All Cultures are Valid… Except Ours!

So, an academic topic I really enjoy is cultural anthropology. I find it extremely fascinating to study what makes up elements of culture, and the cultural variation around the globe. Perhaps the most fascinating thing to me, and I’m sure many anthropologists is the idea that an idea or concept in our worldview, can seem so “normal” we take it completely for granted and feel it’s just the way the world works, not culturally bound. For example, our idea of time as linear, we can go forward in time, but not back to most, including me is just another law of the universe. However, some cultures see time as cyclical, which to many of us in the West, is a completely foreign concept! Even things such as a shared word meaning between two languages that can be translated the same, can have different definitions to different cultures! Confused??? The word in each language would be translated the same such as “bara” in Ancient Hebrew, is “to create” in English, but in the West, we think of creation as “ex-nihilo”, out of nothing, you create something by putting materials together for instance, whereas in the Ancient Hebrew conception of creating, it really meant more in the sense of everything is there, but they reorganize it all to bring order from chaos. Think of this analogy: We can “create” a closet out of wood and plaster, or we could “create” order within the closet by rearranging all our misplaced junk inside of it! Point is, much of what is true in people’s worldviews are relative, not always the same objective way of thinking. I love studying these cool differences, and appreciate the wide variety of thought within the human species! It would be quite boring if we were all the same!

However, issues do arise when cultural differences are more of a moral and ethical nature. Values we reject as deeply unjust and unfair do not sit well with our cultural view of the matter. It’s hard to be the objective anthropologist when you’re morally offended! Therefore, they came up with the principle of cultural relativism, which basically is the idea we should’t judge other cultures for their way of life, nor feel ours is “superior” and we’re above the rest of the world. This is all fine and dandy, within scholarship and objective study, but what about when cultural clashes happen in our own lives???

Many cultures coming over to this country are in opposition to many of our values, such as a more egalitarian, democratic society. They are more hierarchical and rigid, whereas we want more social mobility and equality. They want to treat women as property, and we strive for a more egalitarian view of them as fellow humans, endowed with the same rights as we have and ought to have the same autonomy. They don’t want a sense of cultural relativism, and feel theirs is the only “right” way of doing things. We try to Related imageembrace more differences between peoples. They want unquestioned authority, whereas we want the ability to hold our leaders accountable. They want only one faith, while we enshrined separation of church and state. They want to speak their native language, yet demand we accommodate them instead of learning ours too to integrate with us. They want only to have their own ways, never thinking they could embrace both our ways and their own. They want to use brute force and fear, rather than diplomacy to settle disputes. They want to treat their children as property as well, while we want to nurture them into becoming autonomous adults. This isn’t the whole of the matter, but many examples of how Western values and other values don’t quite mix as well… Many speak of a “culture war” between the West and many other 3rd world countries, and its true, we want one thing, they want another.

The defenders of such 3rd world values say, but, isn’t much of this culturally relative? Who’s to say who has  the “better” values? Aren’t we just being bigoted when we impose our ways onto others? Those points would be valid, except that our way HAS shown to be more beneficial in objective, not just moralistic or culturally dependent terms. Think of it: more 3rd world immigrants come to the West, not their own fellow 3rd world countries. People have given up the culture and language they were born into, lost everything just to come over to the West! Why??? What would make us take such a drastic leap of faith? Our science has lead to technologies, medical care, and progress that has decreased mortality rates across the board at all ages! We now can treat disease and illness. People have a much higher standard of living over here. Compared to countries where slavery is still around, ethnic and cultural minorities and women are 3rd class citizens, a disease can kill you, infant mortality is sky high, people are slain for being “heretics”, dictators rule with an iron fist over the helpless people, corruption is rife, and so on and so on, Western values of democracy and equality and more technology to better people’s lives sounds a lot better for everyone! The data is in, and shows a thriving culture based on Western values here and abroad! This isn’t merely a moral argument on how things should be because I said so, but based on human quality of life supported by data!

The radical left, however, is not swayed. They still want to drudge up some of our more unflattering past of being imperialist and intolerant ourselves towards other cultures, but that has PAST! We’re far more tolerant and aware of being culturally relativist now more than ever! They want to claim that we must be “tolerant” of these 3rd world cultures coming into the West, but create a double standard when it is applied to our own culture!  Think of it:

  • We’re not allowed to say we want our culture to remain governed by our values, yet the people coming here from the 3rd world are allowed to live by theirs over here!
  • We are not allowed to proselytize our values over in THEIR country, yet they are free to do so in OURS!
  • We can’t impose our morality on them, yet they can on us when it’s convenient!
  • They can live by their own laws, in their own insular communities, and be governed by their own values, but when we demand that too, we’re “white supremacists”…
  • They can worship their own faith exclusively without criticism in their community, yet we’re held to the higher principle freedom of religion for all, yet they are exempt!
  • We must accept that cultural differences do exist, and are equally valid as ours, yet they are allowed to degrade ours!
  • Even a more innocuous example, other cultures all over the world are allowed their own standards of beauty for men and women, yet we are criticized for having our own cultural ideal of beauty because that’s not “body positive”!
  • They can think freely whatever they want, and be defended by “cultural relativism” while our cultural ideas are scrutinized and nit picked to the max!
  • When they treat others, women, minorities, those of lower social status, etc… as 3rd class citizens and property over here, we are supposed to shut up and accept that as “their way’, yet if we ever tried to pull a stunt like that, we’d have to answer for it!
  • The “West” is intolerant, rigid, and moralistic, yet other Non-Western cultures are put on a pedestal of resistance to the West and portrayed by the Left dare I say, as “noble savages” (which is ironic since that’s an imperialist stereotype in itself!)
  • Western medicine and science is devalued for more “natural” cures from 3rd world places which have no scientific basis!

When do we get our share of cultural relativism??? The principle goes BOTH ways, people! If we have to tolerate them, and all we disagree with culturally of theirs, why aren’t the same arguments made in our defense too when we’re criticized? Overall, the radical liberal snowflakes only have “tolerance” and relativism for what they pick and choose! Our culture is a-okay to bash, degrade and deride! It’s also amazing, I’ll add as my final point, that many 3rd world values are exactly what the Left accuses us of having that is immoral, which for rabid liberals, is quite the irony!!! 😉

Image result for ben garrison immigration
The hypocrisy of the Left is astounding when it comes to cultural relativism!
Advertisements

30 thoughts on “All Cultures are Valid… Except Ours!

  1. Please provide specific examples for each of the bulleted list. They look suspiciously like the positions held by the “liberal” of the fevered conservative imagination. If you are right, should be easy to provide examples.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I can’t believe that you don’t see what has happened to the cultural and political climate in the west. The double standards and bigotry of low expectations from the far left is palpable. Try criticising anything about Islam and if your comment is allowed to remain, you will be called a racist Nazi, no matter how reasonable and logic based your opinion. Western feminists are losing their minds over manspreading but don’t seem to care about their sisters in Trans who are forced to wear hijab. Look at a map for where women’s rights are best. You will see where the real patriarchy still exists in the world, but try telling this to friends who are far-left. Again, you will be called racist/prejudiced/fascist etc. I’m a left wing libertarian of the old school. I believe in true equality and truth and logic. We should be allowed to criticise EVERYONE and everything. Excluding or protecting people from criticism because they are brown is racism, no two ways about it. The left of today, or the far-left as I call it has become positively ORWELLIAN, which is incredibly ironic to me.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. So many logical fallacies in this piece of shit, I lost count. Every single premise is false. Not only that, the writing itself is technically terrible. If this were submitted in an Anthropology class, it would get a D.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Specific examples with quotes please…. And degrading yourself to using profanity gets your argument NOWHERE 😉 Let me guess? You got triggered… I usually don’t approve comments with explicit profanity, but I love to show my readers how unhinged some of you can get!

      Liked by 1 person

  3. I agree; it’s such a paradox, almost of Orwellian proportions (it’s supposed to be embraced by everyone despite being obviously contradictory). These are very complicated matters and should be freely analysed, without a knee-jerk reaction.

    There are some side issues however. One, some people emigrate to the West out of sheer necessity (they live in areas where their lives are threatened or in abject poverty). Anyone would do the same in that situation, just to be safe, and perhaps not even considering the cultural adaptations needed to be made down the line. Secondly, it takes time for people to adapt; it’s unlikely for it to happen overnight. The current clash of cultures is partly due to the number of people who have come recently and haven’t had time to adapt. And thirdly, the rise in fundamentalism is also caused by current wars, as opposed to a relatively peaceful situation. A few decades ago this was not an issue. Also, there is an upside for those who wish to detach from those cultures and wouldn’t have been able to do so in their own countries; they enjoy freedom and a degree of protection (such as ex-Muslims).

    The other thing is that some on the conservative side, who talk about saving Western culture, are actually allergic to the progress that has been made and would like to return to the 1950s. Their views in essence are not that different from those of immigrants from backward cultures (treating women as second-class citizens, homophobia, wanting to involve religion in state matters etc). Which is a paradox in itself.

    The UK has also taken steps to protect vulnerable people in those communities (campaigning against FGM, forced marriages and honour killings, and jailing people who do or attempt to do this to their family members).

    The worst thing to do is to sweep these issues under the carpet and pretend they are not happening. That is not the way to support that community, when its most vulnerable members suffer in silence.

    Liked by 2 people

      • I guess it depends on what each person is fleeing from, Obviously some people emigrate for economical or safety reasons, including political persecution. Religion is very difficult to shake off (including for Christians), Then they feed the indoctrination to their children and perpetuate these so-called values.

        So it’s not really an us vs them situation; it’s way more complicated.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. EXCELLENT!! I love that you come at your topics from a basis in your own education, and it reflects exactly what I learned in anthropology classes. I especially liked how you said, “They want only to have their own ways, never thinking they could embrace both our ways and their own.” Because that’s what I did when I came to live in Canada! I didn’t resist assimilating into their culture up here, though admittedly it’s not that different from the US. But they DO do things differently and you either learn or get left behind. Besides that, I WANTED to learn about Canadian culture and feel I have blended my American ways with it in a way that doesn’t offend the people I have to live amongst. The way I saw it was, I’m coming into THEIR country, and it was up to ME to assimilate, not THEM. They, as a collective, outnumber me and I saw it as my job to fit in and would’ve felt completely presumptive to expect this country to bend to such a visible minority. So it ticks me off pretty much when Trudeau’s Liberals allow these refugees to come in and set up ghettos where Sharia Law is practiced in opposition to the Canadian government. But I think Ol’ Justin overplayed that hand because Canadians are joining the Great Awakening now and seeing what Trudeau is trying to do, which is stuff ballot boxes with refugee votes for the Liberal Party. Same plan as American Liberals. If you can’t win a re-election and know it, let in tens of thousands of refugees and they’ll vote for you out of gratitude. Until they take over your local councils and start trying to force Sharia on your city. You only have to look at London’s Muslim mayor and how dirty and violent the city has gotten because they think they run the entire city from the Lord Mayor’s Office. It’s an insane way of getting votes. I just hope Americans wake up and put a stop to this crap before we find our entire government has been subverted while we’re busy trying to make every race and individual feel “special”!

    Liked by 3 people

    • The nuance would be that it’s not about entire groups being given an advantage, but those in the groups which control the others. Those who are subjected to that control would benefit from integration and their rights being respected.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Notice with the article is truly about and what you described. He who immigrates must submit. My grandfather did this in the decades where America asked for immigration from the Chinese, Middle East and others. It all worked out, but the reason was due to the approach and attitude. You assimilate to the culture.

      What they have destroyed is American’s power culture, instead demonizing Americans for wanting to protect what they own. Instead, it’s an attack on citizens, and the law and judgment of judges allows for criminals to get off while the murder children. This is all psychological warfare to send the message to Americans, you are a victim of your own country and those that come here have more rights and will dominate, shut up and take it!

      Those that come here come here with the attitude of taking their arrogant culture and forcing it upon us as if Americans could care less what their beliefs are. We have a mind your own business way of life, hence why we appreciate and have no conflict with the Asians that come to this country. Notice there never is a narrative about Asian immigration even though they come here legally and illegally in droves. You need to understand why to get to the truth.

      These people who come here with their arrogance are troublemakers, plain and simple. There are only two types of immigrants, those that mind their own business, and those who are troublemakers.

      Lastly, the ironic thing about our country is the Trumpian whites who everyone hates, the deplorables are really rowing the same boat as African Americans, they just don’t know it or acknowledge it. They are fighting for their lives, and color is the only thing separating them from the onslaught of the true enemy those that come here illegally and stir up trouble.

      Until we set the tone back to, assimilate or get out, this will never be resolved. A passive approach which the Left wants, just doesn’t work for citizens and those who have come here legally.

      Liked by 2 people

      • You bring up some good points! Also sorry for the delay in approving your comment! It went in my spam by mistake! Good thing I check! Censorship??? I don’t know… As to your cogent points, I agree!!! We need to stop tolerating their 3rd world values trashing our country! I don’t mind them having their own music, food, dress, etc… as long as it doesn’t infringe on other’s rights to express themselves freely. Oppressing women, children, anyone who they deem too different, etc… should not be tolerated here in a democracy! And of course, the double standard is infuriating in that our culture would be criticized heavily if it does what they do scott free!!!

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Fellow lover of cultural anthropology, here!

    Cultural relativism, as a concept, was something I first encountered in my teen years, if I remember correctly. In that early stage, it kind of made sense. It was a way of acknowledging how external forces, out of any group’s control, affects culture. It’s amazing how much geography, for example, can affect culture, as does climate. Not understanding that led to early British explorers going into the equatorial zone and being aghast at the local people’s lack of clothing, and thinking they were lazy for taking naps during the day. Meanwhile, they sweated it out in their heavier clothing, designed for a British climate, and laboured in the hottest part of the day, while the locals thought they were nuts. “Only mad dogs and Englishmen come out in the noonday sun.”

    Cultural relativism has changed, and has become more extreme. Yes, those Englishmen believed the local population were immoral for their lack of clothing, and lazy for staying out of the hottest part of the day, but that was based on lack of information. They didn’t know why people did what they did, and could only compare to their own experience.

    We don’t have that, anymore. Our information age allows us to have the information necessary to say, “oh, they wear flowing robes because, in a desert climate, it helps keep the body cooler.” However, that means we also have the information to say, “black absorbs heat, so wearing black robes in a desert climate is like being in an oven. Forcing women to wear black robes in the desert heat, while men can where white or whatever they want, is cruel and inhumane.”

    To the modern cultural relativist, it’s all about the “judgementalism” of the second comment, instead of the objective observation of the first part. Who are we to “judge” whether a culture that forces women to walk around in heat-trapping clothing, that is also responsible for the rise in rickets, is good or bad? Who are we to “force” women to not be forced to cover their faces in public? That is us imposing our culture in theirs!

    The interesting thing about this sort of mentality is that, ultimately, it infantilizes the very groups it tries to “protect” from the evil, judgemental Westerners, and is really quite racist. Basically, the cultural relativists are saying that certain race based groups are too stupid to understand objective truths, therefore they should be allowed to continue their harmful cultural practises. Also, these same race based groups should not be allowed to adopt or adapt to other cultures. They must all remain frozen within their own cultures. It traps them. So while those who subscribe to the modern versions of cultural relativism are convinced they are somehow helping or defending these other groups, they are, in reality, holding them in contempt, as being incapable of change or improvement.

    Here’s the thing about culture. It is like a living thing. It grows, adapts, and thrives – or it stagnates and dies.

    And some cultures deserve to die.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. We are tribal by nature and scientists tell us that homosapiens came out of Africa about 100,000 years ago. Don’t get the impression we are a pure species the early hominids interbred and millions of us have Neanderthal DNA as a small percentage in our genes. I was quite shocked when my oldest son pointed out he had Neanderthal DNA from his recent genome test.
    The early tribes fought for territory and they were not hampered by the modern ethics of battle , a glance at the old testament soon confirms that. In the modern world tribes turned into nations and within those nations were tribal groups confirming the wise old saying ‘ birds of a feather stick together.
    The Romans were superbly smart and realised if they incorporated those they conquered into the Roman Tribe they could take over the world and they did just that. Remember at the very heart of the Roman success was the incredible army and weaponry keeping the Hun at bay.
    Modern civilisation started in Europe and was a result of the industrial revolution carried along by the advance of science. The great tribes of Europe still fought tooth and nail for supremacy ; Spanish , English , French all wanting a piece of the newly discovered America. Don’t be fooled into believing the native Americans were a peace- loving , nature – embracing people living in perfect harmony . They were Waring tribes seeking the best for their own.
    It was not long before the English were fighting their own settlers in the war of independence and not to long after one half of America was fighting the other half — such is human nature.
    Culture arose because of religion and customs and it is not easy to overcome and rules many of today’s nations who cannot see that democracy is the best form of government although it is far from perfect.
    It it interesting that many from other cultures choose to live in western democracies , admitting by their actions that it is the freest and safest type of government. If we live in a democracy we must live by the rules and those rules must supersede any religious rules .

    Liked by 4 people

  7. You also get their crazy idea which is opposed to science. There is no truth. In a popular phrase it is, that may be true to you but not to me

    The only truth the left has is,

    There is no truth, except for the ideas being push by the left today.

    A statement that is opposed to any idea of science. If we can’t agree on basic truths even we can’t even conduct any science with precision becaue maybe little gremlins make us sick. Basic elements are continuing to make new life around us all the time it is where new diseases come from. The silliness won’t end.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Science is objective by its nature but morals are subjective and depend on your religion or lack of it , or on your cultural background .
      For example I have no objection to killing someone in the cause of war but some are religious objectors and believe killing is wrong.
      I have no objection to homosexuality but some Christians believe it is wrong.
      In a democracy the government decides these matters and by how much they can allow our beliefs to rule our behaviour ; that is why democracies are the best form of government they allow the greatest individual freedom.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Though as are entering more of a police state all the time. As gov’t wanta to rule feelings. It is not just the right to be gay or be employed and be gay.

        They want to make it illegal to even have a view that certain things are less logical or have dangerous side effects if people aren’t told to be careful. Ex carefree sex without lots of precautions if you have many partners leads to dangerous health epidemic. But it isn’t fun for the left to stress dangers of that so they gloss it over or remove it from the curriculum so five year olds can learn how to masturbate, because apparently some people think they were doing that at such a young age so all kids must be forced into that lifestyle of knowledge at a young age

        Liked by 3 people

      • There will always be laws we don’t like and people doing things we don’t like but as citizens we must obey the laws as decided by the democratic government . In a democracy we can campaign to try to change the law , this has just made cannabis legal in Canada. If I took a lucrative job in Saudi Arabia I would not drink alcohol because it is the law in that country. Many behaviours are dangerous but not illegal , smoking is a classic example but slowly governments are taking up the case against smoking.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Science (the method) is neutral. It is just a way of gathering and testing information. The evidence of that information may lead to certain results, but those results are only as good as the data we have. If new data emerges, we should be able to change our views, based on the new results. Drawing conclusions based on that information is often coloured by personal biases and preconceived notions. Scientists are not immune to that, and it has nothing to do with religion, even if people sometimes use religion to justify their conclusions.

        We can, however, draw moral conclusions based on evidence. To use the example of homosexuality; same sex attraction is an individual thing and largely irrelevant to those not directly involved. Acting on those attractions, however, is different. We can look at the data that shows us the many health problems sexually active gay men have, directly as a result of their sexual activities. We can look at the data that shows us the very high domestic abuse rates in lesbian couples. Etc. Based on the data alone, we can conclude that actively engaging in homosexual acts causes harm, or that certain homosexual relationships are more prone to violence, and that these things have far reaching affects, far beyond what individuals do to and with each other. We can recognise this harm and conclude the actions that cause that harm are morally wrong. Many religions simply recognise that harm and put a label of “sin” on it.

        As for democracy, I am a strong proponent of democratic processes, but I also recognise its limits. A pure democracy becomes a tyranny of the majority. It needs checks and balances. The US has that in the electoral college. There is no pure democracy anywhere, and that’s not a bad thing. The more democratic a nation is, the freer is typically is. Right up until it suddenly isn’t, and the majority uses it to oppress the minority.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Your estimation of science is wrong ; it is a huge edifice of knowledge built up from the time of the enlightenment and today it virtually runs the world . If electricity was to disappear just think of the consequences all the lights go out we return to the eighteenth century. The problem with science is it is not moral and can be used for good or evil the outcome depends upon us.
        Consider your example of homosexuality ; no doubt it can lead to health problems and it is up to the government concerned to weigh up the cost of freedom against the damage it may cause. Alcohol can lead to all sorts of problems ; once again it is a democratic decision.
        Mystic job is to vote for those who maintain the law , which incidentally is a balance in all the multitude of cases.
        Your point about the majority oppressing the minority has always happened but in the last few decades more and more minority rights have been upheld in democracies . To name a few gay rights, equal pay rights for women , freedom of speech for minority viewpoints.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Science is two things: a method of investigation, or a field of endeavor. Nothing more. Humans managed to achieve all sorts of things before what we now call science existed. In fact, we can thank the RC Church for modern science. The belief that one could learn more about the Creator, by studying creation. The belief that if there are laws (such as the laws of physics), there must be a law giver. The belief that there is objective truth. Etc. All of these were founded on religious beliefs.

        Historically, we have no always had the majority oppressing the minority. Quite the opposite. The minority (such as certain castes, nobility, or those with enough wealth and/or power) oppressed the majority (lower castes, the poor, the weak).

        A tyranny of the majority, however, is not the same thing. In a pure democracy, with no checks and balances, whichever group is the loudest and most convincing will sway voters. Right now, we have the LGBT activists, who have already got equality, now demanding special privileges and are forcing their “morality” on everyone else, while at the same time, using their power to deny others their free speech rights, and even turning thoughts into crimes (the same thing can be said about abortion activists, and pussy hat wearing “feminists”).

        You have mentioned democracies upholding minority rights, such as gay rights. Let me put this to you. In Canada, where I live, the government redefined and legalized gay “marriage” (alternatives, such as civil unions, were rejected out of hand). This went against what the majority wanted. We never got to vote on it. This was not democratically decided. This was imposed on us. If it had been done democratically, the majority (based on polls) were fine with couples having legal recognition of their domestic partnerships, but not with legally redefining marriage to do it.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Thinking about it you are quite right about those in power being the main leaders in moral decisions regarding behaviour , that is why a more representative government was urgently needed. Some kings and leaders thought they were above the law and even today the wealthy often break the law with impunity.
        The tragedy of the Catholic Church was that it failed to stop the march of progress although it made tremendous efforts to do so. The reason was that it felt the reins of control were slipping from its grasp and that indeed was what happened. Once the enlightenment got under way the power of the Catholic Church was broken and the reformation was under way big time .
        With the advance of science the industrial revolution quickly followed and the most destructive invention the world has ever known the internal combustion engine which has polluted the world.
        Every scientific advance has brought advantages along with disadvantages ; to name a few radio activity gave us cancer therapy but also the atomic bomb, the gun gave us the power to hunt for food but also the powerful to kill each other. Medicine has given us longer lives but increased the burden of old age.
        In the UK civil unions were allowed for same sex partners and then hetero partners complained they were discriminated against . So now we can all have civil partnerships , us humans have an eye out for inequality all the time.
        I agree governments often do make their own minds up the argument being that not every decision can be put before the people because then government would be impossibly slow and ponderous.
        There is some argument for allowing those we have elected to make decisions for us but sometimes they loose touch with the public feeling on certain subjects , I don’t know the answer to this problem. In a democracy we are at liberty to protest , when so many protested against the poll tax Mrs Thatcher had to drop it.

        Liked by 3 people

      • “There is some argument for allowing those we have elected to make decisions for us but sometimes they loose touch with the public feeling on certain subjects”

        Oh, my, yes!!!

        I spent almost 10 years living in a housing co-op. Everything is supposedly co-owned (we all had to pay shares) and run democratically, through committees members participate in, through the board we elect, and through direct vote by members. It was a little microcosm of democratic socialism.

        It doesn’t work.

        Oh, it flounders along and survives from year to year, but the co-ops that are thriving have hired property management companies. The one we left… well, let’s just say that they are a perfect example of how a democratic socialist organization is a failure, even if it does somehow manage to stagger along, year after year. A good example of tyranny of the majority. If it is such a disaster on a tiny scale, how can it work on the scale of entire countries? It doesn’t. But in the years it takes for things to finally, catastrophically, fail, so many are hurt, in the mean time. Worse, they often don’t even know it’s failing, as they keep voting the problem in, oblivious to the damage, or blaming it on something else.

        Liked by 2 people

      • It’s possible though, by removing religion, to develop principles by analysing things objectively. For instance, I’m not religious but I strongly object to the idea of war, because it’s simply cretinous for strangers to kill and inflict untold misery on each other for their rulers’ purposes. It’s not a difficult stance to reach.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Suppose your countries borders have been invaded and another nation has stolen land that belongs to your nation ( or tribe) then you must fight for your rights and repel the invader . Suppose you are in a saloon bar and a man insults your wife then you must stand your ground and oppose such injustice even if it comes to blows. Remember our rulers have been mandated by we voters Mr Trump and Mr Putin have their fingers ready to press the button if need be . These are not objective matters they arise from our moral nature which may not have a religious origin. If I see a man beating a dog I’m enraged even if the dog is his to beat.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Of course. I should have mentioned starting a war against another nation, and being proud of it, is cretinous. Of course no one sits idly by as they are attacked, without defending themselves. There are also justified wars of liberation from foreign occupation. You can’t compare wars of aggression to defending or liberating a country, just like you can’t compare premeditated murder to self-defence. It’s common sense, but I guess I forgot to mention that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I agree war is sometimes a necessity and nothing to be proud of but there has been much debate lately about wars of liberation. Some see such wars as interference rather like meddling in other countries affairs and showing support for a fraction. Surely sanctions are a sort of interference an attempt to change the policies of the ruling government.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s