Yes, I do understand it Duncan, and it wasn't a good example to use. I was trying to show that schools often set standards, and they are entitled to set standards, even dress standards, and to do so is not a violation of anyones rights. In this case though, the state is setting it, but for the reasons I outline I believe it is legitimate and essential for them to do so. You are wrong in refering to the Hijab as merely a headscarf. It's not. It's an instrument of Sharia for the Islamic oppression of women. The women who are protesting against the lifting of the ban understand that. They need to be supported in their stand, not thrown to the wolves.

What will you say when it's not the Hijab, but separation of men from women that is called for?

Richard, do you not understand the difference between wearing a headscarf, and demanding that women not be allowed in class? That one is a matter of religious expression confined to the self, & the other an imposition on the rights of others?

I'm serious when I ask this, because it really looks like you don't get it.

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

Thanks.

It is irrational to deprive a person of his personal rights simply because his religion is evil. 

 No ones depriving any person of their personal rights, PD. Banning the Hijab doesn't keep religious people out of Universities. It's a case of bring yourself, but leave your religion at home. What will you say when it's not the Hijab, but separation of men from women that is called for? Or the installation of foot baths? Or the accomodation of 5 x daily prayers? Or a myriad of other things...

Oppression of religion by state is not separation of church and state. 

Oppression of Islamism while we are at war with Islamism is an absolute necessity.

Islam is encouraged and justified by martyrdom and oppression.

When the Ottoman Muslims murdered one million Armenians in the name of Jihad, it was not because Islam felt oppressed. In fact, Islam has perpetrated it's greatest atrocities, not when Islam is oppressed, but when Islam is strong.

Reason is our greatest weapon against islam and force makes us look philosophically weak.  Divide and conquer.  Declaring war on headscarves is just stupid. 

It is not war on headscarfs. It is war on Islamists. You need to learn to see that.

Why would we want to keep religious people out of universities?  IMO they could use some education

Yep, they certainly do, and one education they need is that the West is firm in its resolve to defend its civilisation. Rolling over in the face of the Islamists demands certainly won't give them that.

If the whole country of Turkey is a war zone, I guess, and subject to special freedom restricting regulations, why not suspend free speech throughout the country, Richard?

That would really cut down the problem, don't you think?

Umm, and what actual battle would you be trying to win there?

In fact it would be a protection of freedom -- right?

You are just being silly.

How exactly does allowing the wearing of this thing break down the separation of Islam and state?

The wearing of the hijab itself doesn't break down the separation in the slightest. What will help in breaking it down is the lifting of the ban. The ban was introduced in the first place to keep Islam out of state institutions, and for many decades Islam has been kept in check. But now there's a situation where there's an Islamist party in power that wants to bring Turkey under the rule of Sharia. Lifting the ban and allowing the hijab, which for them is a Sharia requirement ordained by Allah, into a secular state institution will be a victory for the Islamists. It's another step forward in the Islamisation of Turkey. It's a battle front, and in this context of war they should be fought on that battle front. 300,000 people recently marched in Turkey against the Erdogan government in protest against Sharia. They weren't marching to oppress muslims, but to make a stand against Muslim oppression.

You know how much I despise Islam. But improper restrictions on the stupid savages serve only to undermine proper ones.

 It's not an improper restriction. It's an entirely legitimate restriction given the context. Sharia, the ideology we are at war against, should not be allowed into secular state universities.

It is irrational to deprive a person of his personal rights simply because his religion is evil. 

Oppression of religion by state is not separation of church and state. 

Islam is encouraged and justified by martyrdom and oppression.

Reason is our greatest weapon against islam and force makes us look philosophically weak. 

Divide and conquer.  Declaring war on headscarves is just stupid. 

Why would we want to keep religious people out of universities?  IMO they could use some education. 

Yeah, that's it, we have to force people to be "free."

If the whole country of Turkey is a war zone, I guess, and subject to special freedom restricting regulations, why not suspend free speech throughout the country, Richard?

That would really cut down the problem, don't you think?

In fact it would be a protection of freedom -- right?

Let's close down all mosques everywhere, too, and Islamic journals, and...

And we'd all be so much safer, then, too -- right?

I don't think so.

As always, on the issue of Islam, you are 100% correct. The issue is NOT whether the President's wife has a right to dress freely. The issue IS whether the prohibition between Church and State is taken seriously or not. And when dealing with Islam, it must if a secular state is to survive in the face of the Islamic onslaught.

Islam is not Christianity.

And the notion that Islam is on the rise in TUrkey because Muslims are oppressed is utter lunacy.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

That's what this Hijab issue is all about. It's not about individual rights. It's about doing away with the separation between Islam and the state.

How exactly does allowing the wearing of this thing break down the separation of Islam and state?

You know how much I despise Islam. But improper restrictions on the stupid savages serve only to undermine proper ones.

Linz

"No, they haven't started killing judges, yet -- just abortion doctors -- "

They have not started killing abortion doctors. The few lone nutters who have done that are not representative of Christianity, and their actions are not Christian. They are acting contrary to Christian doctrine, unlike the Jihadists who are acting in accordance with theirs. There has been over 10,000 Jihadist murders since 9/11, all morally sanctioned by Islamic doctrine. How many murders of abortionists has there been since 9/11 sanctioned by Christian doctrine? For that matter, how many murders have there been fullstop, morally sanctioned by Christian doctrine? Please show me the Christian doctrine that supports the murder of Doctors who perform abortions? When Islamists assassinate secular judges, there is a vast silence from the Islamic world. In fact, in the face of the over 10,000 murders, there is a vast silence from the Islamic world. In contrast, when one nutter kills an abortionist in the name of Christianity, there is widespread outrage, and emphatic calls that the nutters actions are anything but christian.

"but the day that happens it will be way to late to do anything about it."

If that ever happens, then again, it will not be due to Christianity, but contrary to it. You will find the defence to the Theocracy you fear within Christianity itself. The idea for separation between Church and State came from Christianity itself, with render unto Caesar's that which is...

Credit where credit is due is justice.

"And in allowing inconsistency into your political judgments, you "

There is no inconsistency in my judgement on this issue. The context is war, which is something you seem incapable of grasping. You can't even get a proper perspective between Islam and Christianity, equating the two when they do not equate.

"assuming, that is, that you are an advocate of individual rights in other contexts)."

I am an advocate of individual rights 100%. My stance here in supporting the continuation of the ban is not contrary to supporting individual rights. It's fucking pro-individual rights. Freedom wasn't built on the back of being nice to tyranny. The freedoms you enjoy stand on the blood of tryanny that has run in the streets. Islam is on the march. There has been over 10,000 murders since 9/11, and there is going to be no let up. The Islamic onslaught is costing billions of dollars in defence, and that will continue to climb. In the face of everything it's costing, in the face of all the people murdered, in the face of the unrelenting pressure to bow to Islam, you can't even make it Islam unfriendly in regards to separation between Islam and State by keeping what amounts to a symbol of a oppression of women, and a symbol of oppression of individual rights (and what constitutes an actual attack on individual rights), out of a secular state institution?

That doesn't bode well for winning this war.

No, they haven't started killing judges, yet -- just abortion doctors -- but the day that happens it will be way to late to do anything about it.

Should that day come, it's all over for civilization.

If the West had had its own act together, these savages would be toast already. In ignoring the far greater impact of seemingly less important differences within the West, it is you who are an enemy of self.

And in allowing inconsistency into your political judgments, you have turned your own ideas inside out and have put your own values in conflict (assuming, that is, that you are an advocate of individual rights in other contexts).

That is truly self-alienating.

...seeing as you see the religious right as a greater threat than political Islam. The religious right in America hasn't even started assassinating secular judges in America yet. When they do follow the Islamists in Turkey and start doing that, I'll be expecting you to champion their right to desecularise secular state institutions. That's what this Hijab issue is all about. It's not about individual rights. It's about doing away with the separation between Islam and the state. In supporting their moves to do that, you are being your own worst enemy.

I don't see anyone there arguing or marching for liberty.

...the women marching 'against' the lifting of the ban, ARE marching for liberty. It's those who want to lift the ban who are not.

I don't imagine that the women are marching for liberty, but that doesn't alter my position one bit.

"Of course I can see the twist with Muslims protesting against the ban. They're not standing up for liberty of course,"

Yes, they're not standing up for liberty. They're at war against it, real war where people are being murdered. The push to lift the ban is a battle line in that war. Don't mistake it for a move towards liberty, because it isn't. It's an attack against it, and to just roll over and let them win that battle without a fight is an injustice to everyone who has been murdered to further their cause.

From Wikipedia,

"Kemalist secularism is Laïcité (Laiklik), the absence of religious interference in government affairs, and vice-versa; solidified in public educational, government subsidized cultural and legal affairs."

This explains a lot. No wonder the Turkish secularists were angry and upset.

Maybe Richard has a point, however, not the one he intended.

...he was meaning me. Yes, I support the ban, emphatically, and there's nothing totalitarian of fascist in that. There's everything anti-totalitarian and anti-fascist in that. If you can't see that, Lance, then you're on a very different track than me. If there'd been zero tolerance of Hitler's Nazi's, there'd never have been any gas chambers, yet here we have people who are willing to tolerate such movements even within their own country while at war with them. The mind boggles.

Both sides should compromise: Each individual has the right to life which rationally leads to the right to liberty and personal property. 

They should be able to agree to this mutually beneficial relationship.  Makes sense to me anyway.

Turkey is retreating from secularism because muslims are being mistreated.  If they were treated fairly, they would have nothing to justly complain about.  They have used this issue as a means to gain political power.  If they had allowed muslim dress from the beginning, the muslims probably would not be in power now.  It's hard to complain about fair treatment and win many votes. 

The context for this is that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (Ataturk was the name he chose for himself meaning 'father of the Turks') in the 1920s instituted a kind of personality cult around himself, with an ideology based on adopting Western-style secularism. Of course this wasn't all bad or all good. It is still a crime in Turkey today to "insult Turkishness", which includes criticism of Ataturk or suggestion that the massacres of Armenians during the collapse of the Ottoman empire constituted genocide. Another of Ataturk's policies was to restrict public expression of religion in the name of secularism. Freedom of speech is not part of Kemalist ideology.

I didn't write that I supported the ban on the wearing of headscarves by Muslims at a public university.

And I didn't mean to suggest that I thought you had . Of course I can see the twist with Muslims protesting against the ban. They're not standing up for liberty of course, they're standing up for their liberty, but I strongly suspect that some of them, given the chance, would gladly strip others of their liberty. I still see no moral dilemma for Objectivists though. Either your philosophical system works and can deal with this, or it doesn't and it can't. That "special circumstances", "no ordinary religion" rubbish is a cop-out.

Tyranny is tyranny and it stinks, I don't care where it comes from, be it someone yelling "allahu akbar" "sieg heil!" or "won't someone think of the children/Western Civilisation!!"

I didn't write that I supported the ban on the wearing of headscarves by Muslims at a public university.

I wrote that this was a moral dilemma for SOLOists as a provocation because in this case a political grouping of Muslims were correctly standing up for political rights. Because there were quite a lot of postings here lately about the increasing numbers of Muslims in Europe seemingly always being a bad influence.

So what does this advocacy of freedom of expression by a Muslim political party tell us?

I am not sure myself. I was also surprised to see it.

Banning benign external expressions of a part of the Islamic religion solves the Islamisation problem how? I'd have thought that gee, let's see... banning bombing, shooting, stabbing, murdering, stoning and perhaps having a strong constitution with an amendment such as "the government shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" might do it.

The authoritarian streak that comes out in people when discussing Islam - where everything from banning religious texts to issuing dress codes is presented as a valid and necessary option to stop the Islamisation of western and/or secular countries - is mind boggling. Yes, let's do all of those, 'cos I can't stand Islam, what with all it's book banning and enforced dress codes and whatnot. It's what makes it damn near impossible for people, who aren't closet fascist-fetishists, to discuss the very real dangers of Islam as a political movement, without being lumped in with every single foaming at the mouth, rabid anti-Islamist, who themselves are on a slippery slope towards totalitarianism.

I knew that someone was going to jump up on their high-horse and shout privatise.

Well excuse me, but you did call it a moral dilemma for SOLOists. But okay, let's put that aside. There still should be no dilemma. As I said above, stopping the spread of political Islam by those means is to what end? So we can live in a society with ridiculous public dress codes and banned books? And when that doesn't work? Gee let's ban the building of mosques. Didn't work? Tear down the mosques! Cheeky buggers still being Muslims in their own homes and minds in spite of repression? Ban Muslims! Practicing taqiyah? Gas 'em! Then what a wonderful, enlightened, free, secular, western society we shall have!

Objectivists and/or libertarians supporting dress codes? Bans on scarves? Give me a fucking break!

"Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!"

Thanks for your answers.

I knew that someone was going to jump up on their high-horse and shout privatise. Obviously Universities should not be state-run, but forget that for a minute. Let's just accept the fact that in any state there are public areas.

James has it right. Obviously there should be religious freedom, but one can sympathise with the concern of the secularists that this may be the start of the move towards an Islamic state. However, Richard - how long should Turkey go on as if it is in a state of emergency against enroaching Islamists?

You probably have to be a Turkish political wonk to know more exactly if there was any real possibility of this happening. As a guess, this cannot seriously happen until the pro-secular Turkish military are infiltrated.

"No dilemna at all. Privatise the universities - problem solved."

So, if it's a private university, and they allow wearing of the Hijab, perhaps even encourage it, and further, perhaps even encourage the Chador and the Burka, and all the doctrines attached to that, how is that a problem solved? To me it just seems to be a problem shifted.

Why? Why would you allow the enemy to set up shop inside the lands they've vowed to defeat, while they are actively at war against you? That seems crazy to me.

Uh... yeah, I'd allow the wearing of the Swastika during WWII.

James said: "You already know the answer, Marcus. In any state devised by Objectivists, there could be no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing,"

... this is no ordinary context, and Islam in no ordinary religion, if indeed it is even a religion. Islam is an all encompassing political ideology, and a movement that is at war with Western civilisation and all Infidels. Would you allow the wearing of the Swastika during the second world war? No, you wouldn't. Likewise, the headscarf ban should remain in force. Those women who are protesting know why they are protesting.

You already know the answer, Marcus. In any state devised by Objectivists, there could be no laws regulating the wearing of religious clothing, or any other clothing! Trying to push people into the 21st Century, or even just keep them in it, by force of law is impossible -- and, indeed, generally counterproductive. They will only make the women who want to wear the traditional garb into martyrs anyway. Repression doesn't "work."

Now, the establishment in Turkey is justifiably scared to death of a Religious Right take-over. Fundamentalism and theocracy are very real threats to them, and Kemal Ataturk's anomalous achievement does seem somewhat fragile.

The fear is valid and one can only sympathize.

But will such laws really preserve it?

If actual physical security is the issue in certain settings, then, regardless of religious scruples, the women (and men) must be subjected to metal-detectors and, if necessary, searches of their persons (by other women) or similar measures.

(Now, if only I can get Linz to see the danger from the Religious Right in America!)

No dilemna at all. Privatise the universities - problem solved.

Yes Marcus, when I saw this on the news last night I was stunned: it took me several minutes to re-orient my mindset on the issues, and the two opposing sides.

Fascinating, and I want to look into it more.