Moral Relativity: Where moral values come from?

The Old Testament is part of the Christian Bible. This is evidenced by the fact that Christians are still killing pre-teen girls based on Exodus 22:18.

Of course most Christians don't kill pre-teen girls and this Bible verse doesn't play a role in the experience of most Christians (or Jews).

But some Christians still do murder based on the Bible. I don't judge Christians any different than I judge Muslims; people who murder are murderers no matter what religion they practice. And, people who don't murder are not murderers.

The Christian part of that Bible is the New Testament. Right? Enough said.
That Christians accept the historical references in the Old Testament has nothing to do with their doctrine. Which is totally separate from the doctrine of the Hebrews.

And also these things are so far in the past they are hardly relevant. So do not try to backpeddle and claim you view Islam they same way as Christianity and call them what they are. And that is obligated servants of Allah who says fight and kill all non-Muslims for eternity, or until Islam dominates the world.

You don't seem to think that counts and pull crap out of your ass to justify Islams behavior and agenda.

Here is some more Islamic handiwork. Please post the similar attacks by Christians or Jews in the same time frame.


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

You are contradicting yourself ColdJoint.

The last page, you were arguing that Christians were being defamed the same way that Muslims are (and you claimed that I wasn't sticking up for Christians). Now you are arguing that Muslims are "obligated" to "fight and kill all non-Muslims for eternity".

Do you see the contradiction there?

There is no one here defaming Christians the way that you are defaming Muslims. Of course I am not going to "post the similar attacks by Christians", Your bigoted behavior is despicable to me. Why would I join you?

My point is that Muslims are equal to Christians. If this means I am "justifying Islam", then so be it.

I also find it rather funny that a guy who writes all of his posts in pink things that I care a bit about these jabs at my sexuality.

Why not? The things you say are ridiculous and seldom backed up by anything but your big mouth. It is one of the only reasons I reply. And remember you started it, Sweet Cheeks. I would ask you to man up, but....

Prejudice is a strong word as it refers to a preconceived idea not based on reason. I would not call Muslim countries land of the free. I don't believe that all Muslims are radical in their views. But from what I've read Muslim countries are less tolerant of views that differ fro their societal ideas on morality and religion in particular. Tolerance for Atheism is rare and varies from country to country. In the following countries a person can be executed for being an Atheist:
Afghanistan , Iran, Maldives, Mauritania ,Pakistan , Saudi Arabia, Sudan. In others you can be imprisoned under law: Egypt,Indonesia , Bangladesh, etc. And in others you simply have reduced rights...Based on these types of things I think their tolerance for free thinking is more constrained. I would like to experience living in a Muslim country to experience the culture short term but not permanently as other societies offer more freedoms. Obviously I know in the U.S. The influence is minimal. I was thinking more of France where Muslim immigration is having a significant impact on demographics. I don't think that as a Western European majority they are wrong to protest immigration policies as they see how this could directly impact the culture they built . I don't consider that racism. I don't think protecting your values and way of life is wrong.

The flaw in your logic, Germlat, is the fact that you are lumping together very different countries with different cultures in different parts of the world together to support your prejudice. And yes, I think "prejudice" is the right word because there is no reason lumping Turkey (a fairly affluent western democracy allied with Europe) with Bangladesh (an developing Asian county) and Sudan (a war torn African state).

It is ridiculous for you to draw these parallels based only on religion.

It is also ridiculous for you to use France as an example of a country being "impacted" by Islamic culture.

France is an official language in Lebanon. It is spoken by 11 million in Algieria and 10 million in Morocco (where French is used prominently in TV, business and government transactions). Cameroon, Tunisia, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire (the list goes on).

Do you see why French whining about being influenced by Islamic culture is rather dumb?

France policy on immigration is based on cultural elitism and hypocrisy.

Not really! You don't have to agree with me.. Do you think you would be allowed the same freedom of thought and speech in Islamic countries? I happen to have Islamic friends who are atheists and we agree. I'm not looking for approval..but really to call someone prejudiced based on simple statements is truly well, simplistic. Did I mention I've also lived in the Bible Belt states in the U.S. And felt suffocated . I think you are not even giving me a chance.

Let me clarify..when I said Islamic friends I meant atheists who used to live in Islamic countries.

Why do you think it's wrong for a majority of people to desire to salvage their ideologies and culture..how is that wrong or hypocritical? Maybe your a little too politically correct.

Let me try this again Germlat. You really should understand the history before you use France as an example. (Actually it is quite instructive if you pay attention).

France took over several Islamic countries, including Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. They installed French culture and law in these countries by force. Hundreds of thousands of French citizens moved themselves as these countries and started running things. As I pointed out, French is still spoken in official contexts in each of these countries.

So it was France entering Islamic countries and using force to change the culture in these countries. The French culture is now part of these countries. The claim that anything close to the opposite happened is ridiculous.

The majority of "immigrants" now in France are from these three countries. The French brought them there to do menial labor.

The French set up a situation where people who where in France for generations working to benefit France couldn't become citizens or become a part of the country. They mistreated these people, taking advantage of them and not letting them feel a part of the only country that they had ever known. Obviously this is going to cause social unrest.

The French have savaged the ideologies and culture of other people and brought them into France to do menial labor without giving them any rights or dignity.

So yes, it is absolutely wrong and hypocritical to now claim that it is French culture that is being threatened, when it is France that has forced its culture on dozens of other countries.

I do understand what you are saying. That situation is quite often given in countries all over the world. I'm not saying they are a good natured, "moral "people..and that the motives for allowing the immigration of these people was altruistic in some way. But..it is their culture and as a majority they want to preserve it .

Don't you think they should have thought of that before becoming a colonial power and importing people from other cultures to do their menial labor?

And don't you think that as a country that installed French culture and law by military force on other countries is being a more than a little hypocritical here?

The point I'm stressing is not whether or not they should be held accountable for past actions of current or past predecessors. Simply that politically if they desire to maintain their culture and maintain political power changes have to be made to immigration policies. And of course I think don't agree with human rights violations. I think there are responsibilities a government should have as far as protecting human rights...but both can happen simultaneously. Controlling immigration is not a human rights violation.

There could be a parallel drawn when speaking of Mexican immigrants to the U.S. What are your thoughts on the matter?

If a person...

1. Has origins in a country that was brought by force into the French colonial empire where France imposed their culture and laws...

2. Was born in France because their parents or grandparents were brought into France by the French to do menial labor...

3. AND has lived all of their life in France and has never known life anywhere else.

Don't you think this person has as much a claim to French culture as anyone else?

France incorporated Islamic peoples into its colonial empire. They grew a significant Islamic population in France as part of its labor force. France, by its own choice, created a significant of people with Islamic roots who belong in France.

I think it is funny that France, the country with the most hypocritical attitude toward immigrants is the country you use as an example. I suppose it is because France (more than other countries) is having social unrest.

It seems obvious to me that the problems France has had is because of the hypocrisy of its attitudes toward immigrants.

Sure, you can draw a bit of a parallel. There has been the same hypocrisy in the US (I don't know if you know the travesty of our immigration policy in the past... for example the bracero program).

You have to be a bit careful too draw to many parallels.

The US has done a much better job than France at building a multicultural democracy. France continues to alienate immigrant groups and puts up barriers to people to become part of France. The headscarf controversy in France, for example, can't happen in the US. This type of ethnic discrimination that happens in France is forbidden by our very Constitution in the US.

The US, thanks in large part to birthright citizenship, has constantly drawn immigrant groups in and made them a part of society. You see Mexican Americans and other Hispanics in government and business and entertainment.

And in spite of all the Tea Party nonsense (which is an annoying and loud minority) there is widespread acceptance of the influence of Hispanic culture as part of the broader mix of American culture. We have States named Nevada and Colorado, we watch Shakira on our TVs and we eat tacos and burritos.

Of course, Hispanic culture has been part of the US since forever. The first European colony in what is now the US spoke Spanish. And there are Hispanic Americans with roots in this continent that are much longer than yours.

Spanish is part of American culture. Islam is part of French culture. The difference is America does a much better job at integrating our various backgrounds into a broader American experience.

The extent of social unrest in the US is angry old white people with misspelled signs. I think France would do well to learn us.

I couldn't agree more but is it the obligation of the majority to sit politically motionless given the projected demographic changes ?

I think you tend to jump to conclusions at times. After all you don't know my education level, primary language, racial classification, country of origin or cultural experience. Sometimes the onion has to be peeled further to reveal its core. Sometimes I even enjoy the devil's advocate role.

I don't really know what that means. I suppose I am the majority (I am a white, straight, Protestant, middle aged male).

I am hardly sitting politically motionless. I want my country to live up to its best ideas of liberty, justice, acceptance and fairness, I am quite politically active toward that end.