[Luis Dias]

I remember people in the UK getting outraged at a UK teacher being expelled from an Islamic country for calling a Teddy Bear 'Mohammed', because we were trying to layer our own perception of legailty and our own culture over the top of another countries' one.

Because heaven forbid we have an opinion on what constitutes a good or a ridiculous rule.

[Flipside]

Of course we can have an opinion, but we have to remember that an opinion is all that it is. I'm not saying I consider what happened was right, but it was the law where she was. Trying to demand that she be treated differently because she was from another country and culture is no different to people who commit honour killings in countries that such things are considered to be simply murder demanding that their own culture requires they be treated differently.

[Luis Dias]

Trying to demand that she be treated differently because she was from another country and culture

I'd venture that the demand was made because the rule was just frakking ridiculous, oppressive and against anything western values stand for. Not because it was "different".

...is no different to people who commit honour killings in countries that such things are considered to be simply murder demanding that their own culture requires they be treated differently.

If you are incapable of seing the difference between calling a bear mohamed and a honour killing, I'll advise you to catch up your reading until you are able to do so, and until then any discussion we might have may just go over your head.

[Flipside]

And if you cannot hold a debate without attempting to lower yourself to infantile name calling, then you'll be taking a break.

The whole point of it was that she wasn't in the West, if she was in a country where our values and opinions applied then the law would be silly, she wasn't, she was in a country where a different set of rules applied, whether you agree with those rules or not are immaterial, time and time again it has been proven that attempting to force one cultures values onto another is doomed to far more trouble than it is intended to solve.

As far as the matter of calling a bear Mohammed is concerned, the mentality is the same, 'It isn't what I would do in that situation, ergo, it is wrong'. You know full well I am talking about the structure of the law, not the level of the crime, that is what is at issue here, anyone thinking they somehow have the moral high-ground over another culture is just a ticket to more trouble, as the events in Norway have shown.

[Pred the Penguin]

If you are incapable of seing the difference between calling a bear mohamed and a honour killing, I'll advise you to catch up your reading until you are able to do so, and until then any discussion we might have may just go over your head.

I do believe you need to read a bit more before you completely dismiss someones point. Misunderstandings like this are exactly what cause conflict...

[Luis Dias]

As a matter of fact, I do think that western values are way on higher moral ground than most islamic cultures, and I find your relativism appalling and self-defeating.

There are two things going on here. First, we may say that the person who commited that mistake of calling a bear a holy forbidden name was not clever. If the person wanted to avoid trouble, then yes, one must abide to the law, however ridiculous it is.

Second, we may not say that we should just stand down and watch the ridiculous consequences of ridiculous rules play out. Confrontation between moral values is a necessity, not "tolerance" between "different" moral landscapes, to which the real meaning is "do whatever you like and we'll do whatever we like", in which all morality dissolves and disappears (since morality is about the rules in which we all agree about the manners we interact with the society as a whole).

If you want to go down that path, sure. Be ready to face the accusation of being a moral anarchist though.

[Flipside]

Why? As I stated earlier, I didn't agree that calling a bear by the name of a Prophet was that big an issue, but then, I'm agnostic, and in the West, we use the name of the Son of God as an expletive on numerous occasions. Doesn't bother me, but to assume that because we can take something like that tongue-in-cheek means that everyone else must do so as well is little more than hubris on our own part. But in a similar mind, the Islamic culture has to accept that we do not operate by those same rules in our own countries, whether they like it or not.

It is the inability of both sides of the divide to accept the differences that causes half the problems in the world. Tolerance would be easy if everyone thought the same thing (as well as unneccesary), but change doesn't come around by standing in Ivory towers and pointing fingers saying 'You're wrong!'. It is a gradual process that can take hundreds, if not thousands of years, it's never easy on those at ground level, and the first thing that is required to bring it about is a respect of the current position of those you disagree with, if we are simply to write them off as 'wrong', then that has already built a wall between any possibility of finding a point of balance.

[Luis Dias]

Why? As I stated earlier, I didn't agree that calling a bear by the name of a Prophet was that big an issue, but then, I'm agnostic, and in the West, we use the name of the Son of God as an expletive on numerous occasions. Doesn't bother me, but to assume that because we can take something like that tongue-in-cheek means that everyone else must do so as well is little more than hubris on our own part. But in a similar mind, the Islamic culture has to accept that we do not operate by those same rules in our own countries, whether they like it or not.

Either you believe it to be morally sound, or you don't. If you do think it is morally sound, I see nothing wrong in trying to persuade everyone to follow your higher moral values. We could debate "tactics", we could debate if it works or not, but this is a separate judgement. You were criticizing the moral principle of it, and equating our "demands" with the most fanatic ones. Also, your whole perspective in this issue is written as if you could place yourself outside of any moral sphere, as if every moral perspective had equal value, and this is the POV that I find untenable.

It is the inability of both sides of the divide to accept the differences that causes half the problems in the world.

False equivalency. There is no symmetry between a culture that is tendencially tolerant and one that is intolerant. Tolerancy cannot tolerate "intolerance", because that would cause an inconsistency in its logical system itself. Consider tolerating "racism" or "religious discrimination", for example. It's not doable.

Tolerance would be easy if everyone thought the same thing (as well as unneccesary), but change doesn't come around by standing in Ivory towers and pointing fingers saying 'You're wrong!'. It is a gradual process that can take hundreds, if not thousands of years, it's never easy on those at ground level, and the first thing that is required to bring it about is a respect of the current position of those you disagree with, if we are simply to write them off as 'wrong', then that has already built a wall between any possibility of finding a point of balance.

That's a question about tactics and strategy. That is a different question. You accused people of being hubristic as if their morals were superior, and that was the point of contention between us, because it is obvious to me that yes, our morals are superior, and if you just forget about that, you may end up in dark places. To just accept that these people are oppressed by medieval rules may have a strategic argument, but not a moral one.

[Mika]

I recommend splitting this thread right now, right here before anything else happens.

[Flipside]

It's easy, when raised in Western society, with Western values, to assume that we have it right and 'they' have it wrong. There are many aspects of more fundamentalist aspects of Islamic society that I don't agree with, the attitude towards Women, certain attitudes towards non-Muslims etc, but then, for example, our attitude towards Women is far from perfect either, we just don't see it because we are living inside it and it seems 'normal' to us, and our attitude towards Muslims can frequently be based on stereotypes as well.

You believe Western culture is tolerant and respectful, and that theirs is intolerant and violent, I find myself wondering what someone living in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia would think of our culture? And, more interestingly, what their attitudes would be if they were living in Europe and we were the ones living in the Middle East? And what happens when you compare it to people living in Bahrain or Albania? Possibly there's more involved than 'Islam'?

As for me acting as though I am 'morally superior', I think you confuse superior with neutral, it's tempting to jump to conclusions, and yes, I do have opinions regarding certain practices, both in the East and the West, but the true arrogance would be assuming that everyone is 'me' inside a different head, that just isn't the case.

Edit: @Mika. Agreed, I didn't intend for this to get into a conversation about this, when someone starts throwing insults at me, I feel the need to respond

[Luis Dias]

It's easy, when raised in Western society, with Western values, to assume that we have it right and 'they' have it wrong. There are many aspects of more fundamentalist aspects of Islamic society that I don't agree with, the attitude towards Women, certain attitudes towards non-Muslims etc, but then, for example, our attitude towards Women is far from perfect either, we just don't see it because we are living inside it and it seems 'normal' to us, and our attitude towards Muslims can frequently be based on stereotypes as well.

Actually we do see it, because our values do include self-criticism and reflection upon liberal values and egalitarianism. We are obsessed with giving every possible viewpoint its place on our society. This value system is reflected on your worry, for example. To say that our society doesn't have concerns about these issues is just mind-boggling, have you really checked the past 100 years of our society's history?

You believe Western culture is tolerant and respectful, and that theirs is intolerant and violent

I did not say this. I believe western culture is striving to be tolerant and respectful and made a great walk.

..., I find myself wondering what someone living in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia would think of our culture?

This is a good question, ask what a society as the Saudi one, where women aren't even allowed to drive a car, may think of ours. Honestly, I am merely interested in knowing them in detail because of anthropological curiosity, and not for any clues on how to improve ours. And if you really think you can "learn" from them, please then do so. What exactly moral epiphany do these people have that have not penetrated our culture?

And, more interestingly, what their attitudes would be if they were living in Europe and we were the ones living in the Middle East? And what happens when you compare it to people living in Bahrain or Albania? Possibly there's more involved than 'Islam'?

There's a lot involved, but you are the one bringing it up. I did not speak about the religion per se, nor its implications, etc. I was only referring to these moral values that are prima facie ridiculous, that we know them to be ridiculous because we ourselves have grown past them ages ago, just like we abolished slavery or peadophilia.

As for me acting as though I am 'morally superior', I think you confuse superior with neutral, it's tempting to jump to conclusions, and yes, I do have opinions regarding certain practices, both in the East and the West, but the true arrogance would be assuming that everyone is 'me' inside a different head, that just isn't the case.

You do not act as if you are morally superior at all, in fact you think you can act as if you can be outside any moral landscape. What you fail to notice is that this activity of yours is an unwelcomed and unfortunate side-effect of a very deep value of western societies, namely tolerance, and so while you think you are being neutral, in fact what you are doing is trying to do "tolerance" all the way down, even reaching the level where its own contradictions implode the notion itself.

[LordPomposity]

This is a good question, ask what a society as the Saudi one, where women aren't even allowed to drive a car, may think of ours. Honestly, I am merely interested in knowing them in detail because of anthropological curiosity, and not for any clues on how to improve ours. And if you really think you can "learn" from them, please then do so. What exactly moral epiphany do these people have that have not penetrated our culture?

Speaking as an American, it took a Muslim President to finally allow gays to openly serve in the military over here. So there's that.

[Flipside]

Where did I say we could 'learn' from those aspects of their culture? I said that cultures merge and blend over time, which is something entirely different. I have not classed their culture as either superior or inferior, merely different, and that the first step towards change of any description is to accept that fact rather than merely claim that they are 'wrong' as the be all and end all of the conversation.

With regards to driving cars, one could equally argue that Lithuania, a member of both the EU and NATO, and the fastest growing economy in either, required women to have gynaelogical tests to drive cars up until 9 years ago. Yes, in many aspects of social freedoms these countries are behind us, and that hasn't been entirely un-encouraged by the 'free' world.

Your entire assumption seems to be based on the misconception that I somehow admire or agree with these values, which is complete rubbish, but I do accept that they exist and that we have to deal with the world as it is in order to encourage it to become what it could someday be. It's not really a question of tolerance, it's a question of dealing with intolerance in a manner that does not require us to take on the aspects of the very monster we are fighting.

[Flipside]

This is a good question, ask what a society as the Saudi one, where women aren't even allowed to drive a car, may think of ours. Honestly, I am merely interested in knowing them in detail because of anthropological curiosity, and not for any clues on how to improve ours. And if you really think you can "learn" from them, please then do so. What exactly moral epiphany do these people have that have not penetrated our culture?

Speaking as an American, it took a Muslim President to finally allow gays to openly serve in the military over here. So there's that.

He's not a Muslim.

[Luis Dias]

Where did I say we could 'learn' from those aspects of their culture? I said that cultures merge and blend over time, which is something entirely different. I have not classed their culture as either superior or inferior, merely different, and that the first step towards change of any description is to accept that fact rather than merely claim that they are 'wrong' as the be all and end all of the conversation.

It's not the end of the conversation. It's the start. It's not the start of one's judgement, but the inevitable conclusion of it, if one's honest to himself.

With regards to driving cars, one could equally argue that Lithuania, a member of both the EU and NATO, and the fastest growing economy in either, required women to have gynaelogical tests to drive cars up until 9 years ago. Yes, in many aspects of social freedoms these countries are behind us, and that hasn't been entirely un-encouraged by the 'free' world.

At least I got you to admit there is such a thing as a "direction" towards something "positive" wrt morality. Now you are also saying that we have encouraged medieval tendencies... well I'll be darned.

Your entire assumption seems to be based on the misconception that I somehow admire or agree with these values, which is complete rubbish, but I do accept that they exist and that we have to deal with the world as it is in order to encourage it to become what it could someday be. It's not really a question of tolerance, it's a question of dealing with intolerance in a manner that does not require us to take on the aspects of the very monster we are fighting.

Well then you concede the point that our moral values are superior, that this "is not the question at hand", but that rather the question we should be asking is how we convince half of the world that this is in fact so, and to make them aspire to the same things we do now.

Alright then, we have managed to work it out.

[Luis Dias]

This is a good question, ask what a society as the Saudi one, where women aren't even allowed to drive a car, may think of ours. Honestly, I am merely interested in knowing them in detail because of anthropological curiosity, and not for any clues on how to improve ours. And if you really think you can "learn" from them, please then do so. What exactly moral epiphany do these people have that have not penetrated our culture?

Speaking as an American, it took a Muslim President to finally allow gays to openly serve in the military over here. So there's that.

I'll take it as a joke, Lord, and refuse to even consider the possibility of you being serious about this.

[LordPomposity]

This is a good question, ask what a society as the Saudi one, where women aren't even allowed to drive a car, may think of ours. Honestly, I am merely interested in knowing them in detail because of anthropological curiosity, and not for any clues on how to improve ours. And if you really think you can "learn" from them, please then do so. What exactly moral epiphany do these people have that have not penetrated our culture?

Speaking as an American, it took a Muslim President to finally allow gays to openly serve in the military over here. So there's that.

He's not a Muslim.

This is a good question, ask what a society as the Saudi one, where women aren't even allowed to drive a car, may think of ours. Honestly, I am merely interested in knowing them in detail because of anthropological curiosity, and not for any clues on how to improve ours. And if you really think you can "learn" from them, please then do so. What exactly moral epiphany do these people have that have not penetrated our culture?

Speaking as an American, it took a Muslim President to finally allow gays to openly serve in the military over here. So there's that.

I'll take it as a joke, Lord, and refuse to even consider the possibility of you being serious about this.

Poe's Law is batting one for two today.

[Flipside]

If you remember, the original thread was regarding a guy in Norway who was shooting people because he believed there was a 'hidden conspiracy' to convert Europe to Islam, and was a response to a post by Mika talking about honour killing and how some immigrants were stating they should be tried under Islamic law.

Even the post of mine you quoted part of stated that you could not have two disparate legal systems running in the same country, whether that be a Western system applied in a country under a more fundamentalist version of Sharia Law, or a fundamental Sharia system in a country that used European laws, and the irony that the UK was criticised for having an opinion that the rules applied were silly because it was a Muslim country and yet when the situation is the other way round, wanting a different legal system to apply doesn't seem so silly to those who would benefit from it.

I've never said anything different throughout, in short, it seems to me that you chose to take a single sentence from my entire post out of context and attack me for it without actually reading the rest of the post:

As for Crime, I think the problem here is that, in no country, will 2 disparate law-systems work in tandem. I remember people in the UK getting outraged at a UK teacher being expelled from an Islamic country for calling a Teddy Bear 'Mohammed', because we were trying to layer our own perception of legailty and our own culture over the top of another countries' one. I seem to recall the UK was called a few names over this by various Islamic factions, so I always find it rather worrying when they cannot apply the same mentality to themselves.

I've bolded the part you quoted.

[Flipside]

This is a good question, ask what a society as the Saudi one, where women aren't even allowed to drive a car, may think of ours. Honestly, I am merely interested in knowing them in detail because of anthropological curiosity, and not for any clues on how to improve ours. And if you really think you can "learn" from them, please then do so. What exactly moral epiphany do these people have that have not penetrated our culture?

Speaking as an American, it took a Muslim President to finally allow gays to openly serve in the military over here. So there's that.

He's not a Muslim.

This is a good question, ask what a society as the Saudi one, where women aren't even allowed to drive a car, may think of ours. Honestly, I am merely interested in knowing them in detail because of anthropological curiosity, and not for any clues on how to improve ours. And if you really think you can "learn" from them, please then do so. What exactly moral epiphany do these people have that have not penetrated our culture?

Speaking as an American, it took a Muslim President to finally allow gays to openly serve in the military over here. So there's that.

I'll take it as a joke, Lord, and refuse to even consider the possibility of you being serious about this.

Poe's Law is batting one for two today.

Flipside's law is batting for a warning for trolling.

<second quote edited out>

Deliberately inflammatory posts are against Forum rules

[LordPomposity]

My apologies if I offended anyone with that joke.

EDIT: However, satire ≠ trolling.