Shocking! what happened to our culture

[Garnaqsi]

Wadani;846946 wrote:

Her assertion that Islam allows for religious freedoms and the building of Churches in Muslim countries does not mean she negates that the issue of religious freedoms is inextricably tied up with culture, which vary widely in terms of their oppenness and tolerance. In fact she states that if a certain Muslim country doesn't allow the bulding of churches it doesnt reflect the teachings of Islam, from which you shouldve easily been able to deduce her affirmation of the role of culture.

I didn't say she negates it either. My problem was with the following. She asked for an aspect of Western culture that's superior. The opponent replied with in that it allows 'religious freedom'. Her reply was 'first your argument was about culture, but now it is about religion?' This doesn't make sense as an answer because, as I've said, whether the culture of a particular society admits the existence of religious freedom is one of the merits of that culture.

 

Well for us Muslims, we don't subscribe to notions of moral relativity and complete laissez faire in the realm of social freedoms, because we have an objective (because it is divine) source from which we derive our moral and ethical precepts. So we believe in social justice within the legal frameworks of Islam, thus there is nothing ironic about wat she said, only that her definition of social justice is different than yours.

I don't understand how you can describe the source of your morality as objective 'because it's divine'. I was taught that a statement is objective if and only if the truth-values of all its propositions can independently be verified. Besides, if certain practice falls outside the vicinity of your moral framework, then the existence of that practice of that in some other society doesn't mean that society is 'crumbling'. For example, polygamy doesn't fall within my moral framework yet I don't characterise moral frameworks in which it does as 'backwards' or 'crumbled'.

 

In fact almost everything she listed demonstrates the fallacy of western cultural superiority, even when judged from a secular humanist standpoint. Can you explain how it doesn't?

I'm not aware of any secular humanists who view, say, homosexuality as a negative social behaviour -- nor who hold the view that Western moral values have 'decreased' (I would say most hold the opposite). The same goes for abortion. These views are more likely to be from conservative Christians than secular humanists. Almost all the top countries in any 'least corrupt countries' study are always Western. There might be a point in, say, aggressive foreign policy but it isn't that good. It's not that I think Western culture has no criticism; rather, it's that (a) better examples can be given than have been provided, and (b) it's far more progressive compared with the other concerned culture.

But this has nothing to do with the issue being discussed. The Nazis almost took over all of europe because of their scientific and technological supremacy, yet they were a rascist, murderous regime that cannot even begin to be described as progressive. Also, you must be well aware that all civilazations in this world wax and wane and that at one time not too long ago it was the Islamic world that was basking in the glories of a golden age, while Europe wallowed in the barbarity of the dark ages. It's only after the relatively recent industrial revolution in Europe that the West's hegemony was cemented, and we are already seeing the signs if its gradual demise and the rise of Asia and its partners (BRICS, etc).

The argument was along the lines of whether Western culture is more progressive than Arab culture; so the progress of human knowledge within both of these cultures is not just a point that should be considered, but rather, in my opinion, the point. If your point with Nazism is to illustrate that a scientifically progressive society can be a morally bad one, then I would say, while this might be true, Nazi Germany wasn't really scientifically progressive. They came to an academically progressive Germany and left a bad one. It went to a state that most academics had to leave and migrate to other countries.

 

I personally do no indentify with Arab culture, because simply im not an Arab, and I even resent it to a degree because its slowly supplanting aspects of my Somali culture, which I absolutely love. And i even agree with u that many aspects of western culture are superior to that of the arabs, like the issue of blatant racism for example. But nonetheless I disagree with u that the Western world is more culturally superior to that of the Eastern world, even including many non Muslim nation. I for one will be taking care of my parents in old age and will expect my kids to do the same for me, and I have my Somali/Islamic culture to thank for that. I would love to see where you end up in your 70's garnaqsi...lol.

I didn't go so far as to argue that Western world is culturally more progressive than Eastern world, but I think a case can be made for that as well (of course the inclusion of Persian/Indian/Oriental elements would make my case all the more difficult). With everything else in that paragraph, I more or less feel the same way. In my 70s I'll be a filthy billionaire married to a 25 year old Britney Spears lookalike blonde. The tragedy of course will be that she's waiting for me to die so that she inherits the wealth, and not that I'm in an old people's home somewhere, having last seen my only daughter a year ago when she visited and stayed for about 20 minutes, thereby living the ironies of embracing and arguing for Western culture, as you would wish. Hehe!

[Garnaqsi]

The-freeman;846968 wrote:

And to bring the discussion back to the original posting-two humans who appear to like each other and who express that like by sharing a kiss should not be something of concern unless one is fuelled by absolute dogma.

Very well said!

[Carafaat]

So when 2 people kiss publicy and we critize, then we are backwards to western culture.

And when they dont kiss in public and we dont critize this culture no kissing, then we still are backwards.

 

dadba ku daba lumiya cadaanka iyo western culture. thinking its superior. to me this sounds like real backwords thinking.

[Wadani]

I didn't say she negates it either. My problem was with the following. She asked for an aspect of Western culture that's superior. The opponent replied with in that it allows 'religious freedom'. Her reply was 'first your argument was about culture, but now it is about religion?' This doesn't make sense as an answer because, as I've said, whether the culture of a particular society admits the existence of religious freedom is one of the merits of that culture.

 

I see what your saying here.

 

I don't understand how you can describe the source of your morality as objective 'because it's divine'. I was taught that a statement is objective if and only if the truth-values of all its propositions can independently be verified. Besides, if certain practice falls outside the vicinity of your moral framework, then the existence of that practice of that in some other society doesn't mean that society is 'crumbling'. For example, polygamy doesn't fall within my moral framework yet I don't characterise moral frameworks in which it does as 'backwards' or 'crumbled'.

 

Since God created humans, his dictates are an objective source on morality, free from being sucesptible to the faulty logic and fickle whims and desires of humans. But this is the Muslim point of view, so I didnt expect you to agree anyway.

 

I'm not aware of any secular humanists who view, say, homosexuality as a negative social behaviour -- nor who hold the view that Western moral values have 'decreased' (I would say most hold the opposite). The same goes for abortion. These views are more likely to be from conservative Christians than secular humanists. Almost all the top countries in any 'least corrupt countries' study are always Western. There might be a point in, say, aggressive foreign policy but it isn't that good. It's not that I think Western culture has no criticism; rather, it's that (a) better examples can be given than have been provided, and (b) it's far more progressive compared with the other concerned culture.

 

Well that's why I said almost everything she listed would be good examples, because I know homosexuality for example is a perfectly benign act to a secular himanist, since it does not harm nor infringe upon the rights of others. As for abortion, on the other hand, and masked poverty, aggressive and predatory foreign policy, massacre of civilians, crippling of foreign economies under the guise of free trade/aid, and many of the other things she listed, any sincere person, regardless of worldview, would have a hard time not seeing the inherent evils in all of them.

 

The argument was along the lines of whether Western culture is more progressive than Arab culture; so the progress of human knowledge within both of these cultures is not just a point that should be considered, but rather, in my opinion, the point. If your point with Nazism is to illustrate that a scientifically progressive society can be a morally bad one, then I would say, while this might be true, Nazi Germany wasn't really scientifically progressive. They came to an academically progressive Germany and left a bad one. It went to a state that most academics had to leave and migrate to other countries.

 

It can't be the point, unless this knowledge has elevated the given culture into a superior station of morality, which is how I thought we were defining cultural superiority in this debate in the first place. The West is unmatched in its production of knowledge, no doubt, but I bet the people of hiroshima and nagasaki, and the people of Vietnam, and those of Iraq and Afghanistan, who were nuked, napalm bombed and carpet bombed into oblivion wish America never passed the iron age.

 

I didn't go so far as to argue that Western world is culturally more progressive than Eastern world, but I think a case can be made for that as well (of course the inclusion of Persian/Indian/Oriental elements would make my case all the more difficult). With everything else in that paragraph, I more or less feel the same way. In my 70s I'll be a filthy billionaire married to a 25 year old Britney Spears lookalike blonde. The tragedy of course will be that she's waiting for me to die so that she inherits the wealth, and not that I'm in an old people's home somewhere, having last seen my only daughter a year ago when she visited and stayed for about 20 minutes, thereby living the ironies of embracing and arguing for Western culture, as you would wish. Hehe!

 

, Thanks for the good laugh.

[Bluelicious]

Garnaqsi;846976 wrote:

In my 70s I'll be a filthy billionaire married to a 25 year old Britney Spears lookalike blonde. The tragedy of course will be that she's waiting for me to die so that she inherits the wealth, and not that I'm in an old people's home somewhere, having last seen my only daughter a year ago when she visited and stayed for about 20 minutes, thereby living the ironies of embracing and arguing for Western culture, as you would wish. Hehe!

Loooooooool I laughed.

 

You pervert why 25 and you actually like gold diggers?! Isn't it depressing to you that she would be with you because of your money and not because of you. Watch out she is gonna kill you to inherit all your money :eek:

 

Cause of death: hungry gold digger