Timmy2,

Oh No!

Thee:
"We know what primitive urges cause genocidal behavior and we know now that it no longer makes logical sense to commit genocide."

No longer? So there was a time when it did make "logical sense to commit genocide"?

Can you identify a historical context in which genocide made "logical sense"?

Ed,

"it is just a retort to those who think that moral behavior is just a matter of acting naturally"

Actually it is just a matter of acting naturally. But with current day knowledge. The only thing missing from people who inflict genocide upon others is the information required to see that such action is counter productive to their current day situation and best interests. We have the advantage of knowledge now. We know what primitive urges cause genocidal behavior and we know now that it no longer makes logical sense to commit genocide.

Either a lack of education or delusion by religion, or both, is what causes genocidal behavior now. Genocide is not humans acting naturally. Genocide is humans acting ignorantly.

'I would agree that we are more than animals mainly because we, sometimes, have the power of self reflection, self improvement and can expand our definition of tribe.'

Well, we are talking animals that can think abstractly through the use of a complex system of symbols - for better or worse. We're technologically and scientifically advanced, and our baser instincts are governed and controlled by our upbringing as social creatures (not to get too Freudian).

Maybe humans can best be described as dancing animals that take two steps forward and one step back - with every incremental 'improvement' the most advanced societies then take it upon themselves to manufacture a war for completely selfish reasons. Nation-building, as an example, is never good or sufficient reason.

While democractic forms seem to be the best societal/governmental arrangement thus far discovered for large heterogeneous groups, whether this will ever be applied or catch on with smaller homogeneous groups on a global basis remains to be seen.

We shouldn't forget that men are essentially still in charge of everything, and that means that humans have changed very little. BTW, you didn't include Stephen Pinker's link.

For example, whether Muslim nations ever succumb to the charms and benefits of democracy (other than in isolated cases) is completely unpredictable.

Religion helps nothing in this case, nor does our interference help ensure this outcome. In truth, we don't really possess the all-inclusive vision necessary to interfere 'objectively' and in the most effective manner - in order to transform entire societies to fit our own democratic ideals. If it's not done within, it won't happen.

And besides, religion and spirituality are two entirely different things......

The one thrives in groups of all sizes and kinds, and the other is for individuals to pursue in their own fashion - at least in my view.

Spiritual undertakings require living in a free society, whereas religion is a control agent, more often than not. Individual freedom is not required, nor is it often desirable.

Religion is not a solution to much of anything these days, and if it's not part of the solution, then it's part of the problem.

Here is the link to Steven Pinker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk

"The mis-understanding here is that 'civilized' folks in the West and religious types in particular prefer to think of humans as something other than animals."

I would agree that we are more than animals mainly because we, sometimes, have the power of self reflection, self improvement and can expand our definition of tribe. That does not erase our evolutionary legacy and the burden it places upon us.

"Spiritual considerations aside, if we reside on planet earth, we are animals by virtue of our common DNA with every other creature - whatever else we may be. Has human behavior 'improved' or become less violent or territorial in the last 50,000 years?"

The answer to the question is "Yes". Watch and listen to this Steven Pinker video for a good, succinct presentation of the Yes perspective. Unlike Pinker, though, I don't think we can put spiritual considerations aside to truly overcome our base emotions.

SJ:"I'm waiting to hear what the Egyptian men constantly being quoted on television have to say about this assault and whether they think that human rights include women's human rights."

It's my understanding (I could cite a bunch of URL's but it would bog down my paragraph) that before Friday night the demonstrators had been educated professionals comfortable using modern telecom to organize a rally, and with plenty of English speakers to write placards and talk to reporters. The night Mubarek resigned, they were joined by throngs of representative Egyptians (the 42% who live on less than two dollars a day). It was members of THAT crowd that attacked Logan.

And this is the critical distinction -- will Egypt be ruled by early demonstrators, or by the population that has genitally mutilated 80% of the women?

'The evolutionary advantages of more territory and mating opportunities are easy to understand. This is not to excuse the behavior, it is just a retort to those who think that moral behavior is just a matter of acting naturally.'

The mis-understanding here is that 'civilized' folks in the West and religious types in particular prefer to think of humans as something other than animals.

Spiritual considerations aside, if we reside on planet earth, we are animals by virtue of our common DNA with every other creature - whatever else we may be. Has human behavior 'improved' or become less violent or territorial in the last 50,000 years?

No, we're the same as we ever were, masked by technology and the transparent comforts of life that technology brings. Religion hasn't much helped transform humans for the better, and has oftentimes contributed to their amoral recitivism and ethical backsliding.

It's well known, for example, among tribal societies that practiced cannibalism there were no thoughts whatsoever that they were guilty of aberrant or deviant behavior - it was quite natural to dine on unfortunate non-tribal victims....where desirable parts were sold to the highest bidder. Local religions often supported this behavior.

Moral behavior is practiced mainly because it has survival value, and most likely preceeds religious behavior in the evolutionary scheme of things. Religion can reinforce moral behavior, but cultural relativism (and opportunism) completely negates any idea of a 'universal' code of moral conduct.

The primitivism of culures, societies and religions that devalue, malign and mistreat women deserve no respect, and certainly do not warrant support from the USA - either for the sake of political expediency or for any other reason whatsoever.

Like cannibalism, this behavior deserves to be expunged from the human repetoire as soon as (humanly) possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism

Ever since Jane Goodall wrote about her observations of one chimpanzee tribe systematically isolating and killing all the males and older females of an adjacent tribe and co-opting the fecund females, it has become clear that genocide and rape are natural behaviors. The difference between chimpanzees and humans is that such behavior is rare in chimps.

The evolutionary advantages of more territory and mating opportunities are easy to understand. This is not to excuse the behavior, it is just a retort to those who think that moral behavior is just a matter of acting naturally.

Getting to the basics of Islam:

Mohammed was an illiterate, womanizing, lust and greed-driven, warmongering, hallucinating Arab, who also had embellishing/hallucinating/plagiarizing scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

This agenda continues as shown by the ma-ssacre in Mumbai, the assassinations of Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh, the conduct of the seven Muslim doctors in the UK, the 9/11 terrorists, the 24/7 Sunni suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the 24/7 Shiite suicide/roadside/market/mosque bombers, the Islamic bombers of the trains in the UK and Spain, the Bali crazies, the Kenya crazies, the Pakistani “koranics”, the Palestine suicide bombers/rocketeers, the Lebanese nutcases, the Taliban nut jobs, the Ft. Hood follower of the koran, and the Filipino “koranics”.

And who funds this muck and stench of terror? The warmongering, Islamic, Shiite terror and torture theocracy of Iran aka the Third Axis of Evil and also the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

Current crises:

The Sunni-Shiite blood feud and the warmongering, womanizing (11 wives), hallucinating founder.

Sorry! Addict bloggers with double names and doulble faces like YAEL9 has no moral credibility.
I cannot buy their gossip-like comments

Lest any prospective martyr worry about his ultimate reward, Saudi cleric assures that the 72 virgins in paradise will be "beautiful white young women, with black eyes and very white retinas, whose skin is so delicate and bright that it causes confusion."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5dFlBiKj5Y

More on the treatment of females in Islam:

"Islam’s widespread practice of amputating the clitoris and sometimes part or even all of the vulva from the genitalia of Muslim women, affirmed in a hadith by Mohammed himself, most likely also traces back to the founder’s deliberate abuse of sex to lure pagan males into his cult. The more the male s-ex drive is purposefully aroused, the more the female sex urge may have to be proportionately suppressed, lest orgiastic hell begin to spread.

Consider then what frequently happens when even a modestly clothed young Western woman walks alone in broad daylight down a street in, for example, a non-Westernized area of a city in Pakistan. Muslim men around her can see her face, hair and neck—maybe even her ankles. Some of them perceive that much exposure as intent on her part to a-rouse them. The fact that she is not accompanied by a male relative confirms their susp-icions. Knowing that she, a Western woman, has not been subjected to that cruel amputation which Islam forces upon millions of Muslim women, some males may even imagine that she must feel s-exual desire for them.

They tend also to perceive themselves as not responsible to exercise decent social restraint. Rather she is responsible not to tempt them! Whatever lewd thing Muslim men around her say, do or feel as a result is regarded as her fault alone. . . ."- D. Richardson

"During a major upheaval in Indonesia in the late 1990s, sex-crazed Muslim men gang-raped dozens of Chinese women in shops, homes and even in the streets, shouting in Arabic, “Allahu Akbar!” (God is great!)*

*http://www.colorq.org/humanrights/Indonesia/Jakarta.htm

Either you believe in the deity of Islam and follow all his (or its) commands or you don't. If you obey only 99% of the commands, you are not a muslim. There is no such a think as "moderate" muslim.
Posted by: ThishowIseeit
------------------------------------------
A Google search did not identify you as the Grand Mufti of all Islam.

Either you believe in the deity of Islam and follow all his (or its) commands or you don't. If you obey only 99% of the commands, you are not a muslim. There is no such a think as "moderate" muslim.

FAFA1 raises important points about the diversity of Muslim thought and culture, but what I've seen so far suggests Egypt will become a repressive-type country, not a liberated one. Internet postings are claiming that various human rates groups have estimated that 80% of Egyptian women are genitally mutilated.

http://www.nocirc.org/symposia/first/badawi.html

Here's another chart from last year's Pew poll of international attitudes. The lower left is the countries (Turkey, Lebanon) in which the population opposes amputation for theft, stoning for adultery and death for apostasy. Egypt is in the upper right along with Pakistan, whose voting patterns are an embarassment to their educated intelligensia and sensible politicians are often assassinated.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/02/culture-differences-matter-even-within-islam/#more-9937

The Westerners cheering for "democracy" in Egypt might be making the mistake of thinking it is a form of government like our own today. In the southeastern US until 50 years ago, the majority voted democratically to deny equal rights to the minority. Today, they sometimes democratically support things like posting the Ten Commandments in public schools. Our democracy is tempered by an educated view of what human rights are that can't be voted away by the majority.

That said, Western values are not the only reasonable model for gender issues. "My body, my choice" is not a universal human rights principle on which every society should be evaluated for upholding.

Ayaan Hirsi's experience with Islam is her own. Millions of Muslim women around the world are not beaten and treated that badly. Most of these types of stories come out of the African and Middle East. Remember that the majority of Muslims don't live in the either region. Indonesia is hte largest Muslim country in the world and India has the second largest Muslim population the world--neither country is i the Middle East. I'm not denying that there are many women who have Ali's experience, but it's not the majority. And Ali is an opportunist. She's now an avowed atheist based on her experiences which is her prerogative, but I heard an interview with recentl on Tavis Smiley where she said that all Muslims should convert to Catholicism. She sounds like a raving lnatic to me. I'm sad for her that she has suffered so much, but she is definitely bitter and out to discredit Islam every chance she gets. I'm not a religious fanatic--I consider myself fairly secular though I am a Muslim.

Islam does indeed guarantee the righs of women. The fact that Muslims don't practice this is another matter, but Islam itself is not the sole issue as to why there are problems with womens' righs in these societies. It's more complex than just Islam, though this is an easy target.

Regarding the author's fears about Islamic fundamentalism in Egypt--this fear is prevalent in the Western media. For some reason, people only see Islam as a fundamentalist faith and forget that there are millions of peaceful Muslims living all of the world who are not terrorists. Egypt has never been an extremist country. Why would it be now. I was just in Egypt less than a year ago. It is a moderate Islamic country. The revolution there was a secular one, not a religous one. The Grand Shaikh if Al Azhar, the most influential religous authority in Egypt, just announced today that he wants a secular, civilian government in Egypt. I suggest those of you who have little understanding of the Arab/Muslim world expose yourself to non-Western news sources or better yet, travel to the Middle East yourself and meet the people there. You will be pleasantly surprised. The most anti-Western/anti-American places I have ever been, and I have travelled in more than 40 countries, were Mexico, Ecuador, France, Beligum, India and the UK--never in the Middle East--and I'm an American. Maybe that was just my experience but I don't think so.

The Egyptians have proven that not all Arabs are terrorists. They have embraced love, peace and non-violence and the only thing that Western media is reporting is that the Muslim Brotherhood is going to take over. We should be supporting the democracy movement in Egypt, but I guess some Americans feel guilty about supporting a brutal regime that tortures it's people and denies them basic human rights. That's the ony explanation I can think of. I'm praying for Egypt even if some of you are not and am proud that they have embraced democratic values. You should be too.

I totally agree with you that the status of women will be an fallible marker indicating the direction of the Egyptian government. The treatment of atheists and Christians will be another. We can only hope that the people of Egypt will refuse to let their nation make the same mistakes made in Iran.

o Islam gives women almost no rights and treats them like fodder for the male species as so bluntly noted by Ayaan Hirsi Ali in her autobiography, In-fidel.

"Thus begins the extraordinary story of a woman born into a family of desert nomads, circu-mcised as a child, educated by radical imams in Kenya and Saudi Arabia, taught to believe that if she uncovered her hair, terrible tragedies would ensue. It's a story that, with a few different twists, really could have led to a wretched life and a lonely death, as her grandmother warned. But instead, Hi-rsi Ali escaped – and transformed herself into an internationally renowned spokeswoman for the rights of Muslim women."
ref: Washington Post book review.

some excerpts:

"Some of the Saudi women in our neighborhood were regularly be-aten by their husbands. You could hear them at night. Their scre-ams resounded across the courtyards. "No! Please! By Allah!"

"The Pakistanis were Muslims but they too had cas-tes. The Untou-chable girls, both Indian and Pakistani were darker skin. The others would not play with them because they were unt-ouchable. We thought that was funny because of course they were tou-chable: we to-uched them see? but also hor-rifying to think of yourself as un-touchable, des-picable to the human race."

"Between October 2004 and May 2005, eleven Muslim girls were ki-lled by their families in just two regions (there are 20 regions in Holland). After that, people stopped telling me I was exa-ggerating."

"The kind on thinking I saw in Saudi Arabia and among the Brotherhood of Kenya and Som-alia, is incompatible with human rights and liberal values. It preserves the feu-dal mind-set based on tr-ibal concepts of honor and shame. It rests on self-deception, hypro-cricy, and double standards. It relies on the technologial advances of the West while pretending to ignore their origin in Western thinking. This mind-set makes the transition to modernity very painful for all who practice Islam".

On a similar subject, in case anyone hasn't seen it, Chris Hitches writes in Slate that international human rights groups have determined that the Taliban is responsible for three-fourths of civilian casualties in Afghanistan:

http://www.slate.com/id/2285025/

Captain Renault has left the tables.