I stand by your analogy and conclusion as well, Phil. Wish I could argue so coherently. Mike Geary Memphis On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Eric wrote: > > "The Cheney Doctrine concerns loose nukes or loose bioweapons, where > the destructive potential of their use -- even at 1 percent chance -- > is civilization-ending, and consequently an unacceptable risk. Not > entirely apropos." > > > What I said with regards to the security argument in support of > banning the niqab: "Here we approach something like the Cheney > doctrine". First, with an analogy, the fact that the two things being > compared are not exactly alike is not an argument against the analogy. > The whole point of an analogy is that the two are different with some > aspect of similarity. So, Eric is right that the Cheney Doctrine was > offered in the context of a discussion on nuclear and biological > weapons. My argument turns however on what I perceive to be a > similarity, namely, the claim that the possibility of a future > security threat is best dealt with by a present day response rather > than by analysis. > > But, if I may be presumptuous, Eric might argue that the similarity > works only if the threat is to scale. There is, Eric might argue, an > important difference between the threat of a suicide bomber with an > explosive vest under a niqab and a rogue country or terrorist > organization with nukes. However, I think this imagined response > misses the point. As I claimed before, the rhetoric surrounding the > push for a ban is not focused on the niqab as a delivery system for an > explosive vest, but rather it is focused on the religious extremism > for which the niqab is the proxy. In this respect, the article Ed > Farrell linked to in the National Review is useful in that it attempts > to lay out a connection between the practice of wearing the niqab and > the threat Islamic extremists pose to Western Civilization. More > evidence of this connection lies in the punishment the French have > proposed, namely classes on French culture. In other words, the > French see the practice of wearing the niqab as a threat to the very > nature of French society. Furthermore, there has been a decided shift > in the rhetoric surrounding Islam in the U.S. so that, for many > Americans, Islam itself is a threat to the U.S. and all the values it > supposedly represents. If, as I am suggesting, the rhetoric that > surrounds discussions of the threat of the niqab takes the niqab as a > proxy for Islamic extremism or even Islam itself, and that this > extremism is understood as a threat to Western civilization, then my > analogy holds. This construed threat of Islamic extremism is to > scale, or perhaps even greater, with the threat of a loose nuke. > > In short, I stand by my analogy. Those arguing for a ban on the > practice of the niqab adopt a rhetoric that understands this practice > as a threat to Western civilization. For this reason, so the argument > goes, the risks require a response, the banning of the niqab, rather > than analysis, that is the evaluation of facts and evidence for a > specific threat. Here, the banning of the niqab is a proxy for the > banning of Islamic extremism, or perhaps Islam itself. And to > summarize my argument, I think this approach both undermines liberal > democratic practices and reduces the effectiveness of the response to > actual security threats. Instead, the most effective approach is for > liberal democratic governments to avoid interfering in religious > matters but rather focus on the rule of law. In this way, liberal > democratic governments ensure the right to religious freedom while > also ensuring the legal and security structures that make the practice > of such freedoms possible. > > > Sincerely, > > Phil Enns > Indonesia > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html >