Point 2:
Notice that what I initially wrote didn’t make that assumption at all. If ever it was a fallacy, it would have been an appeal to emotions, but definitely nothing being assumed here. My argument for this is that a behavioral drift towards the lowest common denominator will be the undesirable effect of moral permissivity.
Yes you did make an assumption. Answer this question, whose moral and whose standard? Yours, I suppose?
See also my Point 10, where you contradicted yourself.
Point 3:
But, of course, you are free to disagree. I am merely reasoning out to persuade people to support my position for the establishment of a moral police, far from the Straw Man that you constructed: “You instead demand submission.“
It’s not a straw man. Rather, you have a short memory span. You wrote in your very first comment that started all this:
Allah Almighty says, “Let there be a community among you who call to the good, and enjoin the right, and forbid the wrong. They are the ones who have success.” (3:104)
That ayat sounds very much like an authorization for the suggestion by a kind and loving group of sincere Muslims who desire to carry out what is called “moral policing” to help bring more goodness to our community. How can you possibly justify labeling an action to “command the right and forbid the wrong” in accord with the Will of Allah an “intrusion of privacy”?
More on forced submission:
All Muslims, and non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, should both accept and welcome an attempt to improve the moral quality of life within the community.
Point 4:
Yes of course, if moral policing is not received favorably, I would not take it to the streets to “demand submission”. That’s merely a figment of your “imagination” of me (perhaps a turbaned-bearded-machete-wielding Straw Man of me?).
As stated in Point 4, it’s not my imagination. Rather, it’s your forgetfulness. Just read your own words as quoted in Point 4.
And no. I don’t assume you as a turbaned-bearded-machete-wielding. But if you imagine that other people imagine you as a turbaned-bearded-machete-wielding, then one has to wonder why.
Whatever the reason might be, I maintain good faith in this exchange, as I try to maintain with any stranger I’d meet. I don’t judge a book by its cover. I can’t say the same thing for you.
Point 5:
In fact, I completely agree with your suggestion if society is indecent – “don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.”
Glad you agree!
I am quite hard to be offended with indecency. I’m sure it’s the opposite for you. So yes, stay at home and don’t go out.
Point 6:
Note my position as spelt out in my first entry:
Muslim groups within our community, when they observe a social/moral problem arising, have every right to suggest a plan of non-punitive moral policing. This must, of course, be done within the law of the community and with the consent of the government.
But you are missing the point. If you could have it your way, your law would reflect this:
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?
Wouldn’t you agree so?
Also, I quote myself on the earlier reply on your “with the consent of the government” statement:
In history, some government consented genocide. But that doesn’t make it right, does it?
Regardless, talking about law, I don’t claim to be an expert. But tell me, which part of the law the allows those morality police to harass the non-Muslim American couple in a private space at Langkawi?
Point 7:
I don’t think it is intolerance, but rather a means of non-punitive social sanctions. This quote from my first entry will eliminate your straw man (again!):
If you go into someone’s home and spy on them then that might be called an invasion of privacy, but if someone is doing something wrong in public then if other people notice your wrong behavior and make a comment on it that could never be called an invasion of privacy. Keep your bad behavior out of public areas where people will see you and no one will bother you, but if you want to show an example of wrong behaviour in public you should expect to have someone command the right and forbid the wrong.
Since I first introduced the term “straw man”, you have fallen in love with it, haven’t you?
Well, I have another two terms you might like. It’s “selective reasoning” and “selective memory”. See Point 4. In fact, I shall reproduce your statement for the second time to prove that the “straw man” actually comes with thick red flesh through what you wrote yourself:
All Muslims, and non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, should both accept and welcome an attempt to improve the moral quality of life within the community.
Meanwhile, let’s not kid ourselves. Let’s be honest. Shakespeare wrote “what’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”.
When Bush invaded Iraq, he called it the liberation of Iraq. Just like how liberation is an euphemism for invasion, “non-punitive social sanctions” is an euphemism for intolerance. Just call a spade as a spade.
I’m just more than a little curious, what kind of non-punitive social sanctions are you talking about? Harassment like what had happened to the American couple in Langkawi?
Point 8:
Yes indeed. Just like you’re under the assumption of libertarian universality.
Nope. I don’t assume libertarian universality. But you’ve just admitted that you assume that your conservative values assume universality, much in contradiction of all your state that you don’t assume.
Here’s an advice. Stop assuming.
Point 9:
My reasoning is that moral behavior has nothing to do with economic prosperity. That is why your statement below is non-sequitor:
[…]
You’re still imagining what I wrote. I didn’t say moral behavior has anything to do with economic prosperity. I said moral policing affects the economy. Please note the difference between the terms “moral behavior” and “moral policing.”
Quoting what I wrote, that you in turn quoted:
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.
Read it slowly this time. Don’t quote it and imagine what I wrote. Spend sometimes with your rebuttal. Really. If you’re late in replying, I won’t declare “hurm… nampaknya hujah moral policing aku tak mampu dijawab..” like you did.
Point 10:
Don’t you also know that moral permissivity is also part of the reason conservative Muslims don’t frequent city centres and beaches?
If the conservative Muslims frequenting the downtowns and the beaches meaning everybody has to adhere to their restrictive standard, I’d rather let everybody else frequenting downtowns and beaches and let the conservatives be.
This comes back to the point to what you said:
In fact, I completely agree with your suggestion if society is indecent – “don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.”
You agree to it; I agree to it. So, no disagreement there. End of story.
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.
The President of the University of Michigan in a speech, a day after Michigan bans affirmative action. Read it here or hear it at the Office of the President:
Diversity matters at Michigan, today more than any day in our history.
It matters today, and it will matter tomorrow. It will always matter because it is what makes us the great university we are.
I am deeply disappointed that the voters of our state have rejected affirmative action as a way to help build a community that is fair and equal for all.
But we will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse, welcoming campus. We will not be deterred.
Universities are models for the civil exchange of ideas, and the debate over Proposal 2 has been no exception. Still, it has been a particularly difficult campaign, and I regret the pain and concern it has caused people on our campus.
But there has been a positive outgrowth of the debate about Proposal 2. It has brought together so many different people to say: diversity matters at the University of Michigan. Many, many people were passionate in delivering this message, and I want to thank them for their hard work.
If November 7th was the day that Proposal 2 passed, then November 8th is the day that we pledge to remain unified in our fight for diversity. Together, we must continue to make this world-class university one that reflects the richness of the world.
I am standing here today to tell you that I will not allow this university to go down the path of mediocrity. That is not Michigan. Diversity makes us strong, and it is too critical to our mission, too critical to our excellence, and too critical to our future to simply abandon.
This applies to our state as much as our university. Michigan’s public universities and our public bodies must be more determined than ever to provide opportunities for women and minorities, who make up the majority of our citizenry.
Last week I received an email from Miranda Garcia, a Michigan graduate who shared my concern about the dangers of Proposal 2, and how it jeopardizes the fiber of our university.
“My four years in Ann Arbor,” she said, “were a life-changing experience. I met students from every area of the country, from all different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.”
She was blunt in saying her life-changing experience would not have been possible without affirmative action.
I should add that Miranda lives in California, a state whose voters banned affirmative action 10 years ago. It has been a horribly failed experiment that has dramatically weakened the diversity of the state’s most selective universities.
It is an experiment that we cannot, and will not, allow to take seed here at Michigan.
I will not stand by while the very heart and soul of this great university is threatened. We are Michigan and we are diversity.
I am joined on these steps by the executive officers and deans of our university. We are united on this. You have my word as president that we will fight for what we believe in, and that is holding open the doors of this university to all people.
Today, I have directed our General Counsel to consider every legal option available to us.
In the short term, we will seek confirmation from the courts to complete this year’s admissions cycle under our current guidelines. We believe we have the right, indeed the obligation, to complete this process using our existing policies. It would be unfair and wrong for us to review students’ applications using two sets of criteria, and we will ask the courts to affirm that we may finish this process using the policies we currently have in place.
This is our first step, but only our first step.
I believe there are serious questions as to whether this initiative is lawful, particularly as it pertains to higher education. I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this initiative. But we will not limit our drive for diversity to the courts, because our conviction extends well beyond the legal landscape.
It is a cause that will take our full focus and energy as an institution, and I am ready to begin that work right now. We will find ways to overcome the handcuffs that Proposal 2 attempts to place on our reach for greater diversity.
As Susan B. Anthony said in her crusade for equal rights, ”Failure is impossible.”
I know many in our community have been wondering what this election outcome means for you in a directly personal way.
For our current students, I promise that we will honor all financial commitments we have made to you. This is a contract we have with you, and the University of Michigan honors its contracts.
Your scholarships, fellowships and grants will remain just that: yours. The funds we awarded you are available today, and they will be there for you tomorrow, because the University of Michigan embraces diversity.
For University employees who fear that their livelihood is at risk with the passage of this proposal, please know that you have no cause for worry. No one’s job at the University of Michigan will go away because of Proposal 2. We will continue to review all of our programs dedicated to minority affairs and campus diversity to ensure that they comply with the law, as we have done for many years.
Let me be very clear about this: Your work is more important now than ever before. I will do everything I can to support you in this work, because the University of Michigan promotes diversity.
To the hundreds of thousands of Michigan alumni, I ask for your support in recruiting the finest students for your alma mater. You more than anyone know the benefits of an education at this great university.
I urge you to share that enthusiasm with prospective students, because the University of Michigan wants diversity.
To high school principals, counselors and teachers throughout Michigan, please know that our outreach efforts to your schools will continue. We believe this outreach is on firm legal ground, and we will continue these programs because we want your graduates at our university. Our high school partnerships are critically important pipelines for drawing great students to Michigan, and those programs will go on.
Those programs will go on because the University of Michigan believes in diversity.
Finally, to high school students and their families, my message is simple: We want you at the University of Michigan. We want your intellect, we want your energy, and we want your ambition. We have one of the finest universities in the world, and it is remarkable precisely because of our students, faculty and staff. We want you to aspire to be part of this amazing community.
It is amazing because the University of Michigan is diversity.
We know that diversity makes us a better university—better for learning, for teaching, and for conducting research. Affirmative action has been an effective and important tool for creating this rich, invigorating environment.
We believe so strongly in affirmative action that we went before the United States Supreme Court to defend its use, and we prevailed.
Today, I pledge that the University of Michigan will continue that fight.
Look around you. We are standing at the heart of our campus, where all the divergent pathways of the Diag come together.
We still have much to do to bring together all the people of our university. All walks of life must be present and welcome at the University of Michigan.
We should never forget a challenge issued by Henry Tappan, the university’s first president, who said, “We must take the world as full as it is.”
Ours is a university of the leaders and best. We must always be vigilant about recruiting and retaining the best students and staff and the finest faculty—individuals of all backgrounds and experiences—so that they may further enrich the fabric of this university. We simply cannot lose these bright minds.
As the days and weeks unfold, I know you will have questions about what this proposal means—for the University overall and for you personally, as students, faculty and staff. We do not yet have all the answers, but I vow to keep you fully informed as we explore the full effects of this initiative.
Of course the University of Michigan will comply with the laws of the state.
At the same time, I guarantee my complete and unyielding commitment to increasing diversity at our institution.
Let me say that again: I am fully and completely committed to building diversity at Michigan, and I will do whatever it takes.
I will need your help. As individuals and as a University, we absolutely must continue to think creatively about how to elevate Michigan’s role as a national model for diversity in higher education.
In the days and weeks ahead, you will hear from us about specific ways you can help in our cause. Starting today, I am asking all of our students and alumni of this great university to fire up their networks and spread the word. Tell people, “I am what a U-M education looks like—please join us.”
Together, we must always work to make ours a welcoming campus. Always. Let the world know that we are a university that embraces all. No one—no one—should ever forget that every student at Michigan is highly qualified, and has rightfully earned his or her place here.
Martin Luther King Jr. told us: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.”
Let’s stand together to tell the state and the nation that the University of Michigan embraces ”¦ promotes ”¦ wants ”¦ and believes in diversity.
Let’s stand together to say we value all those on our campus who make this such a remarkable institution.
Let’s stand together to say: We are Michigan and we are diversity.
I find this to be incredulous:
KUALA LUMPUR: It wasn’t exactly what he was asking for, but American tourist Randal K. Barnhart was happy to accept a verbal apology and a goodwill payment from the Langkawi Tourism Action Council (LTAC).
Why does the tourism authority had to clean up the mess the moral police left behind?
I applaud the tourism authority for rising up to the occasion.
Seeing how the religious department is pretending that nothing had happened, I couldn’t help but smirk when I read that the victim might sue the moral police:
Barnhart wanted three things: A letter of apology from the department, a letter that they will not be bothered again, and compensation of RM4,315 — the amount he paid to send his traumatised wife back to the United States.
[…]
Barnhart said: “They [the tourism authority] apologised to me although they were not at fault, and I understand their concern.”
But he added that he had heard nothing from the Religious Department and might take legal action, depending on his lawyer’s advice.
Just sue, Mr. Barnhart. Just sue them good. I hope you’re planning to force the religious department into bankruptcy.