*this is a response to a comment on my previous post.
_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.
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.
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.
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!
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”.
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.
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?
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??)

4 responses so far ↓
Robin Goodfellow // Nov 12, 2006 at 5:57 am
The problem is that some Muslims confuse the issue by trying to hide their true intentions via proclaiming that Islamic Moral Values are synonymous with so-called Asian Values. Really?
In some other truly Asian cultures, drinking liquor such as tapai or tuak is a part of the community’s values and is a cultural heritage predating even Islam, much less Prophet Abraham. And high up in Tibetan plateaus, certain tribes there practises polyndry i.e. one wife, many husbands. Surely that was not what the Prophet (p.b.u.h.) intended for you to mix up, right?
So, please do the Muslims and Non-Muslims a favour, don’t use the cover of “lowest common denominator” in order to confuse the real issue, which is about the implementation of Islamic Moral Code and Law. Call a spade a spade. Even MENJ, whose views I have serious disrespect for, does not resort to ‘putar-belit’ of language. Hiding behind the Quran does not make Osama Bin Laden any less the terrorist that he is, as much as George Bush hides behind the Bible. Or hiding behind all-encompassing labels in order to sweeten it for the masses.
kaki bangku // Nov 12, 2006 at 6:01 am
Dude, pardon the ignorance, but I’m not entirely clear about the point you’re trying to make.
the __earthinc » Blog Archive » [962] Of re: the moral police is too proud to apologize // Nov 12, 2006 at 1:35 pm
[...] 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, [...]
Kakiblog.com » Re: re: Defense of Moral Policing // Nov 14, 2006 at 8:56 pm
[...] The “big boss” challenged me to respond to Hafiz’s refutation of my entry on moral policing. I hesitated because I don’t think I can make a complete case for moral policing from a libertarian standpoint other than advocacy, and hence was my initial remark to Hafiz: 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. [...]
Leave a Comment