Our values are superior to yours so...

[Gharib]

Prostitution is not legal in my country (Canada). Nevertheless, our legislators do the best they can to protect prostitutes from exploitation.

I see your point of view. We both can agree that prostitution is unhealthy. Immoral. Not ideal. Whatever. It is also a fact of life. So, accepting the fact that there will always be people who are willing to buy and sell sex, how can we mitigate the risks?

Secular societies are pragmatic, not immoral.

Change the word 'prostitute' with 'strippers'. It's the same thing to a Muslim, well to me anyway.

 

[jonman122]

Right, where were you when innocent people were being imprisoned for life and killed for nothing because the dictator said so?

There are many heroes after the war. What you don't realize though is that the actual heroes died in the war.

And now that Muslims have control and wish to implement Islamic law, all of a sudden 'mankind as a whole' must stand up. Why doesn't mankind stand up for the constant killing of innocent people in Palestine, Syria, Sri Lanka, Burma etc?

Keep your 'elitism' to yourself.

Elitism? You mean basic moral standards? I don't like to see any young girl raped and then stoned to death for committing no crime whatsoever, that does not make me elitist, it just makes me a normal caring human being.

Mankind does stand up for the innocent when they are being slaughtered, the problem is modern-democratic countries aren't just going to invade every other country every time they kill innocent people, what they'll do is give them horrible press and push the governments to treat their people fairly.

 

[Koldo]

So we stick our nose into this and start another war? I don't see any good solution to the problem you just mentioned.

The best thing I can come up with is everyone should be allowed to leave their country if they have issues.

Not a bad idea.
But would this include even convicted criminals?
And where to go?

 

[Gharib]

Speaking from a Muslim perspective, in many threads about Islam, I find a problem.
I am certain that many non Muslims don't like some Islamic concepts and rulings. And they believe it's oppressive...I don't know barbaric...whatever. And I am not sure that non Muslims realize that many Muslims have a trouble with some Western concepts (I said Western because they are dominating the world currently) and see them very negatively and with disgust as some see Islam.

Now this is not my problem. My problem is not about having opposite views. But about the fact that because you think that your values are better than mine, we have to formulate the laws of our country according to yours. I can't help saying this is a typical imperialistic mindset. Almost all Muslim countries have suffered from Western imperialism and colonialism. And they have paid very expensive price for this and in their attempts to get their independence (of course they still do).

I am taking prostitution as an example and don't really mean to discuss it, you think that prostitution is somehow a human right for whatever reasons you have and they must be good reasons in your eyes. Anyone who wishes to be a prostitute must not be prevented from doing so. And it happened that your society agrees on this idea so the laws are in cope with this.

On the other hand, I don't think it's a right and I think it must be illegalized. The society I live in agrees on my view and it's manifested in the Law.

Of course the people of your country don't accept the idea of forcing my views on them. Readily we can hear the screams out loud when the word Shari'a is mentioned there.
Why don't you expect Muslims in their countries to do the same? I mean refusing to be ruled by non Muslim values that are inconsistent with theirs?

Human rights cross borders and are universal. Sorry when we are having our differences on some values, surely this means they are not universal. Sure there are some universal values, but we disagree on others. Not because there are some people who consider them to be universal, they must be. Not because you think that yours are more superior to ours, it must mean we should be ruled by yours (except of course believing that you have more powers than others and this gives you the right to subdue them).

Some Muslims may disagree with me. Certainly, there is a different non-Muslim perspective to all this.

Very nice post sister.

The white man is always superior to everyone else. They are more evolved apparently. For humanity to move forward the racist white man must be obeyed.

Anyone who comes to Australia must 'blend' in and know the language, not bring their culture here and live a different way of life. Yet when the English came here the aboriginals had to obtain a passport to be called citizens of Australia. And now when an english speaking person goes overseas, everyone must speak his language.

In all honesty all I can say is good on them.

 

[Gharib]

Elitism? You mean basic moral standards? I don't like to see any young girl raped and then stoned to death for committing no crime whatsoever, that does not make me elitist, it just makes me a normal caring human being.

Mankind does stand up for the innocent when they are being slaughtered, the problem is modern-democratic countries aren't just going to invade every other country every time they kill innocent people, what they'll do is give them horrible press and push the governments to treat their people fairly.

Very impressive. I had no idea.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Such as?

By going into other countries, and forcing them to follow our way of life.

In this particular case, it is exactly the perception of ethical values being superior that fuels this thought.

And this is a great paradox. I can see your point. Who's ethical values are greater, and who's worse? This isn't an easy question to answer. And it's this precise reason why each country should decide their own values, their own ethics, and their own fate.

What do you mean by 'better' or 'worse'?
It is clearly better than many other countries in quality of life, for example.

I could disagree with the quality of life example. The poor, the unhealthy, the hungry, those who do without because of the greed of those who have plenty, would surely disagree.

This is true, to an extent, but it's all a matter of perception.

Because you don't live in a void. With the globalization of our world, it is essential to get as many people as possible to agree with you on certain subjects. Else your country is at the risk of being turned into a colony ruled under a theocracy in the future.

If said country wants a theocracy, who are we to say otherwise? I think there's a huge difference between getting other countries to agree with you on certain points, for the mutual benefit of both/all parties involved, and going into a country and forcing them to have our same mindset and way of life.

 

[jonman122]

So we stick our nose into this and start another war? I don't see any good solution to the problem you just mentioned.

The best thing I can come up with is everyone should be allowed to leave their country if they have issues.

I never said war, that's not a good solution for solving a countries in-fighting or politics (if they are countries that are not even giving children basic human rights, now countries taking over the world, on the other hand..) but trade sanctions could be placed on a nation to give them some incentive to treat people fairly.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Not a bad idea.
But would this include even convicted criminals?
And where to go?

I'm not really sure. I would not want someone who was a mass killer or anything like that. It is hard to draw any lines.

Where to go? All these countries who want to stick their nose in other countries business should be the first to welcome these refugees.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Prostitution is not legal in my country (Canada). Nevertheless, our legislators do the best they can to protect prostitutes from exploitation.

I see your point of view. We both can agree that prostitution is unhealthy. Immoral. Not ideal. Whatever. It is also a fact of life. So, accepting the fact that there will always be people who are willing to buy and sell sex, how can we mitigate the risks?

Secular societies are pragmatic, not immoral.

Actually, Canada has the weirdest laws. While prostitution is not illegal per se (the actual act of prostitution is legal), the illegality of it is only when prostitution is made public either through its transactions or solicitation.

I personally believe in the legalisation of prostitution. Why? Because a) it benefits the sex workers who can be protected by the law, b) prostitution is a reality everywhere, whether we like it or not.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Here's the double standard upheld by the US: injustices happen in a Middle Eastern country, such as Iraq, and we go in full force, with guns blazing, and change their ideology to ours. The same thing happens in a nation like India, and we just stand by and watch. Why is one country worthy of us going to war over, and change their mindset to match ours, while the other one isn't? Why do we arbitrarily pick and choose which countries we will invade, and which we won't, even when circumstances for both are similar? If we were to be consistent, we'd have either sent our troops straight to China after Iraq, or, and this is the better option, just stayed out of the way, and let other countries handle their own affairs. This is the primary reason why the US is seen in such a bad light across the globe.

 

[Gharib]

Here's the double standard upheld by the US: injustices happen in a Middle Eastern country, such as Iraq, and we go in full force, with guns blazing, and change their ideology to ours. The same thing happens in a nation like India, and we just stand by and watch. Why is one country worthy of us going to war over, and change their mindset to match ours, while the other one isn't? Why do we arbitrarily pick and choose which countries we will invade, and which we won't, even when circumstances for both are similar? If we were to be consistent, we'd have either sent our troops straight to China after Iraq, or, and this is the better option, just stayed out of the way, and let other countries handle their own affairs. This is the primary reason why the US is seen in such a bad light across the globe.

The reason they went to Iraq and not India was because of Islam, plain and simple.

 

[Treks]

Right, where were you when innocent people were being imprisoned for life and killed for nothing because the dictator said so?

There are many heroes after the war. What you don't realize though is that the actual heroes died in the war.

And now that Muslims have control and wish to implement Islamic law, all of a sudden 'mankind as a whole' must stand up. Why doesn't mankind stand up for the constant killing of innocent people in Palestine, Syria, Sri Lanka, Burma etc?

Keep your 'elitism' to yourself.

And before you do any of that, stand up to your own government who supports a war where it's ally kills hundreds of innocent kids through drones. Talk about hypocrisy.

'Elitism' ? You consider Jonman's position on wanting to help and protect the 10 year old girl in the example elitism?



One would have thought protecting minors would be one of those universal humans rights. Turns out it's just another evil of this nebulous 'Western world' which everyone hates so much. I'll take it any day over the current alternatives.

 

[Treks]

The reason they went to Iraq and not India was because of Islam, plain and simple.

No I think you'll find it was over oil.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Elitism? You mean basic moral standards? I don't like to see any young girl raped and then stoned to death for committing no crime whatsoever, that does not make me elitist, it just makes me a normal caring human being.

Mankind does stand up for the innocent when they are being slaughtered, the problem is modern-democratic countries aren't just going to invade every other country every time they kill innocent people, what they'll do is give them horrible press and push the governments to treat their people fairly.

To be honest, much of Islamic fundamentalism in such countries have arisen since much of American (and to a smaller extent, Canadian) involvement in their politics did include killing innocent civilians, for absolutely no reason. An amount of Western-countries' involvement in such countries have not only tried to establish democratic principles, BUT also impose the culture associated with the West.

Look at the American invasion in Afghanistan, and American humiliation in that country, or the American occupation in the Philippines and the Philippine (physical and cultural) genocide that occurred. Not only that, but the press and media coverage that occurs in-between have tended to highlight certain areas of Middle-Eastern politics for sensationalism and pro-Western rhetoric.

However, we do have the Charter for Human Rights. At the moment, Islamic democracy has not shown its face yet, but I do hope that soon, eventually there will be a Muslim-majority democratic country that modernises itself *without* Western appeal and completely also safeguarding humanity-promoting cultural practices.

 

[Gaura Priya]

The reason they went to Iraq and not India was because of Islam, plain and simple.

It WAS actually oil. The media coverage in the US utilised religion as an excuse to do so.

 

[Treks]

Very nice post sister.

The white man is always superior to everyone else. They are more evolved apparently. For humanity to move forward the racist white man must be obeyed.

Anyone who comes to Australia must 'blend' in and know the language, not bring their culture here and live a different way of life. Yet when the English came here the aboriginals had to obtain a passport to be called citizens of Australia. And now when an english speaking person goes overseas, everyone must speak his language.

In all honesty all I can say is good on them.

Australia is quite multicultural, IMHO. They don't prevent you from practicing your religion almost any way you want (but under Australian law you can't have more than one wife, sorry). Try going to one of your beloved Islamic countries (which you're not living in for some reason) and practice a religion openly that isn't Islam. If they let you live you'll get to pay a nice little extra tax. Yay!

Also we can talk about all the cultural devastation Islam has caused and is causing, even to it's own historical centres...

Perhaps s/he who is without sin should be casting the first stone.

 

[jonman122]

Actually, Canada has the weirdest laws. While prostitution is not illegal per se (the actual act of prostitution is legal), the illegality of it is only when prostitution is made public either through its transactions or solicitation.

I personally believe in the legalisation of prostitution. Why? Because a) it benefits the sex workers who can be protected by the law, b) prostitution is a reality everywhere, whether we like it or not.

I do agree with this as well, it would stop prostitutes from having to be worried about being beaten by their bosses or prospective customers (because as a legitimate business, they could just call the police if any harassment occurred) and it would stop the sex trade from spreading so many STI's, they could make it required by law for anyone who is selling sex to get tested every few weeks, and people who go in to get "serviced" would need to have the card indicating a clear bill of health as well, plus if anyone did get infected they would have a transaction list of all of the woman's clients, and they could easily find and prosecute people who are knowingly spreading disease in this way.

 

[Gharib]

'Elitism' ? You consider Jonman's position on wanting to help and protect the 10 year old girl in the example elitism?



One would have thought protecting minors would be one of those universal humans rights. Turns out it's just another evil of this nebulous 'Western world' which everyone hates so much. I'll take it any day over the current alternatives.

That's not why I used the word 'elitism'. I used it in relation to him claiming to have better laws and that humanity must stand up when a wrong occurs in the corrupt Middle Eastern countries.

Like I said and I stand by it, if your laws are so superior to everyone else's and that only 'YOU' know what's right and wrong then there's a world that's at crisis out there. By all means go help them.

 

[Gharib]

No I think you'll find it was over oil.

I don't deny that oil was a part of the equation.

 

[jonman122]

That's not why I used the word 'elitism'. I used it in relation to him claiming to have better laws and that humanity must stand up when a wrong occurs in the corrupt Middle Eastern countries.

Like I said and I stand by it, if your laws are so superior to everyone else's and that only 'YOU' know what's right and wrong then there's a world that's at crisis out there. By all means go help them.

When another countries laws include killing innocent children you are damn right my countries laws are better. I never did say "corrupt middle eastern countries" as this doesn't only occur in the middle east, I'm not sure where you got that from.