Are All Cultures Created Equal & Endowed With Inalienable Rights?

[The Sage Nabooru]

My father always told us children to "take a long view of history". Life does go on and I'd like to believe humanity has matured - that we've become more compassionate, more tolerant, more accepting than our ancestors. Strictly speaking - survival of the human species depends upon humanity becoming more compassionate, more tolerant, more accepting and just plain wiser.

 

We will need wisdom and love and compassion and tolerance to overcome all the problems we bring upon ourselves through ego and greed.

 

And in the middle of all the pain, it's not only important to take the long view of history, it's also important to simply live. Live in the here and now accepting that there are certain things we have no personal or immediate control over, and just live "in the moment". Find our peace right here and now - and do what we are able to do (right here and now) to contribute to peace in the larger context.

 

I think we also need to consider that human history, when you really think about it, is actually quite short. We only have recordable cultural history extending back 10000 years or so. I suppose it could be said that history goes in cycles but we've only had a very short time to really see that take place. IMO guessing what Europe or America will be like in 50-100 years is a fun parlor game but really just blind speculation, mostly.

 

I disagree. The Soviet Union was not a non-religious society. You might make a case that it was a godless society, but it was not non-religious. Stalin's idol was Ivan Grozny who's savagery was informed by his religion. Stalin's religion didn't have a god, but it did have a savior and the savior was Stalin.

 

That's another thing, though: if you removed religion from society, people would make anti-religion, a religion. In North Korea (among those few citizens who can afford the luxury of having time to think about it), Kim Il-Sung is regarded as never really dying. The Soviet Union's citizens flocked to the tomb of Lenin and many regarded Stalin as a sort of communist saint. The same reverence is accorded to Mao by the Chinese government.

 

If you take religion away, something replaces it with the same kind of fervor, awe, and devotion the religion inspired.

[Vigile]

Thanks, I shall now log off and watch Gilligan's Island, until I rot.

 

I suppose that one shouldn't worry about things outside one's sphere of influence. If I can figure out the mileage on that puppy, I'll know when an event is close enough to get pissed off about.

 

My wife is a happy person. She doesn't watch or read the news, theory, opinion, or what ever of anything political or religious. My congressman was in town last week and I went to see him to argue for Impeachment. I didn't get anywhere -- he's not going to waste is time on something that can't happen, I'm told. So much for standing up for something simply because it is right. (The Honorable man said he'd like to hang the bastard if he could.) Anyway, when I told Sweetie, "I'm going to see Obey", she just said, "Who's that?" (As you can see, my sphere of influence is small. I think I may rule this small room containing my computer. At least I'm not required to keep it neat.) Funny thing is though, she's not an air-head either and could find Nepal on a map.

 

Com'on Chef, you should know me well enough by now to know I'm not telling you to bury your head in the sand. By all means, fight for impeachment, speak out for the environment, against global CIA abuses, against arms races, etc... Trying to clean up religion and perceived wrongs in a culture that is not your own though is IMO dangerous, misguided, and not your business.

[Dave]

... Trying to clean up religion and perceived wrongs in a culture that is not your own though is IMO dangerous, misguided, and not your business.

 

Could there be a point where they cross a wide grey line?

 

Here's an example I just made up; what if they're killing thousands of people a day in order to appease a rain god? I know it's an extreme example, but at what point does it change from a perceived wrong to a real one?

[Vigile]

Well, it depends on what theoretical country would come to the rescue of those poor victims. I don't trust the US to do it.

 

For example, Mobutu was in fact killing thousands a day in order to purge Zaire/Congo of his competing tribe members. He also had a policy of lining up hundreds of those charged with crimes in the national football stadium and then shooting 1/3 to 1/2 in front of the others in order to create an impression on the survivors. Meanwhile the CIA was filtering billions of dollars to Mobutu's bank account.

 

The US only "saves" victims of bad policy in other countries when the US acheives some sort other benefit, either real or perceived and most of their rescues do more damage than good.

[Dave]

Well, it depends on what theoretical country would come to the rescue of those poor victims. I don't trust the US to do it......

Of course the USA is not the one to do any rescuing. As you pointed out, there's just too much wrong with what we've done, or not done, in the past. I would trust some "rescues" done under the UN though. They have a bit better track record... not perfect, but better.

[chefranden]

1. What I meant before about education is really an education about other cultures, philosophies, etc in a liberal venue. Not an education like, "Look at what these immoral cultures do." But exposing people to ideas outside their own culture brings an infusion of new vitality and strength. I am a major proponent of diversity for the sake of a stronger organism.

 

2. Fundamentalists are a necessary evil in the evolution of a society.

 

3. Those within their own societies must be the vehicles of change from within, and those people are created by their own society at large... . So to come back to education... I think them being a part of a global society has exposed them to a world at their door they were ill-equipped to respond to at the pace it was hitting them and bringing change to their socites within their own borders. There's no easy solution, but education, the rise of intellectuals within their own borders will begin change. It was happening, but within Iran the revolution drove out all the intellectuals to this country. In Iraq they're all gone too now, both having left from the under the fist of Sadaam Hussein, and now in the mass exodus that is happening under the current civil war/chaos that is breaking out over there after we entered her borders to liberate them into our world.

 

4. Not an easy situation. What will change it... education.... and time, a lot of it.

 

1. There are a couple of things that this brings up in my mind.

 

* Nature abhors a mono-culture and will do its living best to kill it. Physically speaking the human species is turning into or has become a mono-culture. If Daniel Quinn is close to the mark, culturally speaking we are also a mono-culture with slight variations. This would indicate that our woes may be part of nature's attempt to recreate diversity. So perhaps we should ignore the injustice of our own species crazy behavior and let it help kill us off. "Fundamentalists are a necessary evil in the evolution of a society. "

 

* I like education and I think of it like this as well. However it appears that most people think of it as '"Look at what these immoral cultures do."' All forms of Taker Culture resist infusion with new ways of living. So the question is should the infusion be forced upon the population like polio vaccine? After all these extremist memes are as deadly as any virus can be especially when they direct large forces like say the United States. (Of course this would assume a safe and effective education.)

 

2. This creates moral confusion in my head. Fundamentalist behavior, honor killing,* should be allowed as a necessary cost of societal development. Is this something like introducing wolves back into the wilderness areas for balance even though they will kill some livestock?

 

* Used by me as a metaphor of seemingly bad behavior.

 

3. Of course this has always happened. Mohamed, Paul, Constantine, Ivan Grozny, L. Ron Hubbard, George W. Bush, Dick Chaney and hundreds of others have brought changes from within their societies, and I wouldn't exactly place them on a continuum of increases in justice. Most of these guys don't turn out to be MLKs or Gandhis.

 

Then there is the problem of potential society changers fleeing their society, as you have pointed out. How will this bring about positive change.

 

4. As me olde Granny useta say, "Justice delayed is justice denied." Doesn't this say to the child sex slaves in Thailand, "Don't worry, your great great great...? granddaughters will not have to suffer this." It seems to me that pie on the ground when your turn comes around isn't much better than pie in the sky by and by. Should I stop worrying about these girls, so that I may enjoy my comforts without guilt?

 

Is justice like politics local?

[Antlerman]

1. There are a couple of things that this brings up in my mind.

 

* Nature abhors a mono-culture and will do its living best to kill it. Physically speaking the human species is turning into or has become a mono-culture. If Daniel Quinn is close to the mark, culturally speaking we are also a mono-culture with slight variations. This would indicate that our woes may be part of nature's attempt to recreate diversity. So perhaps we should ignore the injustice of our own species crazy behavior and let it help kill us off. "Fundamentalists are a necessary evil in the evolution of a society. "

Not at all. No one is suggesting that we fall into inaction about injustices in society. No one is suggesting letting fundamentalism run amok, completely unchecked. What I am saying is that to try to eliminate them is an impossibility. There will always be a bell curve around whatever issue you could name. What we are responsible for is participating in society, not being passively accepting of what the greedy want to take from us.

 

To me it’s helpful to recognize that the fundamentalists or extremists in general are symptomatic of issues within society that create them, both on the left and the right ends of the society. The real power lies in the middle, and it’s the middle that will bring about change in society, not the fundamentalists. That’s why us laying down and not doing anything is irresponsible to ourselves.

 

* I like education and I think of it like this as well. However it appears that most people think of it as '"Look at what these immoral cultures do."' All forms of Taker Culture resist infusion with new ways of living. So the question is should the infusion be forced upon the population like polio vaccine? After all these extremist memes are as deadly as any virus can be especially when they direct large forces like say the United States. (Of course this would assume a safe and effective education.)

I’ve often mused dealing with some of these societies by parachuting television sets into their countries so they can see how the rest of the world lives. However, the problem with that is that what television broadcasts is an utter distortion of reality about our societies. “Reality T.V.” is anything but. It’s like calling a side show at a circus the real world. Moreover, outside that junk T.V., pop culture is not even reality. It’s marketing gloss that tries to create sales for itself. It’s like looking at America through a Fun-House mirror. The only way I can see coming anywhere near imparting what we are is through a liberal education. It takes intellectuals to lead the way.

 

It’s ironic how even in America, such a large number of people despise intellectuals. It’s ironic how those same people snub their identical counterparts over in the Middle East. Fundi’s are fundis.

 

No, we can’t force anything on anyone. All we can do is encourage education by promoting the value of it. As people realize through living life in their societies, that following fundamentalist tripe is harming them in participating in the world beyond their own borders, then that is what will drive the change from within, and having promoted, or advertised, the power of education and moderation, they will look to leaders who offer a path to a greater participation with the world, not less of one.

 

2. This creates moral confusion in my head. Fundamentalist behavior, honor killing,* should be allowed as a necessary cost of societal development. Is this something like introducing wolves back into the wilderness areas for balance even though they will kill some livestock?

 

* Used by me as a metaphor of seemingly bad behavior.

Again, it’s not tolerating the behavior without limits. Honor killings are a violation of human rights. That’s why societies enact laws to protect the innocent.

 

Where I say fundamentalists are a necessary evil of society is because they are a part of the body. They will always be because human beings participate in society. It’s like saying I need to get rid of my skin. If I’m feeling pain in my skin because it has been over-exposed to the sun, then the reactions of the skin are something that creates an inner dialog with my brain. “I need to get out of the sun and put on better protection next time. I need to care for myself.” Or we could talk about your toes, or fingers. It’s the same sort of thing in society. The extremes create an inner dialog within the middle of society where the majority of the body lives.

 

We accept that the extremes are a natural part of any society, and find ways to work with them for the benefit of the whole body. If we go around chopping off our extremities to deal with a problem, then we’re pretty irresponsible of a living being towards ourselves. We need to try understand why our extremities are showing signs of disease and deal with the cause, not the symptom.

 

3. Of course this has always happened. Mohamed, Paul, Constantine, Ivan Grozny, L. Ron Hubbard, George W. Bush, Dick Chaney and hundreds of others have brought changes from within their societies, and I wouldn't exactly place them on a continuum of increases in justice. Most of these guys don't turn out to be MLKs or Gandhis.

 

Then there is the problem of potential society changers fleeing their society, as you have pointed out. How will this bring about positive change.

Of course all those names you listed above are not intellectuals. Each of them from Mohammed to Bush are politicians. Politicians are nothing more than super-salesmen. They are not intellectuals. They are marketing experts. Content is irrelevant to them. Power is everything. They are CEO’s of companies. Not the brains that make it work.

 

Again, the center bulge in society is where the real power exists, and not in its extremities. The marketing guys try to let the middle feel that the politicians hold the power, but that’s the genius of the skills at sales spinning.

 

When society has had enough, then change happens. MLK, Ghandi, etc, are likewise created by society. The extremists, the fundies, are by very definition reactionary. They respond to moderate leaders with violence because it is their nature. Where our responsibility lies as citizens in a society is in enforcing rules of freedom of speech and personal liberties. Everyone has a right to state the views, and our protecting the extremists rights are as sacred a duty to ourselves as protecting the MLK’s of our society.

 

Society created MLK, because we were ready for him. What makes society ready for the more difficult road of healthy change is time and pain. Unfortunately, it’s how we operate, even in our individual humanity. It’s one thing to tell someone how bad smoking is, but sadly it usually takes some scare to get our attention, if not worse.

 

4. As me olde Granny useta say, "Justice delayed is justice denied." Doesn't this say to the child sex slaves in Thailand, "Don't worry, your great great great...? granddaughters will not have to suffer this." It seems to me that pie on the ground when your turn comes around isn't much better than pie in the sky by and by. Should I stop worrying about these girls, so that I may enjoy my comforts without guilt?

 

Is justice like politics local?

Again, protecting everyone, from extremists to the middle is a moral obligation of all humans participating in any society. Fundamentalist ideas are to be protected, but harmful behavior to others is not to be tolerated.

 

Society established laws to protect itself. The violation of children as sex slaves is an assault against society being able to protect itself and needs to be dealt with. It’s like exposing yourself to bad food. Would a person tolerate eating meat that would cause the whole body to become ill?

[Vigile]

Is justice like politics local?

 

What would you propose to do about global injustice Chef? Would your solution create more injustice? Isn't it better to work at stopping your own country from committing both local and global injustices than dwelling on injustice committed at the hands of those people who you have no ties to?

 

I don't know. It would seem that justice is a luxury that not many are aforded. I seriously doubt that will ever change no matter what you or I want.

[chefranden]

Is justice like politics local?

1. What would you propose to do about global injustice Chef?

 

2. Would your solution create more injustice?

 

3. Isn't it better to work at stopping your own country from committing both local and global injustices than dwelling on injustice committed at the hands of those people who you have no ties to?

 

I don't know. It would seem that justice is a luxury that not many are aforded. I seriously doubt that will ever change no matter what you or I want.

 

1. I don't know. Which is why I stared this thread.

 

2. I don't have a solution, and I don't think I've claimed any yet. So far it's been all speculation.

 

3. Well this is my question, is justice local? Do I ignore honor killing unless it takes place next door?

 

Is there any point even to being angry with George W.? Our government is set up in such a way that he and his gang are in practice above the law. I doubt that they will be brought to task even after they leave office.

[Vigile]

Well this is my question, is justice local? Do I ignore honor killing unless it takes place next door?

 

And I think it's a good question. It's certainly one I haven't decided where I come down yet. It does occur to me that believing in the posibility of global justice walks a pretty fine line between faith and reason. This world is an old place and there have been huge amounts of injustice served over the years to billions. No matter what we do there won't be global justice in our lifetime, I think that's a given. Then what we have left are to contemplate a philosophical base for a more just future for future citizens of this planet. I doubt we will find the lynchpin answer, but perhaps our generation can build a base from which future thinkers can work from.

 

I also think that moderation must be applied to our own lives when considering these issues. Much in the same way that your brain filters out the "noise" of the massive ammounts of stimuli that is fed it at any moment we likely need to sometimes filter out the massive ammounts of injustice that are all around us. to not do so is to make oneself utterly insane over things that we just cannot have any control over. A balance must be found between that which we can have some form of influence over and that which we can't.

 

Each one of us must be free to live our lives as well otherwise we are only creating another victim of global injustice in ourselves.

 

All of that said, I think it's good that people like you and I feel a sense of injustice. I wish there were more of us.

 

Is there any point even to being angry with George W.? Our government is set up in such a way that he and his gang are in practice above the law. I doubt that they will be brought to task even after they leave office.

 

Another great question. I'm sure that my anger at this situation is irrational. Sometimes it just feels good to be irrational.

[chefranden]

...That’s why us laying down and not doing anything is irresponsible to ourselves.

 

And standing up and doing something would be what, if not forcing those extremists to conform to my morale standards? Nevertheless the real problem is not in the extremes. It is in the cultural norms. As an example, the poor treatment of woman in Muslim culture is not confined to the extremes. You don't get to kill your sister for rumors of lewd behavior and only get 3 months in jail if the middle doesn't think such behavior acceptable.

 

...Again, the center bulge in society is where the real power exists, and not in its extremities...

 

This seems to be the best reason for attacking moderate religionist non-sense like Dawkins and Harris are doing. These behaviors persist because of the middle. That is exactly where the inertia for change is. And perhaps extreme measures are required to get the middle to move.

[Antlerman]

...That’s why us laying down and not doing anything is irresponsible to ourselves.

 

And standing up and doing something would be what, if not forcing those extremists to conform to my morale standards?

Not whatsoever. How do you equate standing your ground with aggression? It’s not an either or world of black and white issues. It’s a matter of being true to what you believe in as an act of sincerity. Forcing your views on others is what the war on culture is that the fundamentalists have declared. What I am talking about is respecting all, not just my ideology. Respecting everyone is the protection of everyone’s right to free speech. This is not the extremist’s position where they want their views to reign supreme and all others silenced.

 

Nevertheless the real problem is not in the extremes. It is in the cultural norms. As an example, the poor treatment of woman in Muslim culture is not confined to the extremes.

Is this value of women consistent with our sensibilities here in the West? No, not exactly, maybe.. sort of… kind of…. Perhaps…. Exactly how far ahead of this do you think we really are in the West anyway? What’s the current pay discrepancy between men and women? Should I keep going? How about Blacks? How are we really doing on equality issues anyhow? Really good? I would say some, not all, in our society are making efforts towards that. But we are still as bad as we judge other cultures to be. We delude ourselves that we are somehow superior!

 

So exactly how far ahead of the Mid East are we, really? What, maybe a few steps? Ok great, but are we somehow now in a position to play God over them in moral judgment? Do I condone those views? Not in my world. But in my world, I think we suck pretty badly too.

 

You don't get to kill your sister for rumors of lewd behavior and only get 3 months in jail if the middle doesn't think such behavior acceptable.

Again, this is morally abhorrent to my cultural sensitivities. But how about that KKK? How about them?

 

Point is, don't they have to go through their own cultural evolution as well as we have in our own culture? Did some other culture come in and tell what is moral?? No. Our own citizenry rose up and enacted change from within as part of our own evolution. It is the height of arrogance to impose our own course of evolution on another culture. It is a shoe that fits our body. If it’s going to happen for them, they have to do it. Not us.

 

...Again, the center bulge in society is where the real power exists, and not in its extremities...

This seems to be the best reason for attacking moderate religionist non-sense like Dawkins and Harris are doing. These behaviors persist because of the middle. That is exactly where the inertia for change is. And perhaps extreme measures are required to get the middle to move.

Well, this is exactly what I have been saying from the outset. The extremes create a dialog in the middle. Exactly. The edges don’t make the change happen, the middle does. However the edges start the conversation. That’s their function. The power is in the middle.

[chefranden]

1.How do you equate standing your ground with aggression? ...

 

2.What I am talking about is respecting all, not just my ideology. Respecting everyone is the protection of everyone’s right to free speech.

 

3.This is not the extremist’s position where they want their views to reign supreme and all others silenced.

 

1. What do you mean by stand up? If a burglar is taking your stuff does standing up to him mean making him quit or is just hollering, "Hey you! That's not nice!" sufficient? Some folks might even consider hollering aggressive.

 

However, my view is that that burglar shouldn't take my stuff, and I'll likely have a go at forcing that view on him, even though it is clear from his actions that in his view taking my stuff is perfectly proper. Therefore, standing up to him necessitates that I force my view on him.

 

2. Why should I respect non-sense? Example: To consider a woman to be chattel is non-sense. I don't see any reason to respect the idea. I wouldn't force anyone not to say so though, because it is better if the non-sense is out in the open where it can be dealt with.

 

3 What's the point of being in the middle? It is the middle that allows the bullshit to continue. Better to be the extremist, because the sheep don't know any better. I find that I want my view to reign supreme over bullshit. If I find another's view to be morally repugnant, why should I compromise if I don't have to -- that is if I have enough force to make that guy quit when he is not subject to persuasion?

 

Is this value of women consistent with our sensibilities here in the West? No, not exactly, maybe.. sort of… kind of…. Perhaps…

 

It is not consistent with my sensibilities. Why should I wait until the West has perfected its behavior in this matter or any other before I say, "Not on my planet you don't!"? Isn't it just these wishy washy sensibilities that allow the non-sense to continue?

 

As me olde granny usta say, "Stupid is isn't just stupid does. It is also stupid thinks."

 

You've almost convinced me to be the radical, except that me olde granny also usta say, "Lord, save us from saviors."

 

Point is, don't they have to go through their own cultural evolution as well as we have in our own culture?

I'm going to say no, because minor details aside their culture is our culture i.e. taker culture.

 

Relatively speaking the KKK has been relegated to the fringes, where as they used to be mainstream. The KKK didn't find itself on the fringes by having its ideas respected.

[Antlerman]

1. What do you mean by stand up? If a burglar is taking your stuff does standing up to him mean making him quit or is just hollering, "Hey you! That's not nice!" sufficient? Some folks might even consider hollering aggressive.

 

However, my view is that that burglar shouldn't take my stuff, and I'll likely have a go at forcing that view on him, even though it is clear from his actions that in his view taking my stuff is perfectly proper. Therefore, standing up to him necessitates that I force my view on him.

Better to illustrate the difference between being assertive in standing up for yourself, and being aggressive using your analogy above would be the following:

 

Assertive:

 

Burglar comes into your home and is violating your rights to your property. You have the right to expect him to obey the rules of society and are within your right to call the police to enforce those rules, or depending on the laws of your state, you have the right to defend your home with potentially lethal force. You are standing your ground in protecting your rights.

 

Aggressive:

 

Identify people you consider to be burglars and send in armed mobs to route them out of their homes and put them in camps for isolation or elimination; or after the burglar has robbed you, take the law into your own hands and go on a vigilante hunt for him, and be the judge, jury, and executioner; or start campaigns to brand those of ethnic or socio-economic status as potential burglars to be treated with less value than the “decent” people (those who share your worldviews).

 

Passive:

 

Do nothing at all and let others walk all over you.

 

I do not advocate the pacifist approach. But I have observed often times that people who approach conflict resolution through aggressive philosophies will dismiss assertiveness as the same thing as passivism. “If you’re not with me, you’re against me!” “It’s a black and white issue. I’m right and they’re wrong.”

 

2. Why should I respect non-sense? Example: To consider a woman to be chattel is non-sense. I don't see any reason to respect the idea. I wouldn't force anyone not to say so though, because it is better if the non-sense is out in the open where it can be dealt with.

It’s nonsense to you. Not to them. If it was nonsense to them, would they have ever adopted it? Was there any historical basis for this occurring that was part of how those societies worked? Of course there was.

 

Do those views have a place in our society? We say they don’t, but exactly how many years has it been in our society where women have had the right to vote???

 

Sure, we can pat ourselves a little for being more progressive. But honestly, we’re not that stellar at it ourselves. Where we can give ourselves credit is that some recognize we need to improve our record.

 

If anything I hear that your complaint is that they don’t even recognize there’s an issue, unlike us. However, I would counter that many in fact do recognize it’s an issue and are fighting for reform from within, as it HAS to happen for change to occur. This is no different than how reform occurred here.

 

Their society will evolve, but not by us forcing our evolution on them. Our setting an example in living, - and practicing – the social reforms we have come to, can in fact influence change over there. But that’s very different than forcing compliance.

 

I abhor dictatorship philosophies. It’s no different than the approach of the Taliban.

 

3. What's the point of being in the middle? It is the middle that allows the bullshit to continue. Better to be the extremist, because the sheep don't know any better. I find that I want my view to reign supreme over bullshit. If I find another's view to be morally repugnant, why should I compromise if I don't have to -- that is if I have enough force to make that guy quit when he is not subject to persuasion?

There we go again. Somehow the majority of societies are impotent? I completely disagree. Who do you think the edges are vying for the attention of? Why would they be, if the middle wasn’t where the real power was? They need the middle to make change happen. And that is my whole point.

 

The edges are necessary to get the issues out there for discussion. The middle looks at adn discusses the issues and decide together on which direction to move as a whole. The change happens, but it moves slowly.

 

What I almost hear you suggesting is that people are idiots and need a good solid dictator to tell them what to do.

 

Quoting grandmothers here,"You can attract more flies with honey than vinegar".

 

Yes be a leader, but be persuasive to their hearts and minds. Not pull their fingernails out when they disobey you. The truly powerful leader recognizes where the power is and courts it with moderation and respect. The impotent leader pounds the majority into submission with a bat.

 

It is not consistent with my sensibilities. Why should I wait until the West has perfected its behavior in this matter or any other before I say, "Not on my planet you don't!"? Isn't it just these wishy washy sensibilities that allow the non-sense to continue?

It’s not their planet too?

 

Once again, you label moderation as wishy-washy and weak. I label it as the ultimate power.

 

Aggression is weak. Aggression is short sighted; aggression take no really work, and is ultimately lazy; aggression is arrogant, assuming their way is the only way; aggression is violent and serves death and a loss of liberty and respect.

 

As me olde granny usta say, "Stupid is isn't just stupid does. It is also stupid thinks."

Aggression is stupid. It’s short-sighted and lacks vision. Forced compliance will always fail to bring real change.

 

Change has to happen from within to be real.

 

You've almost convinced me to be the radical, except that me olde granny also usta say, "Lord, save us from saviors."

You honestly feel forcing values on others will bring about change? It won’t. Let’s get back to my ganny again, "You can attract more flies with honey than vinegar".

 

Relatively speaking the KKK has been relegated to the fringes, where as they used to be mainstream. The KKK didn't find itself on the fringes by having its ideas respected.

You really should re-read what I have said. I didn’t say we should respect their ideas. I said we should consider protecting their rights to express their ideas as a sacred duty to our society. For in doing this we extend that same value to all voices in society, and have earned the right to expect them to extend that liberty to other – rather than forcing their views on others.

 

I respect their right to have their own views, even if I find them utterly stupid and abhorrent. What I will not tolerate however is them practicing a view that strips away the rights of others in our society.

 

The Middle East is not our society. It’s theirs. Through interaction with our culture, there will necessitate a recognition of differing values on both sides of the divide, and through that change occurs because of problems that occur. Dialog is what leads to change. Not war.

[chefranden]

Better to illustrate the difference between being assertive in standing up for yourself, and being aggressive using your analogy above would be the following:

 

This bit isn't saying anything to me, but maybe that's because I'm tired from snow removal detail.

 

It’s nonsense to you. Not to them. If it was nonsense to them, would they have ever adopted it? Was there any historical basis for this occurring that was part of how those societies worked? Of course there was.

 

Marrying several underage girls is not non-sense to some Mormons, is it therefore moral? Suicide bombing is not non-sense to some people. Is there any historical basis for these sorts of things? Of course there is. Does that make it right? No. Does that make it tolerable? No. (Is my moral sense superior to theirs? Well of course it is, or else I would switch to their's.)

 

A person can think that women are chattel as much as they like as long as they don't act on the thought. But they do. A person can think about burgling all the live long day, but when they actually burgle then it's time to just say no. No?

 

We say they don’t, but exactly how many years has it been in our society where women have had the right to vote???

 

You have used this sort of argument several times now. It appears to me as a non-sequitur. So this culture used to withhold the vote from woman and treat them as chattel. How many generations must we/I wait before we/I have the moral standing to say concerning treating women this way, "Hey, cut that out or I will kick your ass!"? (Of course that assumes, I can kick your ass.) I should let the burglar burgle because once upon a time I was a burglar?

 

I don't see that anyone should accept immoral behavior simply because it happens to be cultural norm. Nor do I see why anyone should accept immoral behavior simply because it one's own culture isn't perfect.

 

There we go again. Somehow the majority of societies are impotent? I completely disagree. Who do you think the edges are vying for the attention of? Why would they be, if the middle wasn’t where the real power was?

 

I know that I'm something of a poor writer, but I'm sure I haven't said, "the power is not in the middle." In fact I'm saying the opposite. The power is in the middle, and it is the middle with its moderation that perpetuates the non-sense and the resulting aberrant behavior. It was the middle that withheld the vote from woman and the radicals that secured it for them. This is why I see no common cause with moderate non-sense believers. The evils of religion will never depart from us as long as the middle feels all nice and fuzzy over religions basic stupid non-sense. It's time to make the middle feel bad about these things, wherever the middle may reside, or what ever its religion may be.

 

The extremist religionist is on the middle's continuum taking the middle's non-sense to its logical extreme. Suicide bombing on behalf of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a rather short self life. Why? It has no middle. Focus on the Family on behalf of the Invisible Pink Unicorn would be a rather poor organization. Why? No middle. The problem is not in the suicide bombers, the ayatollahs, or the bible thumpers. It is in the middle without which the former would have no place to be.

 

If you really abhor dictatorships, then stand up to the middle for that is, as you say, where the power of the dictator is.

 

You really should re-read what I have said. I didn’t say we should respect their ideas. I said we should consider protecting their rights to express their ideas as a sacred duty to our society.

 

You should re-read what I wrote. They can spout non-sense all they want, as long as they don't act on it and they don't expect me to respect the non-sense. It is the sacred duty of a thinking person to point, laugh at, and otherwise cast derision on non-sense. Go ahead and declare women to be chattel, but don't expect me to give you any dignity, respect, or to take you seriously even if billions of others think the same.

[Antlerman]

Marrying several underage girls is not non-sense to some Mormons, is it therefore moral? Suicide bombing is not non-sense to some people. Is there any historical basis for these sorts of things? Of course there is. Does that make it right? No. Does that make it tolerable? No. (Is my moral sense superior to theirs? Well of course it is, or else I would switch to their's.)

It is moral to them. Is it right to them? Yes. Is it right to you or me? No. Is it “Right” with a capital R or “Wrong” with a capital W? I’ll answer that with a question. Do you believe a God exists, and can you know what He thinks? That’s the only way anyone can make statements of absolute judgment.

 

However… big caveat here, majority consensus does play the function of “absolutes” in human society, and there are many things that we can consider as “wrong”. But things like the age of consent in many cultures vary widely and saying 21 is the magic age of an adult is pretty arbitrary actually.

 

Marriage in many cultures has considerably different significances than it does in our society, and is less to do with sex than with contractual agreements between families.

 

A person can think that women are chattel as much as they like as long as they don't act on the thought. But they do. A person can think about burgling all the live long day, but when they actually burgle then it's time to just say no. No?

I’m in agreement that violating the rights of others is not acceptable. But what if the women in your example actually find that role works to their advantage? Is that a violation to them? If not, then should we say that practice in their society is wrong because it violates how our society is structured?

 

Considering the economic disadvantages to women in some of these countries (even our own in many ways), having an arranged marriage where she will be cared for is in fact how women receive rights! The husbands are obligated to take care of them, and that is to their advantage. Do you think that happens here in this country? You bet it does, albeight on a more subtle level.

 

We say they don’t, but exactly how many years has it been in our society where women have had the right to vote???

You have used this sort of argument several times now. It appears to me as a non-sequitur. So this culture used to withhold the vote from woman and treat them as chattel. How many generations must we/I wait before we/I have the moral standing to say concerning treating women this way, "Hey, cut that out or I will kick your ass!"? (Of course that assumes, I can kick your ass.) I should let the burglar burgle because once upon a time I was a burglar?

I have used it repeatedly because the point doesn’t appear to being made. My point is not that we don’t have a right to say anything, but that we should try to be a little more reasoned in our understanding how these things occur as a natural evolution of societies.

 

Our social evolution is a direct result of our economics and open society. Honestly, if our economy took a major shit, where do you think women would fall on the statistics of the employed? You can bank on it that the majority of available jobs would go to men.

 

Pre-WW2 society had a very different economy, and the role of women in that society was very different than today. In that society the “little woman” stayed at home with the kids while dad was out working the available jobs, and hence women were considered less of participants in the business of economics and governance.

 

Sadly, what is “moral” to us is very much tied to what we can afford. Survival dictates what is ethical.

 

I don't see that anyone should accept immoral behavior simply because it happens to be cultural norm. Nor do I see why anyone should accept immoral behavior simply because it one's own culture isn't perfect.

Well, I’d like to agree with that, but the reality is when someone challenges what the norm is because something about the norm isn’t working. This then becomes the impetus of change, driven by the minority leaders and raised to public consciousness by those of the edges of that bell curve of society. Back to what I’ve been saying all along.

 

It’s fine for us to point out that what they do, we would never do, but be careful not to come across like a moral absolutist. That’s what the Christian fundamentalist does when he judges everything not them as immoral. What is morality but a code of conduct that works within a free society (as opposed to dictatorships).

 

I know that I'm something of a poor writer, but I'm sure I haven't said, "the power is not in the middle." In fact I'm saying the opposite. The power is in the middle, and it is the middle with its moderation that perpetuates the non-sense and the resulting aberrant behavior.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I know what you’re saying and I do agree in part. Granted the middle does become complacent and it takes the edges to stir up the pot. Agreed. But where I disagree is that radicalism without the stability of moderation in the middle is like an uncontrolled fire. Fire is useful if it is restrained. If it’s not, then it’s destructive. That’s when you have war, when all the intellectuals and voices of moderation disappear.

 

The power for change lies in influencing the middle to move. Again, true change, real change only happens when it’s a decision from within, not when your forced against the wall by radicals.

 

It was the middle that withheld the vote from woman and the radicals that secured it for them.

Well first thing with the voting issues and the middle, like I said above the edges start the conversation in the middle. The middle is the stabilizing factor, and when it’s time to move it takes the edges feeling out the landscape around it like some huge organic blob. The middle is stability. The values the middle had prior to the rise of woman’s rights were there originally because of the edges, the leaders who influenced the middle to adopt those values, which did so themselves because they seemed to make sense – for that time.

 

Now it was time again for the middle to move, and the voices of change hailed the way. But, like I said above, the economics and social situations in our culture are what drove that change, what drove those voices to rise up and seek change. And this is why I say that the Middle East has to go through the same process from within. Does there current social situation demand change? I don’t know, but I do know that that is what will drive change, not a bunch of Westerners sitting all high and mighty and passing judgment on how their societies evolved.

 

Do I like what I see over there? No, but I also understand it’s a little like shaming them for having brown eyes. Yes, they can change it, but there is a very real dynamic of interplay between economics, history, language, culture, religion, and environment that all participate in this cultural feedback loop. It’s not as easy as just shouting, “Stop it!” That’s more an expression of our feeling somewhat powerless in the face of all this. Evolution is not limited to biology.

 

This is why I see no common cause with moderate non-sense believers. The evils of religion will never depart from us as long as the middle feels all nice and fuzzy over religions basic stupid non-sense. It's time to make the middle feel bad about these things, wherever the middle may reside, or what ever its religion may be.

Sorry for the length of this, but this is a good conversation.

 

I’ll challenge you in thinking the middle in religion is not well aware of the non-sense of the extreme right fanatics. Very true indeed, they are far less prone to being vocal about their objection and very slow to rise to take action to stop it, but that is their nature. Society is made up of leaders and doers. The doers are more the statistical average, and that’s why I keep bringing up the bell curve. It’s statistics. It’s standard normal distribution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution , and you cannot level that out and get rid of it, ever. It’s what happens naturally. That’s why there will always be the middle average, and why there will always be the fringe right and left.

 

Yes, you are right that leaders need to rise up and speak out, but my argument is that force will never work! There are leaders in the middle to bridge that gap and call for reason to prevail that will speak to the middle. It’s the strongest voices of moderation that the middle will respond to, but the conversation gets started by the more radical voices.

 

I think you mistake what religion means to most people, doing what I did (and still do frequently) is filter what religion meant to us and how that we see it as contradictory nonsense, onto the mainstream. The mainstream never approached religion like us. And that concept is very hard for me to wrap my mind around sometimes.

 

Here’s a real point for consideration for a lot of us Ex-Fundamentalists. Why did we become fundamentalists? Why doesn’t everyone who calls themselves Christian? Do you see where I’m going?

 

For myself, and I can see it here on the forums quite a lot because I recognize it in myself, is a tendency towards black and white thinking. This is ‘true’, that is ‘false’; this is ‘right’, that is ‘wrong’; ‘Real versus false, etc, etc, etc. We look at people who walk into the front doors of a church and sing songs and pray, etc as being “deceived”. But they’re not, really.

 

What I mean by that is they don’t approach religion as truth, in the sense of scientifically accurate knowledge. It’s not about that for mainstream religious people. It’s about cultural truths, and sense of identity, a sense of purpose, a language to talk about the world, to hang their society’s value systems on. It’s not about discovering “what really happened!” It’s an irrelevant question.

 

But not to literalists. Literalists who join fundamentalist churches. Did fundamentalism make me a literalist, or did I adopt fundamentalism because I was one?

 

You see my point? Leaving Christianity is not leaving ourselves. We can quite easily become secular fundamentalists. I see it quite often in the real world I live in. It’s replacing one literalist view of right and wrong for another literalist view of right and wrong.

 

All I am doing here is trying to illustrate the fallacy of thinking like a literalist. Believe me, that tendency towards literalist thinking runs deep in my personality, but believing things are really black and what is what the true non-sense really is.

 

The extremist religionist is on the middle's continuum taking the middle's non-sense to its logical extreme. Suicide bombing on behalf of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would have a rather short self life. Why? It has no middle. Focus on the Family on behalf of the Invisible Pink Unicorn would be a rather poor organization. Why? No middle. The problem is not in the suicide bombers, the ayatollahs, or the bible thumpers. It is in the middle without which the former would have no place to be.

Actually I disagree. Standard normal distribution. I guarantee you that Focus on the Family’s organization is not a flat line distribution. There will be the middle group, and the more left and more right extremes within that sub-culture. Subcultures are still society and the rules of standard distribution still apply. But superimposed on the whole American culture, that little curve is centered more to the further extreme right of the greater bell curve of society.

 

They can spout non-sense all they want, as long as they don't act on it and they don't expect me to respect the non-sense. It is the sacred duty of a thinking person to point, laugh at, and otherwise cast derision on non-sense. Go ahead and declare women to be chattel, but don't expect me to give you any dignity, respect, or to take you seriously even if billions of others think the same.

I agree they shouldn’t act on something that violates my rights, but be careful not to judge other cultures customs by your own. That’s illogical really.

 

I don’t agree it is the sacred duty of a thinking person to ridicule others. If you want to see positive change, then you first have to start with an understanding of how these things work and the complexities of it. Otherwise, the ridicule becomes turned straight back on the one doing it and has absolutely no positive influence on change. It’s only a declaration of our own ignorance. That honestly is how I see other cultures reacting to us in our out-of-hand dismissive attitudes towards their culture. “How dare you,” is a typical reaction, and this is why.

 

You don’t have to agree with someone else’s ways to respect them. Respect to me does not equate with admiration or embracing something for myself. Respect means finding a way to extend an attitude of dignity to others. Certainly there are times we need to just so no to things, but we have to be very cautious to not just dismiss something we have very little understand of because it just seems “wrong” to us. Diplomacy will save us, not war.

[ExCBooster]

Hmm. I didn't choose an answer in the poll, because I think the answer is, fundamentally, "Mu": question cannot be answered "yes" or "no" because it's founded on a problematic premise. The concept of "inalienable rights" and whatnot is itself one founded in a particular culture, and not an actual universal. Now, it's pretty important to my culture, social contract theory and whatnot, but nonetheless a culture-bound construct. Human societies are founded on "white lies" like mythology and justice and sharing and taboos and everything. Some cultures have had radically different ideas and structures, and "white lies" of their own to support it. There's pretty much infinite variety, and it's Thunderdome rules, as to which survive. Of course, it actually does help to be polite, and compassionate.