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.

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?

Point #1:

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.

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.

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.

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.”

Point #2: Coming back to the point that you claimed I had disregarded:

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.

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?). In fact, I completely agree with your suggestion if society is indecent - “don’t go out of your house. It’s that simple.”

Point #3:

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?

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.

Point #4:

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.

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.

Point #5:

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?

What I mean is that I am not arguing from a libertarian standpoint, thus an argument from that framework is irrelevant to me as far as my advocacy for moral policing demands.

If not, are you arguing from your conservative principles?

Yes indeed. Just like you’re under the assumption of libertarian universality.

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?

My reasoning is that moral behavior has nothing to do with economic prosperity. That is why your statement below is non-sequitor:

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.

Last point:

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.

Don’t you also know that moral permissivity is also part of the reason conservative Muslims don’t frequent city centres and beaches?

Let’s focus on the issue instead of the person.

Agreed.