(05-05-2011, 07:17 AM)eppie Wrote: Our problem in the west is not with Islam it is with too old fashioned and traditional cultures.Why do you assume that newer is better? The same rush to progress that wiped out indigenous people, and clear cut virgin forests, is still at play today only its in perhaps in poorly thought through changes in gene manipulation, chemical additives in food, or in production or use of materials.
I'm probably one of those people you'd lump in with the "bad" Islam. I've grown more conservative as I get aged, but it's more a conservatism in realizing what we're destroying and what we've lost. And, I'm thinking about culture, art, language, and peoples experiences. I value the process of life, and the possibilities that a life can accumulate and inform the present and future. In your accounting, it seems people are good as long as they are willing to adopt your moral compass. Religion becomes a way to justify forcing people to comply with one particular world view, and this application of force is just as flawed as is the one in your more humanist, more atheistic culture.
So, what if... Allowing babies to be killed in the womb really is a murder? And, I'm not talking a religious dogma here, be it Islam, or Christianity. Our societies all prohibit the killing of innocents, and some even prohibit the killing of the extremely malevolent. Obviously, the baby is not much different a week before delivery, than a week after delivery. So, placement within the womb is not an indication of the legality to terminate. Then typically the debate devolves into which body functions must be operational, which is problematic because the two most usual integral parts, the beating heart, and the brain are formed very early. Often by the time a women realizes she is pregnant (5 - 6 weeks), the fetus has already formed into a human child. At this point, disposing of it merely due to the inconvenience seems to me a bit morally callous. The same argument (inconvenient or a waste of resources) could be made for many adults, whether they be mentally challenged, elderly, or just slackers.
The US is pretty split on many of these types of issues, but the "science" of the issue has very little to do to inform the debates. For the "traditionalists" the issue has more to do with giving one person the right to terminate the life of another person, or even in allowing a person to self terminate. They'd listen to the science of how the embryo develops, but at a larger level it is irrelevant to these issues. This is not merely a Christianity, or Islam thing. Taboo's exist in almost every culture on the planet regarding the taking of lives. Generally, in all these cultures, the moral side involves preserving life, and the dark side involves terminating life. Infanticide, and euthanasia are issues for a society to resolve, barring all religious dogma, since "living" is fundamental to participation. These are also groups within the society who have the least capability of protecting themselves from the tyranny of the majority. It's not much of a step from this, to relieving the inconvenient mentally infirm from their suffering existence (and saving us lots of wasted time and money).
Quote:In Holland we had a government a few years ago in which for the first time there was a kind of real christian majority (with one of the smaller more extreme parties being involved) and directly you saw that they started to break down our liberal laws, on euthanasia, abortion, drugs etc. (Something which obviously had strong support from the Islamic community as well by the way).
Extending the issue of rights further, I ask, what gives you (whether it be a person or government) the right to tell me what to do? This is an issue irregardless of political party or persuasion. One side will be complicit in allowing government to use coercive force to dictate compliance to their world view, but then are shocked when those same mechanisms they helped to build are used against their world view. You were fine for all those years where they suffered the injustice (in their minds) of the laws to which they had objections. As GG alluded to in his description of his conservative co-workers, my question is, such as with marriage, or with rearing children, what business is this of my government? Now, if they were being harmed somehow, the society has the need to protect its members (e.g. murder, assaults, torture, other abuses and exploitations). So for me, with marriage, or drug laws, the problem/questions I have are that they exist at all. Is it necessary, or is it meddling in how other people live? Why should we care that some people want to have many spouses?
To bring another real world example in how well intentioned laws, just should not be; here in the US we have the Patriot Act, passed as a knee jerk reaction to 911. It basically gives the government the power to spy on anything they deem of national security interest, even to the point of requiring libraries to reveal what books you check out. It is a {potential} mechanism of totalitarianism, and it doesn't matter who wields that power, it is unchecked and undermines our freedoms. The real patriots, like Benjamin Franklin, are spinning in their graves.
For me, I would prefer that the bonds which sew together a society be only those where without them the society falls apart. Of course, you'd need to account for those who are unable to care for themselves, but in general, I'd like to see the capable in our society carry their own water. And, yes (for GG), that means health care, and retirement as well. Let people take care of themselves (privatize), but create a need based safety net to keep people from suffering (basic food, housing, medical), even if it is from their own bad decisions.
And, I believe the opposite case is more at play, where the bonds of society are vast, strict and over controlling, creating a society of kept individuals, whose diversity of thought become an obstacle, and where their lives become cheap and disposable. This outcome is inevitable when you "enslave" your own people under the yoke of government, whether it be exercised by Washington, Amsterdam, or Tehran.
More directly on the topic; I have no issue with Islam, or any religious groups as long as politically and as expressed in their laws they respect the rights of people who are not like them to have freedoms within the society (which may or may not be dominated by them). OBL was the figurehead of a movement which represents an extremely repressive world view, and one that is in drastic conflict with Western values. We shouldn't confuse the pro-democracy movements around the Islamic world as any attempt at liberalization or embracing individual freedom. I fear they are empowering themselves to exchange their dictatorships for theocracies. The US AG has stated his legal opinion that the US had the right to invade Pakistan, and kill a Saudi Citizen for his involvement in the mass murder of US citizens. It appears that there was only the slightest interest in actually arresting him. Objectively, the outcome we have, including the rapid burial at sea, are well thought out to shape the opinions both for ourselves, our allies, and our enemies. I guess my concern here is that our societies are avoiding the broader discussion about the contrast of cultures. Our debate is being done with extraordinary rendition, torture, endless detention, CIA drone strikes, invading the privacy of all world citizens, and ultimately swift executions without trial. And... no one sees a problem with this?