This article makes incoherent points and I cant tell what the author is trying to communicate. I think he was just trying to say that cultural relativism and moral relativism are bullshit and liberals need to climb down from their ivory towers as those ideas are incompatible with liberalism. I agree with such a statement. Multiculturalism is also bullshit for similar reasons but depends on whether you define it as merely an observation of constituent subcultures within a larger society (which is fine) or as something that needs to promoted, protected, and enforced (which is not fine). The author uses the phrase Arab and Muslim world which is an entirely confusing idea that is commonly thrown around with no explanation of what this means other than a stand-in for general geographic areas. Do you ever hear of a Caucasian and Christian world or insert vague ethnicity and any religion world? The phrase is lazy shorthand and probably prejudicial, and I wish people would stop using it. Inhumanity is inhumanity and it makes no difference if it espoused by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or any person, group, religion, government, or culture. It is always unacceptable at all times in all places, full stop. Heres a thought experiment: If all religions magically disappeared overnight, would everyone lay down their arms and world peace be achieved? If your answer is yes, then Islam could be characterized as the most violent of the major contemporary religions. If your answer is no then it is not Islam that is violent, but those who use it as a means for violence. I have more to say on the topic, but I find the whole debate mind-numbing and I need a nap.
Posted on: Mon, 06 Oct 2014 21:46:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015