Presumably the only modern alternative--or prima facie alternative, to be precise--is relativism (under scrutiny exposed as untenable position in fact, much like Humian radical Empiricism). The escape from relativism, it seems to me, comes from the recognition--relevant in this context, of righteous indignation directed at Iran and Muslims--that practically one has to accept certain things for the time being, actually a lot of things, even though they are bad from the perspective of a given (always arbitrary) ethical, moral or religious framework. True, Islam has, inter alia, misogynistic institutions (like all other major religions) and these are bad...but more harm will probably be done in attacking the religion than in letting it run its course...for people to get board of it and decide to move on as they seem to do naturally (look at the result of Europe's persecution of religious minorities--they [among them my Puritan ancestors] fled to establish probably the most effectively fanatical regime in history: the US).
> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2009 23:57:54 -0400
> From: mjs at smithbowen.net
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Tell them we are democrats (was: freedom to swim)
>
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 16:54:41 -0700 (PDT)
> Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Islam is not a value; it is a set of beliefs,
> > one of which is that the system of good and bad
> > [...] in the Koran is binding for all people.
> > That is, universal. This is one of the
> > major things that distinguishes evangelical
> > religions like Christianity and
> > Islam from paganism. The "universal church"
> > and all that.
>
> One might add liberalism to the list.
>
> --
>
> Michael Smith
_________________________________________________________________ Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free. http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/