I agree with you. But, I fervently wish you had explained your beliefs as a humanist instead of buying into the label of “cultural imperialist”. As much as it was meant to be sarcastic, IMHO, it is better if you had just said you were a humanist and that’s that.
Sorry Freyr, yer my pal and all, but I gotta disagree. I don’t give a damn what Falwell said, they’re only words. No words (let’s not quibble about imaginary Roald Dahl-esque scenarios where someone’s words cause a murder or something…I mean in the vast majority of cases) are a justification for putting out a hit on them. It’s barbaric. And, truth be told, I think it’s pretty damned barbaric that we (in the USA) allow the concept of “fightin’ words”, a cop-out for responsibility if ever I heard one.
I’m perfectly happy to suppress barbarians who can’t control their tempers when they hear something unpleasant and forcing people to stop murdering under the guise of “cultural practice” is just peachy in my book.
There’s an old, probably apocryphal story about the British in India. There was a regiment stationed in a city and the Sergeant-Major (or whoever) noticed a mob dragging a elderly widow to a funeral pyre. “What’s going on?”, he thundered as he pushed his way through the crowd.
“It is our custom to put widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands so that they’ll be with their husbands in the next life” one of the people dragging the widow said.
“That’s barbaric! How dare you?” asked the Sergeant-Major
“You don’t have to like it” said the Indian “But it’s our custom and I thought that all civilized peoples respected one another’s customs.”
The Sergeant-Major grinned a not-altogether pleasant grin and said “Oh we do. So I’m sure you’ll understand and respect our custom of hanging murderers…”
Regardless of whether it’s true or not (and again, I suspect not), the story illustrates my feelings pretty well. Cultural relativism is fine and dandy…until people start getting maimed or killed. Barbaric thuggery isn’t a culture I’m willing to respect.
I hate to tippy-toe near Godwin’s law, but if you were in Nazi Germany, I know for a fact (cause I think I know you pretty well from our interactions here, Freyr) that you wouldn’t respect their culture. So clearly you don’t believe that all cultures are equal. How do you decide where to draw the line?
Fenris
Ugh…cultural relativism.
That being said, naturally you don’t go charging in and screaming at them. You have to find a way to prevent it in the first place, which is why I believe in education.
**Bricker wrote:
Uh… no. I don’t agree.
If this is so, I’ll wear the title of “cultural imperialist” proudly. These practices are WRONG. Period. The fact that my culture shuns them and another culture embraces them makes my culture, in this area, RIGHT. And I am perfectly willing to step in and force them to stop, because the lives of the women that are lost or damaged outweigh any duty I owe to respecting cultural differences.
I can’t prove this assertion, of course, since there is no universally accepted yardstick for what is right. Nonetheless, I’m very confident of the rightness of stopping barbaric practices such as you describe.
- Rick, Cultural Imperialist And Damned Proud Of It**
You do realize, that by doing so, it gives the other culture the same right do step in and use force to stop whatever practices we embrace and that they shun? After all, what’s good for the goose…
And where do we draw the line? Which practices are so barbaric that we need to step in and which are simply those that are different from us? The Hmong of southeast Asian routinely use shamans for healing. Since we all know that such practices are so much wishful thinking, should we invade their country and force western style medicine on them?
Freyr
Theoretically, I think the line is drawn based on a simple human perspective. That probably explains the neologism “human-rights”, which groups are fighting for all over the world irrespective of the local cultural milieu, be it against sati in India or genital mutilation in Africa. But, you raise very interesting points. How do you go about making a positive change? I think Guin (I’m sorry but your name is too long!) in her pithy post nailed it: education. Advocating forceful means to change one’s culture blatantly ignores nation’s sovereignty and is practically impossible in today’s world. Sustained efforts at education to change attitudes are clearly the only way to go. And, in some sense, globalization is achieving this. And, yes your point about what is good for the goose… is also a valid one. In some sense, in a globalized environment, an optimist can envision different cultures exchanging ideas and making themselves “better”.
It’s been tried, sorta. I can’t imagine why these kinds of efforts have such a bad name nowadays.
And BTW, don’t you think it smacks even more strongly of imperialism and the “white man’s burden” to say that it’s our duty to “educate” the barbarians and change who they are, rather than simply how they behave?
And yeah, yeah, yeah, it will be a true cross cultural interchange and we’ll learn from them too and yadda yadda yadda. But the fact remains that your ideal of “multiculturalism” is a uniquely Western conceit not shared by the objects of your efforts at “education”. How do the enlightened carry out a dialogue with the ignorant, except by trying to make the latter group enlightened as well? They certainly don’t propose to start adopting some of the latter group’s ignorance and then call it an equal exchange.
And another BTW: have you thought of a way to answer my question yet, Freyr?
**Doghouse Reilly wrote:
So Freyr, you don’t have to “go out of your way” to offend Muslims–you do so simply by being what you are. And I ask you again, if you found yourself facing death at the hands of a Muslim mob for the crime of being gay, should we do anything to intervene? Or would saving your life be “cultural imperialism”?**
You’re confusing two points here. My personal feelings for Jerry Falwell and the concepts of cultural relativism vs cultural imperialism.
My comment about not helping Jerry Falwell as he was being chased by a mob had nothing to do with cultural relativism vs imperialism. I said it because I find the man odious. I’m fairly certain he thinks of me in the same way. If the situation was reversed, do you think Falwell would do anything to help me if I was being chased by a Muslim mob? Based on what he’s said, I’ve a feeling he throw the first stone.
This is separate from the issue of relativism vs imperialism. No, I don’t like the idea of a fatwa being issued against him. It is barbaric. I hope the Muslim community will change its mind on this, but not thru being forced to but by realizing that such practices have no use in a civilized world.
Now do you understand my postiion?
So when you say you would happily stand aside and see a man killed for speaking an unpopular opinion, it’s personal, not motivated by any cultural questions involved?
Ah. I see.
**Fenris wrote:
Sorry Freyr, yer my pal and all, but I gotta disagree. I don’t give a damn what Falwell said, they’re only words. No words (let’s not quibble about imaginary Roald Dahl-esque scenarios where someone’s words cause a murder or something…I mean in the vast majority of cases) are a justification for putting out a hit on them. It’s barbaric. And, truth be told, I think it’s pretty damned barbaric that we (in the USA) allow the concept of “fightin’ words”, a cop-out for responsibility if ever I heard one.**
True enough, they are just words. But words can have a power over the human mind. They can make people so emotional that they can’t think straight. Sure, Falwell’s entitled to his say what he wants, but why didn’t he consider the effect those words might have? Especially at a time when tension between the Muslim and western world is so high? There’s freedom of speech and there’s personal responsibility. I think Falwell just committed the international equivilent of yelling “fire” in a crowded movie theater.
I agree with you, those practices are barbaric. We simply disagree on how they might be changed.
Is US supposed to be the world’s moral/cultural proctor? Do we use force to change these practices or try a gentler, more humane approach?
**Doghouse Reilly wrote:
So when you say you would happily stand aside and see a man killed for speaking an unpopular opinion, it’s personal, not motivated by any cultural questions involved?
Ah. I see.**
No, not any man, I’m specifically speaking about Jerry Falwell. I’ll admit to the human failing of not liking people who dislike me. I’m certainly not going to help him out of a situation he diliberately placed himself in. The man would would probably just as happily stand aside and see me stoned.
If you’re asking if I’d help someone else out, that depends. Are we talking about someone specific or just any other the 6 billion people on the planet?
It’s OK, Freyr, I don’t expect you to defend any principle except when it applies to people that you personally happen to like. Quite the humanitarian you are.
Old or apocryphal, I like that story. 
I think this is the exact response that Jerry was hoping for. I’m beginning to fear that he and his brand of fundaloonies are envisioning Armageddon and are ACTIVELY trying to keep tensions high, even escalate them, in order to bring about some Prophecy.
Well, I’m a lot worse than Freyr, so I don’t want to see Falwell killed; I want him converted. Let’s say that the radical Islamists (as opposed to peaceful Muslims-on-the-street) succeed in killing Falwell. All they will have done is create a martyr. But if we convert Falwell, make him see the error of his ways, then we will have achieved the true victory.
Sure, everyone’s up in arms now when a muslim cleric wants to kill Falwell, but when a 600 foot tall Jesus threatened to kill Oral Roberts unless he raised $8 million, where were you guys?
I don’t see anything wrong with such a wish, or expressing it. And you can go ahead and give it a try–that’s one of the nice things about having free speech in our society.
The best news I heard all day (and I’ve been looking), from The Jerusalem Post:
[quote]
CAIRO, Egypt - Key leaders in the two main branches of Islam welcomed an apology from an American minister who had angered Muslims - and prompted one cleric to call for his death - by labeling Prophet Muhammad a “terrorist.”
Rev. Jerry Falwell “deserves thanks for his return to the righteous path,” Grand Sheik Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of Al-Azhar, the Cairo mosque and university that is one of the most revered institutions in the Sunni Muslim world, said in a statement to The Associated Press Monday.
In the Iranian city of Qom, an important Shiite Muslim center of learning, a high ranking cleric said Falwell had shown courage.
“A person courageous enough to apologize for his errors is worthy of praise,” Ayatollah Hussein Mousavi Tabrizi told The Associated Press. "It’s humanitarian and good Islamic behavior to accept an apology from a person who admits making a mistake.
[quote]
Good god, no. I am surprised that no one else has jumped in to correct this.
A fatwa is a legal statement in Islam that can be issued by any mufti or religious lawyer. They used to be crucial to settling lawsuits or other judicial disputes. They are manifestly not supposed to be based on the issuer’s independent ideas, but are rather rulings on specific aspects of the law.
These days, fatwas are used pretty much only for marriage, inheritance, and divorce. Any leader can issue a fatwa whenever he wants to, but unless people actually care about it, it’s pretty irrelevant.
Furthermore, the Ayatollah’s ruling would hardly be binding on the entire Muslim community, reft with its own divisions in doctrine and practice.
Besides, you’ll get a toaster oven out of the deal!! 
In all seriousness, having read your post as a serious comment, I agree wholeheartedly.
But I couldn’t resist the opportunity for the joke!
I can’t believe anyone’s getting seriously upset over this. With a good headline, it could easily be an Onion article: “Crazy Man Rebukes Idiot.”