Replies

PMFJI, but you made a couple interesting observations:

IMHO, the Westernized civilizations of this day and age - which was built upon Judeo/Christian values - takes the broad view that all human life is equally precious. This is not a new doctrine; the Great Commandment has always been to love God absolutely and our neighbor unconditionally (paraphrased) – but until very recent times, the “tribal” instinct was so great that even Christians wanted to pick and choose who would be their “neighbor” (to be loved) and who would be sub-human (to be destroyed).

When I think of "recent times", I think of the '90s concept of total cultural diversity as a fundamental value. Where does that come from? I thought that was a combination of a last-gasp tactic by the postmodern Left to save collectivism by making moral judgement itself seem evil, and a generational reaction to the Jim Crow era by idealistic baby boomers carrying around their ideological hammer so treasured from their youth & looking for more nails.

Thankfully, the telecommunications age has made the world quite small and it is very easy to identify the groups who still hold that ancient “tribal” worldview, e.g. Islamic fundamentalists. I suspect that mankind – left to its own wisdom, without the light of Christ’s teachings – would still be dominated by such “tribal” instincts.

Of course, one could make the argument that with a global marketplace & free trade, it becomes that much more expensive to declare someone "the other". I wonder if that has something to do with it, too? That could explain the rash of pretentious commercials for global corporations back in the late '90s, where some native tribesman intones some profoundly mystical-sounding platitude to the camera & we're supposed to be moved.

Boy, that was sooo September 10th! And yet in the long run I'm still an optimist, because Western-style civilization is, objectively speaking, so much better than the alternatives that are yet standing out there. It's just a question of how long a run one has too look to... :-)

I thought that was a combination of a last-gasp tactic by the postmodern Left to save collectivism by making moral judgment itself seem evil... It's always dangerous to jump into an ongoing conversation, but here goes... If, by multiculturalism, you mean treating all laws and customs as equally valid, it is obvious that no one is a multiculturalist. It is really quite fascinating to see what is happening in Europe regarding Muslims. On one hand they are appreciated for their anti-Americanism, but feared for their actual moral fundamentalism. I see this as an exact parallel to the Left's ongoing flirtation with Stalinism. It's all right for someone to be murdered or repressed for the cause, as long as "we" are not inconvenienced. Leftists always assume in their hearts that they will be among the rulers and decision makers. A more interesting kind of multiculturalism might seek to find universal moral principles lurking beneath day-to-day practices. So one might tolerate variations in customs so long as the customs are seen as consistent with universal morality. Hence we can accept the dress codes and food laws of Muslims so long as they are not forced and women are not subjugated. (I might add that Orthodox Jews have attitudes toward women that are not entirely unlike those of Muslims. But Orthodox Jews are not out trying to convert the world by force, nor do they habitually kill offending women.)

Thank you so very much for your interesting comments and insight!

Indeed, perhaps the expense of declaring someone an "other" under the globalism of the Clinton administration had something to do with the shift to aggressive tolerance. The thought makes me sad because treating "outsiders" as neighbors pretentiously to make money off them is much too brittle a motive to withstand the inevitable strains on relationships.