Cultural Relavitism

[HAL9000]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is, to the best of my knowledge (and I'm open

> to corrections), a religion based on patriarchy

> and misogyny.

Islam is a 'lite' or Noachide version of Pharisaic Judaism designed for Gentiles. The practice of male and female religious circumcision is derived from the Abramic Covenant whose origin lies in the Jewish Bible (i.e. the Old Testament).

> At it's heart is a legal system that

> is diametrically opposed to our own

Almost every aspect of Islam's Shariah Law is embodied within the Jewish Bavli Talmud: the definitive exposition of Mosaic Law. The UK and US have both officially honoured and currently recognise Talmudic Law as a source of moral enlightenment and positive legal influence.

> and its religious heartland is based in a country

> that is run by an autocratic monarchy.

You mean Saudi Arabia, presumably? If so, that is incorrect. Saudi Arabia promotes the Wahhabi interpretation, a local variation or sect, of Sunni Islam, whose highest authority is vested in the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt.

The Koran preaches against monarchy, a view upheld within mainstream Sunni and Shia Islamic interpretation ? no doubt that is why the Saudi Royal family promotes a variant reading.

> The original article I posted is by a "reformed muslim"

Actually, it is by Anglo-Jewish journalist Emma Brockes who interviewed Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a Muslim apostate.

Regarding the religious mutilation of children?s genitals - how can one object to female circumcision while male circumcision is legally sanctioned and morally acceptable throughout the western world - surely they must be judged according to the same criteria: both are either abhorrent or acceptable?

Apologies for the fisk-style response but I've entered this thread rather late in the day.

[Huguenot]

I don't think you can equate male and female circumcision, the closest male equivalent to FGM would be the removal of the head/glans of the penis, whilst leaving the reproductive organs intact. The female equivalent to male circumcision would be the removal of the labia.

I agree with Piersy that we're here as a consequence of a cosmic accident, and also realise that this isn't a practical way forward.

I agree with modern evolutionary thinking in the sense that mankind isn't the ultimate objective. In fact a useful interpretation of evolution is that it optimises to collaboration: atoms to molecules, molecules to cells, cells to organs and organs to.. etc.

A natural progression for humans is likewise to collaborate into family unit, tribe and society. They're ultimately efficient units where tasks and responsibilities are shared to maximum reproductive effect. This is evolutionary destiny.

In order to achieve this societies need to get the best out of everyone, and they need practical social structures within which to operate. e.g. The liver and kidneys both do different but vital roles, they are equally respected, and fail or succeed in tandem.

It's apparent that it would be exhausting to allow everyone to come to this conclusion independently. It's also apparent that some evolutionary retards think it's all about number one. In this respect people who pursue a self-indulgent agenda are not better than a cancer in society.

In order to accommodate this we create 'myths'. It may be a bible, a talmud or Marxian manifesto. They all do the same thing.

It's apparent that social throwbacks of any religious or political doctrine can over interpret the dogma in order to pursue a selfish goal.

If in doing so they negate the original objective: collaboration, enlightenment and benefits for all, then they're simply a dead end on the evolutionary trail.

The current best environment for 'evolution' is a liberal constitutional republic.

You can't possibly get the best out of someone whose genitals you've hacked off with a sharpened seashell.

Hence, yes, their approach is worse, it is retarded, and it's ultimately a dead end.

Incidentally, this thread started off because of comments made about a person who took offence at the mention of the IRA. In this case I feel that taking offence on behalf of a nation for an unintended slight is counter productive, destructive, divisive and ultimately an evolutionary dead end. So I judge this as poor behaviour.

A better solution would be to take it on the chin, and recognise that more work needs to be done to rehabilitate the nation.