I'd call the statement nonsense. You're comparing "Western civilisation" (whatever that might mean) to a specific religion (Islam) and declaring one superior to the other. They're different categories. They do not invite comparison. It's like saying that a library is superior to a city bus. And if you've had any contact with Western civilization, you might notice that there are Muslims and therefore Islam in it.

If what you're trying to say is that Western civilization is superior to some other civilization (Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, whatever), or that Christianity is superior to Islam, then you might well be accused of something like racism. You might also invite commentary on your historical acumen.

Maybe you're trying to say that democracy is superior to Islamist theocracy. I'd say it's superior to any theocracy. That's not the same as saying "superior to Islam."

---
What others say about boorite!

I know. I just like to.

Um, no, not that I've noticed. Yes, it's a tendency of American pundits and public intellectuals-- but on the Right, not the Left. Any leftist I'm familiar with insists that human rights are universal. They're always harping on that UN Universal Declaration (you know, the one the US signed and routinely ignores). It's the Washington establishment, in my experience, that uses the "cultural differences" excuse to prop up nasty regimes from Buenos Aires to Jakarta. Unless you're redefining "the Left" to include Rockefeller Republicans like Clinton, then I don't see it.

There is another kind of "cultural relativism" that leftists and other socially enlightened persons tend to recognize, but it has nothing to do with revoking the human rights of brown or yellow persons. It's more about the observed fact that norms and mores may differ from culture to culture, so that smoking weed (for example) might be taboo in one culture and acceptable in another. The Right criticizes this kind of "cultural relativism" when they set about legislating their morality, but they misappropriate it whenever they need an excuse to subvert human rights.

It may well be different in America, but one could certainly point to a significant section of British and European academia and call it both culturally relativist and leftist/anti-American. I wasn't refering so much to regimes and governments per se - and I'm sure you're right that it is the Right who defend this, through self-interest, with relativism. I was thinking more of those of us who defend traditional societies in Africa, Asia, the Arab world, etc, and who see our involvement with them as interfering or imperialist. (I used to have sort of a Burkean view of the world, regarding anything ancient as venerated and therefore justified by having worked for so long, but I would no longer say that I quite subscribe to this.) I find this sort of moral/cultural relativism, call it what you like, rather dangerous, as it tends to act as a barrier to the spread of universal human rights and so on (though I'm certainly not defending the hypocrisy of our own governments in this regard either).

---
Worldwide Front for Islamic Jihad against Jews, Crusaders and Naughty Monkeys

Hmm, I wouldn't say pro-Islamic reactionaries are particularly prominent in European academia. There are, of course, a few on the fringe, but I'd say you encounter such sentiment more with Joe Public than you do among the intelligensia. Whatever the case, I think you're actually correct that relativism exists on the left as well as on the right.

Speaking of which, you didn't answer my very clever question about 9/11. Were the attacks on New York (oh, er, and Washington) worth the human cost in order indirectly to bring down the Taliban? Obviously, to do so was not the intent of the authors of the 9/11 attacks; but I'm pretty sure you would agree that the US didn't bomb Afghanistan due to concern about the suffering of its people, either. Anyway, intent is irrelevant at this point.

Back to the failed posting style of the past...

this one is good: www.com

Freedom of speech anyone?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Mwa ha. This guy is a veritable fount of evil-sounding quotes.

I'm not entirely sure I understand. 9/11 wasn't 'worth it' in any sense - the human cost in America, the damage done to the world economy, the civilians killed in the (in my view neccessary) retaliation in Afghanistan, the heightened hostility between Arabs and the West, the increased readiness, even desire, of the USA to go to war: the fall of the Taliban is a good thing in itself, but does not nearly make up for any of this.

---
Worldwide Front for Islamic Jihad against Jews, Crusaders and Naughty Monkeys

quote:

---

Freedom of speech anyone?

---

I'm not sure. I've been doing reference work in university libraries for almost ten years, and the trend I see is more toward criticizing certain cultural practices as cruel or exploitive. The outcry over female genital mutilation comes to mind.

To me, it seems that our involvement in Africa, Asia, the Arab world, etc. is interfering or imperialist in very obvious ways that tend to perpetuate cruelty instead of ending it. The servile press (in both our countries but especially here) make it sound as if our greatest sin is having wonderful intentions. "We want to help, but we don't want to interfere! Oh, what to do!" Like one of those Prime Directive episodes of Star Trek. If only it were so.

---
What others say about boorite!

What line? I'm pretty sure I disagree.

Talking about killing the president is a perfectly normal and time-honored, if a bit hyperbolic, way of symbolically expressing your dissatisfaction with your countries' policies or government. It's the same as expressing your opinion on terrorism by saying you want to kill Osama bin Laden, or on communism by saying you want to kill Fidel Castro. There are certainly plenty of people in this country saying those things, and I'll bet money that none of them are getting in trouble for it at school.

I remember playing games as a kid that involved me pretending to kill various Soviet leaders. That doesn't mean that I really had plans to do it, or even that I would have done it if I'd had the chance.

And having the Secret Service question the kid? To call that "excessive" would be kind. They can't seriously think that his shirt is evidence of a credible threat to the president's life. More likely they just want to put the fear of god into him. God, or the US government. Whichever.

---
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!

I'd criticize a t-shirt with Castro in crosshairs, too.

High school is a slightly different environment, 1st Amendment-wise, from the outside world. Remember those kids who put up a website basically saying "fuck the teachers," and the school found out and suspended them? I think that was wrong. But I don't think this means they can go to school in t-shirts that say "fuck the teachers."

Far as the SS, er, Secret Service's investigation: Sadly (for them), they have to follow up on every single possible threat on the President's life, no matter how absurd. (The threat, not the President's life, although that is also absurd.)

---
What others say about boorite!

What do you have against teacher-fucking? Don't they have a right to a decent sex life too? It shouldn't be a problem unless you think that that may lead to an unhealthy influencing of grades or something.

Only the schools that have seceded from the Union.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

Some people know how to take a joke. I don't recall Bil Keane ever calling the cops because somebody drew crosshairs in one of his Family Circus cartoons.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

Only the schools that have seceded from the Union.

Anyone under 18 is a minor, and it is considered necessary that minors be protected (or something to that extent).

Show me where the First Amendment says anything about young people not having the rights it mentions.

Plus, there are a fair number of 18-year-olds in high school. Do they get a double standatd?

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

Speaking of age discrimination, this one really pisses me off:

Here in the Washington area, there is a seemingly noble program called Sober Ride. If you feel you can't make it home on New Year's Eve, just give them a call, and they'll get you home for free. Not bad, eh?

But ...

They won't give you a ride if you're under 21.

Suddenly doesn't sound so humanitarian, does it? Just because you're young, they're going to let you out on the road and be a menace to yourself and others. Even more so, since less experienced drivers are more likely to lose control. Why should they give half a damn about the legality of what someone's been doing? If they want to get people home safe, they should do it for all people, especially those most at risk, no questions asked.

And while we're on the subject:

If Mothers Against Drunk Driving were really interested in what its name suggests, rather than just using that as a front for the gutting of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, they would be using some of their money to subsidize Metro so that it could run all night.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

I'd support Mothers Against Driving.

---
What others say about boorite!

Metro is commuter rail for Potomac lawyers. Why would it need to run all night? ;-)

---
What others say about boorite!

I think our own U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that minors' rights are limited to some degree though.

You know how it is. With a little political magic, the First Amendment could be rendered completely useless. Gotta love the ingenuity of the human race. :-/

You got me there. I think what happens is that since the vast majority of high school alumni are not 18, it is reasonable to group the 18-year-olds in the "minors" category.

If there's a law student floating in our midst, I wouldn't mind some clarification on this issue. :-)

That does sound horrible. It's probably a technicality thing; if you, working under the banner of "take drunk drivers home," give people under 21 a ride, you're aiding and abetting a lawbreaker.

Ooh, wait, I forgot one very, very important thing: minors don't vote, so they don't deserve rights! :-/

Hrm, talking about politics.

[Click to view comic: '--> The only reason Usama lives']

---
The world is full of crazy people. That is good, because then I wont be the only one.

Nothing so Orwellian, I'm sure. It was obviously just the Secret Service trying to make it look like they know what they're doing. They don't have the first clue where to look for terrorists - and anyway, they're scary - so they have plenty of time to justify their jobs by pestering kids.

I support Driving Against Mothers. With a six-ton dump truck.

[Click to view comic: 'Poor Misunderstood Trent Lott']

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Kissinger steps down.

DANCING

---
What others say about boorite!

So now two people have quit this committee due to conflicts with their private sector interests. There would seem to be an obvious solution to this recurring problem.

Make it an attack on Clinton so that they would be willing to give it up?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet